Support NeoGAF

[pramod]

Just buy money to make money and you won't be poor it's so simple! Oh wait, except 80% of stocks are held by the wealthiest 10%. Because the average joe has a lot of money to throw into stocks right?

I'm pretty sure that most average people could have enough money to buy stocks (or just to invest for retirement) if they're not wasting it on smartphones, $300 cell phone bills, streaming subscriptions, video games, toys, 4K HDTVs, Vegas trips, monthly payments on a car they can't afford, etc etc etc

 

[Bl@de]

Just buy money to make money and you won’t be poor it’s so simple! Oh wait, except 80% of stocks are held by the wealthiest 10%. Because the average joe has a lot of money to throw into stocks right?

I‘m sure „average joe“ has enough money to save and invest in stocks. You always start small. But „average joe“ also loves to spend his money for iPhones, 4K TVs and expensive vacations...

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I‘m sure „average joe“ has enough money to save and invest in stocks. You always start small. But „average joe“ also loves to spend his money for iPhones, 4K TVs and expensive vacations...

Don't forget about the women and booze.

It's amazing how Republicans can so easily turn people against each other. They're not even that slick.

 

[pramod]

Where did I lie?

They'll dress it up as 'job creation' or some such bullshit, but it's about the rich getting richer while we all get fucked. They pull the wool over your eyes by saving you a few hundred bucks on your federal taxes so you don't get too upset about what's really happening.

The reality is the wealth gap is widening. The 1% is hoarding more, and Republicans are making this crisis worse. This tax bill is just a part of the overall cuts to spending on programs that benefit the lower and middle classes and will exacerbate the already incredible wealth gap. We're going the exact wrong direction, and this tax bill exemplifies that. It's not that Republicans aren't listening- they know. They know what they're doing. Is it possible to buy stock in Dollar Tree and Dollar General stores?

Unemployment is at 4%. Consumer confidence is at all time highs. Whether the wealth gap is getting bigger or not, under Trump things seem to be getting better for average people not worse. Or is it simply the fact that rich people are getting richer that bothers you? Is it just class envy?

BTW if you want to blame someone for the huge wealth gap, how about Obama who kept the interest rate at 0% for 8 years to create the stock market boom that helped mostly rich people as you claim?

 

[Amibguous Cad]

-Goosing aggregate demand while near full employment doesn't lead to any increased economic growth, but to higher inflation.

-1.5 trillion (I'm not sure where you're getting your lower figures) is huge. That's roughly as much as the stimulus and bank bailouts put together. Driving us so far deep into the red basically means we have zero margin for error and won't have any wiggle room in the public treasure if a 9/11 or Great Recession style crisis comes about

and not in your post, but the biggest thing of all: the individual mandate is gone. 15 million people lose health insurance to start with. Those are the healthy peop[e on the exchanges subsidizing the unhealthy ones. Once they're gone, premiums will skyrocket, more people won't be able to afford health insurance on the exchanges.

This effectively repeals Obamacare's protection for people with pre-existing conditions. In fact, it basically repeals Obamacare, and 20+ million people are not going to have insurance. Hope you never get sick LaughingStock.

 

[frankthurk]

Unemployment is at 4%. Consumer confidence is at all time highs. Whether the wealth gap is getting bigger or not, under Trump things seem to be getting better for average people not worse. Or is it simply the fact that rich people are getting richer that bothers you? Is it just class envy?

BTW if you want to blame someone for the huge wealth gap, how about Obama who kept the interest rate at 0% for 8 years to create the stock market boom that helped mostly rich people as you claim?

The president doesn't determine the interest rate.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Unemployment is at 4%. Consumer confidence is at all time highs. Whether the wealth gap is getting bigger or not, under Trump things seem to be getting better for average people not worse. Or is it simply the fact that rich people are getting richer that bothers you? Is it just class envy?

BTW if you want to blame someone for the huge wealth gap, how about Obama who kept the interest rate at 0% for 8 years to create the stock market boom that helped mostly rich people as you claim?

