Page 92 of 102 FirstFirst ...
42
82
90
91
92
93
94
... LastLast
  1. #1821
    Quote Originally Posted by Nellise View Post
    Companies love that he's removing regulations and has little or no intention of creating new ones. You've also got stuff like this going on: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/28/...erfund-program where companies probably know they can exploit these people who have no experience in the positions they're given.

    Whether it's smart to do any of this is a different question, but companies are responding to it (at least publicly).
    Only the best people!

  2. #1822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    You like to point out any negatives of Trump's economic progress and yet ignore the successes. Trump was elected in Nov 2016 and created a positive atmosphere in the stock market and businesses with his campaign pledge to kick start the economy with tax cuts and incentives to encourage company's to come back to America and thus many jobs were added in Dec. 2016.

    And Trump still had 2 months at least of 3%+ GDP, which was better than the best year Obama ever had during his 8 years. :P But now, Trump is on his own when it comes to the GDP and we will see what his full 2018 year is going to be like with the tax cuts.
    You are being too defensive instead of slowing down and reading what i posted.
    No one said the economy was not doing well under Trump.

    My point is, all his crowing and promises of it BEING MUCH BETTER THEN UNDER OBAMA, has been absolute fake news so far as its been relatively the SAME.




    How do you kick start an economy that was already started years ago?

    Positive atmosphere in the stock market resulted in less then a 1.5% increase over the "non positive atmosphere stock market" before him?

    hardly a raging success for the FEW things that were actually CHANGED outside of some executive orders.

    All this for tax cuts that force us to borrow 1.5 trillion dollars? What happened to debt being bad?






    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post


    And Trump still had 2 months at least of 3%+ GDP, which was better than the best year Obama ever had during his 8 years. :P But now, Trump is on his own when it comes to the GDP and we will see what his full 2018 year is going to be like with the tax cuts.
    Not sure why you are comparing "months" to years, when GDP is not even measured by month. i am going to assume you mean Quarters
    Obama had plenty of Quarters over 3% GDP, the problem usually comes down to the slower 1st Q bringing down the average.
    In 2015 he even had 3.2%. In 2014 he had 5.2% and 4.6% but was killed by -.9% in the 1st Q.


    if you do apples to apples right now through 3Q trump is at 2.53% GDP.
    Obama first 3Q for the last 3 years has been 1.9%, 2.5%, 2.97%, so nothing trump has done so far is statistically YUGE vs what obama did.




    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    ....and incentives to encourage company's to come back to America and thus many jobs were added in Dec. 2016.

    .
    Wait what? Did you even see the Dec jobs number?
    148k.

    The number was lower then expected and below average monthly job growth over the last 3 years. For 2017, monthly job gains averaged 171,000, down from 187,000 in 2016 and 226,000 in 2015. Over 180-200k is needed to keep up with population growth.

    His full year employment gains were lower then Obama, and he was called a failure even though he had much bigger employment gains.




    Other indicators?
    Wage growth is on the same pace this year as it was last.
    2/1/2016 3.2
    3/1/2016 3.2
    4/1/2016 3.4
    5/1/2016 3.5
    6/1/2016 3.6
    7/1/2016 3.4
    8/1/2016 3.3
    9/1/2016 3.6
    10/1/2016 3.9
    11/1/2016 3.9
    12/1/2016 3.5


    1/1/2017 3.2
    2/1/2017 3.2
    3/1/2017 3.4
    4/1/2017 3.5
    5/1/2017 3.4
    6/1/2017 3.2
    7/1/2017 3.3
    8/1/2017 3.4
    9/1/2017 3.6
    10/1/2017 3.4
    11/1/2017 3.2



    the conclusion is that the economy continues to move along at the same pace it did during Obama.
    Trump has had very little effect on the overall economy which continues to be doing well.

  3. #1823
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    And Trump still had 2 months at least of 3%+ GDP, which was better than the best year Obama ever had during his 8 years. :P
    http://fortune.com/2017/08/30/donald...ield-mo-3-gdp/

    Uh, that's not remotely true if you want to boil down to a monthly/quarterly basis. Swing and a miss, there. Obama even came into office during one of the deepest recessions in modern US history, unlike Trump who is inheriting a rather solid economy.

  4. #1824
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Swing and a miss, there.
    Never ceases to amaze how badly conservatives can botch numbers and statistics. Or they just make stuff up if all else fails. It's maddening to try to have a conversation with them based in numbers, especially when it comes to the economy because they just don't want to address the reality that the economy does well under democratic presidents.

    Of course we can have the debate about a president's role in the economy but no one wants to do that either.

  5. #1825
    more tax breaks, you did not know about

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.839d9f4116a0

    Congressional Republicans allowed a tax on oil companies that generated hundreds of millions of dollars annually for federal oil-spill response efforts to expire this week — a move that amounts to another corporate break in the wake of lawmakers’ sweeping tax overhaul late last month.

    The tax on companies selling oil in the United States generated an average of $500 million in federal revenue per year, according to the Government Accountability Office. The money, collected through a 9 cents-per-barrel tax on domestic crude oil and imported crude oil and petroleum products, constituted the main source of revenue for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

    The fund has roughly $5.7 billion in reserve. Intended to help the government respond quickly to accidents on land or offshore, it was established in 1986 but only got a stable source of funding in the wake of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill.

  6. #1826
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    Never ceases to amaze how badly conservatives can botch numbers and statistics. Or they just make stuff up if all else fails. It's maddening to try to have a conversation with them based in numbers, especially when it comes to the economy because they just don't want to address the reality that the economy does well under democratic presidents.

    Of course we can have the debate about a president's role in the economy but no one wants to do that either.
    The way they botch numbers is called "lying". They know what they are doing and it is intentional, and it is often just down right false.

  7. #1827
    Quote Originally Posted by Butter Emails View Post
    But really the one that gets me the most is how much Trumpanzees whined about Wall Street Ted and Shillary and how they didn't care about the common man, and now they're jerking off over massive cuts to big business taxes that basically does nothing to very little for 95% of America. But Ghost Panther has a few thousand more dollars in his retirement account and Supertony is going to save 2k on his taxes this year, so thumbs up for a couple of thousand in their pockets while their wages remain stagnant as compared to inflation. Oh you got a 3% raise this year? That's cute darling, get back to me when your salary starts rapidly expanding above the "value" that it was last year.
    Worth a mention regarding wages is that the Bush-era stagnation and recession slump have reversed in the late Obama-era. I can't get the graph to show up in thread, but the FRED median household income data is available here.

  8. #1828
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,944
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Worth a mention regarding wages is that the Bush-era stagnation and recession slump have reversed in the late Obama-era. I can't get the graph to show up in thread, but the FRED median household income data is available here.
    While the increase is good it's nothing incredibly spectacular:

    From 2014 to 2016 it increases from $54,398 to $59,039 or $4641 per household.

    Assuming an equal split we have 2 people making $2320.50 more per year. [$4641/2]

    That further breaks down to an additional $44.63 per week or $89.25 per paycheck per individual [$2320.50/52] then [$44.63 x 2]

    Based on a standard 40 hour work week it's an additional $1.12/hour. [$44.63/40]

    Congratulations America in 2 years you got a $2.25/hour raise for your family!
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  9. #1829
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain N View Post
    While the increase is good it's nothing incredibly spectacular:

    From 2014 to 2016 it increases from $54,398 to $59,039 or $4641 per household.

    Assuming an equal split we have 2 people making $2320.50 more per year. [$4641/2]

    That further breaks down to an additional $44.63 per week or $89.25 per paycheck per individual [$2320.50/52] then [$44.63 x 2]

    Based on a standard 40 hour work week it's an additional $1.12/hour. [$44.63/40]

    Congratulations America in 2 years you got a $2.25/hour raise for your family!
    There are a number of issues with the exact analysis you're using, chiefly that the median hours worked/household is way below that (~44 hours at the moment) and has declined over time.

    That substantial quibble aside, I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for. Over the course of 3 years, you're looking at an ~8.5% increase in household income, from a starting point that's already the highest outside of tiny oil/financial nations. What's the standard of living that you think would be an acceptable median and what do you think an acceptable year-over-year increase would look like?

  10. #1830
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    There are a number of issues with the exact analysis you're using, chiefly that the median hours worked/household is way below that (~44 hours at the moment) and has declined over time.

    That substantial quibble aside, I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for. Over the course of 3 years, you're looking at an ~8.5% increase in household income, from a starting point that's already the highest outside of tiny oil/financial nations. What's the standard of living that you think would be an acceptable median and what do you think an acceptable year-over-year increase would look like?
    1: The graphs in your source do not use the same dates for different data points on the same chart. For median household income, it uses the 1999 peak, while for median household hours worked, it uses a number from the following quarter in 1999, where median hours had gone down a bit. This same behavior is duplicated in the other graph. This makes the downward trend in median income appear to match the downward trend in median hours worked, where it actually does not.

    2: Your source causally mentions things like "the Obamacare effect", where many employers cut back full time employees to part time to avoid providing them with benefits. It does not go into any detail about why this is bad for workers. It also does not consider that people may WANT to work full-time hours, but be unable to do so.

    3: Your source is a libertarian think-tank with a vested interest in the (apparent*) success of voodoo economics.
    3b: Before you criticize me for "attacking your source, not your argument", please note that I attacked your source's arguments, not just "Lulz you are citing AEI as a reliable source on tax policy".

    * I say "apparent" success, because voodoo economics has never, and more importantly, CAN NEVER succeed. Corporations driven by profit motives increase profits wherever possible. As they should - that is their purpose as corporations. Reducing the tax burden on the wealthy and corporations increases their profits. Hiring additional unnecessary workers and giving them "make-work" jobs, or unfettered expansion into completely untested markets will not increase their profits. As such, corporations will never hire more workers than what they believe they need, nor will they expand operations beyond what they believe to be sustainable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  11. #1831
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    1: The graphs in your source do not use the same dates for different data points on the same chart. For median household income, it uses the 1999 peak, while for median household hours worked, it uses a number from the following quarter in 1999, where median hours had gone down a bit. This same behavior is duplicated in the other graph. This makes the downward trend in median income appear to match the downward trend in median hours worked, where it actually does not.

