Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
As has been claimed here by several for more than a year
“Skeptical reporting has still been too favorable.
The 2017 tax cut has received pretty bad press, and rightly so. Its proponents made big promises about soaring investment and wages, and also assured everyone that it would pay for itself; none of that has happened.
Yet coverage actually hasn’t been negative enough. The story you mostly read runs something like this: The tax cut has caused corporations to bring some money home, but they’ve used it for stock buybacks rather than to raise wages, and the boost to growth has been modest. That doesn’t sound great, but it’s still better than the reality: No money has, in fact, been brought home, and the tax cut has probably reduced national income. Indeed, at least 90 percent of Americans will end up poorer thanks to that cut.
Let me explain each point in turn.“
But you’ll have to open the link and read the concise point by point explanation.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...46490561312958 |
Jan.4 AP headline:
US employers added 312,000 jobs in December
Full article:
https://www.twincities.com/2019/01/0...s-in-december/
Who knows how it will all shake out for the rest of "Trump's" economy. But to keep knocking his tax cut and tariff war and economic and regulatory policies as foolish, dumb, failures is obviously premature. And saying that the job and wage successes are merely an Obama carryover after two years is a stretch beyond reason. If I remember correctly wdmso claimed something to the effect that it would take two years before we could attribute success (or failure) to Trump's policies.
For me, I don't think presidential or political policies in general that try to "do" something are the main reason for US economic success. I believe more that federal government "undoing" overburdening tax and regulatory policies is more effective.
I'm not being "anti-government." I'm for government staying out of the way of what should be our constitutionally based inherent right to a free and open market. One of the federal government's few and important duties is to protect that freedom, not to regulate it.
Should there be any regulation of the market? For sure. But that should not be done by unelected bureaucratic agencies. It should begin with an actually free market's inherent tendency to self regulate. And it should be fortified by the direct and elected will of the people. And that should be "regulated" as constitutional by a Supreme Court guided by interpreting the actual text of the Constitution, not by Judge's personal opinion of what is right and just.