Trump has a plan to change the tax code to make himself much, much richer

[Airport]

A hell of a lot better than 2008.

Yes, it's amazing how much difference a pro business and real American can make in two months. All joking aside, if Obama had refused to try and make America like France, the economy would have grown 1.5% more each year. You libs have no idea what his policies did to business.

 

[Boomboom521]

Yes, it's amazing how much difference a pro business and real American can make in two months. All joking aside, if Obama had refused to try and make America like France, the economy would have grown 1.5% more each year. You libs have no idea what his policies did to business.

im not saying Obama's economy was best for business. But I am wondering how businesses were fairing in 2008-2009?

 

[WVPATX]

im not saying Obama's economy was best for business. But I am wondering how businesses were fairing in 2008-2009?

Not well, but to suggest it was all Bush's fault is absolutely incorrect and intellectually lazy on your part. Read Boom, read. Learn. You're a teacher, educate yourself. And if you have any question about credit default swaps or derivatives, just ask.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Not well, but to suggest it was all Bush's fault is absolutely incorrect and intellectually lazy on your part. Read Boom, read. Learn. You're a teacher, educate yourself. And if you have any question about credit default swaps or derivatives, just ask.

Well, let me ask this. Whose fault was it for the economic failures of George HW Bush? Reagan? Reaganomics? You tell him to "read", but you really mean to "read....but only if it's conservative writings because that other stuff is fake..."

Was George W Bush handed a bad situation? Yea, perhaps. He had a difficult 8 years of having to deal with a lot of crap that really wasn't his fault, and then some things he did create (ex. Iraq) by himself.

 

[WVPATX]

Well, let me ask this. Whose fault was it for the economic failures of George HW Bush? Reagan? Reaganomics? You tell him to "read", but you really mean to "read....but only if it's conservative writings because that other stuff is fake..."

Was George W Bush handed a bad situation? Yea, perhaps. He had a difficult 8 years of having to deal with a lot of crap that really wasn't his fault, and then some things he did create (ex. Iraq) by himself.

What were George Bush's economic failures? He did raise taxes as I recall. He had the S & L crisis to deal with. But specifically, what were his failures? Even with the recession, his average GDP was over 2%, much better than Obama's over his 8 years.

 

[Boomboom521]

Not well, but to suggest it was all Bush's fault is absolutely incorrect and intellectually lazy on your part. Read Boom, read. Learn. You're a teacher, educate yourself. And if you have any question about credit default swaps or derivatives, just ask.

I think Bush's spending on top of his tax cuts didn't help. I understand that moderation of government is effective policy. I also believe that increased spending is good (whether on social programs, military, infrastructure, etc..) IF it's offset and balanced. I don't believe Trump's angle of massive cuts to encourage business investment is going to effective in the long run, if he also spends on the level he is proposing (I understand the concept of the wall "paying for itself", but without concrete plans to cover cost--it has to be seen as government spending).

In addition, didn't wages fail to keep up with inflation both during Reagan's and Bush's policy eras? I'm not an economist, and do not claim to be. But both Reagan and Bush took over during slight recessions and took credit for the following uptick, then the economy suffered a substantial downturn at the end of their tenure in office (getting Clinton and Obama elected).

I'm curious about the economic climate that Obama was attempting to make the new norm. Slow growth under regulation (protected growth, not boom), an aided shift to new industries and movement out of industry harmful to the environment (and possibly much more costly in the long run), increased government aid on costly benefits (healthcare, childcare) that could allow lower class incomes to grow in buying power.

I understand these policies were unpopular amongst conservatives, and seen as a form of socialism that mirrors European failed practices. But I'm not so sure.

I hear many intelligent members on here discussing the economic policies of Reagan and Obama, discussing "hands off" limited government and how freedom of business spurs economic growth for everyone. And I realize my knowledge in business and economics is not as extensive as others. But I do know a little history, and it seems that history doesn't sync with Trumps approach being anything but a short term boom, that would be followed by a sharp drop. Maybe that's the goal? A normal ekg-type business cycle? I think this hurts the lower classes though.

