Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, March 20, 2019

The Trump administration pushed a $1.5 trillion tax cut through Congress in 2017 on the promise that it would spark sustained economic growth. While the tax cuts have goosed the economy in the short term, officials now concede they will not be enough to deliver the 3 percent annual growth the president promised over the long term.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

MFA:

Most forecasters project economic growth of about 2 percent in the medium and long run for the United States, but that rate would fall far short of the heady promises that President Trump has made about his ability to fuel the American economy. Mr. Trump has predicted growth of as much as 5 percent, while his advisers have routinely promoted 3 percent as the new normal. Growth averaged just over 2 percent from 2010, the first full year after the Great Recession ended, through 2016, when Mr. Trump was elected to the White House.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-03-19 11:12 PM | Reply


I posted this summary yesterday, but it got lost...

WH sez economy on track for 3% growth, 1Q data sez meh
www.bloomberg.com

...The U.S. economy is on track to grow 3 percent or faster this year despite an admittedly lackluster start to 2019, the White House's chief economist said Tuesday. "The state of the economy is strong," Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett said on Bloomberg Television, before adding that "data for the first quarter is looking pretty weak."

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's GDPNow tracking forecast, the economy will expand at just a 0.4 percent annual rate in the three months through March.

That could put President Donald Trump behind the curve on his pledge to deliver annual growth of 3 percent or higher....


0.4% growth for the first quarter of 2019? The economy will need to rally to reach 3% growth for the year...

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-03-20 09:41 AM | Reply

Before the tax cut was voted on, one network assembled about 100 Fortune 500 CEO's in an auditorium. The moderator asked for a show of hands for how many planned to use tax cut savings to increase wages.

Four or five raised their hands.

Corporate America has used the tax cut savings primarily for stock buybacks that benefited no one but upper management who got larger bonuses and increased value in their stock options.

We got stuck with the bill.

#3 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-03-20 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

#3 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Why raise wages when the border is open? CEO's have a responsibility to squeeze every last dollar for the shareholders, so if the government wants to make labor cheaper by keeping the door open, why should CEO's pay extra?

We got stuck with the bill.

No you didn't ... the Rich pay far more than you do .. on top of that its getting kicked down the road.

#2 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER
Its tracking for 2.5%.

Besides GDP is irrelevant, to some degree the government just dials it in with deficit spending .... its disgusting..

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-03-20 11:48 AM | Reply


@#4 ... Its tracking for 2.5%. ...

Closer to 2.35% if the other three quarters are at the projected 3%.


...Besides GDP is irrelevant ...

It is the Trump administration that is citing the number and making it important.


... to some degree the government just dials it in with deficit spending ...

Yeah, the tax cut for the 1% gave a nice boost last year, but the first quarter of this year, not so much.


#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-03-20 01:41 PM | Reply


@#3 ... We got stuck with the bill. ...

Yup.

The Trump tax cut put a major debt burden upon the middle class, one that will take decades to pay off.

Which is odd given that is is typically a strong middle class that gives the economy the fuel to run long and strong.

It just shows that the true intent of the Trump tax cut was not to rev the economy but to provide a massive transfer of wealth to the 1%.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-03-20 01:54 PM | Reply

Dems should jack up taxes on the sociopathic billionaires even higher than they were before trump just to teach them a lesson. Every time they support a tax cutting repub, we'll make them pay.

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-20 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In a 2016 speech to the Economic Club of New York (not a pack of rubes, they) Trump committed to 4% annual economic growth, or better. Nearly all economists not addicted to mind-altering drugs quickly called BS on Trump. They are being proved right.

Trump has used his nonsensical claims of economic growth to push through his tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Those cuts had a one-time effect (I know--it jazzed my bonus at work). The effect will not be long-lasting (I know--my employer is not predicting performance anywhere close to what we did in 2018).

Meanwhile, the GOP members of Congress have since started repeating Dick Cheney's dictum "Deficits don't matter", and they will keep repeating that phrase until our country elects to the presidency Democrat (insert name here) in 2020, immediately afterward the GOP will bitch and moan about the deficit again, blaming it on anyone but themselves and NY State Prisoner 4645834, formerly known as President Trump...

#8 | Posted by catdog at 2019-03-20 06:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

If your mortgage is paid off and all you can do is claim a standard deduction you are probably better off for now, but the cuts for the middle class are short lived. If you itemize the only thing left, usually will be your mortgage, so you are much worse off unless you mortgage interest charges plus other deductions you used to take are less than standard deduction.

#9 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-20 07:00 PM | Reply

But, it will do wonders for getting this Big Orange Rat out of office in 2020.

