Trump picks Ohio Sen. JD Vance for vice president

[LMAO]

So they both understand that printing up $2 trillion in new money each year just to fund government is an extremely detrimental economic policy?

Trump believes in modern monetary theory

JD Vance is open to raising taxes on corporations, which of course gets passed on to consumers

MAGA and the left seem to both believe that raising taxes automatically translates into raised


revenue.

[Kamaji]

Trump believes in modern monetary theory

JD Vance is open to raising taxes on corporations, which of course gets passed on to consumers

MAGA and the left seem to both believe that raising taxes automatically translates into raised


revenue.

At this point, at least based on Laffer curve theory, raising the rate will raise revenues; the rates are not now high enough for a rate increase to lead to lower revenues.

[mountaineer]

Tulsi Gabbard responds to Kamalamadingdong's allegation Vance will not be loyal to "our country."

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1813939154150969570

[DB]

At this point, at least based on Laffer curve theory, raising the rate will raise revenues; the rates are not now high enough for a rate increase to lead to lower revenues.

You need to include all taxes, not just direct income taxes. It is the sum of tax load that matters. Most people pay at least 30% of their income in taxes, many of which are buried in things unseen. Sales tax, property tax, electricity tax, water tax, waste tax, gas tax, internet provider tax, cell service tax, payroll tax, etc... The list goes on and on...

[Timber Rattler]

Tulsi Gabbard responds to Kamalamadingdong's allegation Vance will not be loyal to "our country."

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1813939154150969570

Tulsi wants to be Trump's SECDEF.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's because JD Vance loves Democrat economic policies.

Exactly.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Tulsi wants to be Trump's SECDEF.

Make her Secretary of Veteran's Affairs.

[Bigun]

You need to include all taxes, not just direct income taxes. It is the sum of tax load that matters. Most people pay at least 30% of their income in taxes, many of which are buried in things unseen. Sales tax, property tax, electricity tax, water tax, waste tax, gas tax, internet provider tax, cell service tax, payroll tax, etc... The list goes on and on...

@DB there is not a person in this country today who can tell you how much they pay in taxes largely due to the Marxist income tax and, in particular, the Corporate Income Tax which is imbedded in everything produced, bought, or sold in this country. And that is true whether or not a particular corporation has any actual tax liability. Compliance costs are also a tax that gets imbedded and passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, lower wages for workers, or lower ROI for investors. There is literally no place else they can go.

[kevindavis007]

It's true


https://twitter.com/ThomasDHowes/status/1814003755265966566?t=586047ON0roHcpw_t3Ooug&s=19

[LMAO]

It's true


https://twitter.com/ThomasDHowes/status/1814003755265966566?t=586047ON0roHcpw_t3Ooug&s=19

This would be a laughing stock here if it came from a Democrat

[DB]

@DB there is not a person in this country today who can tell you how much they pay in taxes largely due to the Marxist income tax and, in particular, the Corporate Income Tax which is imbedded in everything produced, bought, or sold in this country. And that is true whether or not a particular corporation has any actual tax liability. Compliance costs are also a tax that gets imbedded and passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, lower wages for workers, or lower ROI for investors. There is literally no place else they can go.

Won't get any argument from me... The social engineers in government are bent on using taxes to shape the public they're supposed to serve. There's no end to it. Mountains of make work that produces nothing but more government "jobs". In short it is simply insane and entirely self-destructive. But those in power refuse to surrender that power on both sides of the isle.

[Bigun]

Won't get any argument from me... The social engineers in government are bent on using taxes to shape the public they're supposed to serve. There's no end to it. Mountains of make work that produces nothing but more government "jobs". In short it is simply insane and entirely self-destructive. But those in power refuse to surrender that power on both sides of the isle.

Quite correct! Government bureaucrats salaries are largely determined by how many people they supervise. Need I say more?

[Hoodat]

At this point, at least based on Laffer curve theory, raising the rate will raise revenues; the rates are not now high enough for a rate increase to lead to lower revenues.

That depends on where the point of elasticity is relative to how much the economy can grow.  The flaw with this discussion though is what is being advocated.  What is more important?  Funding government?  Or growing the economy.  Personally, I don't give a damn with whether lowering taxes will raise more revenue.  I care whether lowering taxes will free up the ability for our economy to grow.

The government doesn't need more money.  The government needs to reduce spending.  A lot.  And cutting government spending will do far more to grow our economy than will any revenue-increasing tax cut.  Right now, our government is printing up new money (to fund itself) faster than our economy is growing.  Which means we are going backwards.  Balance the budget first.  Then we can talk about taxes.

[kevindavis007]

I hate the new GOP:




https://x.com/MariaPeiro305/status/1813806379108286951?t=Ak8vfOyMEvdIP4qhPtKBLQ&s=19

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I hate the new GOP:




https://x.com/MariaPeiro305/status/1813806379108286951?t=Ak8vfOyMEvdIP4qhPtKBLQ&s=19

The populist, like the Democrats, believe it is the job of the government to take care of people.

I live in the Rust Belt.  The problem is that the wonderful days of booming steel, etc., production and "good jobs" were based off wages and benefits that were not sustainable given advances in technology and efficiency.  Fewer people were needed to make the product but the unions fought against reductions in wages, benefits, or number of workers.

That was unsustainable, and those who think anyone can bring it back are dreaming.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The government doesn't need more money.  The government needs to reduce spending.  A lot.  And cutting government spending will do far more to grow our economy than will any revenue-increasing tax cut.  Right now, our government is printing up new money (to fund itself) faster than our economy is growing.  Which means we are going backwards.  Balance the budget first.  Then we can talk about taxes.

This bears repeating again and again.

[LMAO]

The populist, like the Democrats, believe it is the job of the government to take care of people.

I live in the Rust Belt.  The problem is that the wonderful days of booming steel, etc., production and "good jobs" were based off wages and benefits that were not sustainable given advances in technology and efficiency.  Fewer people were needed to make the product but the unions fought against reductions in wages, benefits, or number of workers.

That was unsustainable, and those who think anyone can bring it back are dreaming.

The populist believe that they’re going to bring those back those jobs through government intervention and tariffs. All the tariffs did was start a war that may have benefited the steel industry, but punished everybody else downwind from that.

And let’s say Trump and JD Vance decide that they’re going create manufacturing jobs artificially through government policy. You would end up with  programs that cost more to implement than the benefit they provide.

Remember when Donald Trump bragged about keeping those Thousand jobs at the Carrier Furnace Plant in Indiana?  Well….

Workers quickly learned the deal would only save some of their jobs, despite $7 million in state tax credits and training grants incoming Vice President Mike Pence had arranged as one of his final acts as Indiana governor. More than 600 people would still be laid off.

The limits of Trump's influence over manufacturing jobs has only been reinforced since then. Despite Trump's lofty promises, companies have continued to send jobs overseas.

In Indiana alone, more than 20 manufacturers have moved production to foreign countries since Trump took office, resulting in at least 3,000 job losses, according to trade adjustment assistance filings with the labor department. That's about four times as many jobs as Trump saved at Carrier.

And while the president has kept pledges to reduce regulations, cut corporate taxes and renegotiate trade agreements, those steps have not resulted in the manufacturing resurgence he promised.



https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/30/trump-campaigned-saving-jobs-carrier-what-its-like-there-now/6010437002/



I think about the speech to shareholders from Gregory  Peck and Danny DeVito in the movie “Other People’s Money” whenever  these economic issues come up


We’re just going to have to buckle down for the next four years. I would not put it past Trump to attempt some form of nationalization if he gets desperate enough. You can’t defeat the law of  economics

[LMAO]

This bears repeating again and again.

And again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again

[Bigun]

And again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again

I agree! Where are we most likely to get that result? Is it the Democrat (read Communist) Party? I think not!

