After this tax bill, I never want to hear a thing about fiscal responsibility again.

[hoosboot]

No.

Nuance isn’t your strength either. We are talking about factors that increase your chances of living below the poverty line. The opposite of that will not put you in the top 1%.

It's so nuanced you don't seem to be following your own arguments in the conversation that you are having because this post is the first time I've seen "chances of living below the poverty line" being referenced. .

"I don't know why you keep denying that social forces are one of the most important influences of income distribution. Things like education, being married or in a strong relationship, health, (some of that is a choice) and a host of other choices positively influence income. Things like single parenthood, non-English speaking, lack of education, drug use, negatively influence income. Unfortunately the gap in these income influencing social forces is widening. No wonder income inequality grows."

You are the one making the argument that income inequality grows because of social dysfunction. So, I merely asked you if Rock's statistics in regard to how income inequality is increasing are valid, if your explanation really is social dysfunction. So, is it or isn't it? Why are the top 1% of income earners running away from the rest of the population? The only argument I've seen you make in regard to income inequality is social dysfunction.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I merely asked you if Rock's statistics in regard to how income inequality is increasing are valid, if your explanation really is social dysfunction. So, is it or isn't it? Why are the top 1% of income earners running away from the rest of the population? The only argument I've seen you make in regard to income inequality is social dysfunction.

Did you read my posts? A host of social issues determines one's ability to earn a living. That is undeniable isn't it? Income inequality is growing partly because the social differences, such as educational achievement, is growing. Once again: There is no upper limit on income. But there is a floor below which incomes won't fall. That is why lower income categories are not "falling away" as fish keeps bringing up. There is no where to fall. As I also mentioned, the social issues really is about income mobility which is more and more illusive for reasons I posted about.

 

[hoosboot]

Did you read my posts? A host of social issues determines one's ability to earn a living. That is undeniable isn't it? Income inequality is growing partly because the social differences, such as educational achievement, is growing. Once again: There is no upper limit on income. But there is a floor below which incomes won't fall. That is why lower income categories are not "falling away" as fish keeps bringing up. There is no where to fall. As I also mentioned, the social issues really is about income mobility which is more and more illusive for reasons I posted about.

I did as should be obvious since I've taken the time to respond to them. Did you?

Your argument leaves a giant elephant in the room stomping its feet and demanding to be addressed...what about the massive rest of the population between the top 1% and the floor below which you assert no one can fall? What explains the growing gap between them and the top 1%? Do you suggest it is lower levels of social dysfunction? Or is it something else? If it is something else, what is it?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I did as should be obvious since I've taken the time to respond to them. Did you?

Your argument leaves a giant elephant in the room stomping its feet and demanding to be addressed...what about the massive rest of the population between the top 1% and the floor below which you assert no one can fall? What explains the growing gap between them and the top 1%? Do you suggest it is lower levels of social dysfunction? Or is it something else? If it is something else, what is it?

 

[Sope Creek]

I did as should be obvious since I've taken the time to respond to them. Did you?

Your argument leaves a giant elephant in the room stomping its feet and demanding to be addressed...what about the massive rest of the population between the top 1% and the floor below which you assert no one can fall? What explains the growing gap between them and the top 1%? Do you suggest it is lower levels of social dysfunction? Or is it something else? If it is something else, what is it?

CO won't address your questions, as he's too busy deflecting those and other questions related to the insidious effects of wealth - like my OP in another thread with his use of "humor' and a wink. My guess is that CO does so to avoid looking into the giant mirror that those questions present . . . .

 

[CO. Hoosier]

When you carve out the top 1% and compare that to, say, a 5% or 10% slice you get built-in distortions.

That said, looking at the top 1% by itself, you are talking about people who don't work for compensation. A while ago I posted about hedge fund managers who make north of $1,5 billion, yes BILLION. This compensation is obscene and it skews the tables when we focus on a top 1% or .1% slice. This compensation is in a different league than the issues concerning executive compensation. I think a more meaningful comparison would compare wages/salaries/compensation of all who work for a paycheck. That differential is more easily explained by what I am talking about. Once you throw in the hedge fund guys you are talking about outrage that I don't have an answer for. I have suggested what I think is a pretty good tax law change to limit executive compensation. I have no comment about hedge fund compensation beyond the carried interest tax treatment, which mysteriously hasn't been changed.