Way to go Stupids.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-03-20 07:31 PM | Reply

CEO's have a responsibility to squeeze every last dollar for the shareholders, so if the government wants to make labor cheaper by keeping the door open, why should CEO's pay extra?

It's this twisted idea that is killing our economy.

The CEO's responsibility should be for sustained, long term health of the company. If that means fluctuations in quarterly earnings, then so be it.

No you didn't ... the Rich pay far more than you do .. on top of that its getting kicked down the road.

By dollar amount.

But you know that's a dishonest way of presenting that. Percentage wise most don't pay more than your average tax payer, especially if they're paper shufflers making most of their income on dividends and capital gains.

Its tracking for 2.5%.

Besides GDP is irrelevant

Your opinions are as flimsy and fickle as a windsock.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-20 07:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

In any case, anybody with half a brain knew this was going to be true. Why? There were loads of people says as much, even though it didn't really take indepth knowledge to know failed trickle down would fail again.

Only the true believers *cough*idiots*cough* gave that pile of garbage sales pitch the time of day.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-20 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

"Your opinions are as flimsy and fickle as a windsock."

I would have gone with a different kind of sock. One that's kind of... stiff and high in protein.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-20 07:47 PM | Reply

The tax cuts weren't intended to promote growth.

They were intended to allow Trump to keep more stolen wealth.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-03-20 07:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"We got stuck with the bill."

Really?

How much did you wind up paying?

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-20 08:17 PM | Reply

"The Trump tax cut put a major debt burden upon the middle class, one that will take decades to pay off."

I didn't realize taxes went up on the middle class.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-20 08:18 PM | Reply

"By dollar amount."

Dollar amount is kinda what counts.

You can't purchase services or repay debts on percentages.

#17 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-20 08:20 PM | Reply

"They were intended to allow Trump to keep more stolen wealth."

Stolen?

From whom?

#18 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-20 08:21 PM | Reply

Dollar amount is kinda what counts.

You can't purchase services or repay debts on percentages.

#17 | Posted by madbomber

So if Bill Gates pays more in dollar amount but his percentage is 5%, that's just perfectly fine? Meanwhile the guy making $30,000 pays 15% even though it's $4,500 and is a make or break amount of money for them?

You guys really are sociopaths.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-20 08:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

"So if Bill Gates pays more in dollar amount but his percentage is 5%, that's just perfectly fine?"

Yes.

I would prefer to have 5% of Bill Gates Annual income than 100% of yours.

So would the rest of the taxpayers. Or tax receivers, anyway.

"Meanwhile the guy making $30,000 pays 15% even though it's $4,500 and is a make or break amount of money for them?"

Meanwhile, the guy making $30k is statistically going to pay virtually nothing any federal income taxes. The bottom 50% only contributes ~2.8% to the total federal income tax burden.

#20 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-20 08:53 PM | Reply

The bottom 50% only contributes ~2.8% to the total federal income tax burden.

By dollar amount...

I don't think this conversation is going to go anywhere.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-20 09:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

"I don't think this conversation is going to go anywhere."

Me neither.

But getting back to the original point...a tax cut is not going to make those with little economic value somehow become more valuable. It could, and probably does have a positive effect for some, but writ large any increase in demand for unskilled labor brought on as a function of workforce promotion will be offset by the overall reduction in demand for unskilled labor over a longer period of time. I've heard commentators on the left and the right make claims that they can influence this process. They really can't. Not in the long term.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-20 09:20 PM | Reply

"Meanwhile, the guy making $30k is statistically going to pay virtually nothing any federal income taxes. The bottom 50% only contributes ~2.8% to the total federal income tax burden."

Then we should just eliminate income taxes on the poor, if their contribution is statistically nothing.

Why have millions of people file taxes if Uncle Sam gets statistically zero dollars from them? It's reduced to just being a jobs program for IRS workers and H&R Block.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-20 09:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"But getting back to the original point...a tax cut is not going to make those with little economic value somehow become more valuable."

But it does make them more affordable, with more $ in your pocket.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-20 09:25 PM | Reply

"Meanwhile, the guy making $30k is statistically going to pay virtually nothing any federal income taxes."

Why have you narrowed the parameters to just federal income taxes?

Why not just make the discussion about the main type of federal taxes most workers pay: federal payroll taxes. Roughly 70% of workers will pay more in payroll taxes over their lifetimes, versus income taxes.

Let just talk about payroll taxes: who pays more, as a percentage of their overall income?

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-20 10:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Danforth,

Payroll taxes are supposedly earmarked as "retirement insurance" and are partially indexed based upon contribution. FICA was supposed to be limited to funding the pyramid scheme.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 10:50 PM | Reply

" the guy making $30k is statistically going to pay virtually nothing any federal income taxes."

The guy opening P&G dividend checks for a living can open $50,600 without owing any federal taxes.

Meanwhile, the self-employed janitor making $50,000 pays over $10,000 in federal taxes.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-20 10:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danforth,

You seem to be trying to conflate FICA taxes with federal income taxes.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 10:57 PM | Reply

"Payroll taxes are supposedly earmarked as "retirement insurance""

STFU. A tax is a tax is a tax.

Dubya cited the payroll tax overcollections as a reason to cut YOUR income tax. Cheney cited the payroll tax overcollections as a reason to alter the fiscal sights from Suplusville to Debtsylvania. You rewarded their actions by voting for Republican after Republican after Republican.

Back to the question at hand: who pays more in federal payroll taxes as a percentage of their income?

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-20 10:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"FICA was supposed to be limited to funding the pyramid scheme."

Pyramid schemes are always opaque and never transparent. The equilibrium equations of SS and Medicare is laid out for all to see.

Pyramid schemes are never able to be correct, mathematically. Meanwhile, the equilibrium equation of SS is only one point off for both the worker and the employer: one more point from each side (total 14.4% for SS) puts the equation into equilibrium "into perpetuity".

Anyone who calls it a pyramid scheme doesn't understand pyramid schemes.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-20 11:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"a tax cut is not going to make those with little economic value somehow become more valuable."

Let's treat the tax code as reality:

The day the rates dropped, did reinvesting in workers just get a) MORE lucrative, or b) LESS lucrative?

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-20 11:05 PM | Reply

"FICA was supposed to be limited to funding the pyramid scheme."

Too bad your willful ignorance isn't limited to calling FICA a pyramid scheme.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-20 11:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The day the rates dropped, did reinvesting in workers just get a) MORE lucrative, or b) LESS lucrative?

POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2019-03-20 11:05 PM | REPLY

Less. Why spend money if you don't have to.

#33 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-03-20 11:48 PM | Reply

Proof the tax cuts haven't done America any good is evidenced by our deficits once again over $1 Trillion. This after Obama cut the annual deficits he inherited by 2/3rds.

Republicans screamed about deficits the entire 8 years Obama was president even though it was Republicans who cut taxes twice in the 2000's and left us with $1.4 trillion annual deficits by the time Obama took office.

The same Republicans who haven't let out a peep about deficits since gaining control of the WH again. Guess they all went to the Dick "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" Cheney School of Hypocritical Bulls**t.

#34 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-03-21 12:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

AU

Trump takes his suckers wherever he can find them. It's how he makes a living. I remember saying a long time ago, this is one guy you never want to get his hands on the U.S. Treasury. Electing Trump just gave him a bigger piggy bank and morality is his enemy.

#35 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-03-21 12:57 AM | Reply

"Payroll taxes are supposedly earmarked as "retirement insurance""
---
STFU. A tax is a tax is a tax.
- Danforth

You STFU. I know how those programs were sold to the public and I know why FICA is taxed separately to fund those programs, again, as a means by which these programs were sold to the public. SS is indexed based upon what the individual paid into the program. Those taxes are directly tied to the individual. Government services/benefits from income taxes are not in any way tied to individuals paying in.

The 2 taxes are distinctly different. Stop treating them as the same dang thing.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 10:04 AM | Reply

"Then we should just eliminate income taxes on the poor, if their contribution is statistically nothing."

Or increase taxes on them. The bottom 50% collects 12% of AGI...it seems like there's a lot of money there for the taking!!!

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 10:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

But yeah...at 2.8%, why bother. Like picking up pennies off the street. Probably not worth the time.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 10:24 AM | Reply

"You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?"

Don't get after me champ...I'm just parrotting what the CBO is saying.

Do they not know what they are talking about?

"CBO study shows that ‘the rich' don't just pay a ‘fair share' of federal taxes, they pay almost everybody's share"

"www.aei.org"

And there are hundreds more articles just like this one. How many do you need to see before you believe?

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 10:28 AM | Reply

"Back to the question at hand: who pays more in federal payroll taxes as a percentage of their income?"

Let me answer your question with another question.

Would you rather have 5% of Jeff Bezo's income or 100% of your own.

now you know why your question is immaterial.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 10:29 AM | Reply

"Less. Why spend money if you don't have to."

Isn't that always the case?

Like I said, changes in tax rates are not going to change the value of labor. Not in the long run.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 10:33 AM | Reply

"The 2 taxes are distinctly different. Stop treating them as the same dang thing."

