Toggle sidebar

Some lib economists are simply insane

W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
They, like Larry Summers, are attacking Trump's budget for his use of 3% GDP growth in year 4 of his budget. My God. The country averages 3% growth throughout its history, until the last 10-15 years. It is absurd to claim we can't get back to normal growth again with pro growth economic policies.

Interesting, Summers, in Obama's budget assumed GDP growth of 4.5% and now he blasts Trump's budget for its use of 3%.

News Flash! If we can't get back to 3% GDP growth, this nation is in huge trouble. Eventually we won't be able to fund entitlements nor pay back our debt. And if we can't pay back our debt, that is not called borrowing, it's called theft.

Trump's budget is DOA on the Hill as all President's budgets are. But we simply must get back to at least 3% GDP growth or life as we know it in the U.S. will radically change.
 
W

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
WVPATX said:
They, like Larry Summers, are attacking Trump's budget for his use of 3% GDP growth in year 4 of his budget. My God. The country averages 3% growth throughout its history, until the last 10-15 years. It is absurd to claim we can't get back to normal growth again with pro growth economic policies.

Interesting, Summers, in Obama's budget assumed GDP growth of 4.5% and now he blasts Trump's budget for its use of 3%.

News Flash! If we can't get back to 3% GDP growth, this nation is in huge trouble. Eventually we won't be able to fund entitlements nor pay back our debt. And if we can't pay back our debt, that is not called borrowing, it's called theft.

Trump's budget is DOA on the Hill as all President's budgets are. But we simply must get back to at least 3% GDP growth or life as we know it in the U.S. will radically change.
Click to expand...
Noted insane lib Mark Sanford weighs in: I've looked every which way at 3% growth, and you can't get there. Not only a myth, "it's a lie."

Sanford highlighted multiple possible problems in reaching sustained 3 percent growth. Among them, he contended that it would assume labor force growth and productivity growth that may not be achievable.

He argued that the necessary labor force growth would "require either radically opening immigration or a radical change to demographics."

"This budget assumes a Goldilocks economy. And I think that's a very difficult thing" on which to base a budget, Sanford told Mulvaney, who also previously represented South Carolina in the House.


"It assumes that the stars perfectly align with regard to economic drivers."
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
WVUCOOPER said:
Noted insane lib Mark Sanford weighs in: I've looked every which way at 3% growth, and you can't get there. Not only a myth, "it's a lie."

Sanford highlighted multiple possible problems in reaching sustained 3 percent growth. Among them, he contended that it would assume labor force growth and productivity growth that may not be achievable.

He argued that the necessary labor force growth would "require either radically opening immigration or a radical change to demographics."

"This budget assumes a Goldilocks economy. And I think that's a very difficult thing" on which to base a budget, Sanford told Mulvaney, who also previously represented South Carolina in the House.


"It assumes that the stars perfectly align with regard to economic drivers."
Click to expand...

I did not realize Mark Sanford is a noted economist. He however, is a business major. I find it very hard to believe that anyone thinks that 3% growth is unachievable. We have achieved it throughout our history. Hell, Reagan had sustained GDP growth of 4.9% after the recession ended in 1982. Yes, we need productivity growth. Yes, we need to increase our labor force through a complete overhaul of our immigration system (e.g. admitting immigrants with high skills, high upward mobility, high net wealth, etc). U6 unemployment is far too high and well above U3 which is unacceptable. He seems to ignore the stimulative impacts of lower taxes, lower corporate taxes, immigration reform, repatriation, infrastructure spending, military build-up, etc.

Most importantly, if we don't get to 3%, life as we know it economically in the U.S. is over. Huge cuts to social security, medicare or an inability to pay off our bonds.
 
W

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
WVPATX said:
I did not realize Mark Sanford is a noted economist. He however, is a business major. I find it very hard to believe that anyone thinks that 3% growth is unachievable. We have achieved it throughout our history. Hell, Reagan had sustained GDP growth of 4.9% after the recession ended in 1982. Yes, we need productivity growth. Yes, we need to increase our labor force through a complete overhaul of our immigration system (e.g. admitting immigrants with high skills, high upward mobility, high net wealth, etc). U6 unemployment is far too high and well above U3 which is unacceptable. He seems to ignore the stimulative impacts of lower taxes, lower corporate taxes, immigration reform, repatriation, infrastructure spending, military build-up, etc.

Most importantly, if we don't get to 3%, life as we know it economically in the U.S. is over. Huge cuts to social security, medicare or an inability to pay off our bonds.
Click to expand...
The demographics are changing. We are aging. The economy is more global and technology is advancing faster than we can keep up with. I'm not arguing a sustained 3% growth is necessarily a "Goldilocks" economy, but I don't think it's insane to question are ability to sustain 3% growth in the short term.

And no **** we are going to have to do something with SS/Medi. Too bad this President is as cowardly as his predecessors.
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
WVUCOOPER said:
The demographics are changing. We are aging. The economy is more global and technology is advancing faster than we can keep up with. I'm not arguing a sustained 3% growth is necessarily a "Goldilocks" economy, but I don't think it's insane to question are ability to sustain 3% growth in the short term.

And no **** we are going to have to do something with SS/Medi. Too bad this President is as cowardly as his predecessors.
Click to expand...

The 3% growth projection does not occur until the 4th year of Trump's presidency. That is not the short term.

We are technology leaders and you're right, it is advancing at an exponential pace, meaning a greater chance for us to take advantage of it. Our energy opportunities are endless. 3% is modest growth historically. And as I said, we need immigration reforms of the type I outlined. No more low wage, low skilled immigration.
 
M

mneilmont

Sophomore
Jan 23, 2008
20,883
166
0
WVUCOOPER said:
The demographics are changing. We are aging. The economy is more global and technology is advancing faster than we can keep up with. I'm not arguing a sustained 3% growth is necessarily a "Goldilocks" economy, but I don't think it's insane to question are ability to sustain 3% growth in the short term.

And no **** we are going to have to do something with SS/Medi. Too bad this President is as cowardly as his predecessors.
Click to expand...
I had predicted 3% growth by the 4th quarter this year. Certainly did not see the Dems being absolute obstructionist. When you get a 'get even" opposition from likes of Chuckie, and his followers, the potential of hit it on the run just ain't going to happen. Then throw a few "me too" Repubs in just for the hell of it, it may take his entire term to get things rolling the way I thought he could. I will do all I can to remove someRepub Senators in mid year knowing it may cost a majority.

Correct me if I misunderstood the 3% to come in 4th year.
 
M

mneilmont

Sophomore
Jan 23, 2008
20,883
166
0
mneilmont said:
I had predicted 3% growth by the 4th quarter this year. Certainly did not see the Dems being absolute obstructionist. When you get a 'get even" opposition from likes of Chuckie, and his followers, the potential of hit it on the run just ain't going to happen. Then throw a few "me too" Repubs in just for the hell of it, it may take his entire term to get things rolling the way I thought he could. I will do all I can to remove someRepub Senators in mid year knowing it may cost a majority.

Correct me if I misunderstood the 3% to come in 4th year.
Click to expand...
And GWB had 3 consecutive years above 3% after his tax plan was adopted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom