Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
There are no substantive cuts proposed yet, which makes this hypocrisy of the first order. I agree it won't pass as it stands now.
I heard a supporter of the plan (from Congress) on Squawk Box this AM (on XM radio, so I couldn't see who it was) basically argue that yes, it was going to add to the deficit, but it would jump start the economy for the next generation.
The last round of this had a small bump in the economy, which was a positive, but coupled with two wars and no significant cuts it added to the deficit significantly. What will be different this time? It will likely involve costs for some conflict or interaction with the Norks in conjunction with the cuts. I don't think we will see significant repatriation of funds, even at 15%.
Either way the 9% growth I heard needed to offset the cuts aren't even a pipe dream. if we get over 3% growth that will be pretty damn good....
|
"There are no substantive cuts proposed yet,"
Cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 to 15, isn't substantive? Nothing has been proposed in writing yet, just words.
"which makes this hypocrisy of the first order."
How, exactly? It's "hypocritical" to announce some parts of a proposal, before you have it finalized in writing? It's hypocritical to say "here's what we are going to propose..."?
"I agree it won't pass as it stands now. "
Likely not. And then in a year, during the midterms, the GOP can run commercials in purple states where Democrats are up for re-election, saying that the incumbent democrat voted against putting more money in your pocket. There are 10 Democrats in the Senate (I think) up for re-election in states that Trump won. THAT has the potential to be devastating, but only if Trump governs effectively.
"What will be different this time?"
First, last time there was no slashing of the corporate tax rate. Come on, that's huge - could be hugely bad, but you can't say that's not significantly different from the Clinton and Bush cuts.
Second, a big part of the increased spending was setting up an anti-terror infrastructure, from scratch. We don't need to do that again. Cheaper to maintain something that already exists, than to build it from scratch.
Offsetting this, is that more and more Baby Boomers will be retiring, of course, collecting SS and Medicare benefits that are a massive drain. So we need something to jump start the economy, because our expenditures on SS and Medicare are increasing rapidly. Does anyone think that tax increases are likely to do it?
"I don't think we will see significant repatriation of funds, even at 15%"
Some economists speculate we will see massive repatriation of funds.
"Either way the 9% growth I heard needed to offset the cuts aren't even a pipe dream. if we get over 3% growth that will be pretty damn good"
Agreed.