Who do you trust? Simple question- where do you go for economic analysis that you trust?

What I mean by that is, there are no economists that are sure that this tax bill would even boost the economy at all. The general consensus is that it will not. Every economist is sure that the wealth gap is a crisis, including the economist that just won the Nobel Prize.
Why and how the wealth gap is a crisis is information easily obtained with a bare minimum of research, not to mention common sense.

Class envy... that's weak

 

[HStallion]

Unemployment is at 4%. Consumer confidence is at all time highs. Whether the wealth gap is getting bigger or not, under Trump things seem to be getting better for average people not worse. Or is it simply the fact that rich people are getting richer that bothers you? Is it just class envy?

BTW if you want to blame someone for the huge wealth gap, how about Obama who kept the interest rate at 0% for 8 years to create the stock market boom that helped mostly rich people as you claim?

So you both want to thank Obama as well as blame him for the economy?

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Not really.

The tax bill harms the poor in some ways, but keep in mind that net roughly 50% of the tax benefits will go to people making under 200k and that number shrinks to 31% around 2027 according to the Tax Policy Center. That's not a bad deal and poor people can do their part in elections between now and 2027 if they don't want their tax relief to shrink. I don't think those concerns are enough to torpedo the bill without a good alternative.

What in the world are you talking about?

200k in income is ~97th percentile. Top 3 percent. You're saying that at first 50% of the tax benefits go to the top 3%. By 2027, 69% of the benefit goes towards the top 3% of the country.

If you think this is a good deal, your negotiating skills are as poor as your avatar's.

 

[MC Safety]

Seems the GOP forgot about this fact considering how much debt their tax bill would add.

There's a history of forgetfulness on this matter.

As for your assumption, you might be right. The economists might be right, too.

 

[Datalore]

Edit

 

[jellies_two]

The reasons to scream blue murder are:

1, the bill is stuffed with special interest chunks written by lobbyists who donated the most
2. The bill is Too complex to jam through in a tiny time period
3. The republicans spent 8 years bashing the dems for a dollar over the deficit and the national debt. Now that’s all forgotten.
4. The bill is a two part plan: (a) cut revenue and gift it to the richest and then when it’s safely installed (b) cut medical and other gov programs because yes you guessed it OMG the deficit!

So it’s dishonest, rife with special interest, no economist supports it or has time to really anlyze it, and it’s a cynical way to cut benefit programs in - as yet hidden - part 2.

Lastly there is this small matter of the president and his cabinet possibly selling out the country to their own pockets and if he has committed a crime why would anyone ram a tax bill through that wasn’t first inspected to make sure it wasn’t all about his own benefit?

 

[DasPenguin]

To OP: nobody has any idea how the economy will do under the Trump administration. The influence and decisions made by the president will be felt over several years.

Now if you look after 1980, why is it that the democrat presidents always start their term in a financial hole, and then eight years later a republican president comes waltzing in and promising tax breaks. How many of these tax breaks for the so called job creators have actually done that and have helped the economy? I don’t think you will like the answer to that question.

 

[natjjohn]

To OP: nobody has any idea how the economy will do under the Trump administration. The influence and decisions made by the president will be felt over several years.

Now if you look after 1980, why is it that the democrat presidents always start their term in a financial hole, and then eight years later a republican president comes waltzing in and promising tax breaks. How many of these tax breaks for the so called job creators have actually done that and have helped the economy? I don’t think you will like the answer to that question.

It’s a broken record at this point. Same thing over and over but the results of such seem to be missed by a large portion of the US population.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Here's what OP is getting at, we kind of went on a tangent discussing the merits of the bill, which there are none:

Democrats lose on the messaging again here. When Republicans talk about deficit spending, they are bullshitting you. They don't really care about the debt. They say they do, but what they really want is to cut taxes for the rich and then force cuts to programs and benefits that go to lower and middle class families. They want to stick it to Democrats and Americans in blue states. Don't take my word for it, sometimes a Republican speaks plainly:

“It’s death to Democrats,” conservative economist Stephen Moore told Bloomberg on Tuesday.

