holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:Answering Point 1. Obama walked in the doors of the white house with 10.5 trillion in debt on hand, this is before the recession and the banking crisis impact. agreed??..After the recession, which we can all credit Bush with, the debt skyrockets to 15+ trillion dollars, agreed???..So with War, spending, and economic conditions Obama added 4 trillion dollars, agreed???..So in 8 years, with Wars he didn't start, he spent 4 trillion to Bush's 15 trillion, agreed???..The recession/crash ended in 2013, I credited that to Bush, It's only fair...
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/debt-under-obama-8000000000000

On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. On Nov. 23, 2015, it was $18,722,746,583,118.03 Thus, so far in Obama’s presidency, the federal debt has increased $8,095,869,534,204.95.



I'll find where 4+ trillion more was added because of the recession...Gotta hop, I'll be back...

Answering point 2. Obama saved the Auto industry when most Republicans were against it???..Did you forget???Obama helped prevent a global depression, were you not paying attention???..So he was a little busy saving the global economy when you ate trying to compare him to Trump save 1000 jobs at the same time after winning....
Under Obama 15 million jobs were created...Trump has 14.999 million to go...Not counting the saving of Auto and Banking jobs...

Answering 3..So read what you posted about what Quantitative Easing does and you will realize it was to help stimulate the economy because lowering interest further wasn't an option and was not intended to fund the banks as you suggested...

Answering 4. Congressional Republicans didn't want to work with Obama to address these issues...Look it up...They didn't want to agree to a compromise to tackle social security and all the entitlements, look it up, this is exactly where John Boehner started to lose his power in Congress, look it up, He and Obama was about to strike the "Grand Bargain" and Republicans lost their minds at the planned comprimise...It would have cut 4 trillion in debt over 10 years but they didn't want to give Obama the victory, they balked, LOOK IT UP MAN!!!!!..The reason you know it was a good deal was that Democrats were upset at Obama for striking such a deal...LOOK IT UP!!!..I'll help...

What are we arguing here? How bad Obama was to the debt or just the official number? Different sites list different figures, but for the sake of argument, I'll agree with your numbers and say they are scary terrible.

Obama increased the debt from 10 TRILLION to app. 18.7 TRILLION in 8 years?
From your article:

The total federal debt, which was $18,722,746,583,118.03 at the close of business on Monday, now equals about $159,007 per household.
It has increased approximately $68,756 per household during Obama’s presidency.

How is that even possible? In 8 years every American was "taxed" around $8,600 per year? That is insane. 320 million people or so.

Unbelievable, good company too. (Bush)

It took the United States, which declared independence in 1776, 229 years to accumulate its first $8,000,000,000,000 in federal debt—with the debt first surpassing that level in October 2005.

The 8 trillion under Obama includes the recession and wars he inherited from Bush..I'll get those figures for you but I know you know that...But it's about 4 trillion...From 2001-2010 the wars cost 1.1 trillion...Up to day the wars cost 4.8 trillion..So 3.7 trillion of Obama's debt is Bush's war debt...
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
Cost of wars until 2010 in this document...^^^^^
The United States federal government has spent or obligated 4.8 trillion dollars on the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. This figure includes: direct Congressional war appropriations; war-related increases to the Pentagon base budget; veterans care and disability; increases in the homeland security budget; interest payments on direct war borrowing; foreign assistance spending; and estimated future obligations for veterans’ care.

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic

8 trillion- 3.7 trillion = 4.3 trillion of Obama blame for debt so far...So far 15.4 trillion in debt is due to Bush policies...

Don't worry cost of the recession comes...

http://www.cbpp.org/research/economic-downturn-and-legacy-of-bush-policies-continue-to-drive-large-deficits

The recession battered the budget, driving down tax revenues and swelling outlays for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other safety net programs.[3] We calculate that changes in the economic outlook since the summer of 2008 account for over $400 billion of the deficit in both 2009 and 2010 and smaller amounts in later years. We estimate that the downturn has pushed up deficits by $2.5 trillion (including the associated interest costs) over the 2009-2018 period (see Figure 1).[4]



So 4.3 trillion- 2.5 trillion = 1.8 trillion...Obama's policies is responsible for 1.8 trillion dollars of debt of which 850 billion was stimulus because of Bush's recession...

Look on the graph at how Bush era tax cuts are still effecting us today...It has the largest impact on our debt bar none...That 1.8 trillion dollar debt by Obama will be like a Saturday night poker game when Trump and his crew is done with us...

earthmansurfer wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:The United States is made up of much more than the elitists population of New York /New England and California and it will keep Trump in office for 8 years.

My bet is Donald Trump does many things he says or close to it. He will create jobs lower taxes and build up some much needed nationalism in a common sense way. Right now he is at a very low floor--42%. When he starts producing--those numbers go up and he chunks out a higher approval rating--high enough to grab another 4 years in office in 2020 if he wants to. He has changed the map and will cater to that map. He will strengthen some of the close wins and add some close flips. Almost impossible to stop if he executes. So now use bitchin bout it--just get used to it. Fact.

Well said...

stfu is basically what briggs said.

i dislike trump and everything he stands for. i think he is a racist, sexist, xenophobic bigot. he's a new yorker - guess what...there's alot of AHOLES in new york. briggs left nyc as do many others...b/c it's made up of a lot of people that only care about themselves. try being on the subway every day during rush hour to go to work - it's savagery. that's what trump is - a savage.

"much needed nationalism in a a common sense way" - US vs. THEM - but US in this case is white america. don't get it twisted. his whole campaign was to appeal to white people and why "them" are costing them their jobs and happiness.

as for another 4 years? that may very well be the case but it won't be on what he does - it will be more on how much more he can con folks.

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I think that is a pretty brutal front page for the NY Post. I wonder if Trumps policies regarding immigration don't look so bad now. (Meaning having a relatively open border is a dangerous policy.)
Here in Germany, Merkel is up for re-election next year and her one big downfall with the people is the relatively open borders regarding immigration.

What do they know? They endorsed our 9/11 President

You mean to ask him, a builder of large buildings, on September 11 2001, right after those buildings went down, about what happened about how those buildings went down? You mean this?

I don't understand your post. I didn't mention Trump, and I'm not sure what you're asking me.

Maybe be more clear. You said "They endorsed our 9/11 President". In that video Trump questions how those buildings came down. I had no idea what you were talking about and did my best.

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

ramtour420 wrote:

arkrud wrote:

djsunyc wrote:let's keep all politics in one place :)

so...

rachel maddow just revealed that indiana will be paying $700K/year to carrier to keep the jobs in the US. it is tax payer money that the governer (pence) can approve. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

What the diff to pay people social for not working or pay companies to keep them working?
Eater way its taxpayers money.
By the way who cares where tax money goes? I count my income after tax.
And tax is just a payment for the privilege to leave in US not in Russia or some other wasteland...

Man, what's with all the hate about Russia? Wasteland? Ask those people whose land was destroyed by fracking, ask the Native Americans, ask those living in the Gulf of Mexico and faced with oil spill after another oil spill where they think the wasteland is. Meanwhile Russia provides most of the Oxygen for the planet. You are not making sense. Enjoy your yummy GMO's, unlabeled and forced down your throat( banned in Russia btw) Ask people in Flynt where they think the wasteland is at. Oh and Russia gets most of its electricity from hydroelectric power plants( say hello to USSR)a renewable source, while in the US Big Coal is the source of most electricity. So to summarize you need to do some research because you sound not very smart

Correct, but he sounds a lot smarter than he is. Sad, but true. There's plenty of evidence on that last thread.

May be somebody has problems with comprehension skills.
At least looks like hate shuts some people minds down.
This is very common issue.
Hate and anger kills slowly but surely.

Yes you definitely have issues with comprehension and I do feel sorry for you. The hate and anger you harbor for Russia is definitely killing you. Your posts are the most rambling stoopid shyte on this website.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Can you see no joy in anything, seriously? He just saved 1000 jobs and you and other Hillary supporters have nothing positive to say.
Trump is doing Obama's job right now. No excuse for how poorly Obama has done.

Trump is creating a different tax system to help everyone, from the poor to the rich (lower taxes for all). Yeah, Trump took advantage of loopholes in the system as all businesses do. But there are ways to help to keep jobs in America too.

I hope companies would have some pride to come back to America, instead of just buying back stock and crap like that. If not, then they are digging our grave. But I'm sure a little pressure in the right places will work.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/804019123781042178

ems - i understand you are supporting trump and believe in his plans. can you post links on how trump's trickle down plan will help the economy? can you also post links on how trumps tax cuts will help the economy? from many accounts of independent financial experts, his plans will not help. i would like to read some articles on where it will - i'm genuinely curious to read the other side of it.

as for the carrier jobs - yes, to those 1000 employees, trump did his job. but the other people of indiana are now helping to pay for those jobs to stay - without their consent. i'm glad those 1000 people can keep working - but the full financial ramifications are yet to be determined until a few years from now. i can't deny the optics of it but when it comes to politicians, we need to look closer.

Trump doesn't have a trickle down plan. We all know trickle down economics doesn't work.
Everyone, from poor to rich gets a tax break. More money, more spending. I have no links to give, you can search, but trying to find anything remotely positive on MSM is going to be hard, might have to go to alt media. What we all know now, is what we are doing doesn't work. Sending jobs overseas and making companies richer is not going to work. We need something drastically different and we need to take a big chance cause this economy is on its last gasp.

I will search for some information but it is all theoretical, right? I mean, what works? Were there studies that Reagonomics would work? As long as we keep spending more money than we take in, having wars and killing all around the world, sending jobs overseas, taxing people to the point that they can't survive, etc. we are not going to succeed as a peoples.

Re Carrier jobs, would you rather pay unemployment for 1,000 people for 2 years or whatever it may be? Do the math. The tax money those workers pay in a few months alone will pay for itself. $700 per person per year to keep 1000 jobs in the country. That is a no brainer and you do that every day of the week, as the alternative is suicide.

What are you talking, they are cutting Corporate taxes to 15%, also tax holiday to bring money from overseas...

Can you be more clear? I have posted his numbers before. I am aware the tax cuts are across the board.

I know it's MSM but here goes the dude from Goldman:

Thanks, was interesting. I don't know much about tax cuts. I was under the assumption that trickle down was more just in that direction (rich to poor) but that Trumps tax cuts are across the board. So, the economy is not (just) stimulated by companies having more to spend and bringing jobs home but also cause people at the bottom, in the middle, etc. also have more to spend.

I found this article, was written by a person who helped Trump, Kudlow, Clovis, etc. with the plan.

Trump's Plan Isn't Trickle-Down Economics

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StephenMoore/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trickle-down-economics/2016/10/04/id/751523/

Hillary Clinton keeps bashing the Trump tax plan as "trumped-up trickle-down economics." This class-warfare card has become the standard and tired response to every Republican tax reform plan for 30 years.

No wonder we haven't cleaned out the stables of the tax code since the Reagan era. Democrats have no interest in doing so.

Clinton's claim is that the plan will blow a hole in the debt (which is rich coming from someone who worked for an administration that nearly doubled the debt in eight years) and that the benefits all go to the rich. She also says it will cost jobs and could even cause a recession.

I worked on devising the Trump tax plan with economists Larry Kudlow, Sam Clovis and others, so I know a little bit about the costs and the benefits.

The Democrats subscribe to an amazing ideology that says that letting businesses keep more of their own money will cause the economy to capsize but a $1.5 trillion tax hike on businesses and investors will create jobs. Yes, and injecting Elmer's glue into your veins is a good way to prevent a heart attack.

Let's start with her claim that the plan will cost $5 trillion. That's wrong. When taking into account the higher economic growth from the lower tax rates on businesses and workers, the plan's "cost" is about half that size. The Tax Foundation finds the plan will raise the GDP growth rate by almost 1 percentage point over a decade, and that means lots of jobs and additional tax revenue for the government. The best way to balance the budget is to put Americans back to work.

The $2.5 trillion "cost" of the tax cut can and will easily be made up by cutting government spending. Over the next decade the government is expected to spend almost $50 trillion. Surely, with sound, business-like leadership, we can save 5 cents on the dollar.

Next, she says that tax cuts have never worked to revive the economy. We believe that cutting taxes for 26 million small businesses will be a huge incentive for more hiring and expansion by businesses that are now taxed at as high as 40 percent. The American Enterprise Institute finds that the biggest beneficiary of a business tax cut is the American worker, whose wages will go up from more capital spending. If a trucking company goes from 50 trucks to 75, that's 25 more truckers it will need to hire.

Clinton needs a tax-cut history lesson. "Supply-side" tax rates were at the heart of the Reagan economic plan in the 1980s. The Reagan expansion, with lower taxes, was twice as powerful as the anemic Obama recovery, with higher taxes and more government spending. The difference in the two recoveries is nearly $3 trillion in lost output. Similarly, the John F. Kennedy tax cuts got us 5 and 6 percent growth. JFK was right: The best way to raise revenues is to "cut tax rates now." Even Bill Clinton agreed to a capital gains tax cut, which led to a gusher of new federal revenues.

Next, Clinton claims that only rich people such as Trump himself will benefit from this "trumped up" tax plan. She obviously hasn't read the tax plan. By design, the tax rate reductions for the rich are offset almost dollar for dollar by the loss of $250 billion a year in tax deductions for rich people. So, the overall tax burden of most millionaires and billionaires is not changed. Almost all of the benefit in dollar terms from the tax plan goes to the middle class (and owners of small businesses). We think they deserve a break after a decade that has wiped out financial savings of the middle class. With Obamacare premiums rising by 10 to 30 percent in many states this year, families need the tax cut desperately.

The nonpartisan Tax Foundation calculates that the Trump tax plan causes a rise of after-tax income by about 8 percent, or $4,000 for the average middle-class household, while the Clinton plan shrinks incomes.

What Clinton isn't telling you is that she and her liberal friends are against tax cuts because they want to spend the money on "free" everything. This includes the silliest idea of all time: hundreds of billions for 500 million solar panels. Get ready for a cascade of dozens of new Solyndras. How much money is going to go to Elon Musk from this corporate-welfare giveaway? It could be in the tens of billions of dollars. So, whose policies benefit the rich and the political class?

Hillary Clinton is offering the American people trickle-down government.

When has that ever worked?

For a 8% rise in after tax income to equal 4,000 the middle class income would have to 50K after tax. And the tax break would have to greater than 8% can you share where you saw this? Cause both assertions are wrong.

meloshouldgo wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Can you see no joy in anything, seriously? He just saved 1000 jobs and you and other Hillary supporters have nothing positive to say.
Trump is doing Obama's job right now. No excuse for how poorly Obama has done.

Trump is creating a different tax system to help everyone, from the poor to the rich (lower taxes for all). Yeah, Trump took advantage of loopholes in the system as all businesses do. But there are ways to help to keep jobs in America too.

I hope companies would have some pride to come back to America, instead of just buying back stock and crap like that. If not, then they are digging our grave. But I'm sure a little pressure in the right places will work.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/804019123781042178

ems - i understand you are supporting trump and believe in his plans. can you post links on how trump's trickle down plan will help the economy? can you also post links on how trumps tax cuts will help the economy? from many accounts of independent financial experts, his plans will not help. i would like to read some articles on where it will - i'm genuinely curious to read the other side of it.

as for the carrier jobs - yes, to those 1000 employees, trump did his job. but the other people of indiana are now helping to pay for those jobs to stay - without their consent. i'm glad those 1000 people can keep working - but the full financial ramifications are yet to be determined until a few years from now. i can't deny the optics of it but when it comes to politicians, we need to look closer.

Trump doesn't have a trickle down plan. We all know trickle down economics doesn't work.
Everyone, from poor to rich gets a tax break. More money, more spending. I have no links to give, you can search, but trying to find anything remotely positive on MSM is going to be hard, might have to go to alt media. What we all know now, is what we are doing doesn't work. Sending jobs overseas and making companies richer is not going to work. We need something drastically different and we need to take a big chance cause this economy is on its last gasp.

I will search for some information but it is all theoretical, right? I mean, what works? Were there studies that Reagonomics would work? As long as we keep spending more money than we take in, having wars and killing all around the world, sending jobs overseas, taxing people to the point that they can't survive, etc. we are not going to succeed as a peoples.

Re Carrier jobs, would you rather pay unemployment for 1,000 people for 2 years or whatever it may be? Do the math. The tax money those workers pay in a few months alone will pay for itself. $700 per person per year to keep 1000 jobs in the country. That is a no brainer and you do that every day of the week, as the alternative is suicide.

What are you talking, they are cutting Corporate taxes to 15%, also tax holiday to bring money from overseas...

Can you be more clear? I have posted his numbers before. I am aware the tax cuts are across the board.

I know it's MSM but here goes the dude from Goldman:

Thanks, was interesting. I don't know much about tax cuts. I was under the assumption that trickle down was more just in that direction (rich to poor) but that Trumps tax cuts are across the board. So, the economy is not (just) stimulated by companies having more to spend and bringing jobs home but also cause people at the bottom, in the middle, etc. also have more to spend.

I found this article, was written by a person who helped Trump, Kudlow, Clovis, etc. with the plan.

Trump's Plan Isn't Trickle-Down Economics

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StephenMoore/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-trickle-down-economics/2016/10/04/id/751523/

Hillary Clinton keeps bashing the Trump tax plan as "trumped-up trickle-down economics." This class-warfare card has become the standard and tired response to every Republican tax reform plan for 30 years.

No wonder we haven't cleaned out the stables of the tax code since the Reagan era. Democrats have no interest in doing so.

Clinton's claim is that the plan will blow a hole in the debt (which is rich coming from someone who worked for an administration that nearly doubled the debt in eight years) and that the benefits all go to the rich. She also says it will cost jobs and could even cause a recession.

I worked on devising the Trump tax plan with economists Larry Kudlow, Sam Clovis and others, so I know a little bit about the costs and the benefits.

The Democrats subscribe to an amazing ideology that says that letting businesses keep more of their own money will cause the economy to capsize but a $1.5 trillion tax hike on businesses and investors will create jobs. Yes, and injecting Elmer's glue into your veins is a good way to prevent a heart attack.

Let's start with her claim that the plan will cost $5 trillion. That's wrong. When taking into account the higher economic growth from the lower tax rates on businesses and workers, the plan's "cost" is about half that size. The Tax Foundation finds the plan will raise the GDP growth rate by almost 1 percentage point over a decade, and that means lots of jobs and additional tax revenue for the government. The best way to balance the budget is to put Americans back to work.

The $2.5 trillion "cost" of the tax cut can and will easily be made up by cutting government spending. Over the next decade the government is expected to spend almost $50 trillion. Surely, with sound, business-like leadership, we can save 5 cents on the dollar.

Next, she says that tax cuts have never worked to revive the economy. We believe that cutting taxes for 26 million small businesses will be a huge incentive for more hiring and expansion by businesses that are now taxed at as high as 40 percent. The American Enterprise Institute finds that the biggest beneficiary of a business tax cut is the American worker, whose wages will go up from more capital spending. If a trucking company goes from 50 trucks to 75, that's 25 more truckers it will need to hire.

Clinton needs a tax-cut history lesson. "Supply-side" tax rates were at the heart of the Reagan economic plan in the 1980s. The Reagan expansion, with lower taxes, was twice as powerful as the anemic Obama recovery, with higher taxes and more government spending. The difference in the two recoveries is nearly $3 trillion in lost output. Similarly, the John F. Kennedy tax cuts got us 5 and 6 percent growth. JFK was right: The best way to raise revenues is to "cut tax rates now." Even Bill Clinton agreed to a capital gains tax cut, which led to a gusher of new federal revenues.

Next, Clinton claims that only rich people such as Trump himself will benefit from this "trumped up" tax plan. She obviously hasn't read the tax plan. By design, the tax rate reductions for the rich are offset almost dollar for dollar by the loss of $250 billion a year in tax deductions for rich people. So, the overall tax burden of most millionaires and billionaires is not changed. Almost all of the benefit in dollar terms from the tax plan goes to the middle class (and owners of small businesses). We think they deserve a break after a decade that has wiped out financial savings of the middle class. With Obamacare premiums rising by 10 to 30 percent in many states this year, families need the tax cut desperately.

The nonpartisan Tax Foundation calculates that the Trump tax plan causes a rise of after-tax income by about 8 percent, or $4,000 for the average middle-class household, while the Clinton plan shrinks incomes.

What Clinton isn't telling you is that she and her liberal friends are against tax cuts because they want to spend the money on "free" everything. This includes the silliest idea of all time: hundreds of billions for 500 million solar panels. Get ready for a cascade of dozens of new Solyndras. How much money is going to go to Elon Musk from this corporate-welfare giveaway? It could be in the tens of billions of dollars. So, whose policies benefit the rich and the political class?

Hillary Clinton is offering the American people trickle-down government.

When has that ever worked?

For a 8% rise in after tax income to equal 4,000 the middle class income would have to 50K after tax. And the tax break would have to greater than 8% can you share where you saw this? Cause both assertions are wrong.

You are taking a tax plan and simplifying it into a few sentences? Agree or disagree, even you can see the error of your ways.
Let's see what happens. Might as well give him a chance. Obama and Bush left us in a bind. Trump will try to fix it.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:I think that is a pretty brutal front page for the NY Post. I wonder if Trumps policies regarding immigration don't look so bad now. (Meaning having a relatively open border is a dangerous policy.)
Here in Germany, Merkel is up for re-election next year and her one big downfall with the people is the relatively open borders regarding immigration.

What do they know? They endorsed our 9/11 President

You mean to ask him, a builder of large buildings, on September 11 2001, right after those buildings went down, about what happened about how those buildings went down? You mean this?

I don't understand your post. I didn't mention Trump, and I'm not sure what you're asking me.

Maybe be more clear. You said "They endorsed our 9/11 President". In that video Trump questions how those buildings came down. I had no idea what you were talking about and did my best.

The Post endorsed George Bush less than a year before 9/11 happened under his watch. What do they know about keeping America safe from terrorism?

Well, I know we helped to creat AlQaida http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/how-the-us-helped-create-al-qaeda-and-isis/

It appears that Hillary and Obama helped to create ISIS as well. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/260162-santorum-obama-hillary-created-isis
"ISIS is a creation of a political decision by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to abandon Iraq — against all of our generals’ recommendations, against all of the policy recommendations,” Santorum told supporters at the Florida GOP’s Sunshine Summit in Orlando on Saturday."

The Wikileaks emails show Hillary sold weapons to ISIS. https://therealstrategy.com/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-isis/

So, I'd be careful with our bombing/interventionist policy and subsequently with our immigration policy.

Can you reply to my post? I put it in bold.

In other words, stop helping to create it.