Dan's argument is the only somewhat honest argument you could present if you're trying to promote the idea that the poor are overtaxed. And that is one of the pillars of progressive economics.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 10:35 AM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

This is why you are completely ridiculous. I need 100% of my income and I dont live in a mansion or want to. Jeff Bezo does not NEED his full income in order to simply live. I live pretty modestly and try to save what I can. I also have a 401K that I pay into with every paycheck, but it will never be remotely close to anything Bezo has. It is not unfair of the working class to request a larger paycheck when it is our labor that drives the profits people like him pull from their business.

#43 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-03-21 10:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This is why you are completely ridiculous. I need 100% of my income and I dont live in a mansion or want to."

You don't need 100% of your income to survive. You need 100% of your income to maintain the standard of living you are accustomed to, and feel entitled to. But if you somewhow found yourself with half, even a quarter of what now make, you're not really at risk of dying due to lack of necessities.

I know you really can't understand it, but you're not that different than Jeff Bezos. And many people making a LOT more money than you can make the same claims you have. They "need" a million dollars a year in order to pay for the Ferrari, the second home, and the vacations. Becuase they, like you, have grown accustomed to that standard of living and feel entitled to it.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 11:03 AM | Reply

"It is not unfair of the working class to request a larger paycheck when it is our labor that drives the profits people like him pull from their business."

And I would encourage you to ask away. But the labor your selling to your employer is going to be priced out based on supply and demand. No different that the property the use, the vehicles they buy, the utilities used, or any other factor of production.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 11:05 AM | Reply

I just need a roof over my head and a vehicle to get back and forth to work, plus food and electricity. I dont have cable or internet at home (mostly because I live rural and nobody is able to provide it). My cell phone works only half the time out there. I know from past experience what it is to struggle and use food stamps. People like you would take away food stamps from struggling families because by living in the US we are not poor. Nobody needs a second house or an expensive car, just a reliable one. Over a certain amount of money per year it is no longer noticed. It just goes in the bank, food shows up in your home, and you lose the ability to even tell someone what the current price of milk is. Tax cuts for people like that is the last thing we should be working on.

#46 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-03-21 11:11 AM | Reply

#45 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

As the past has shown, employers will almost always pay the lowest they can, and people struggling will always take any job they can get. Since there are so many people that need work, the wages stay low, and poverty levels remain high.

#47 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-03-21 11:14 AM | Reply

"You STFU. I know how those programs were sold to the public"

Did Dubya cut your income taxes based on payroll tax overcollections, or not?

Just address the math.

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-21 11:26 AM | Reply

"changes in tax rates are not going to change the value of labor."

Do they change the incentive to reinvest, or not? Which way does the dial turn, in your analysis?

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-21 11:32 AM | Reply

"Do they change the incentive to reinvest, or not? Which way does the dial turn, in your analysis?"

A better question would be, what did companies do in reponse to tax cuts. We have real-world evidence, don't we.

Just like increasing taxes wouldn't likely need to reinvestment if it were uneeded, tax cuts aren't going to drive demand for labor that is equally unnessary?

It's very, very difficult to make the people pay taxes if the people don't want to.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 11:43 AM | Reply

"As the past has shown, employers will almost always pay the lowest they can, and people struggling will always take any job they can get."

That's not true.

Didn't a handful of Baseball players just sign contracts providing astronomical salaries? Do you think it is because the Angels Baseball Club wanted to shell out $430 million?

Or maybe something a little closer to home. Do you want to pay a doctor $200 for a visit or checkup? Does anyone? Probably not, but if you want or need that service, you're going to have to pay what that doctor is asking. And if he is asking a lot, it's probably because people are willing to pay it.

As a rule, as demand for a skill or service increases (relative to the supply), wages increase.

The coverse is true as well. As supply of a skill or service (or goods) increases relative to demand, wages decrease. because there is a greater number of people competing for the same position. All other things being equal, the one willing to take the least amount of compensation is the one who is going to get the position.

You're right...employers are ogoing to try and maximize their own best interest...just like workers are going to try and maximize theirs.

#51 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 11:50 AM | Reply

#51 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It is because there are limited good baseball players. I am done with your trolling willful ignorance. I understand supply and demand, but when the person building a car cannot afford to purchase one brand new it is lopsided. If wages increase and more people buy new cars (increasing demand) that is the rising tide lifting all boats. Continue on with your blinders and your global ideology just so you don't have to acknowledge what is happening on our streets.

#52 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-03-21 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I am done with your trolling willful ignorance."

I'm literally providing you with a high quality education, and I'm doing so free of charge. I feel like you should be a little more appreciative.

"I understand supply and demand, but when the person building a car cannot afford to purchase one brand new it is lopsided."