“They go after state and local taxes, which weakens public employee unions. They go after university endowments, and universities have become play pens of the left. And getting rid of the mandate is to eventually dismantle Obamacare,” Moore said, explaining excitedly that scrapping the requirement that most people obtain coverage will hasten a “death spiral” in the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces.

https://www.vanityfair.com/newslett...lan-is-an-elaborate-middle-finger-to-liberals

This tax bill is entirely about fucking over the lower and middle class.

So the Republicans get their tax cuts and the national debt goes up, since they are borrowing to pay for these tax cuts. Then a Democrat replaces the Republican in the WH and talk about how responsible they are compared to the Republicans. Democrats, instead of borrowing money like the Republicans do to enact their agenda, try to sell the country on taxing the wealthy more to pay for it. Republicans then go on about hurting 'job creators'. Dupes then eat that messaging up. Rinse, repeat.

Democrats simply need to deficit spend like Republicans do. They shouldn't be making the case for the rich to pay their fair share. It doesn't sell. They should just do what Republicans do.

 

[DryvBy]

Exactly how did Obama help the poor or middle class? Under him, I was put into a new bracket and forced to pay more taxes. My taxes steadily went up and then I saw "deals" being handed to other countries. I welcome any kind of tax change because I'm tired of paying tons of taxes.

Some of you are talking about "financial experts" as if they're word is gold these days. Be picky who you trust. If I recall, the economy would be collapsed under Trump within the first ~10 months. The opposite has happened.

 

[HStallion]

Exactly how did Obama help the poor or middle class? Under him, I was put into a new bracket and forced to pay more taxes. My taxes steadily went up and then I saw "deals" being handed to other countries. I welcome any kind of tax change because I'm tired of paying tons of taxes.

Some of you are talking about "financial experts" as if they're word is gold these days. Be picky who you trust. If I recall, the economy would be collapsed under Trump within the first ~10 months. The opposite has happened.

The economy is doing so well under Trump because of Obama. I love how people think that Trump or any other President is going to have a massive effect on the economy in less than a year. They are always riding the waves created by their predecessor in the beginning of their presidential terms for good or for worse much the same as Obama was left dealing with the fallout from Bush's administration.

 

[HStallion]

Oh hey look, this Tax Bill isn't even liked by coal companies


CEO says late changes to Senate tax-cut bill 'wipes out' what Trump has done for coal

The CEO of one of the nation's largest coal companies ripped the Senate tax bill, said late changes to the Senate tax cut bill would "wipe out" coal mining jobs.

Robert Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy, said Tuesday that the tax hike on coal mining firms that would result from the changes would cancel out progress that President Trump has made on reviving the coal industry, according to CNN.

"We won't have enough cash flow to exist," Murray told CNNMoney. "This wipes out everything that President Trump has done for coal."

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Exactly how did Obama help the poor or middle class? Under him, I was put into a new bracket and forced to pay more taxes. My taxes steadily went up and then I saw "deals" being handed to other countries. I welcome any kind of tax change because I'm tired of paying tons of taxes.

Some of you are talking about "financial experts" as if they're word is gold these days. Be picky who you trust. If I recall, the economy would be collapsed under Trump within the first ~10 months. The opposite has happened.

You just discredited 'experts' and you are advising others on who to trust?

If you need to be educated on how Obama's policies helped the poor and middle class, then research it. You could start by researching the achievements of the 111th Congress.

Not to mention that you aren't paying 'tons of taxes'. The US ranks near the bottom comparatively.

 

[DryvBy]

The economy is doing so well under Trump because of Obama. I love how people think that Trump or any other President is going to have a massive effect on the economy in less than a year. They are always riding the waves created by their predecessor in the beginning of their presidential terms for good or for worse much the same as Obama was left dealing with the fallout from Bush's administration.

Only in some cases and instances is that true. But you think it took 8 years for Bush's problems to clear out and once Trump came in office it resolved itself thanks to Obama? The jobs that were created after meeting with the current administration were not due to Obama. The stock market is based on predictions and what's going on currently. It's been steadily going up one Trump was in office.

Again -- according to financial experts, the market would die before the first year under Trump. If you're saying that the previous administration only effects the current economy, then Obama's bad choices would have caused this collapse and not Trump.

 

[HStallion]

Only in some cases and instances is that true. But you think it took 8 years for Bush's problems to clear out and once Trump came in office it resolved itself thanks to Obama? The jobs that were created after meeting with the current administration were not due to Obama. The stock market is based on predictions and what's going on currently. It's been steadily going up one Trump was in office.

Again -- according to financial experts, the market would die before the first year under Trump. If you're saying that the previous administration only effects the current economy, then Obama's bad choices would have caused this collapse and not Trump.

Uhh yes? Bush came into office riding off what Bill Clinton's administration had done. He then tanked the economy among other things over his 8 years which Obama then had to deal with. That's what he did during his 8 years, adjust what Bush had done and now Trump is benefiting from what Obama did.

 

[Resident_UA]

Holy shit this place became a cesspool of idiocy. Just Google "Republicans Government and Deficit" and the SAME people who passed the Trump tax cut will EXPLAIN to you why deficit is bad. Americans really have a memory of goldfish.

Now, you can talk about liberals being up in arms about it while they were OK with previous deficits and I would tend to agree, except I don't see much deficit talk from liberals. It seems like you finding it somewhere else.

 

[sans_pants]

Only in some cases and instances is that true. But you think it took 8 years for Bush's problems to clear out and once Trump came in office it resolved itself thanks to Obama? The jobs that were created after meeting with the current administration were not due to Obama. The stock market is based on predictions and what's going on currently. It's been steadily going up one Trump was in office.

Again -- according to financial experts, the market would die before the first year under Trump. If you're saying that the previous administration only effects the current economy, then Obama's bad choices would have caused this collapse and not Trump.

you don't think we are headed for a bad crash? (hint: we are)

i dunno what experts you are talking about though. not sure what you are talking about at all really. obama economy was bad, but it suddenly got good when trump got in office? think about that logically for a bit. maybe look at some charts of the stock market steadily climbing under obama and then still steadily climbing after

 

[sans_pants]

Holy shit this place became a cesspool of idiocy. Just Google "Republicans Government and Deficit" and the SAME people who passed the Trump tax cut will EXPLAIN to you why deficit is bad. Americans really have a memory of goldfish.

Now, you can talk about liberals being up in arms about it while they were OK with previous deficits and I would tend to agree, except I don't see much deficit talk from liberals. It seems like you finding it somewhere else.

its really not very smart to grow the deficit like this when you don't need to, but the deficit has always been some useless number to argue over anyway

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Only in some cases and instances is that true. But you think it took 8 years for Bush's problems to clear out and once Trump came in office it resolved itself thanks to Obama? The jobs that were created after meeting with the current administration were not due to Obama. The stock market is based on predictions and what's going on currently. It's been steadily going up one Trump was in office.

Again -- according to financial experts, the market would die before the first year under Trump. If you're saying that the previous administration only effects the current economy, then Obama's bad choices would have caused this collapse and not Trump.

In the first year? Who? Could you provide a source?

I think you got it wrong, some economists predict a crash due to Trump's instability and potential to undo oversight and regulations in the financial sector. They certainly didn't predict that would happen in the first year. Nobody that I'm aware of.

 

[BANGS]

According to what they are saying, I'll be saving a good chunk of money in taxes because of this bill. I'll have my accountant confirm in February, but this looks like good news! If not, oh well, big fucking surprise. Big government stealing more of my money as usual...

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Only in some cases and instances is that true. But you think it took 8 years for Bush's problems to clear out and once Trump came in office it resolved itself thanks to Obama? The jobs that were created after meeting with the current administration were not due to Obama. The stock market is based on predictions and what's going on currently. It's been steadily going up one Trump was in office.

Again -- according to financial experts, the market would die before the first year under Trump. If you're saying that the previous administration only effects the current economy, then Obama's bad choices would have caused this collapse and not Trump.

Obamas administration did a lot to stop the bleeding during the height of the financial disaster. Things were looking terrible at the end of Bushs reign compared to Clinton- The wars are a big part of the blame for that. Consider how much they've cost. The ones who got rich were defense contractors. Not the people.

Obama gained a lot by default of trying to pull out, and stop the bleeding of the financial crisis. Which I'd see they did a good job in some areas. Appointing heads of predatory financial banks, hedge funds and investment firms in his economic cabinet was such a bad look, that many people broke right then and there- and embraced conspiracy theory. In hindsight, that was one of his big mistakes. It was a total betrayal. The people needed some of these people to take the fall, and the lack of justice just created a sense that the government was in on the corruption.
Obamas administration underestimated how much damage it did to peoples faith that he would still associaste with them. Based on Senator Obamas rhetoric you expected the CEOs of the major banks to lay in the guillotine.

Secondly, the jobs created by the recession have been terrible. But is that the fault of Obama or because this was the worst recession since the roaring 20s?



When the stock market responds favorable to Trump, it's because he is a corporate dream at the expense of people; No regulations, all cylinders on commerce with little oversight- Obviously it makes them more optimistic and darring in their trading- But it doesn't take a genius to realize that the party is going to end. And once the humane problems start showing, you can see investors being a lot more worried.
I wouldn't gauge the short term optimism of the market as an indicator of the long term prospects of the economy. There is a echo that will take years to show itself in practicality. Time will tell how Trumps anti-global warming stance will pay up as China and others secure new promising sectors while reducing their energy cost. Time will tell how the country will be affected when millions of peoples lives are hanging in the balance because they have no health care. It sounds like a unmitigated and careless disaster to me.

 

[Blood Borne]

That's because it's an involuntary reaction by leftists to any non leftists policy.

Higher tax rates does not mean higher tax revenues. Ronald Reagan lowered the tax rate and the government received more tax revenues than any other time in US history.

Leftists are too dumb to realise that big corporations love higher tax rates because they're not affected by it, they can afford to use tax havens and other inventive way of not paying high taxes. Small businesses don't have such resources and suffer the most.

Leftists unhealthy disdain for rich people and big corporation make them myopic.

 

[Night Angel]

Blood Borne managed to completely avoid realizing that republicans have already accepted a giant deficit as a result of this plan.

Maybe his hatred of leftists has made him myopic.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

What in the world are you talking about?

200k in income is ~97th percentile. Top 3 percent. You're saying that at first 50% of the tax benefits go to the top 3%. By 2027, 69% of the benefit goes towards the top 3% of the country.

If you think this is a good deal, your negotiating skills are as poor as your avatar's.

This is actually one hell of a deal. If poor folks want to raise taxes on the rich instead of themselves by the time 2027 rolls around, then they should vote to make that happen.

The foundation found that, under the Senate plan, the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers would initially keep 1.1 to 1.9 percent more of their income. America's wealthiest – the one-percenters – would initially keep about 7.5 percent more of their money because of cuts to the corporate tax rate, as well as the income tax rate.

By 2027, things change for the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers. The foundation estimates they'll keep just 0.3 to 0.4 percent more. The top 1 percent, however, would keep 4.5 percent more compared to today's rates.

The TPC has a similar analysis. The center says that in 2019, the Senate plan would cut taxes by an average of $900 for taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $87,000 a year. The average tax cut for the top 1 percent would be $34,000.

The House bill similarly phases-out deductions for lower-income Americans, said Joe Rosenberg, senior research associate for the TPC. In the House bill, for example, "there's a $300 child and family credit that expires after five years at the end of 2022. That would be for a family of four, that would be a $1,200 tax credit," Rosenberg said.

By 2027, the analysis says those middle-income taxpayers would get cuts of less than 0.1 percent while the average "one-percenters" would still enjoy taxes that are 1.4 percent lower than they are right now.