Trumps tax plan looks like the one that worked
- Thread starter Keyser76
- Start date
His tax plan looks like the fabulously successful Reagan plan that ushered in decades of very strong economic growth. Nice try. Reduced regulations. Decreased taxes on businesses and individuals. Build up our military. Sounds like the right recipe for the destructive Obama economy to me. As you know, Obama had the 4th worst economic record of any U.S. President with GDP growth never achieving a very modest 3% in any one year.
Nice try.
Trump has announced the outlines of his plan. Surely you know this, it has been all over the news. Lower corporate and individual tax rates. Dramatically reduced regulations, particularly on energy production. Large build-up of our military. Major infrastructure spending. Right out of the Reagan playbook.
The good news for Republicans is that they don't need a single Dem vote. It will be done through reconciliation. But you are right, most of the GOP have to get on board.
The friction between the freedom caucus and everyone else with an 'R' after their name far outweighs any noise from the dems.
I agree that the GOP has to get their act together. If the Freedom Caucus requires static scoring on the tax cuts per the CBO, they may destroy them. Dynamic scoring is essential. The good news is that we have the Reagan example of economic explosion with these policies resulting in huge increases in tax payments to the Treasury. The question is, will the Freedom Caucus listen?
So no plan has been released? That's what I thought. Only talking points in advance of the plan.
I assume then once again deficits don't matter! lmfao, quit pretending there is a unified GOP anywhere on earth. This plan is doomed before it starts and you might wanna do some research on the Senate rules, they are a little quirkier these days on budgets. And it is a mirror image of the budget Brownback instituted in Kansas so if you want to see how tax cuts for corporations work in real time look at Kansas. Why would it be different on a National level?
Seriously....blame Obama for an exonomy that didn't grow fast enough, but you can't possibly claim that Obama destroyed our economy. That was done through 8 years of republican policies under Bush, tax cuts, deregulation, and building up the military were all a part of those policies.
Come on. The outline has been released. Apparently details to follow today per the Wash Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...is-tax-plan-next-week/?utm_term=.160250460188
Apparently you don't know that the reconciliation rule requires but 51 votes to pass a budget. You really need to read more.
Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a budget bill with debate limited to twenty hours under Senate rules.[1] Because of this limited debate, reconciliation bills are not subject to the filibuster in the Senate. Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendments, the process has had a less significant impact on that body.
Obama rang up the highest deficits in our history, more than all Presidents combined without a peep from libs. Now, you worry about deficits. Kansas is a state. We have a national plan to follow. The Reagan plan ushering in tremendous economic growth. Why worry about little ole Kansas when we have history from the entire country to follow.
I'll wait for the details. It's not like I have to vote on it tomorrow lol. In general terms, I liked a lot of what they outlined, but would like to hear how they plan to pay for it I know he plans (had planned?) a repatriation tax on money held overseas, which would certainly help pay for some of the cuts. I'm a little nervous about dropping the pass through tax rate that much, but I'm willing to listen.
Trump's tax plan could be having Saudi Arabia pay for all of our personal and business taxes for us, and liberals would still ***** about it.
There's NOTHING Trump can do that will ever be good in the eyes of our liberal cousins, and I'm okay with that.
Prosperity isn't for everyone.
There's NOTHING Trump can do that will ever be good in the eyes of our liberal cousins, and I'm okay with that.
Prosperity isn't for everyone.
And Bush's economy was better than Obama's. Obama destroyed the economy during his 8 years by following policies that squelched growth in favor of big government control.
BTW, Bush was a big government "compassionate conservative." Very little of Bush's economic agenda was conservative. He spent far too much. Ushered in a huge new entitlement. I am not a Bush fan, nor was I a fan of his father's.
Growth matters. The deficit double under Herr Obama in 8 years. Something has to change and change fast.
Good for 6-7 years ....until it CRASHED. And are you saying Trump isn't wanting to spend?
You need to read about the Reagan plan. It takes a few years for the new tax policy to really kick in. I am not worried about it being deficit neutral right off the bat. And the CBO only uses static scoring which is the height of absurdity. We all know that tax cuts, regulatory cuts, military spending are very stimulative and the economy will not sit still during that time. It will grow but the CBO does not take much of that into account.
After the recession of 1982 ended, Reagan averaged 4.9% GDP growth during his final 6 years. Now, that is economic growth and the revenues to the Treasury more than doubled. That is the model that works.
Whoah whoah whoah ... settle down ... Obama didn't have anything to do with Kansas's budget ... and what's with the racial insults???
Shame on you.
Boom, not trying to trash you, but you have little to no insight into what caused the 2008 collapse. You blame Bush but the actual story if far more complex with far more players, both public and private involved. And it involved more Presidents than Bush.
Do yourself a favor. You're a teacher, right? Read about the 2008 collapse from neutral sources (e.g. Business Insider) and you'll learn more of the complete story.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mnuchin-says-business-tax-rate-130959071.html
I think the business tax rate gets negotiated back up to 20% or so, but wow, what a great start. We need to get businesses growing and investing again. We need new high paying jobs. We had the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Dregulation was the overriding factor that lead to a cascade of events. Those deregulation steps started clear back in 1980
When taxes go up, spending goes down. people lose jobs. welfare goes up. It's time to put our financial house in order. Cut back govt, cut taxes, let business prosper or this country will fail. Having a job is more important than getting welfare payments.
What you get under socialism. All one has to do is look at that utopia of Europe where too many are out of work and can't even defend itself from aggressive countries.
Hmm ... all of that happened and then some when Bush cut taxes ... so there seems to be a hole in your theory
It was a factor but look at who and what did the deregulating. Moreover, look at what government policies helped to lead to this collapse. This was a bi-partisan affair and included the public sector as well. Again, if you are a teacher, than learn. Read Business Insider or event the Economist to find out the real issues leading to the collapse. You'll be happy you did.
And I disagree with a prior poster that deregulation was the major factor. Not even close, imo.
A starter article from CATO:
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2009/did-deregulation-cause-financial-crisis
Last edited:
There was no decreased govt spending. Bush never did a conservative thing when it came to a budget. I do remember that there was less than 2% unemployment here in Roanoke and you had fast food places advertising jobs at starting at $10./hour to 11 with benefits during those years. Taxes were not followed up by meaningful govt waste reduction and bush started the part D medicare coverage which blew another hole when the housing problem happened that started clear back in the 80's.
So, it will be passed only to be repealed within two years? That's how the Reagan tax cuts went. Read some history. But nice try though.
In the year after enactment of ERTA, the deficit ballooned, which in turn, drove interest rates from around 12% to over 20%, which, in turn, drove the economy into the second dip of the 1978-82 "double dip recession". The Dow Jones average, which had been over 1000 before enactment of ERTA, fell to 770 by September 1982. Much of the 1981 ERTA was backed out in September 1982 by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), sometimes called the largest tax increase of the post-war period. The "Reagan recovery" began within weeks of enactment of TEFRA.
And there's the hole in your theory ... tax cuts themselves do nothing if not part of a bigger plan. The economy is a complex system ... there are no easy theories that are going to fix everything.
You keep mentioning Kansas, but fail to mention Texas, North Carolina, and other states that enacted similar plans but had robust economies during the same period.
KANSAS KANSAS KANSAS.
When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.
All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.
President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:
1. Cut tax ratesto restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990, when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.
During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade.
In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:
We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom--the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth--assets minus liabilities--of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today’s dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.
The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes going into effect that year. The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by nearly three times. The Medicare payroll tax would increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors. The death tax rate would go back up to 55%. In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.
Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. In his first two years in office he has already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.
His monetary policy is just the opposite as well. Instead of restraining the money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably creating a historic reflation.
And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere. While Reagan used to say that his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.
As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.
Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months. Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery. Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen for three years. Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data.
Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.
These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression. But this is not correct. This is the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.”
However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in. Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective. While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation
Last edited:
It's almost as if things don't happen in a vacuum. I wonder if this could be true with other things? mind = blown
That's all they got. What we have are two facts. Under Reagan, the U.S. economy exploded, an undeniable fact. Under Obama, he was the 4th worst President for economic growth in our country's history. They followed two very different paths. One worked, the other failed miserably.
Which one do you go with? Libs still go with Obama's, incredible.