 

[Airport]

im not saying Obama's economy was best for business. But I am wondering how businesses were fairing in 2008-2009?

Business would have been better if congress and the Presidents had quit meddling in trying to make banks make loans to anybody who could breath. Not everybody should own a home, sorry but that brought down our economy and both parties are to blame for that. We need to have reasonable requirements for getting home loans.

 

[WVPATX]

I think Bush's spending on top of his tax cuts didn't help. I understand that moderation of government is effective policy. I also believe that increased spending is good (whether on social programs, military, infrastructure, etc..) IF it's offset and balanced. I don't believe Trump's angle of massive cuts to encourage business investment is going to effective in the long run, if he also spends on the level he is proposing (I understand the concept of the wall "paying for itself", but without concrete plans to cover cost--it has to be seen as government spending).

In addition, didn't wages fail to keep up with inflation both during Reagan's and Bush's policy eras? I'm not an economist, and do not claim to be. But both Reagan and Bush took over during slight recessions and took credit for the following uptick, then the economy suffered a substantial downturn at the end of their tenure in office (getting Clinton and Obama elected).

I'm curious about the economic climate that Obama was attempting to make the new norm. Slow growth under regulation (protected growth, not boom), an aided shift to new industries and movement out of industry harmful to the environment (and possibly much more costly in the long run), increased government aid on costly benefits (healthcare, childcare) that could allow lower class incomes to grow in buying power.

I understand these policies were unpopular amongst conservatives, and seen as a form of socialism that mirrors European failed practices. But I'm not so sure.

I hear many intelligent members on here discussing the economic policies of Reagan and Obama, discussing "hands off" limited government and how freedom of business spurs economic growth for everyone. And I realize my knowledge in business and economics is not as extensive as others. But I do know a little history, and it seems that history doesn't sync with Trumps approach being anything but a short term boom, that would be followed by a sharp drop. Maybe that's the goal? A normal ekg-type business cycle? I think this hurts the lower classes though.

Boom, you are so far off it is scary. Not sure where you get your information from, but it is not accurate.

1. Reagan' tax cuts were enormously beneficial. Revenues (taxes) paid to the Treasury doubled during his tenure. After the recession of 1982, he averaged 4.9% GDP growth his final 6 years. Astounding growth. And all classes on citizens (rich, middle and poor) saw increases in their wealth. So Trump's plan had solid history. BTW, JFK also had massive tax reductions in his administration.

2. Reagan did not inherit a mild recession. Quite the contrary. Inflation was at 13% or greater. Interest rates were over 20% Boom, which is so very harmful to any economy. But inflation had to be defeated.

3. Clinton was elected because of two factors. One was Ross Perot who siphoned off huge amount of votes from Bush. Perot took 18.9% of the vote, most of which was from Bush. H.W. Bush also RAISED taxes. This alienated his base. The Dems promised spending cuts in return that never materialized.

4. Obama averaged 1.6% GDP growth. If we don't get to 3% or greater, we will have to make massive cuts in government programs because we can't keep running up debt. This means social security, medicate and medicaid cannot continue in their current form. Huge cuts will be required. Slow growth does no one any good. We now have $20T in debt. Obama thought that increased government spending (Keynesian economics), green energy, increased taxes, increased regulations would promote economic growth. He was very, very wrong as is borne out by the fact he was the 4th worst President, economically, in our history.

5. Trump is following Reagan's game plan. Reagan's economic expansion lead to many years of excellent economic growth, including during the Clinton years. And remember, Reagan's military build-up helped to destroy the Soviet Union and Clinton benefitted hugely from that peace dividend. Boom, if the economy is not growing at 3% or more, we are in very deep trouble. Read about the Reagan 25 year run.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/04/reagans_legacy_our_25year_boom.html

 

[Boomboom521]

Business would have been better if congress and the Presidents had quit meddling in trying to make banks make loans to anybody who could breath. Not everybody should own a home, sorry but that brought down our economy and both parties are to blame for that. We need to have reasonable requirements for getting home loans.

My father was a banker in small communities in WV, he believed the answer was smaller banks. He was immersed in his communities, knew the people, the locations, the business needs, and was much more aware of the risks his banks took. I agree that this was a very key component to the latest recession, and I hope the problem doesn't occur again.

 

[Keyser76]

Lol, Ya'll should just debate the GOP congressmen ripping the "plan", convince them before you waste time on all the Leftists!

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom, you are so far off it is scary. Not sure where you get your information from, but it is not accurate.

1. Reagan' tax cuts were enormously beneficial. Revenues (taxes) paid to the Treasury doubled during his tenure. After the recession of 1982, he averaged 4.9% GDP growth his final 6 years. Astounding growth. And all classes on citizens (rich, middle and poor) saw increases in their wealth. So Trump's plan had solid history. BTW, JFK also had massive tax reductions in his administration.

2. Reagan did not inherit a mild recession. Quite the contrary. Inflation was at 13% or greater. Interest rates were over 20% Boom, which is so very harmful to any economy. But inflation had to be defeated.

3. Clinton was elected because of two factors. One was Ross Perot who siphoned off huge amount of votes from Bush. Perot took 18.9% of the vote, most of which was from Bush. H.W. Bush also RAISED taxes. This alienated his base. The Dems promised spending cuts in return that never materialized.

4. Obama averaged 1.6% GDP growth. If we don't get to 3% or greater, we will have to make massive cuts in government programs because we can't keep running up debt. This means social security, medicate and medicaid cannot continue in their current form. Huge cuts will be required. Slow growth does no one any good. We now have $20T in debt. Obama thought that increased government spending (Keynesian economics), green energy, increased taxes, increased regulations would promote economic growth. He was very, very wrong as is borne out by the fact he was the 4th worst President, economically, in our history.

5. Trump is following Reagan's game plan. Reagan's economic expansion lead to many years of excellent economic growth, including during the Clinton years. And remember, Reagan's military build-up helped to destroy the Soviet Union and Clinton benefitted hugely from that peace dividend. Boom, if the economy is not growing at 3% or more, we are in very deep trouble. Read about the Reagan 25 year run.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/04/reagans_legacy_our_25year_boom.html

Advances in technology, including a new industry that is the backbone of our economic strength currently also helped that 25 yr boom sustain.
I think Congress working together under Clinton and balancing the budget helped that boom sustain as well.
I don't doubt that aspects of Reagan's economic approach were successful, but I don't think it's as black and white as you make it.

 

[WVPATX]

Advances in technology, including a new industry that is the backbone of our economic strength currently also helped that 25 yr boom sustain.
I think Congress working together under Clinton and balancing the budget helped that boom sustain as well.
I don't doubt that aspects of Reagan's economic approach were successful, but I don't think it's as black and white as you make it.

Boom, Reagan changed this country from a very high tax and regulatory heavy government to one that was much more growth oriented. Obama tried to reverse Reagan's movement, but failed. It is being restored.

 

[Airport]

My father was a banker in small communities in WV, he believed the answer was smaller banks. He was immersed in his communities, knew the people, the locations, the business needs, and was much more aware of the risks his banks took. I agree that this was a very key component to the latest recession, and I hope the problem doesn't occur again.

The new laws have made it nearly impossible to refinance. My wife and I tried to refi last winter with Chase, started in Feb. By June, we had to start the process all over becasue it had taken too long. Our income is very good and wouldn't have a problem but the new rules are ridiculous. The new regulations are kiiling the smaller banks.

 

[Boomboom521]

The new laws have made it nearly impossible to refinance. My wife and I tried to refi last winter with Chase, started in Feb. By June, we had to start the process all over becasue it had taken too long. Our income is very good and wouldn't have a problem but the new rules are ridiculous. The new regulations are kiiling the smaller banks.

That is very true. But I'm not for total deregulation.

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom, Reagan changed this country from a very high tax and regulatory heavy government to one that was much more growth oriented. Obama tried to reverse Reagan's movement, but failed. It is being restored.

You don't long for the early 1900's do you?

 

[Airport]

That is very true. But I'm not for total deregulation.

I'm not either but if the bank makes a big mistake, the bank should pay for it.

 

[WVPATX]

You don't long for the early 1900's do you?

I long for the economic growth of the Reagan era. We all should for without that kind of growth, we will see massive cuts to programs near and dear to your heart Boom.

Do you long for retaining Obama's 1.6% GDP growth rate, stagnate wages, huge food stamp rolls, more people living in poverty, very, very high numbers of people out of the workforce, etc.?

 

[atlkvb]

Actually it just came from CNBC so take it up with them. I also appreciate your well thought out critique of the posted article where you counter the author's distortion of the facts of the Trump plan as it comes from a sophisticated and knowledgeable person such as yourself. Actually there's not much point as thankfully any final plan won't bear much resemblance to this one anyways. Did you see the less is more sparsely worded one page plan? Obviously they've been burning the midnight oil getting ready for this next big legislative effort.

But...but...you guys said just the other day that Trump wasn't doing anything?

Now they're "burning the midnight oil" working on legislation?

I guess "doing nothing" means pissing off the Left to the point where at least their "feelings" get hurt.

 

[dave]

It doesn't appear you are cut out for this board, sweetheart. Developing quite a long ignore list.

Doctors, lawyers and engineers......your inferiority complex cant handle it.

 

[Boomboom521]

I long for the economic growth of the Reagan era. We all should for without that kind of growth, we will see massive cuts to programs near and dear to your heart Boom.

Do you long for retaining Obama's 1.6% GDP growth rate, stagnate wages, huge food stamp rolls, more people living in poverty, very, very high numbers of people out of the workforce, etc.?

I want a paradigm shift in how development is viewed, towards a more global vision. No I don't want a world without borders. No I don't want to allow the US to lose its military power. But I want us to see how helping undeveloped nations develop helps our nation in the long run. We benefited from the development of Chinese production. As Japan developed economically, we benefitted.

I want a shift in American ideals of success. In the attitudes businesses and youth have towards what it means to be successful as a parent, as a citizen, and as a person In general. I want people to start to see our lives as less of a race against others to be the best. Not a lack of ambition, but a shrinking of ego.

I want business to see costs that don't show up on a quarterly report. Costs of damages to the environment, to people's health, and to the overall atmosphere of the nation. I want eradication of cancer, protecting the health of our waters and air, and providing a good home life for our nation's children to be just as important as profit.

I want political discourse to be less about smart vs stupid, right vs wrong, good vs evil, left vs right and more about what works vs what doesn't, what's needed vs what's not, what's possible vs what's cost effective. I want people to respect one another and their views as American no matter the talking points on FOX or MSNBC. I want our leaders to respect those that came before them rather than bashing their attempts as foolish (because leading this nation is not easy).

I want the income gap to be bridged at least partially. I don't want those that have success to be stripped of it. But I do want opportunities and avenues to comfort to be reachable for most. I see wage increases as effective only if it keeps up with inflation. I see GDP growth as positive only if it's sustainable, I see jobs as good for the nation only if they aren't automated or moved overseas in less than 10 years. I do not like the massive peaks and valleys of the last 60 years. I think cycles are inevitable, but we've gotten to a place where it's extreme.

I'm idealistic, I like that....so save the shaming post. Most of the above might be foolishness to you, but there are points that are legitimate and would help create a nice world for your children and grand children's future. But I understand the bills have to be paid, I'm not a trust fund kid.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Unreal!
On the verge of adding you to my 'ignore' list.
SO much of what you post seems to come directly from Democrat talking points highly spun to get maximum effect but with so much distortion that reliance is on the audience not being sophisticated and knowledgable enough to see your (and the Dem's) scam.

Sounds like watching Fox News