Not really. Should a person assembling a Maclaren F1 be able to afford a Maclaren F1? SHould a person on the Gulfstream Assembly line be able to afford a G-6?

"If wages increase and more people buy new cars (increasing demand) that is the rising tide lifting all boats."

That's not really true either. Nicholas Maduro artificially increased wages in Venezuela. The only boats were the ones fleeing that country.

"Continue on with your blinders and your global ideology just so you don't have to acknowledge what is happening on our streets."

Blinders? Maybe. But certainly no more so than you. And I have economics on my side. You rely on blind faith and emotion.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 12:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You mean the runn-away growth we had during the o'bummer years?

#54 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-03-21 12:52 PM | Reply

"And I have economics on my side."

You don't, though.
You can't show us the math.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 01:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You mean the runn-away growth we had during the o'bummer years?

#54 | Posted by Sniper

- GDP went from -2.5% when Obama entered office to +2.6 the last month of his last budget for a net gain of 5.1%. Trump's current GDP numbers are LOWER than when he entered office.

- Obama's highest monthly GDP gain was 5.1%. Trump's is 4.2%.

- 11,000,000+ job gains during his presidency

- The stock market rose 140%

Ya, we'll put Obama up against Trump any day of the week.

Trump claims to have 'turned the economy around.' That's true, but in the wrong direction.

#56 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-03-21 01:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Here's the math the right wing wants to deny.

They claim low wage jobs are low wage because they only provide low wage value.

Let's look at a McDonald's worker getting $9/hr. According to the right wing they are getting $9/hr because that is the value of their labor. So let's let the worker go. If they are actually only providing $9/hr worth of labor there should be no change in the bottom line of the company. The company will lose the $9/hr value of the labor but will save the $9/hr of the wages. Net zero.

The simple truth is that there is no direct relation between wages and the value of labor at the low end of the wage scales. Wages are low by decree, not based on the value the worker provides.

#57 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-03-21 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

now you know why your question is immaterial.

#40 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Only if the perspective and end goal are solely yours.

Being, as a Republican, restricted to penny counting because greed forces you into that mindset.

Some of us are concerned more with the long term health and stability of our society and input relative to output the better consideration.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-21 02:19 PM | Reply

I know you really can't understand it, but you're not that different than Jeff Bezos. And many people making a LOT more money than you can make the same claims you have. They "need" a million dollars a year in order to pay for the Ferrari, the second home, and the vacations. Becuase they, like you, have grown accustomed to that standard of living and feel entitled to it.

#44 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

No offense, but you really do strike me as a sociopath.

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-21 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#3 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY
Why raise wages when the border is open? CEO's have a responsibility to squeeze every last dollar for the shareholders, so if the government wants to make labor cheaper by keeping the door open, why should CEO's pay extra?
We got stuck with the bill.
No you didn't ... the Rich pay far more than you do .. on top of that its getting kicked down the road.
#2 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER
Its tracking for 2.5%.
Besides GDP is irrelevant, to some degree the government just dials it in with deficit spending .... its disgusting..
#4 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

This level of stupidity is breath taking.

1. Borders Open
Fact: They aren't.

2. Illegals mean Cheaper Labor so No Wage Increases
Fact: We still don't have enough workers right now.
Fact: Illegal Immigration is way down.
Fact: The immigration issue didn't change after the tax cuts. You just admitted the tax cuts were pointless. Thank you.

3. The Rich Pay for It
Fact: NO ONE PAID FOR THE TAX CUT! It just was put on the Credit Card.

4. GDP is Irrelevant
Fact: The GDP is a good indicator of economic growth in the country.
Fact: You are only hiding from it because the news is bad.

#60 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-03-21 02:24 PM | Reply

I'm literally providing you with a high quality education, and I'm doing so free of charge. I feel like you should be a little more appreciative.

As a supporter of right wing economics you don't have a credible position to claim you can educate others.
Unless you're open about teaching them to fail.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-21 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No different that the property the use, the vehicles they buy, the utilities used, or any other factor of production.
#45 | Posted by madbomber

If you can't see the difference between the value of a machine and a human, then there really is no hope for you.

#62 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-03-21 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

JPW,

The problem with right-wing economics is it's premised by the notion that people always make rational choices. They clearly don't.

The problem with left-wing economics is that it takes the basics of micro-economics and presumes the opposite in terms of macro economics.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-21 02:30 PM | Reply

"The simple truth is that there is no direct relation between wages and the value of labor at the low end of the wage scales. Wages are low by decree, not based on the value the worker provides."

Wages are low because the market rate for the labor they provide is low.

At any given moment, labor behaves as a commodity. There are a few threads up right now discussing the effects of falling grain prices. Grain is also a commodity, and when the supply of grain goes up relative to the demand, the price for grain declines. Same with labor. And at the end of the day, we are all unskilled laborers, so it's a very competitive market.

Think of it this way. You sell hot dogs, making $n per day. Are you going to pay more for those hot dogs than someone making

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 04:09 PM | Reply

As a supporter of right wing economics you don't have a credible position to claim you can educate others. Unless you're open about teaching them to fail.

OK...so used your economic expertise to point out where I was wrong. Was it how the factors of production come together to generate wealth? Was it about supply and demand and the rates at which markets clear? The behavior of commodities, maybe?

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 04:15 PM | Reply

"At any given moment, labor behaves as a commodity."

Still waiting on that math...

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 04:16 PM | Reply

"If you can't see the difference between the value of a machine and a human, then there really is no hope for you."

What is the difference in economic value between a human and a machine?

Enlighten us.

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 04:16 PM | Reply

"Still waiting on that math."

No math needed for this one, Champ. But you would need to know what a commodity is, which would presuppose you taken Econ courses, when you have not.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 04:17 PM | Reply

#63

Economics is Economics...there is no objective left or right.

You can have philisopical differences. When I was in Grad school the Chism was the difference between classical and Keyensian theory. The big difference being the rate at which markets responded to changing information. But neither one was rooted in politics. While he was most associated with FDR's presidency, JMK was a contemporary of Hayek, and in agreement with him on quite a bit. I myself consider the Keynesian model a better representation, as it does account for the fact that, due to any number of factors, markets don't change instantaneously. But that's just me.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 04:22 PM | Reply

schism

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 04:36 PM | Reply

A free market presupposes that the buyer and the seller negotiate a price. For low wage jobs the price is dictated by the employer. There is no negotiation. There is only take the job at this rate or go without a job. That is not a real choice when the rent is due

#71 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-03-21 05:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No more interest hikes this year - the Fed has announced.
Why?
Growth projection is now 2.1%

That sugar high didn't last and wasn't that high.

Sure left us a multi-trillion dollar hangover, though.

#72 | Posted by YAV at 2019-03-21 05:36 PM | Reply

- GDP went from -2.5% when Obama entered office to +2.6 the last month of his last budget for a net gain of 5.1%. Trump's current GDP numbers are LOWER than when he entered office.

- Obama's highest monthly GDP gain was 5.1%. Trump's is 4.2%.

- 11,000,000+ job gains during his presidency

- The stock market rose 140%

Ya, we'll put Obama up against Trump any day of the week.

Trump claims to have 'turned the economy around.' That's true, but in the wrong direction.

#56 | Posted by AMERICANUNITYI am sure you have a link to that claim.

#73 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-03-21 06:02 PM | Reply

Chew on this ame. Chew good before you spit it out.

Barack Obama Is Now The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 01/27/2017 - 10:41

Following today's extremely disappointing US GDP growth data, we have the final nail in the coffin of President Obama's economic reign. Not only is the average annual growth rate of just 1.48% during Obama's business cycle the weakest of any expansion since at least 1949, he has just become the only President to have not had even one year of 3% GDP growth.

An average annual GDP growth of 1.48% during Obama's two terms...

#74 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-03-21 06:05 PM | Reply

An average annual GDP growth of 1.48% during Obama's two terms...

#74 | Posted by Sniper

Just like in life, trump was handed a golden situation and thinks that means he's awesome.

Obama was handed a crappy situation and made the best of it.

#75 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-21 06:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"No math needed for this one, Champ."

Incorrect.

Math is needed to explain what is meant by imprecise terms like "low wage" or "high value." And then to describe the relationships between supply, demand, and cost.

You can't just sit around and have feelings about poor people and rich people to understand economics, which is why you still don't understand it. Because you haven't tested your assumptions against empirical data.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 06:15 PM | Reply

Grain is also a commodity...
#64 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

If you can't tell the difference between the value of grain and a human, then there is no hope for you.

#77 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-03-21 07:01 PM | Reply

"You can't just sit around and have feelings about poor people and rich people to understand economics, which is why you still don't understand it. Because you haven't tested your assumptions against empirical data."

So what did you learn in your economics classes that conflicts with what I learned in mine?

I say that in jest, of course, knowing you never set foot in an econ classroom. Which is why you think what I am saying is some self-imagined invention that I've constructed based on my own beliefs, mores, prejudices... or Whatever.

Because if you had taken an econ course, we might disagree with some of the finer points...but you're disagreeing with the concept of economics writ large.

You may as well be saying the earth is flat, or that god only created it 4000 years ago.