 

[UncleMark]

It will become relevant to those below the poverty line if Medicaid and other programs are cut in order to deal with deficits resulting from the "tax reform".

The only if involved is whether or not Ryan can be prevented from doing so. He's already set his sights on "entitlement reform". The 2018 midterms are going to be especially critical.

 

[twenty02]

The only if involved is whether or not Ryan can be prevented from doing so. He's already set his sights on "entitlement reform". The 2018 midterms are going to be especially critical.

DOA in Senate, IMO.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It will become relevant to those below the poverty line if Medicaid and other programs are cut in order to deal with deficits resulting from the "tax reform".

I think we'll find, once we get down to brass tacks on entitlement reform (which we'd be doing with or without this tax cut) that most of the cost-reductions will be means-tested. I say "most" because one change that is virtually certain to happen will be an increase in the retirement age. If 1983 is any guide anyway, that will apply across the board. I guess it's tough to means-test age.

Because of means-testing, you can't say that any cut in entitlement spending will necessarily be borne by the poor. There were a couple different groups working on the ill-fated attempt to reform SS in 2005. As I recall, both of them -- and GWB's general guidelines -- included means-testing to keep promised benefits on the lower end intact.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The only if involved is whether or not Ryan can be prevented from doing so. He's already set his sights on "entitlement reform". The 2018 midterms are going to be especially critical.

You say that as if entitlement reform is something we may or may not choose to do.

The open questions on that issue are when and how.....not if.

 

[Sope Creek]

You say that as if entitlement reform is something we may or may not choose to do.

The open questions on that issue are when and how.....not if.

It's not an inevitability. You act like it is, but it isn't, just like tax cuts aren't and never have been.

 

[Sope Creek]

DOA in Senate, IMO.

At least until Mitch McConnell is, um, retired . . . or perhaps at least prior to the mid-terms in 2018 . . . until those are over Mitch will treat Ryan's entitlement reform agenda the way he treated Obama's legislative agenda . . . he'll ignore it.

Edited to add: https://www.politico.com/story/2017...-entitlements-medicare-social-security-314766

 

[Sope Creek]

I say "most" because one change that is virtually certain to happen will be an increase in the retirement age.

Wait until you're 60 to make that decision, so you can make an informed one. Retirement ages for social security have already been increased fairly significantly, with the retirement age for anyone born in 1955 set at 66 years, 2 months and with gradual increases in the "full" retirement age until it hits 67 years for anyone born in or after 1960.

 

[UncleMark]

You say that as if entitlement reform is something we may or may not choose to do.

The open questions on that issue are when and how.....not if.

Oh yes, it does need to be addressed. I just don't trust Ryan to do it in any fashion other than to make cuts on the benefit side for those most vulnerable.

I think we'll find, once we get down to brass tacks on entitlement reform (which we'd be doing with or without this tax cut) that most of the cost-reductions will be means-tested.

Means testing is the obvious answer to me, along with removing the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. I'd tax SS income as regular income, and any taxes derived from SS income should be put back into the SS funding, not general revenue.

Medicare and Medicaid could be dealt with together through a single payer program with a $20,000 deductible (I just picked that number out of the air). Private insurance could be purchased to cover the first $20,000 (or whatever number proves to be the most workable). For the truly destitute, that deductible could be covered directly by the states or by the states paying for the private insurance coverage.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's not an inevitability. You act like it is, but it isn't, just like tax cuts aren't and never have been.

Well, it's either that or we let them go insolvent.

Even if the reform amounts to nothing but tax hikes -- which I doubt, but that's beside the point -- it's something that eventually has to happen.

We're already having to tap into the SSTF to cover current bills. That's the single biggest reason near-term deficits are projected to climb. The general fund used to borrow from SSTF to pay bills -- from now until the fund is depleted (~2035), that will be the other way around. At that point, assuming the general fund makes good on all its debts to the Trust Fund, SS will be able to afford about 70% of its benefits. Yippee.

And the size of Medicare's hole is about 4 or 5 times the one SS is in.

So, yeah, we can continue to sit idly by as these programs careen into insolvency. That's what we've done heretofore, after all -- since 1983, anyway.

So who is it that wants to destroy Social Security and Medicare?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Oh yes, it does need to be addressed. I just don't trust Ryan to do it in any fashion other than to make cuts on the benefit side for those most vulnerable.

Means testing is the obvious answer to me, along with removing the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax. I'd tax SS income as regular income, and any taxes derived from SS income should be put back into the SS funding, not general revenue.

Medicare and Medicaid could be dealt with together through a single payer program with a $20,000 deductible (I just picked that number out of the air). Private insurance could be purchased to cover the first $20,000 (or whatever number proves to be the most workable). For the truly destitute, that deductible could be covered directly by the states or by the states paying for the private insurance coverage.

We probably ought to keep the discussion within the Overton Window. I don't think single-payer healthcare has a snowball's chance. I certainly don't have any problem with people putting it forth, of course. Everybody's free to put any idea they want on the table. But the chances of that becoming law while any of us are still drawing breath is basically zero.

The changes to the Big 2 entitlements will involve a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes -- and fundamental changes that amount to one or the other. Nobody's going to get everything they want -- and everybody will get plenty of what they don't want. And I imagine that getting it done will require no shortage of political bloodshed.

But the alternative is simply unfathomable.

 

[Circlejoe]

[QUOTE="So who is it that wants to destroy Social Security and Medicare?[/QUOTE]

Well, given your reasoning, McConnell does because he's not going to sign on to any legislation that cuts SS, Medicare or Medicaid in 2018. He still believes the GOP can retain power in the Senate in 2018.

 

[Sope Creek]

Well, it's either that or we let them go insolvent.

Even if the reform amounts to nothing but tax hikes -- which I doubt, but that's beside the point -- it's something that eventually has to happen.

We're already having to tap into the SSTF to cover current bills. That's the single biggest reason near-term deficits are projected to climb. The general fund used to borrow from SSTF to pay bills -- from now until the fund is depleted (~2035), that will be the other way around. At that point, assuming the general fund makes good on all its debts to the Trust Fund, SS will be able to afford about 70% of its benefits. Yippee.

And the size of Medicare's hole is about 4 or 5 times the one SS is in.

So, yeah, we can continue to sit idly by as these programs careen into insolvency. That's what we've done heretofore, after all -- since 1983, anyway.

So who is it that wants to destroy Social Security and Medicare?

Nice dodge.

Ryan's form of reform includes only benefit reductions. Tax hikes aren't "reform" . . . they're just revisions in the level of taxes to maintain the social security program in status quo.

The best answer to the country's fiscal issues is increasing taxes on those who have the most income, as it addresses issues with the primary economic issues of our day, i.e., deficit spending and income inequality.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Well, given your reasoning, McConnell does because he's not going to sign on to any legislation that cuts SS, Medicare or Medicaid in 2018. He still believes the GOP can retain power in the Senate in 2018.

Er, McConnell isn't saying that we don't ever have to do entitlement reform. He's saying that the Senate isn't going to pick it up in 2019. I'd call that a pretty significant difference.

He's kicking the can down the road....not saying "what can?"

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Nice dodge.

Ryan's form of reform includes only benefit reductions. Tax hikes aren't "reform" . . . they're just revisions in the level of taxes to maintain the social security program in status quo.

The best answer to the country's fiscal issues is increasing taxes on those who have the most income, as it addresses issues with the primary economic issues of our day, i.e., deficit spending and income inequality.

Well, first, what Paul Ryan has put out is pretty clearly an opening serve....waiting a return volley.

When I use the term "entitlement reform", which I do frequently, you can assume that I'm referring to anything on either the cost or revenue side of the ledger -- as well as to more logistical and procedural types of changes. It's all-encompassing.

And, no, doing this is not a choice. If Democrats think we should hike taxes on rich people to shore up Social Security and Medicare, then (a) that counts as entitlement reform, and (b) I don't know why they're refusing to put that out there as a response to Ryan's opening bid. Obviously, this is not a solution I'd support -- but it is, at least, something.

 

[Circlejoe]

Er, McConnell isn't saying that we don't ever have to do entitlement reform. He's saying that the Senate isn't going to pick it up in 2019. I'd call that a pretty significant difference.

He's kicking the can down the road....not saying "what can?"

