Start here Enter topic, Send out crony to talk up topic, State that the topic will be sent to Congress to discuss Enter Loop: When this has problems in Congress, Trump will talk about Obamacare. When this has problems in Congress, Trump will talk about the wall. When this has problems in Congress, Trump will talk about trade. When this has problems in Congress, Trump will talk about foreign affairs. ... ... Taxpayers are charged about $3million every weekend the Con Man plays golf in Florida. To put that in perspective, the Obama administration spent $96 million on travel over 8 years. #WorseThanBush
Trumps tax plan benefits the rich at the cost of the middle class & poor having every program they use axed, Robin-hood in reverse. The plan as written barely covers a single page- no tax legislature could take it seriously. For a long time now the trend has been a concentration in wealth & power to the 1%ers. Trumps plan accelerates this to a far greater level. Some American still believe a 1%er, not even self made, will protect their own best interests - dream on.
Of course it is a bit of a stretch to lump all of the labor class together as "the poor". So when we say the poor get poorer we are really talking about the labor class in general and it is a very big class. We are really talking mainly about what we call the middle class, but we want to extend that all the way down through the working poor. There are several things going on simultaneously that have practically no noticeable affect short term, but a small effect compounded year after year produces a shift of wealth upward at an exponentially increasing rate. Macro economic theory that would predict an increasingly skewed wealth distribution appears to be born out in practice (see Piketty, "Capital in the 21st Century" for supporting data). The total money supply in stable economies increases with population and GDP, i.e., productivity, or at least that is the goal. Return on capital, however, is normally slightly greater than the growth of the economy, 'g'. This is true, in general, for all Western mixed economies. Consequently, expansion of the money supply, in general, slightly lags the additional return on capital and the difference can be made up by shifting wealth upward from the labor class to the capital class, maintaining, as it were, the total wealth normalized to population and productivity nearly constant. If instead growing wealth at the top is accommodated by additional expansion of the money supply, the result will be inflation that will, in theory with ceteris paribus holding -- which of course it never does -- produce the same result in constant dollars had the money supply not been additionally expanded. Sadly, there seems to be no way for the rich to get richer at an alarming rate without the poor getting at least a little poorer. The additional money at the top must come from somewhere. Now that our economies are global the picture is somewhat more complex, but the basics principles remain. So long as the return on capital exceeds 'g', we expect to see skew in the wealth distribution. The only question is at what rate will the skew develop? Hopefully it will be at a not very great rate. This is a normal process, but governments can institute policies that affect the rate of growth of skew in the wealth distribution. The U.S. economy from about 1945 through about 1970 was abnormal. One way that it was abnormal was an abnormally low rate of skew growth in the wealth distribution. Wealth in the U.S. is now accumulating at an abnormally high rate at the top end of the wealth distribution, while wealth at the bottom end, in constant dollars is declining. It is self-evident to most people why this is undesirable in a nominally democratic nation. Quite obviously it is unsustainable. Though a skewed wealth distribution is the normal state of affairs, government policy will ideally prevent excessive growth in the skew, and once it forms will initiate policies that tend over time to reduce skew. Is it possible to lift all boats? Yes it seems it should be if the size of the pie can be increased in constant dollars. By leaving more capital with the labor class, increasing productivity, and allowing the labor class to participate in productivity gains, it should be possible. It will take very forward thinking, and wouldn't that be nice!.
Yeah that makes sense. Sort of like the few guys who skim fractions of a cent off bank balances. Over time it adds up. But then again you say it is not sustainable so..........I already went through this one time with the Soviet Union, we spent a fortune defeating something that was unsustainable. But I'll agree with you about the problem, but probably not the solution.
Here's a discussion, written by a former policy adviser to Reagan: http://ritholtz.com/2017/04/republican-tax-cut-myth/
A lot of mixed facts. Nobody has yet proven that lower taxes and lower spending does anything good or bad because it's never been tried. The closest we ever got was starve the beast and make it borrow. And one country tried feeding the beast everything.