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 08:21 PM | Reply

"If you can't tell the difference between the value of grain and a human, then there is no hope for you."

Enjoy stupidity.

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 08:21 PM | Reply

"but you're disagreeing with the concept of economics writ large."

No I'm not.

I'm disagreeing with your application of those principles to realms they weren't intended to describe.

I'm disagreeing with your use of economic precepts as a platfrom to advance Social Darwinism.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 08:35 PM | Reply

"Enjoy stupidity."

Does your valuation of a particular piece of grain vary dramatically based upon whether or not you grew it?

Does your valuation of a particular child vary dramatically based upon whether or not you raised it?

Commodities have the quality of fungibility.

Your kids and someone else's kids do not.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 08:39 PM | Reply

SNIPER

Obama started with a GDP -2.5% in the hole. It took our economy YEARS to recover from the crash. Your 'point' is moot.

#82 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-03-21 08:57 PM | Reply

he has just become the only President to have not had even one year of 3% GDP growth.

Posted by Sniper at 2019-03-21 06:05 PM

They (or you) left out Herbert Hoover. The economy crashed in 1929 due to the same policies that led to the 2008 crash. Deregulation isn't a good thing!

#83 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-03-21 09:00 PM | Reply

Enjoy stupidity.
#79 | POSTED BY MADSTUPID

I've tried to enjoy you and your ilk.

On a comedic level, a satirical level, an absurd level.

It doesn't work anymore.

I'm intolerant of stupid people like you.

You write so much nonsense. Preferring to bludgeon your opponents with sheer volume rather than actual substance.

You're a waste of time. Which is why I've stopped responding to anything you retort. I'd rather teach my dog how to play chess. It would be more productive.

#84 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-03-21 09:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"The bottom 50% collects 12% of AGI"

And for the thousands of filers with incomes of $1 million or more, but AGI's of zero? Are they in the mix?
www.washingtonpost.com

#85 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-03-21 09:28 PM | Reply

Enjoy stupidity.
#79 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Enjoy greed.
Enjoy a world where people are machines and commodities.
I'm not even sure if that's possible, I don't.

#86 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-03-21 09:43 PM | Reply

"I'm disagreeing with your use of economic precepts as a platfrom to advance Social Darwinism."

Really?

In your examination of economic theory, when did come across anything suggesting that labor was special with regards to factors of production?

"Your kids and someone else's kids do not."

You're presupposing that kids are a commodity.

Maybe in the territory occupied by the Islamic State...but nowhere else.

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 10:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You're a waste of time. Which is why I've stopped responding to anything you retort. I'd rather teach my dog how to play chess. It would be more productive."

There are lots of ways you can attempt to shield yourself from reality...have you considered heroin?

Just find a way to stay asleep...reality might be more than you can handle.

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 10:14 PM | Reply

"Enjoy greed. Enjoy a world where people are machines and commodities. I'm not even sure if that's possible, I don't."

The force field around your mom's basement should protect you from all that is reality. Maybe take a few bong hits on the side...just to make sure it's kept at bay.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-21 10:17 PM | Reply

If we raise wages while reducing business taxes it should create a cycle of growth. Also, a Tobin tax and we tariff the slave nations so we don't have to compete with free labor. Of course, the Big Money wants the exact opposite....

#90 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-03-21 10:47 PM | Reply

"You're presupposing that kids are a commodity."

Only because you're presupposung that child labor is.

By your definition of unskilled labor, unskilled laborers are fungible.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 10:58 PM | Reply

"You're presupposing that kids are a commodity.
Maybe in the territory occupied by the Islamic State...but nowhere else.
#87 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

Children get trafficked into sex every day.
That makes them a commodity.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 11:01 PM | Reply

...your mom's basement...
#89 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

A sure sign that you've lost the argument.

#93 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-03-22 08:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Only because you're presupposung that child labor is."

What does child labor have to do with it?

"A sure sign that you've lost the argument."

In a manner of speaking, yes.

You can't have a discussion on economics with a person who wants to ignore the economics of it.

And that's a big part of the problem. A lot of progressives think they can wave a magic wand, and the economic effects that they dislike will simply disappear But that's not the case. At the end of the day, economics is a study on how humans interact with each other. And you're never going to change an economic outcome without changing the humans who produce that outcome.

#94 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-22 09:26 AM | Reply

Just like in life, trump was handed a golden situation and thinks that means he's awesome.

Obama was handed a crappy situation and made the best of it.

#75 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

ittle o said more than once that that is what the economy was going to be and wh should get use to it. He also said the manufacturing jobs were leaving the US forever.

