Trump's Policies Part 4

[spidermayin]

The only president in history where you could post an April fools joke about one of his policies and it wouldn't seem out of the realm possibility. What times we live in now.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

The only president in history where you could post an April fools joke about one of his policies and it wouldn't seem out of the realm possibility. What times we live in now.

This morning, I was sipping my coffee and watching the local news when my wife started complaining immediately about how most of the stuff on Facebook this morning is all April Fools nonsense and she can't really believe anything she sees there. My question: "How is that different from any other day?"

 

[Bodhisattva]

The Laffer Curve has not been "disproven" any more than y=2x+4 has been "disproven." The Laffer Curve is just a curve. Where we are on that curve is the question.
If the federal government were to tax incomes at the rate of 1% per annum, then it seems likely that raising that tax rate to 2% would increase total federal revenues.
At some point, however, increasing tax rates will smother economic activity to the point that it decreases economic activity and actually reduces federal revenues.
FDR in 1942 set the top marginal income tax rate in the US at 100%. Congress increased federal revenues by reducing the top marginal rate to 97%.
At some point on that curve is the "federal revenue maximizing" point. Once at that point on the curve, if you either raise or lower tax rates, you will reduce tax revenues. It all depends on where you are on the curve.

Yep. It is so amusingly strange that those criticizing an economic theory or policy whiff so wildly on basic concepts and definitions. But they are very loud and confident, so they have that going for them.

 

[Bodhisattva]

This morning, I was sipping my coffee and watching the local news when my wife started complaining immediately about how most of the stuff on Facebook this morning is all April Fools nonsense and she can't really believe anything she sees there. My question: "How is that different from any other day?"

I walked into my office this morning and told everyone that my default setting for the day is to assume that anything anyone says to me is a lie, all food and drink offered are poisoned, and all fire alarms are false.

 

[Huckleberry]

This is just plain weird. Court documents about this guy are making the rounds now and it appears that he was not only here illegally, he was also an MS-13 gang member. So they accidently snagged the type of individual they are trying to get out of here? What are the odds?

It sounds like this story is still developing. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Is he a gang member? If so, why is the Trump Administration admitting a mistake?

 

[CrimsonJazz]

It sounds like this story is still developing. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Is he a gang member? If so, why is the Trump Administration admitting a mistake?

Exactly my question! I don't really believe in coincidence, so......

 

[Tidewater]

Yep. It is so amusingly strange that those criticizing an economic theory or policy whiff so wildly on basic concepts and definitions. But they are very loud and confident, so they have that going for them.

I forget now where I heard that FDR had set the top marginal income tax rate at 100%, but when I looked it up, I'll be darned. FDR did do that.

 

[Huckleberry]

Exactly my question! I don't really believe in coincidence, so......

I read that he was accused by an informant of being a gang member which led to him being denied bond (in 2019), but it wasn’t proven and he wasn’t convicted.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I read that he was accused by an informant of being a gang member which led to him being denied bond (in 2019), but it wasn’t proven and he wasn’t convicted.

Like you said, it will be worth following to see what happens (if anything.)

 

[selmaborntidefan]

/

The Trump Cult: "It's all part of his master plan! Just give it some time."

Or "he was just joking."

I asked my brother this morning, "Why can't all you press guys just decide you're going to call him President Troll? It's accurate, it'll upset him, and it has five letters, too."

Trump is the kind of President that incel in the basement would be if he ever managed to leave the basement and get elected.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

You're probably right. But I encountered enough of a sample size of people in my walk of life from 2008-2016 that certainly and admittedly felt this way about Obama. And it was a sentiment more widespread in Alabama than we would care to admit...

I don't doubt it in SINGULAR CASES. I don't doubt it in MANY singular cases. In fact, you and I would probably agree that (sadly) a substantial chunk of such cases are the Roy Moore base.

I just don't see how that's what delivered the election(s) to Trump is all I'm saying.

And sadly, I know you're right about Alabama. But those voters weren't going to vote for a white Democrat, either; and as too many showed, if they'll vote for Roy Moore 2017, Trump 2016 was a whole lot more reasonable.

 

[Tidewater]

I'd like to congratulate President trump, he has done the impossible

He has brought together China, Japan and SOuth Korea. I guess all they needed was a common enemy, us and stupid trade policies.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china-japan-south-korea-will-jointly-respond-us-tariffs-chinese-state-media-says-2025-03-31/

oh, and this is terrible for the US

I was reliably informed in 1860 that every American has a patriotic duty to give money to US industrialists via the mechanism of a protective tariff and anyone opposed to that policy was a traitor. "Do you patriot duty! Give money to American industrialists!"

On a more serious note, this is bad policy.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

This morning, I was sipping my coffee and watching the local news when my wife started complaining immediately about how most of the stuff on Facebook this morning is all April Fools nonsense and she can't really believe anything she sees there. My question: "How is that different from any other day?"

I'm going through this year and setting my old posts to "only me" and while I will remain on Facebook to see what's going on with people I like (including some here), a bunch are getting placed on the "unfollow" log, too.

I'm tired of seeing my prom date pull this old, "Cancer has increased since had vaccines" nonsense. At least my college classmate who had the misfortune of losing a child to them in a legit reaction, I understand why she feels the way she does.

"Why would a baby need a Hep B vaccine? Babies don't have sex!"
I mean, the sheer stupidity.

And the Trump Cult? Forget about it. My developing favorite is a tossup between my high school classmate who converted to Judaism and the coworker raised in Lebanon, who is Palestinian.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The Laffer Curve has not been "disproven" any more than y=2x+4 has been "disproven." The Laffer Curve is just a curve. Where we are on that curve is the question.

Me suspects we have another case of "Laffer Curve equals Trickle Down Economics," which the larger point of the curve is the "breaking point" between when revenues increase or decrease. Thirty years ago I did an Economics paper for a management class (one I wish now I never had because let's just admit I was dumb about the subject), and I had to do a ton of learning on that subject since my chosen topic was, in fact, Reaganomics, an easy subject to cover in eight pages, har har.

But learning the Laffer Curve and the fact it wasn't - even by its advocates - quite as simple as revenues increase with tax decrease.

And for the record, folks, for all of the bashing of rich business people, I've yet to see a poor man create a job for anyone. And yes, I'm half joking but the point is not wrong.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I've yet to see a poor man create a job for anyone. And yes, I'm half joking but the point is not wrong.

Do government employees count?

 

[75thru79]

I don't doubt it in SINGULAR CASES. I don't doubt it in MANY singular cases. In fact, you and I would probably agree that (sadly) a substantial chunk of such cases are the Roy Moore base.

I live in what I would call a largely "white" area of northern Atlanta (mostly college educated) and I cannot recall one instance of hearing anyone say anything negative about a black man being elected President. A lot of people didn't like what he was doing with the ACA and the green crap but nothing anywhere remotely related to racism.

 

[Tidewater]

Me suspects we have another case of "Laffer Curve equals Trickle Down Economics," which the larger point of the curve is the "breaking point" between when revenues increase or decrease. Thirty years ago I did an Economics paper for a management class (one I wish now I never had because let's just admit I was dumb about the subject), and I had to do a ton of learning on that subject since my chosen topic was, in fact, Reaganomics, an easy subject to cover in eight pages, har har.

But learning the Laffer Curve and the fact it wasn't - even by its advocates - quite as simple as revenues increase with tax decrease.

And for the record, folks, for all of the bashing of rich business people, I've yet to see a poor man create a job for anyone. And yes, I'm half joking but the point is not wrong.

I think that the Laffer Curve is probably generally "bell-shaped," but not necessarily symmetrical.
If you look at the top margin income tax rates in US history, you will see something like this:

Conservatives like to point out that Kennedy reduced tax rates and increased tax revenues and the Reagan could do the same thing. I would argue that Kennedy in 1963 (i.e. 91% top marginal rate) was on a different part of the curve from Reagan in 1986 (50% marginal rate).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think that the Laffer Curve is probably generally "bell-shaped," but not necessarily symmetrical.
If you look at the top margin income tax rates in US history, you will see something like this:
View attachment 50211
Conservatives like to point out that Kennedy reduced tax rates and increased tax revenues and the Reagan could do the same thing. I would argue that Kennedy in 1963 (i.e. 91% top marginal rate) was on a different part of the curve from Reagan in 1986 (50% marginal rate).

This is also where the post-Reagan GOP loses it. I mean, we can argue numbers, but "the tax cut worked for Reagan" is ludicrous when he was doing it for folks paying 70% and pretending it's the same now.

And btw - let the record show FDR never once balanced the dadgum budget despite "taxing the rich" more so than it's ever been done. So let's end that pretense NOW that "tax the rich plus cut defense" is going to accomplish that. And let's see the proposed cuts in entitlement spending from the same folks who are waiting to pounce and say, "You wanna starve children and throw grandma off a cliff."

 

[Bamaro]

This is also where the post-Reagan GOP loses it. I mean, we can argue numbers, but "the tax cut worked for Reagan" is ludicrous when he was doing it for folks paying 70% and pretending it's the same now.

And btw - let the record show FDR never once balanced the dadgum budget despite "taxing the rich" more so than it's ever been done. So let's end that pretense NOW that "tax the rich plus cut defense" is going to accomplish that. And let's see the proposed cuts in entitlement spending from the same folks who are waiting to pounce and say, "You wanna starve children and throw grandma off a cliff."

Maybe letting trump tax cuts expire, at least freezing defense spending and fixing SS, would be a start?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Maybe letting trump tax cuts expire, at least freezing defense spending and fixing SS, would be a start?

What does "fixing SS" mean?

I'm fine with raising taxes.
I'm' with defense cuts.

IT'S. NOT. ENOUGH.

So put in a bill lefties cuts to entitlement or SOMETHING that you will vote for and pass in exchange for what you want. None of this "I'm willing to cut spending" nonsense I've heard all my life. None of this "the President is supposed to go first" cowardice.

Spell them out, put them in the bill to cut them, and then let's see what happens.

It'll never happen, which is why I can't take either party serious on "deficit reduction." Every single "I'm willing to cut everything" used to be followed by a moderate Republican dumb enough to say "let's cut everything" - followed by the shrieks and horrors of "they're taking grandma's social security!"