He said "what can" when he pushed the recent tax bill. They have been kicking the can down the road of entitlement reform for years.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

It's not an inevitability. You act like it is, but it isn't, just like tax cuts aren't and never have been.

Before all is said and done this tax cut from the party of fiscal responsibility won’t add 1.5 trillion to the debt. No, it’ll add 4-5 trillion. The numbers they project for the economy in order to only add 1.5 trillion are fantasyland numbers.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Before all is said and done this tax cut from the party of fiscal responsibility won’t add 1.5 trillion to the debt. No, it’ll add 4-5 trillion. The numbers they project for the economy in order to only add 1.5 trillion are fantasyland numbers.

Those aren’t GOP projections. Try again.

 

[Stuffshot]

I think we'll find, once we get down to brass tacks on entitlement reform (which we'd be doing with or without this tax cut) that most of the cost-reductions will be means-tested. I say "most" because one change that is virtually certain to happen will be an increase in the retirement age. If 1983 is any guide anyway, that will apply across the board. I guess it's tough to means-test age.

Because of means-testing, you can't say that any cut in entitlement spending will necessarily be borne by the poor. There were a couple different groups working on the ill-fated attempt to reform SS in 2005. As I recall, both of them -- and GWB's general guidelines -- included means-testing to keep promised benefits on the lower end intact.

An increase in retirement age is already staggered/laddered into “full retirement age” for receiving social security retirement benefits, depending on a person’s birth date. “Full retirement age” was once 65, goes up a couple months per year and soon will be 67. The full schedule of the ever-increasing “full retirement age” is on the Social Security web site.

Medicare Part B monthly premiums, I think, are already more expensive for higher income recipients.

 

[UncleMark]

We probably ought to keep the discussion within the Overton Window. I don't think single-payer healthcare has a snowball's chance.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how it's implemented and sold, politically. I believe something similar was proposed when Otis Bowen was Secretary of HHS under Reagan. What I described is single payer for "catastrophic" or chronic/expensive care. People would still be on their own for the first $XX,000 (pick a workable, reasonable number) and private insurance through the employer or the individual market would be available to cover that. Again, for the truly destitute, the states could step in and implement some scheme for covering that large deductible in lieu of what's now done through Medicaid.

I notice you didn't comment on my thoughts regarding Social Security. Can I assume you find them reasonable?

 

[Rockfish1]

If the sunsetting v. permanent thing is such a big deal, why doesn't the Senate just hold a vote on an amendment to make all the cuts in the TCJA permanent? See who votes to make them permanent....and who votes to keep them temporary.

Problem solved.

The new law is upwardly redistributive in every year. It just gets worse when the small temporary middle class tax cuts expire. Their only purpose is window dressing. If you want to put money in the hands of middle class households, this isn't how you do it.

 

[iuwclurker1]

The disingenuous argument that the upper tax bracket only gets an X% cut is insidious. Those lucky middle class people who get their whopping $1000-5000 will spend it out of necessity, boosting the economy for the rich and increasing their own wealth nary one bit. Meanwhile, the meager tax cut for the rich will go into their financial portfolio, which will continue to grow their wealth. Ignored by the disingenuous posters here is that the rich don't need a tax cut of any percentage. They got rich, didn't they?

Disclaimer: My portfolio has increased by roughly 20% this year, a gain of not less than seven figures. Benefits from this tax cut will increase my portfolio, not my spending. I haven't spent all of my non-portfolio income in years. My portfolio only increases. Any stimulus to the economy by this tax plan will come on the backs of the middle class. Any increase to the national debt will benefit the portfolios of the likes of me.

Happy day. Let's gleefully ruin the future of our children and grandchildren while ruining the planet.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The disingenuous argument that the upper tax bracket only gets an X% cut is insidious. Those lucky middle class people who get their whopping $1000-5000 will spend it out of necessity, boosting the economy for the rich and increasing their own wealth nary one bit. Meanwhile, the meager tax cut for the rich will go into their financial portfolio, which will continue to grow their wealth. Ignored by the disingenuous posters here is that the rich don't need a tax cut of any percentage. They got rich, didn't they?

Disclaimer: My portfolio has increased by roughly 20% this year, a gain of not less than seven figures. Benefits from this tax cut will increase my portfolio, not my spending. I haven't spent all of my non-portfolio income in years. My portfolio only increases. Any stimulus to the economy by this tax plan will come on the backs of the middle class. Any increase to the national debt will benefit the portfolios of the likes of me.

Happy day. Let's gleefully ruin the future of our children and grandchildren while ruining the planet.

Well, just sell some and give away the proceeds, already. There's no point in complaining about your gains. If you think they are better served in other people's hands, then you're in a position to make that happen. The bell rings at 9:30 ET tomorrow.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Well, just sell some and give away the proceeds, already. There's no point in complaining about your gains. If you think they are better served in other people's hands, then you're in a position to make that happen. The bell rings at 9:30 ET tomorrow.

If your portfolio went up a million or so, sell a portion and buy something, or hire some people to do something. You can make an impact on the economy.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Well, just sell some and give away the proceeds, already. There's no point in complaining about your gains. If you think they are better served in other people's hands, then you're in a position to make that happen. The bell rings at 9:30 ET tomorrow.

yada yada yada

Don't you bore yourself?

 

[iuwclurker1]

If your portfolio went up a million or so, sell a portion and buy something, or hire some people to do something. You can make an impact on the economy.

No. It wouldn't change anything. Just redistribute it an asshole who wants to pollute the planet.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No. It wouldn't change anything. Just redistribute it an asshole who wants to pollute the planet.

You’re doing your part to impede the American economy, aye.

 

[zeke4ahs]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/christmas-att-layoffs-midwest-bonuses-trump-758391?amp=1
Remember that $1,000 bonus that AT&T and Trump were bragging about employees getting after the tax bill? I bet these people that are being laid off are thrilled.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

yada yada yada

Don't you bore yourself?

Well, it seems a perfectly appropriate response to your gripe, as stated. You put this in terms of you, and your superfluous gains, and the faceless masses who are suffering...in part because you're rich and getting richer.

That is a problem easily solved.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The new law is upwardly redistributive in every year.

It is less upwardly distributive than the old law.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Well, it seems a perfectly appropriate response to your gripe, as stated. You put this in terms of you, and your superfluous gains, and the faceless masses who are suffering...in part because you're rich and getting richer.

That is a problem easily solved.

Not griping, just facting. All the money in the economy goes to the rich, including new national debt. Republicans have finally figured out no one's going to do anything about it so they are cynically raiding the American coffers and raping our future. This actually hurts you and me since we're "far down" on the totem pole.

Like Aloha suggests, I actually favor tanking the economy this year. #APennySpentIsAVoteForTrump

No liberal economist worth his salt would advocate this but it's clearly the best thing we could possibly do to overcome the assholery that is Trump, McConnell, Ryan, and the rest of the Neanderthal Party. Associate their assholery with a recession.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Someone keeps deleting my substantive responses to CO. Hoosier's bullshit. I'll repeat (as best I can) what I said in the last deleted post.

_______________________________________________

You're posting bullshit again. Let me explain.

The link in your first sentence refutes the claim that sentence makes. It's a Tax Policy Center analysis that directly supports what I say and contradicts your bogus claim:

The Tax Policy Center has released distributional estimates of this legislation. We find the following:

• Compared to current law, taxes would fall for all income groups on average in 2018, increasing overall average after-tax income by 2.2 percent. In general, tax cuts as a percentage of after-tax income would be larger for higher-income groups, with the largest cuts as a share of income going to taxpayers in the 95th to 99th percentiles of the income distribution.
• The pattern of tax changes across income groups would be similar in 2025 (the last year before nearly all the individual provisions sunset) although the magnitude of average tax decreases would be slightly smaller for most income groups.
• In 2027, the overall tax reduction would be just 0.2 percent of after-tax income. On average, relative to current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers would see little change and taxpayers in the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of 0.9 percent of after-tax income.
• Some taxpayers would pay more in taxes under the proposal in 2018 and 2025 than under current law: about 5 percent of taxpayers in 2018 and 9 percent in 2025. In 2027, however, taxes would increase for 53 percent of taxpayers compared with current law.

So, ordinary people get a small temporary tax cut, wealthy people get a large permanent tax cut, and income inequality increases -- just as I said.