[bilo]

That depends on where the point of elasticity is relative to how much the economy can grow.  The flaw with this discussion though is what is being advocated.  What is more important?  Funding government?  Or growing the economy.  Personally, I don't give a damn with whether lowering taxes will raise more revenue.  I care whether lowering taxes will free up the ability for our economy to grow.

The government doesn't need more money.  The government needs to reduce spending.  A lot.  And cutting government spending will do far more to grow our economy than will any revenue-increasing tax cut.  Right now, our government is printing up new money (to fund itself) faster than our economy is growing.  Which means we are going backwards.  Balance the budget first.  Then we can talk about taxes.

When was the last time a Pub became the POTUS saying "I'm going to cut off your benefits and raise your taxes".

If you want real change you first have to get elected. 

[kevindavis007]

When was the last time a Pub became the POTUS saying "I'm going to cut off your benefits and raise your taxes".

If you want real change you first have to get elected.

Name me one time that he vetoed a bill sent to his desk by Nancy Pelosi.


Trump failed the first time, what makes you think he will succeed the second time?

[bilo]

Name me one time that he vetoed a bill sent to his desk by Nancy Pelosi.


Trump failed the first time, what makes you think he will succeed the second time?

Just watching the change in the man and his selection of JD Vance gives me confidence that he will do a better job keeping the Establishment Loyalists outside his inner circle.

I also love the thinking on tariffs. We are seeing an end to the globalist dominance in our govt. The bottom two economic quintiles have been crushed under that approach to governance. Our focus should be one America First and then look at our relationship with our neighbors to the north and south. 

[LMAO]

Just watching the change in the man and his selection of JD Vance gives me confidence that he will do a better job keeping the Establishment Loyalists outside his inner circle.

I also love the thinking on tariffs. We are seeing an end to the globalist dominance in our govt. The bottom two economic quintiles have been crushed under that approach to governance. Our focus should be one America First and then look at our relationship with our neighbors to the north and south.

So an even larger trade war than he sparked in his first term will be better?


This is how leftist’s  think. A bigger failure will bring better results


Can you name one overall benefit to the economy that his first round of tariffs and trade war brought? I don’t mean what you think should happen or what you hope will happen. I mean what really happened. 

Here’s what happened

The U.S. economy lost $7.8 billion
in the last year alone as a result
of the trade war.
 Imports have fallen 31.5 percent
in response to the tariffs imposed
by the Trump Administration, and
exports have fallen 11.0 percent
as a result of retaliatory tariffs
imposed by trade partners.
 The costs of tariffs are paid
entirely by U.S. consumers,
not by foreign sellers lowering
their prices.
The research suggests electoral
motivations may have informed
the design of tariff implemen-
tation, providing evidence that
the tariffs were biased towards
sectors concentrated in elector-
ally competitive counties with a
40-60 percent GOP vote share
in the 2016 election.
Heavily Republican counties have
been hardest hit by the trade war
because retaliations by trade
partners disproportionately
targeted agricultural sectors.

https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/imce-uploads/Chazen/chazen-research-brief-Real-Cost-of-Trump-Trade-War-030719_v3.pdf


Policies should be judged by results, not intentions


And when the cost of Trump’s trade war started negatively affecting the economy around mid 2019, Trump blamed everybody for their failure up to even blaming American companies

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1814272524571603341

[LMAO]

I hate the new GOP:




https://x.com/MariaPeiro305/status/1813806379108286951?t=Ak8vfOyMEvdIP4qhPtKBLQ&s=19

I don’t want anyone to think that I am of the belief that the GOP embraced free market and sound fiscal and economic policy the last 20 years. They’ve been trending away from both. The “too big to fail” was what the final straw. So it wasn’t like the GOP was doing a stand up job until Trump came along. It would be nice to see the GOP starting to trend  in the right direction, but I guess we’ll have to wait for that, if ever

Trump and Vance are the finale of a downward trend in the GOP. Not the cause. It’s like having chest pains for years until one day you get a full cardiac arrest.

One thing for sure. The new GOP has lost the moral high ground in criticism of Gavin Newsome on economic and fiscal matters