Trump, U.S. Congress leaders reach deal on debt limit, spending caps

[Srikcir]

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The so called "Great Recession" was merely a marketing term.

No, it's REAL history.

• The Great Recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, which makes it the longest recession since World War II. Beyond its duration, the Great Recession was notably severe in several respects. Real gross domestic product (GDP) fell 4.3 percent from its peak in 2007Q4 to its trough in 2009Q2, the largest decline in the postwar era (based on data as of October 2013). The unemployment rate, which was 5 percent in December 2007, rose to 9.5 percent in June 2009, and peaked at 10 percent in October 2009.
• Home prices fell approximately 30 percent, on average, from their mid-2006 peak to mid-2009, while the S&P 500 index fell 57 percent from its October 2007 peak to its trough in March 2009. The net worth of US households and nonprofit organizations fell from a peak of approximately $69 trillion in 2007 to a trough of $55 trillion in 2009.

The Great Recession by Robert Rich, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_recession_of_200709

[Thainesss]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well if you believe what Democrats believed going all the way back to Roosevelt, then you would be supporting much higher higher taxes on the wealthy, not complaining about it. Those Democrats believed in a strongly progressive income tax.

 

And your complaints about Obama adding 8.5 trillion to the national debt are also ludicrous. It was Roosevelt who first applied Keynesian principles and ran up a big debt. Like Obama he was faced with an economic catastrophe.

 

Yours is just more concern trolling You pretend to have once been a Democrat, to make your comments more believable. But given your stance on these issues, your claim is clearly false. 

 

Who died and make you the Democrat party gatekeeper? 

 

You wouldn't know what a Democrat was if it bit you in the ass. Its clear to me, and everyone else on this forum that between your UK education and your confirmation bias, you just recently discovered American politics and its inner-workings. 

Tax rates were almost nothing federally until the great DEPRESSION (not the recession) and only skyrocketed after that to fuel the fight against the ACTUAL Nazis during WWII much to the overwhelming majority of the country - NOT to support socialism or communism, like you advocate for today. 

 

Sit. Down. You don't know that you're talking about. 

[lannarebirth]

19 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

No, it's REAL history.

• The Great Recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, which makes it the longest recession since World War II. Beyond its duration, the Great Recession was notably severe in several respects. Real gross domestic product (GDP) fell 4.3 percent from its peak in 2007Q4 to its trough in 2009Q2, the largest decline in the postwar era (based on data as of October 2013). The unemployment rate, which was 5 percent in December 2007, rose to 9.5 percent in June 2009, and peaked at 10 percent in October 2009.
• Home prices fell approximately 30 percent, on average, from their mid-2006 peak to mid-2009, while the S&P 500 index fell 57 percent from its October 2007 peak to its trough in March 2009. The net worth of US households and nonprofit organizations fell from a peak of approximately $69 trillion in 2007 to a trough of $55 trillion in 2009.

The Great Recession by Robert Rich, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_recession_of_200709

 

 

Right, but my point was that it didn't affect most Americans, which is true. It didn't affect me at all, except to make things that were well overpriced safe to buy. If you're going to talk about the Great Recession as an historical fact it would be honest to talk about the great stupidity and unlawfullness that preceded it. I hope some people learned their lessons, but I doubt it, since almost all of the unscrupulous benificiaries of that period went unpunished.

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

The so called "Great Recession" was merely a marketing term. While it's true that some people suffered through this period; most especially those who overpaid for homes or acceded to predatory lending life was m/l normal for the great majority of people. Not so during the Depression which changed peoples lives over generations, both for good and for ill.

The 10% speaks. 

As for the rest...

The Great Recession Is Still With Us

"All together, the effect was that the Great Recession hastened the economy toward rewarding better-educated workers and robots, to the detriment of people without an advanced degree.

These changes in the demand for work and the jobs available have caused income inequality to be worse now than it would have been otherwise. Indeed, the rich have rebounded completely from the recession in terms ofunemployment, earnings, and total job count—they did so quickly, in fact, and have flourished through much of the recovery."

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/great-recession-still-with-us/547268/

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The Atlantic Dot Com

 

Further proof that you're a historical amateur. 

 

PS:

 

31 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

Who died and make you the Democrat party gatekeeper? 

??

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The 10% speaks. 

As for the rest...

The Great Recession Is Still With Us

"All together, the effect was that the Great Recession hastened the economy toward rewarding better-educated workers and robots, to the detriment of people without an advanced degree.

These changes in the demand for work and the jobs available have caused income inequality to be worse now than it would have been otherwise. Indeed, the rich have rebounded completely from the recession in terms ofunemployment, earnings, and total job count—they did so quickly, in fact, and have flourished through much of the recovery."

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/great-recession-still-with-us/547268/

 

I'm not sure why you still can't find a job. There's a HELP WANTED sign in practically every business in America. If all you can find is minimum wage we will subsidize both you and your employer.

[bristolboy]

 

25 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'm not sure why you still can't find a job. There's a HELP WANTED sign in practically every business in America. If all you can find is minimum wage we will subsidize both you and your employer.

What an asinine and irrelevant thing to say.  I guess when you've got nothing try to make it personal. And well paying jobs are abundant in America?

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

What an asinine and irrelevant thing to say.  I guess when you've got nothing try to make it personal. And well paying jobs are abundant in America?

Well paying jobs seem to be abundant in those fields that seek to make other people jobless in the future. Still there's plenty of other jobs at point of sale. You know, like Europe, where they have 60 year old busboys. Unfortunately America doesn't have all the other "socialist" programs that allow someone to work at a job like that and still survive for long.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

Who died and make you the Democrat party gatekeeper? 

 

You wouldn't know what a Democrat was if it bit you in the ass. Its clear to me, and everyone else on this forum that between your UK education and your confirmation bias, you just recently discovered American politics and its inner-workings. 

Tax rates were almost nothing federally until the great DEPRESSION (not the recession) and only skyrocketed after that to fuel the fight against the ACTUAL Nazis during WWII much to the overwhelming majority of the country - NOT to support socialism or communism, like you advocate for today. 

 

Sit. Down. You don't know that you're talking about. 

I wouldn't know what makes a Democrat? I guess that puts me in the company of most Democrats then. For example: Majorities of Democrats favor raising taxes on those making over $250,000 (56 percent), $1 million (81 percent), and $10 million (85 percent).
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-taxing-the-wealthy-increasing-domestic-spending
And what even funnier, as far as taxes go, it even puts me in the company of a majority of Republicans in one case and a plurality in another:
"A majority of 59 percent opposes tax hikes on incomes over $250,000, while a 54 percent majority favors increases on incomes over $10 million.  For incomes over $1 million, GOP views split:  47 favor vs. 43 oppose."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-taxing-the-wealthy-increasing-domestic-spending
Are those Republicans also supporters of communism and socialism?

And Democrats overwhelmingly continues to support that rise in taxes. Kennedy cut the top tax rate from 91% to 70% and others by 20% across the board. And that's pretty much where it stayed until Ronald Reagan began slashing taxes on the richest.
And then Bush slashed them some more, and then Trump.

And you are clearly ignorant of the fact that Democrats always strongly supported a progressive income tax. Which it isn't anymore. As Warren Buffet pointed out something's wrong when he's paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes than is his secretary?

 
And I noticed you completely avoided the question of deficit spending in the face of an economic crisis.  You know, Keynes and such. So who is it who doesn't know what he's talking about.
And there's a reason that moderators don't like it when you make allegations about other posters' nationalities. It says nothing about what those allegedly foreign posters know.. Same kind of mindset that tells people to go back where they came from. Not surprising coming from you. It is after all, what the ignorant commonly resort to when reasoning fails them.
 

 

 

 

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I wouldn't know what makes a Democrat? I guess that puts me in the company of most Democrats then. For example: Majorities of Democrats favor raising taxes on those making over $250,000 (56 percent), $1 million (81 percent), and $10 million (85 percent).
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-taxing-the-wealthy-increasing-domestic-spending
And what even funnier, as far as taxes go, it even puts me in the company of a majority of Republicans in one case and a plurality in another:
"A majority of 59 percent opposes tax hikes on incomes over $250,000, while a 54 percent majority favors increases on incomes over $10 million.  For incomes over $1 million, GOP views split:  47 favor vs. 43 oppose."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-taxing-the-wealthy-increasing-domestic-spending
Are those Republicans also supporters of communism and socialism?

And Democrats overwhelmingly continues to support that rise in taxes. Kennedy cut the top tax rate from 91% to 70% and others by 20% across the board. And that's pretty much where it stayed until Ronald Reagan began slashing taxes on the richest.
And then Bush slashed them some more, and then Trump.

And you are clearly ignorant of the fact that Democrats always strongly supported a progressive income tax. Which it isn't anymore. As Warren Buffet pointed out something's wrong when he's paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes than is his secretary?

 
And I noticed you completely avoided the question of deficit spending in the face of an economic crisis.  You know, Keynes and such. So who is it who doesn't know what he's talking about.
And there's a reason that moderators don't like it when you make allegations about other posters' nationalities. It says nothing about what those allegedly foreign posters know.. Same kind of mindset that tells people to go back where they came from. Not surprising coming from you. It is after all, what the ignorant commonly resort to when reasoning fails them.
 

 

 

 

 

Deficit spending in the face of an economic crisis only means something if the government is otherwise balancing the budget. It doesn't mean a GD thing if every single year, regardless of the condition of the economy it engages in deficit spending. Keynes is only relevant if you start from a balanced budget baseline, and if you do then sure, deficit spending in times of economic contraction makes a lot of sense. But if it's just deficits upon deficits all you're really doing is stealing from future demand. That's Econ. 101. Maybe 102 if you took Micro first.

[Thainesss]

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And there's a reason that moderators don't like it when you make allegations about other posters' nationalities. It says nothing about what those allegedly foreign posters know.. Same kind of mindset that tells people to go back where they came from.

????

 

????

 

"Go back"

 

????

[candide]

4 hours ago, Thainesss said:

dont agree with this spending deal, but the previous admin put, what, 8.5 trillion on the debt clock. Bush added a ton too but it was because of war which an OVERWHELMING majority supported, almost 80% of the population. 

 

21 hours ago, candide said:

That's how Trump 'buys' extra growth and finances the tax cuts. Before this deal, the debt increase forecast during his term (by his own administration) was around 5 trillion, compared to 3.5 trillion during Obama's last term. After that deal, it will be obviously more than 5 trillion.

 

Cut taxes and increase spending during a period of worldwide growth, I wonder what will still be possibly applied when the next crisis strikes.

Nice try!

Obama applied a sound budget policy: increase budget deficit to fight a crisis and then reduce budget deficit. During his last term the debt increase was 1.5 trillion less than during Trump's term.

 

During a period of worldwide growth, Trump has increased debt as much as (likely more than) Obama did during his first term in order to fight a crisis. Around 5 trillion.

[bristolboy]

40 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Well paying jobs seem to be abundant in those fields that seek to make other people jobless in the future. Still there's plenty of other jobs at point of sale. You know, like Europe, where they have 60 year old busboys. Unfortunately America doesn't have all the other "socialist" programs that allow someone to work at a job like that and still survive for long.

Yes, great jobs for the 10 percent. What's your point?

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, candide said:

 

Nice try!

Obama applied a sound budget policy: increase budget deficit to fight a crisis and then reduce budget deficit. During his last term the debt increase was 1.5 trillion less than Trump.

 

During a period of worldwide growth, Trump has increased debt as much as (likely more than) Obama did during his first term in order to fight a crisis. Around 5 trillion.

 

There are couple of things one can point to when considering the decline of America. One would be when they stopped calling us citizens in favor of calling us consumers. The other was when they tried to confuse people by saying the deficit was declining or the rate at which it was expanding was declining, instead of speaking about a non existant decrease (expansion) of the national debt. It's getting to be a pretty significant budget items these days, even with the historically low interest rates.

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yes, great jobs for the 10 percent. What's your point?

Well, that was my point.

[Becker]

40 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

????

 

????

 

"Go back"

 

????

Wow, what a brilliant rebuttal!

[RocketDog]

On 7/24/2019 at 9:37 AM, bristolboy said:

I well remember the predictions during the Great Recession the QE and deficit spending was going to bring on hyperinflation. Instead inflation remained at record lows.

The Universal Rule of Prosperty:

Produce more than you consume.

 

Even a dead car bounces a few times when you drop it.

 

Stay tuned. 

 

Read some economic history. The pattern and repetition is inescapable.

 

But ya know, opinions are like as*holes: everybody has one.

 

Personally, I put Plan B and Plan C in effect years ago, so I'm just a spectator now.

 

A train wreck is interesting to watch if you're not near the tracks or own the train.

[Ozman52]

Both parties agreed to keep spending more than they earned, simply because doing otherwise was unthinkable. It doesn't matter how much we owe because look how much wealth we have; much of that is based on how much somebody will pay for your house or the shares that you own. But the sad truth is that those values can change downwards very rapidly.

Keep building your house of cards and hope nobody slams a door.

[bristolboy]

On 7/24/2019 at 12:00 PM, lannarebirth said:

 

Deficit spending in the face of an economic crisis only means something if the government is otherwise balancing the budget. It doesn't mean a GD thing if every single year, regardless of the condition of the economy it engages in deficit spending. Keynes is only relevant if you start from a balanced budget baseline, and if you do then sure, deficit spending in times of economic contraction makes a lot of sense. But if it's just deficits upon deficits all you're really doing is stealing from future demand. That's Econ. 101. Maybe 102 if you took Micro first.

No. Not correct. For lots of reasons. If you're in a severe recession or depression, demand is way down. That's because everyone is cutting back on spending. Eventually after x number of years, things will finally start to recover. But as we learned from the EU's experiment with the so called "expansionary austerity, you actually lose more in total from lost tax receipts due to downward pressure on the economy  by practicing austerity in a recession/depression, than if you had engaged in purposeful deficit spending."

 

Why would Keynes only be effective from a balanced budget baseline?

 

[bristolboy]

Well, the latest news casts further discredit on Trump's tax cuts. Turns out GDP growth in 2018 was 2.5%. Remember how it was touted that the tax cuts would spur business investment? Not so. So basically what has occurred in the USA is a simple case of growth fueled by increased deficit spending.

Trump’s 3% Growth Feat in 2018 Undone by Annual Data Revisions

"Updated government figures show that gross domestic product expanded 2.5% on a fourth-quarter-over-fourth-quarter basis last year. That compares with a previous estimate of 3% and an upwardly revised 2.8% in 2017, the first year of Trump’s presidency.

Behind the 2018 markdown: Slower growth of business investment and exports, along with a greater output in the fourth quarter of 2017 that made the comparison less favorable."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-26/trump-s-3-growth-feat-in-2018-undone-by-annual-data-revisions

[candide]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Well, the latest news casts further discredit on Trump's tax cuts. Turns out GDP growth in 2018 was 2.5%. Remember how it was touted that the tax cuts would spur business investment? Not so. So basically what has occurred in the USA is a simple case of growth fueled by increased deficit spending.

Trump’s 3% Growth Feat in 2018 Undone by Annual Data Revisions

"Updated government figures show that gross domestic product expanded 2.5% on a fourth-quarter-over-fourth-quarter basis last year. That compares with a previous estimate of 3% and an upwardly revised 2.8% in 2017, the first year of Trump’s presidency.

Behind the 2018 markdown: Slower growth of business investment and exports, along with a greater output in the fourth quarter of 2017 that made the comparison less favorable."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-26/trump-s-3-growth-feat-in-2018-undone-by-annual-data-revisions

Of course! Companies use tax cuts to buy back their shares rather to invest. In other countries they are not as stupid as Trump. They condition tax cuts to investment in R&D or infrastructure.

Ìhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/annemarieknott/2019/02/21/why-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-tcja-led-to-buybacks-rather-than-investment/#6ef4291137fb

 

Please not that Forbes is not a leftists' nest!

 

[candide]

On 7/24/2019 at 7:00 AM, lannarebirth said:

 

Deficit spending in the face of an economic crisis only means something if the government is otherwise balancing the budget. It doesn't mean a GD thing if every single year, regardless of the condition of the economy it engages in deficit spending. Keynes is only relevant if you start from a balanced budget baseline, and if you do then sure, deficit spending in times of economic contraction makes a lot of sense. But if it's just deficits upon deficits all you're really doing is stealing from future demand. That's Econ. 101. Maybe 102 if you took Micro first.

Sound economic policy is countercyclical.

It is as stupid for Trump to increase budget deficit during a period of natural growth as it was for the EU to reduce budget deficit during a period of quasi recession.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/annemarieknott/2019/02/21/why-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-tcja-led-to-buybacks-rather-than-investment/#6ef4291137fb

[lannarebirth]

On 7/25/2019 at 6:09 AM, bristolboy said:

No. Not correct. For lots of reasons. If you're in a severe recession or depression, demand is way down. That's because everyone is cutting back on spending. Eventually after x number of years, things will finally start to recover. But as we learned from the EU's experiment with the so called "expansionary austerity, you actually lose more in total from lost tax receipts due to downward pressure on the economy  by practicing austerity in a recession/depression, than if you had engaged in purposeful deficit spending."

 

Why would Keynes only be effective from a balanced budget baseline?

 

 

As I've mentioned many times before, the so called stimulus from the federal government during the past recession was not really stimulus at all. The bulk of it was grants to states, counties and cities, which were not directed to spend the money in any stimulative fashion at all and were thus fungible. Given that, the money was spent in large part just to maintain their already approved budgetary spending, the bulk of which was payroll. The St. Louis Fed has written extensively on this. They're takeaway is that the stimulative affect was negligible, and that the debt created only robbed from future demand. You can look it up.

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

Sound economic policy is countercyclical.

It is as stupid for Trump to increase budget deficit during a period of natural growth as it was for the EU to reduce budget deficit during a period of quasi recession.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/annemarieknott/2019/02/21/why-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-tcja-led-to-buybacks-rather-than-investment/#6ef4291137fb

 

I agree with you.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

As I've mentioned many times before, the so called stimulus from the federal government during the past recession was not really stimulus at all. The bulk of it was grants to states, counties and cities, which were not directed to spend the money in any stimulative fashion at all and were thus fungible. Given that, the money was spent in large part just to maintain their already approved budgetary spending, the bulk of which was payroll. The St. Louis Fed has written extensively on this. They're takeaway is that the stimulative affect was negligible, and that the debt created only robbed from future demand. You can look it up.

You're citing one outlier economist who happens to work at the St. Louis Fed. So no, it's not what the St. Louis Fed says at all. Just the opinion of one economist. (And in the future, don't ask others to look up what you assert.) And it's certainly not what the world's leading economists say. IGM, which is connected the University of Chicago, a redoubt of conservative economic theory, polled these economists. Here's  a link to the results.:

 https://research.chicagobooth.edu/igm/economic-experts-panels

 

And I don't understand your reasoning. Why would averting massive layoffs in government not be effective? Did you know that Milton Friedman's idea to stop a financial recession/depression was just having helicopters shower money on the populace? This is just a slightly more targeted version of that.

[kevin612]

It is good to hear that, avoid government shutdown.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I agree with you.

You agree that sound economic policy is countercyclical but you also agree with that economist from the St. Louis Fed? How does that work?

[lannarebirth]

24 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You're citing one outlier economist who happens to work at the St. Louis Fed. So no, it's not what the St. Louis Fed says at all. Just the opinion of one economist. (And in the future, don't ask others to look up what you assert.) And it's certainly not what the world's leading economists say. IGM, which is connected the University of Chicago, a redoubt of conservative economic theory, polled these economists. Here's  a link to the results.:

 https://research.chicagobooth.edu/igm/economic-experts-panels

 

And I don't understand your reasoning. Why would averting massive layoffs in government not be effective? Did you know that Milton Friedman's idea to stop a financial recession/depression was just having helicopters shower money on the populace? This is just a slightly more targeted version of that.

 

C'mon man, we've had this conversation multiple times and I've always posted the links in the past and you've just acknowledged that you've read them so why shoud I keep doing that?.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You agree that sound economic policy is countercyclical but you also agree with that economist from the St. Louis Fed? How does that work?

It works when your baseline is a balanced budget. But if it's deficits all the time, what's the counter cyclicality of that? It's just deficits on deficits.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

C'mon man, we've had this conversation multiple times and I've always posted the links in the past and you've just acknowledged that you've read them so why shoud I keep doing that?.

Because I'm not the only one reading this post. And you told posters that they could look it up for themselves.

And since you acknowledge we've had this conversation before, why is it that you repeatedly ignore the fact that the world's leading economists overwhelmingly disagree with that guy at the St. Louis Fed? Cherry picking much?