    2: Your source causally mentions things like "the Obamacare effect", where many employers cut back full time employees to part time to avoid providing them with benefits. It does not go into any detail about why this is bad for workers. It also does not consider that people may WANT to work full-time hours, but be unable to do so.

    3: Your source is a libertarian think-tank with a vested interest in the (apparent*) success of voodoo economics.
    3b: Before you criticize me for "attacking your source, not your argument", please note that I attacked your source's arguments, not just "Lulz you are citing AEI as a reliable source on tax policy".

    * I say "apparent" success, because voodoo economics has never, and more importantly, CAN NEVER succeed. Corporations driven by profit motives increase profits wherever possible. As they should - that is their purpose as corporations. Reducing the tax burden on the wealthy and corporations increases their profits. Hiring additional unnecessary workers and giving them "make-work" jobs, or unfettered expansion into completely untested markets will not increase their profits. As such, corporations will never hire more workers than what they believe they need, nor will they expand operations beyond what they believe to be sustainable.
    The only thing I provided the AEI citation for was the number of hours worked. Their data is just BLS data that's in a handy graph; it's not like it's actually a controversial claim that households don't average 80 hours/week of work. You're just arguing against a bunch of things that I didn't write and that I'm not arguing. Whatever, I guess.

  12. #1832
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,907
    The Democratic Party is expressing concern that Trump will pressure the IRS to hand out tax withholding tables that cause people to withhold too little, seeing a boost in their take-home for 2018 which is undone in 2018 tax season, after the election.

    Not sure I buy that. The sheer number of tax professionals out there is so high, such a blatant cheat will almost immediately be caught and exposed.

  13. #1833
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    The Democratic Party is expressing concern that Trump will pressure the IRS to hand out tax withholding tables that cause people to withhold too little, seeing a boost in their take-home for 2018 which is undone in 2018 tax season, after the election.

    Not sure I buy that. The sheer number of tax professionals out there is so high, such a blatant cheat will almost immediately be caught and exposed.
    That right there is the Trump presidency. It's almost too easy to catch them. Catching the mice in Mouse Trap is harder than catching Trump.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  14. #1834
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    The Democratic Party is expressing concern that Trump will pressure the IRS to hand out tax withholding tables that cause people to withhold too little, seeing a boost in their take-home for 2018 which is undone in 2018 tax season, after the election.

    Not sure I buy that. The sheer number of tax professionals out there is so high, such a blatant cheat will almost immediately be caught and exposed.
    Even if it was caught and exposed, he can just call reporting on it 'fake news' and his followers will lap it up anyway.

  15. #1835
    Banned Orlong's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Class 1,000,000 Clean Room
    Posts
    13,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    The Democratic Party is expressing concern that Trump will pressure the IRS to hand out tax withholding tables that cause people to withhold too little, seeing a boost in their take-home for 2018 which is undone in 2018 tax season, after the election.

    Not sure I buy that. The sheer number of tax professionals out there is so high, such a blatant cheat will almost immediately be caught and exposed.
    There is nothing illegal about having less taxes withheld from your paycheck. In fact you can have no taxes withheld from your paycheck if you choose to. You just have to write a check for the underpayment when you file your tax return. I think everyone should get their full paycheck and then have to write that big check every April when taxes are due. Perhaps when they actually have to hand it all over at once, they will realize how much they are really paying and demand the government cut unnecessary expenses and end the nanny state

  16. #1836
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    There is nothing illegal about having less taxes withheld from your paycheck. In fact you can have no taxes withheld from your paycheck if you choose to. You just have to write a check for the underpayment when you file your tax return. I think everyone should get their full paycheck and then have to write that big check every April when taxes are due. Perhaps when they actually have to hand it all over at once, they will realize how much they are really paying and demand the government cut unnecessary expenses and end the nanny state
    Translation: "Let's fuck over the poor to make a political point!"

  17. #1837
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    There is nothing illegal about having less taxes withheld from your paycheck. In fact you can have no taxes withheld from your paycheck if you choose to. You just have to write a check for the underpayment when you file your tax return. I think everyone should get their full paycheck and then have to write that big check every April when taxes are due. Perhaps when they actually have to hand it all over at once, they will realize how much they are really paying and demand the government cut unnecessary expenses and end the nanny state
    So literally fuck at least 90% of the nation.

    This isn't an issue of illegality. This is an issue where putting out fake withholding tables will sabotage a lot of people when it comes time to pay money they don't have.

  18. #1838
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    You just have to write a check for the underpayment when you file your tax return. I think everyone should get their full paycheck and then have to write that big check every April when taxes are due.
    And you get penalized if you do that: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306

  19. #1839
    Using the IRS as a political weapon? Why does that sound familiar?

  20. #1840
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Using the IRS as a political weapon? Why does that sound familiar?
    Uh I don't consider attacking most US citizens simply a "political weapon".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •