President Trump

[sunmaster14]

Whether it trickles down from rich people or trickles down from the government, the money still circulates, right? What's the difference between Bill Gates spending it and the government spending it?

Scenario A: Cut taxes on the rich, and they spend that money.
Scenario B: Raise taxes on the rich, give it to the poor, and they spend the money.

I know there's an argument that Bill will somehow spend that money better, whereas if the government takes it, it will disappear into a black hole. I'm not seeing it though. And while I'm thinking of it, you know how people fret about rising health-care costs? That money is also being circulated throughout the health-care system, creating jobs directly, or helping doctors buy vacation homes, etc. Some of it is trapped by the insurance companies, which are tasked with denying care in order to keep themselves profitable.

Sorry, this is an economics rant. [/derail]

The far more important difference between the two scenarios is that because income taxes distort the market for labor and investment, such distortions (which discourage efficient economic choices and encourage inefficient ones) are mitigated under Scenario A and exacerbated under Scenario B.

For example, if you raise marginal income tax rates, productive people will work less. Similarly, if you give unproductive people more money for doing no work, they will be less incentivized to become productive. For taxes on investment income (e.g. capital gains and interest), the higher the rates, the more inefficient investment decisions will become because investors will focus on after-tax return rather than maximizing returns pre-tax (which would reflect real economics generally).

I'll note also that your two scenarios are cash neutral. In Scenario A, the government is increasing the net financial assets of the private sector. In Scenario B, the government is leaving net financial assets unchanged. Scenario A therefore is far more stimulative than Scenario B. To make the scenarios comparable, you probably want the government to reduce spending in Scenario A to leave the tax cuts budget neutral.

 

[sunmaster14]

We're back to bad picks for the cabinet. Betsy DeVos to be secretary of education.

Good news from my point of view. Trump's decisions so far have really shown how egregiously wrong the never-Trumpers were. Trump's appointments so far are a conservative's wet dream.

Looks like the donor class isn't going anywhere despite campaign promises.

An odd statement. The teachers unions aren't part of the donor class. If anything, the advocates for charter schools are like David versus the unions' Goliath.

 

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>

.... a conservative's wet dream.

 

[SezMe]

Still childish.

Trump will get my respect when (if) he earns it. Until then, since it is well established that he has, in fact, engaged in various cons over the years, "Don the Con" seems a way to keep one of his major faults front and center.

 

[SezMe]

I thought calling our sitting President names was childish as well.

Maybe I'm just naive, but I expected a slightly elevated level of discourse on a forum devoted to skepticism and critical thinking.

For me, at least, this forum provides me with some comic relief. Not only are a lot of posters here quite well informed and very good writers, they can be damned funny. I like that. Humor and elevated discourse are not mutually exclusive.

In addition, this forum gives me a chance to let go a little bit in a way not appropriate IRL. Trumps' election has the potential to do serious damage to the USA and, in fact, around the world. IRL I'll do all I can to be politically active in order to rein in Trump's worst impulses. To do that in an effective manner, I will abstain from things like "Don the Con". Here, among friends including you, I get to let off a little steam. If that's childish, so be it. Indulge me, OK.

 

[SezMe]

Presumably to successfully impeach someone you need to request an impeachment and then get sufficient support for it. Given that House and Senate are safely Republican, would the Democratic Party be able to do this, or even get the ball rolling ?

Don't forget two things:

1. There are a substantial number of Republicans who think Trump is a disaster and would be quite happy to exploit any opportunity to bring him down.
2. Trump's unfavorable rating is very high. His support might be a mile wide but it is also skin deep. I don't think it would take much to turn the political class against him, especially if those who voted not for him but against Clinton realize what a mess he is.

 

[The Don]

Don't forget two things:

1. There are a substantial number of Republicans who think Trump is a disaster and would be quite happy to exploit any opportunity to bring him down

.

Maybe there are (although the vast majority of those who were so opposed to Trump fell in lock-step during the campaign - kudos to the Bush family for largely sticking to their principles) but a successful Presidential impeachment would also be very damaging to the GOP even if they are key to it.

IMO today's GOP wouldn't do it no matter how bad a Trump Presidency may be or how bad the conflicts of interest are, instead they would try to manage the narrative and make it about Hillary's emails, Benghazi, Obamacare or some other distraction which is "more important to sort out" than getting Trump impeached.

• Trump's unfavorable rating is very high. His support might be a mile wide but it is also skin deep. I don't think it would take much to turn the political class against him, especially if those who voted not for him but against Clinton realize what a mess he is.

You may very well be right but I'm not sure what GOP Senate or House candidates have to gain from a Trump impeachment.

 

[Stacko]

A conservatives wet dream is a kakistocracy!? That makes so much sense after the Republicans shenanigans for the last eight years.

 

[SezMe]

Scenario A: Cut taxes on the rich, and they spend that money.
Scenario B: Raise taxes on the rich, give it to the poor, and they spend the money.

There's a serious error in both scenarios. In A, it is incorrect to assume that a rich person will actually spend an incremental boost to his/her income. As an extreme example, giving Gates a $1 mil tax break won't make a damn bit of difference in his spending habits. Even in a consumer society there's only so much that one can spend.

In B, the argument is not to "give" money to the poor but to generate jobs so they can earn more. And if one is poor and has a lot of built up needs to fill they will most likely spend their extra income to meet those delayed needs.

 

[SezMe]

A note to you all: Inauguration is 20 January 2017. He ain't POTUS yet. Unbunch your panties.

But he is picking his team now and who he picks matters a great deal. If, for example, one thinks Sessions is entirely unqualified for his position, why wait until inaugural day to express your view?

 

[SezMe]

For example, if you raise marginal income tax rates, productive people will work less.

No kidding. When the marginal rate was 91% nobody - I mean, NOBODY - worked at all.

 

[The Don]

But he is picking his team now and who he picks matters a great deal. If, for example, one thinks Sessions is entirely unqualified for his position, why wait until inaugural day to express your view?

I suppose the answer is that some people think that the PEOTUS from their party should be exempt from any criticism because (s)he hasn't done anything yet and indeed any criticism while they are POTUS:

• Should wait several years - after all any problem are the last guy's fault
• Must be directly attributable to their actions and unambiguously bad
• Must be favourably compared to how bad the last guy was
• ....and so on

Even if it's demonstrated that Trump is failing to discharge his duties as President because of time and effort spent running his business and it's pretty clearly that he's abusing his position as President to advance his business interests it'll be unfair and partisan to complain because of *reasons*

 

[The Don]

No kidding. When the marginal rate was 91% nobody - I mean, NOBODY - worked at all.

Yeah and that was back in the 1950's which, IIRC, was notable as a decade in which the U.S. economy was notably and famously moribund

 

[Belz...]

I didn't realize that you are a theist. WTF?

What can I say? The spice must flow.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump's been fighting the wind farms regarding that golf course for two or three years. His being the Pres Elect has Fork All to do with it. It's been covered in golf magazines for a few years, FFS.

You don't think there is a conflict if interest when the President Elect is trying to persuade a foreign government to change its energy policy for his personal gain?

 

[Solitaire]

What's the difference between Bill Gates spending it and the government spending it?

This just in.

Dalai Lama Has 'No Worries' About President-Elect Donald Trump by Ben Westcott

Exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama will visit United States
President-elect Donald Trump after his inauguration, he told reporters
on Wednesday. Talking at the conclusion of a four-day visit to Mongolia,
the Dalai Lama said he looked forward to meeting Trump, adding he wasn't
worried about harsh rhetoric used during the campaign.

"Sometimes I feel during the election, the candidate has more freedom
to express," he said, adding that once in power all Presidents were forced
to work with "reality." "So I have no worries," he said. Speaking to reporters
in Ulaanbaatar, the Dalai Lama said he considered the United States a leading
nation in the "free world."

Why do I get the feeling that "reality" is about to have an extended vacation.

 

[Craig B]

You don't think there is a conflict if interest when the President Elect is trying to persuade a foreign government to change its energy policy for his personal gain?

And throw homeowners off their land to increase this personal gain?

In August 2011, contractors hired by Trump fenced off a piece of land belonging to Forbes despite Forbes having the title deeds.

The Trump Organization at one point threatened to try to use a compulsory purchase order to forcibly remove him and his family from their land. Trump claimed that Forbes' property was a slum that would spoil the view from his new hotel. Forbes retorted that Trump can "take his money and shove it up his arse."The Tripping Up Trump Campaign have banded together to challenge the Trump organization on this issue. Hundreds of people bought small interests in Forbes' property and became co-owners, with the intention of making it hard to transfer title.​

 

[Mader Levap]

A note to you all: Inauguration is 20 January 2017. He ain't POTUS yet. Unbunch your panties.

Are you suggesting that 20 jan 2017 he will magically change into completely different person? That it won't be more of same that we can already see?

"He ain't POTUS yet" is just different form of "wait and see (maybe this time those will actually be showers)" BS. No one is falling for that.

Well at least most of those flip-flops were for the better.

These "flip-flops for better" would have any meaning only if Trump's credibility was not exactly zero. He will flip back soon enough on most of those issues.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

It's probably more complicated than building casinos and hotels.

I think you summed it up nicely!

 

[NoahFence]

Good news from my point of view. Trump's decisions so far have really shown how egregiously wrong the never-Trumpers were. Trump's appointments so far are a conservative's wet dream.

In a truly stunning turn of events, you try to put lipstick on a pig.
She's got zero experience. Much like everybody else in his cabinet.