Noting that you'd inexplicably linked a TPC report for the exact opposite of what it says, I wondered where you conjured up the numeric claims in the second two sentences. They aren't in the TPC report -- and can't even be arithmetically derived from it -- so I knew they came from somewhere else.

So I Googled your claim, which led me straight to this piece of shit from Townhall.com. It claims to rebut the TPC analysis, but it doesn't even engage that analysis. Instead, it lies about what the TPC report says. Wingnuts can't even be bothered to pony up phony analytics, so they just flat lie about what reputable organizations say. And that, of course, is good enough for CO. Hoosier.

I don't know what motivates you to post this bullshit. You must have seen the Townhall.com piece, which lied about the TPC report, then to avoid acknowledging your shitty source, you linked the TPC report instead -- oblivious that it explodes your argument. In any event, having cleared out all that bullshit from just three sentences of your post, I decided that the rest of it wasn't worth the effort.

Idiotic repetition like "posting bullshit" or ad hominems like "shitty source" are not arguments. Both are your stock in trade.

Your gripe is nothing more than the tax code tends to redistribute income upward--not that these changes take the tax code from downward redistribution to upward redistribution. That said, your conclusion is debatable because of questionable cause and effect analysis, but assuming you are correct, the changes lessen the upward direction, as TPC tables show.

You are really arguing that the changes should not sunset. I agree with that. They sunset because of the Senate rules, not because sunsetting is a good idea.

Edit:

When you use the term "redistribute income" what are you talking about?

Are you talking about a zero sum game example where income is taken from the bottom and put into the top earner's pockets.

Or are you talking about new income that might be generated with lower corporate tax rates, which new income will be distributed more heavily to the upper brackets than to the middle brackets?

If you are talking about the latter, how is that a problem?

(yeah I know, I can't escape the socratic method and the critial thinking it generates.)

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Not griping, just facting. All the money in the economy goes to the rich, including new national debt.

But you could do your part to counteract that, if you were truly inclined.

Republicans have finally figured out no one's going to do anything about it so they are cynically raiding the American coffers and raping our future.

The only people raping our future are those who insist that we spend beyond our means. That certainly doesn't exclude Republicans, alas. But, let's be honest here, the primary culprits behind our unsustainable government spending have been Democrats.

This actually hurts you and me since we're "far down" on the totem pole.

I neither know nor care where you are on the "totem pole". And, whether you care or not, you have no idea where I am, either.

For that matter, I don't look at myself as being on a totem pole -- with some people above me, others below me. I long ago made a habit of only comparing my situation to two benchmarks: (1) me in the rearview mirror, (2) my goals.

I don't think any good ever comes from comparing yourself to others. For one thing, you never really know somebody else's whole situation. For another thing, what others are or aren't doing really has no bearing on what you're doing.

If Bezos eclipses the $100 billion mark, good for him -- but it has no impact on me. It doesn't mean that I'm falling behind -- because I was never trying to keep up with him in the first place. I'm trying to accomplish my own goals -- some of which have to do with money, but most of which do not.

Now, if you want to go around looking at people as faces on some socio-economic totem pole, knock yourself out. If you want to bemoan that there are faces below yours who you think are being willfully held back by the likes of you and those above you, then get your godamn wallet out and absolve yourself of your guilt, already. You don't need changes made to the friggin' tax code to do that, you know.

But don't think that, just because you view the world in this stratified paradigm, that others must as well.

Like Aloha suggests, I actually favor tanking the economy this year. #APennySpentIsAVoteForTrump

Well, at least you're honest about wanting people to lose their jobs, homes, etc. Usually people hoping for the economy to tank for political reasons are coy about it.

It's all for a good cause in the long run, ya know. Take one for the team. Country before self. Your compassion for those below you on your socio-totem pole knows no bounds.

No liberal economist worth his salt would advocate this but it's clearly the best thing we could possibly do to overcome the assholery that is Trump, McConnell, Ryan, and the rest of the Neanderthal Party. Associate their assholery with a recession.

Well, we'll see. The yield spread is down around 50 basis points -- that's a bearish indicator. So you've got that going for you!

Most forecasts are still pegging growth in the high 2's for next year. The Conference Board has it at 2.8%. So I guess that would kinda suck. But I think you have to have a glimmer of hope that the flattened yield curve is a sign of bad times to come.

Huzzah!

 

[iuwclurker1]

But you could do your part to counteract that, if you were truly inclined.



The only people raping our future are those who insist that we spend beyond our means. That certainly doesn't exclude Republicans, alas. But, let's be honest here, the primary culprits behind our unsustainable government spending have been Democrats.



I neither know nor care where you are on the "totem pole". And, whether you care or not, you have no idea where I am, either.

For that matter, I don't look at myself as being on a totem pole -- with some people above me, others below me. I long ago made a habit of only comparing my situation to two benchmarks: (1) me in the rearview mirror, (2) my goals.

I don't think any good ever comes from comparing yourself to others. For one thing, you never really know somebody else's whole situation. For another thing, what others are or aren't doing really has no bearing on what you're doing.

If Bezos eclipses the $100 billion mark, good for him -- but it has no impact on me. It doesn't mean that I'm falling behind -- because I was never trying to keep up with him in the first place. I'm trying to accomplish my own goals -- some of which have to do with money, but most of which do not.

Now, if you want to go around looking at people as faces on some socio-economic totem pole, knock yourself out. If you want to bemoan that there are faces below yours who you think are being willfully held back by the likes of you and those above you, then get your godamn wallet out and absolve yourself of your guilt, already. You don't need changes made to the friggin' tax code to do that, you know.

But don't think that, just because you view the world in this stratified paradigm, that others must as well.



Well, at least you're honest about wanting people to lose their jobs, homes, etc. Usually people hoping for the economy to tank for political reasons are coy about it.

It's all for a good cause in the long run, ya know. Take one for the team. Country before self. Your compassion for those below you on your socio-totem pole knows no bounds.



Well, we'll see. The yield spread is down around 50 basis points -- that's a bearish indicator. So you've got that going for you!

Most forecasts are still pegging growth in the high 2's for next year. The Conference Board has it at 2.8%. So I guess that would kinda suck. But I think you have to have a glimmer of hope that the flattened yield curve is a sign of bad times to come.

Huzzah!

No reason for anyone to lose their homes or any of your other fearmongering. Just some harder times where one has to pull himself by the bootstraps, shrug off his inherent dysfunction, and work through it. Spend no money on conspicuous consumption (the only extravagance he can afford), steal as much as possible. In short do all the things necessary to force Republicans out of office before 2020 when the new census comes out and districts can be re-gerrymandered.

Under the current paradigm of extreme ideologies controlling both parties, the pendulum inevitably swings back and forth. This time, however, has been especially beneficial for liberals. Trump has set a new low bar for Republicans invigorating millenials and women like never before and #MeToo has set in motion a sea change for women in the workplace and life in general. Hard times are coming for conservative white males. Not that they'll lose power before they die off but that they'll be faced with massive, to them abhorrent changes that they'll futilely try to stop and they'll die in rich but abject apathy.

Edit: and before you respond with more of your cynicism, saying I'm wishing that on them, no, I'm wishing for them to have an epiphany that would enable them to die euphorically -- they can love others.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

The disingenuous argument that the upper tax bracket only gets an X% cut is insidious. Those lucky middle class people who get their whopping $1000-5000 will spend it out of necessity, boosting the economy for the rich and increasing their own wealth nary one bit. Meanwhile, the meager tax cut for the rich will go into their financial portfolio, which will continue to grow their wealth. Ignored by the disingenuous posters here is that the rich don't need a tax cut of any percentage. They got rich, didn't they?

Disclaimer: My portfolio has increased by roughly 20% this year, a gain of not less than seven figures. Benefits from this tax cut will increase my portfolio, not my spending. I haven't spent all of my non-portfolio income in years. My portfolio only increases. Any stimulus to the economy by this tax plan will come on the backs of the middle class. Any increase to the national debt will benefit the portfolios of the likes of me.

Happy day. Let's gleefully ruin the future of our children and grandchildren while ruining the planet.

The republicans always use these completely horsecrap growth numbers to say the tax cuts will pay for themselves. Maybe they’re slow learners. I mean, idiotic tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation only lead to the Great Depression and the crash of ‘07-‘08. But I’m sure it’ll work this time! This time will lead to crazy economic growth and prosperity. You just watch.