The Trump Tax Cut: Even Worse Than You’ve Heard

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Not really the point is it

But let’s give corporate America huge tax breaks removing money from the budget.. then screw the workers. Saying sorry we can’t afford your raise .... we’re broke
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Krugman's assertion is that overall wages in the private economy have not gone up, then what is the point of raising public sector wages which depend on income derived from taxing the private sector? And if government workers already have better job security, better guaranteed pension and health insurance than the average private sector worker, as well as, on average, higher pay, then what is the problem with cutting some of that fat from government spending?

And if the reason for corporate tax cuts is to create more jobs, then those cuts are a boon to the "little (unemployed or underemployed) guy." Unemployment numbers are significantly down. That aspect of the tax cuts is working.

And, what TDF said, Obama did it too, so it must be good because Obama is a way better POTUS than Trump.

And, yeah, the government is broke, has been broke . . . and the Krugman/Keynesian deficit spending model will ensure that it will remain broke for a long time . . . or forever.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If Krugman's assertion is that overall wages in the private economy have not gone up, then what is the point of raising public sector wages which depend on income derived from taxing the private sector? And if government workers already have better job security, better guaranteed pension and health insurance than the average private sector worker, as well as, on average, higher pay, then what is the problem with cutting some of that fat from government spending?

And if the reason for corporate tax cuts is to create more jobs, then those cuts are a boon to the "little (unemployed or underemployed) guy." Unemployment numbers are significantly down. That aspect of the tax cuts is working.

And, what TDF said, Obama did it too, so it must be good because Obama is a way better POTUS than Trump.

And, yeah, the government is broke, has been broke . . . and the Krugman/Keynesian deficit spending model will ensure that it will remain broke for a long time . . . or forever.

I didn't even see that Paul Krugman wrote this, I should have guessed! Krugman previously said that the US economy would never recover from a Trump presidency, meanwhile the economy is rolling along better than it was 2 years ago by just about any conceivable measure. the guy has exactly ZERO credibility, he's not a scientist, he's a liberal advocate. Everything he says and writes, shows a clear liberal bias.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If Krugman's assertion is that overall wages in the private economy have not gone up, then what is the point of raising public sector wages which depend on income derived from taxing the private sector? And if government workers already have better job security, better guaranteed pension and health insurance than the average private sector worker, as well as, on average, higher pay, then what is the problem with cutting some of that fat from government spending?

And if the reason for corporate tax cuts is to create more jobs, then those cuts are a boon to the "little (unemployed or underemployed) guy." Unemployment numbers are significantly down. That aspect of the tax cuts is working.

And, what TDF said, Obama did it too, so it must be good because Obama is a way better POTUS than Trump.

And, yeah, the government is broke, has been broke . . . and the Krugman/Keynesian deficit spending model will ensure that it will remain broke for a long time . . . or forever.

WDMSO, detbuch asks a tremendous question. If wages are not going up in the private sector, then even if tax rates were unchanged, that means tax revenue collected stays the same, so by what logic should public sector workers than get raises?

You have fun answering that one.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WDMSO, detbuch asks a tremendous question. If wages are not going up in the private sector, then even if tax rates were unchanged, that means tax revenue collected stays the same, so by what logic should public sector workers than get raises?

You have fun answering that one.

because they dont work for private companies... Wow that was hard

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

because they dont work for private companies... Wow that was hard

you didn’t understand the question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you didn’t understand the question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no clearly you dont understand that somehow Trumps tax cut is a good thing but raises are a bad thing but you insist only one impacts the US budget aka raises

if the economy is booming as you constantly remind us how is a 2.5% raise hurting the budget????


“House and Senate Republicans have made a joint offer that includes the 1.9 percent pay raise

but Trump is against it? why is that ?? anger payback or he cares about the budget?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

if the economy is booming as you constantly remind us how is a 2.5% raise hurting the budget????

So you're admitting that the economy is booming?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Wow that was hard

Government workers are employees of the people of this country. They serve the people, not the other way around. The average private sector citizen makes much less in total wage and benefits than the average public employee. Perhaps you see merit in a system wherein the servant makes more than the master . . . and which accuses the master of being a greedy, fascist pig.

Most private companies are not huge corporations. If you are suggesting that all small to medium size businesses should provide their employees the same wage and benefit packages as well as the job security that average government workers are given, can you please explain how they can afford to do so?

They can't endlessly borrow from their employees in order to pay them. But the federal government not only does that, it borrows from the people that employ it. And the financial debt it owes to the people of this country should more than bankrupt it. It should go to prison for the massive fraud, the embezzlement, it has perpetrated on the people who employ it. But the Ponzi scheme it foists on us is secure because rather than serving us, it rules us.

Yeah, it's not hard for you to say "because they dont work for private companies..." But they do work for a big crook who pays them with an endless supply of stolen money.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Government workers are employees of the people of this country. They serve the people, not the other way around. The average private sector citizen makes much less in total wage and benefits than the average public employee. Perhaps you see merit in a system wherein the servant makes more than the master . . . and which accuses the master of being a greedy, fascist pig.

Most private companies are not huge corporations. If you are suggesting that all small to medium size businesses should provide their employees the same wage and benefit packages as well as the job security that average government workers are given, can you please explain how they can afford to do so?

They can't endlessly borrow from their employees in order to pay them. But the federal government not only does that, it borrows from the people that employ it. And the financial debt it owes to the people of this country should more than bankrupt it. It should go to prison for the massive fraud, the embezzlement, it has perpetrated on the people who employ it. But the Ponzi scheme it foists on us is secure because rather than serving us, it rules us.

Yeah, it's not hard for you to say "because they dont work for private companies..." But they do work for a big crook who pays them with an endless supply of stolen money.

Good summary
And accurate as well



I usually giggle when Spence denies he is a liberal and says he is a centrist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Government workers are employees of the people of this country. They serve the people, not the other way around. The average private sector citizen makes much less in total wage and benefits than the average public employee. Perhaps you see merit in a system wherein the servant makes more than the master . . . and which accuses the master of being a greedy, fascist pig.

Most private companies are not huge corporations. If you are suggesting that all small to medium size businesses should provide their employees the same wage and benefit packages as well as the job security that average government workers are given, can you please explain how they can afford to do so?

They can't endlessly borrow from their employees in order to pay them. But the federal government not only does that, it borrows from the people that employ it. And the financial debt it owes to the people of this country should more than bankrupt it. It should go to prison for the massive fraud, the embezzlement, it has perpetrated on the people who employ it. But the Ponzi scheme it foists on us is secure because rather than serving us, it rules us.

Yeah, it's not hard for you to say "because they dont work for private companies..." But they do work for a big crook who pays them with an endless supply of stolen money.

again your anti anything Government arguments are endless

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

again your anti anything Government arguments are endless

I don't have any anti-government arguments. I have specifically said, many times, that government has a role. It is only when government overreaches, beyond its prescribed and necessary role in our country that I am against it.

But you have this endless inability to understand that simple concept. For you, any criticism of government, valid or not, is this ignorant, all encompassing, meme: "anti-government."