#95 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-03-22 09:38 AM | Reply

And you're never going to change an economic outcome without changing the humans who produce that outcome.
#94 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

True, which is why greedy folks like you shouldn't be in charge.
Nowhere have I ever suggested a "Magic wand", that would be the Capitalists who tout magic like less regulation and lower taxes will move us all into Utopia.

#96 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-03-22 09:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Child labor is a direct result of treating humans like commodities and machinery.
Ending child labor is a direct result of a Liberal activist Government.

#97 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-03-22 09:47 AM | Reply

"True, which is why greedy folks like you shouldn't be in charge."

I'm not in charge. And even if I was, I'm only one person. The effect I would have on an economic outcome is likely no different than if you were in charge, because that outcome would still be determined collectively by society through their own voluntary interactions. The only way that changes is through the use of force to alter that behavior. But that's difficult as well...even if it's done at the end of a barrel of a gun.

"Nowhere have I ever suggested a "Magic wand", that would be the Capitalists who tout magic like less regulation and lower taxes will move us all into Utopia."

And that is different how from the progressives who tout tax increases as the way ahead to utopia? Usually framed around a few key buzzwords like Workers, middle class, poor, social justice...whatever.

#98 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-22 10:21 AM | Reply

"Child labor is a direct result of treating humans like commodities and machinery."

Or it's a means of giving that child a chance at survival. If the options are for a child to use his or her labor working at a factory, or use that labor for non-wage activities as a means to survive, which do you think would provide the better outcome.

This is your idealism speaking. And if you're going to prohibit that child from working, you goddamn well better be willing to support him or her yourself.

Emotion. This is EXACTLY why people like you shouldn't be put in charge. If your mental state resembles that of my teenage daughter, you have no business running other people's lives.

#99 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-03-22 10:24 AM | Reply

There are only a few absolutes in this world. Death is one. Another is that if a politician makes any economic changes, there will be articles saying how great it is and there will be articles about how terrible it is...and they will be written contextually by party. And they will all have a bunch of facts supporting their stance. And the economy will chug along doing whatever it's going to do regardless of what economic change a President makes.

#100 | Posted by humtake at 2019-03-22 12:28 PM | Reply

#100 | Posted by humtake

Your post assumes there is no way to objectively analyze reality.

Hint-there is.

Your "both parties are the same" argument is garbage.

#101 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-22 12:43 PM | Reply

--Your post assumes there is no way to objectively analyze reality.

Hint-there is."

Save it for the biology lab, idiot.

#102 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-22 12:48 PM | Reply

"And the economy will chug along doing whatever it's going to do regardless of what economic change a President makes."

That is utter nonsense. Obama inherited a collapsing economy but was able to revive it. FDR did the same thing. Bush slashed taxes and started two wars and that caused the worst economic collapse since 1929.

"This is your idealism speaking. And if you're going to prohibit that child from working, you goddamn well better be willing to support him or her yourself."

Bull crap. I can and do expect our government to insure that child is taken care of. You can move to Somalia if you want your Libertarian paradise.

#103 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-22 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

that would be the Capitalists who tout magic like less regulation and lower taxes will move us all into Utopia.

#96 | Posted by TFDNihilist

Only because people like Madbomber still believe it will lead to anything other than short term stock market gains fueled by money extraction from the bottom to the top.

Yet despite all his econ classes, he seems entirely unaware that losing customers means losing business. But then again, he seems to be happily indoctrinated with his right wing economic fantasies of supply side economics and libertarian political ideals.

#104 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-22 12:49 PM | Reply

Save it for the biology lab, idiot.

#102 | Posted by nullifidian

What, no Lenin or Trotsky reference? You're slipping old man.

You're just pissed it's true and that that analysis shows your world view to be complete garbage.

#105 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-22 12:50 PM | Reply

MB, I'm over 50 and quite aware of how the world works. No where will you find me saying I expect my ideas to go mainstream in America. Folks here are way to selfish and greedy and short term.

#106 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-03-22 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And if you're going to prohibit that child from working, you goddamn well better be willing to support him or her yourself."

That sounds like something you struggle with, not us.

I don't oppose progams like S-CHIP and public schools.

I'm not a libertarian or voluntaryist or whatever you try to pawn yourself off as.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-22 01:37 PM | Reply

"A lot of progressives think they can wave a magic wand, and the economic effects that they dislike will simply disappear"

Whereas Capitalists sincerely believe in the "Invisible Hand."

#108 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-22 01:40 PM | Reply

"You can't have a discussion on economics with a person who wants to ignore the economics of it."

I think you're getting ahead of yourself.

Should people serve the economy, or should the economy serve people?

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-22 01:41 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort