Trump Emphasizes Growth and Private Investment in Economic Speech

[Catholic Crusader]

Trump Emphasizes Growth and Private Investment in Economic Speech
The more disciplined Republican contrasted himself with Hillary Clinton.
2:50 PM, AUG 08, 2016 | By FRED BARNES
http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump...investment-in-economic-speech/article/2003729

Donald Trump's speech on the economy Monday puts him in a strong position on the issue on which Hillary Clinton is weakest and politically vulnerable.

Trump offered a series of initiatives, including cuts in the corporate and individual tax rates, that he said would create a "new future" and a "new history" for the country and "show the world America is back—bigger, better, and stronger than ever before."

The agenda he outlined in his speech to the Detroit Economic Club establishes a dramatic contrast with Clinton's plan for stimulating the economy. Trump called it "a night and day contrast." Clinton would rely almost entirely on higher taxes and government spending to spur job creation, especially by building roads, bridges and other infrastructure. Trump emphasizes the private sector and incentives for private investment. "I want to jump start America," he said........(SNIP)

More >> http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump...investment-in-economic-speech/article/2003729

 

[rexlunae]

More tax cuts? My, how innovative. Never heard that one before.

Oh, no wait, it's basically the only plan Republicans have been able to come up with for economic growth for the past 30 years.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

More tax cuts? My, how innovative. Never heard that one before....

They work. Let people keep their money. It works every time.

....Oh, no wait, it's basically the only plan Republicans have been able to come up with for economic growth for the past 30 years.

...and it always works, until Democrats come in and screw it up.

 

[rexlunae]

They work. Let people keep their money. It works every time.

So, the Bush tax cut. Those worked, you think? What were the deficits like before and after? How about economic growth. How much of that can you trace to those tax cuts?

...and it always works, until Democrats come in and screw it up.

I'd like to see you back that up with some data. It's a fairy tale Republicans like to tell, but it isn't true.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

So, the Bush tax cut. Those worked, you think?.......

Yes, they did, quite well, for six years, until the Democrats got the Congress in his last two years. The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. He did not.

Before the Democrats took Congress in 2007 unemployment was 4.1%, gas was $1.70 a gallon, and the economy was expanding.

Then the Democrats took Congress in 2007 and promptly destroyed the economy. When Obama became president in 2009 he made it twice as bad.

Let’s do a little math here:

Bush was president for 8 years, from 2001 to 2009.

As I said, in 2007 unemployment was 4.1% and the economy was expanding. That is SIX years into the Bush presidency mind you - SIX OUT OF EIGHT. (And BTW: 4.1% is almost perfect since there is no such thing as a 0% rate.)

Now, can anyone explain to me why the first six years of the eight-year Bush presidency was just fine, and then magically, when the Democrats took over Congress, the economy tanked? Simple: The Democrats took power. When they took power they pushed their social engineering policy of trying to let minorities who wants to own a house own a house whether they could afford it or not. All the bad loans the banks made, they were browbeat into that by the Left. And THAT was the first domino in line to fall.

As I said: The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. In fact, Democrats did, with policies that can find their genesis in the Clinton years

 

[Tinark]

Yes, they did, quite well, for six years, until the Democrats got the Congress in his last two years. The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. He did not.

Before the Democrats took Congress in 2007 unemployment was 4.1%, gas was $1.70 a gallon, and the economy was expanding.

Then the Democrats took Congress in 2007 and promptly destroyed the economy. When Obama became president in 2009 he made it twice as bad.

Let’s do a little math here:

Bush was president for 8 years, from 2001 to 2009.

As I said, in 2007 unemployment was 4.1% and the economy was expanding. That is SIX years into the Bush presidency mind you - SIX OUT OF EIGHT. (And BTW: 4.1% is almost perfect since there is no such thing as a 0% rate.)

Now, can anyone explain to me why the first six years of the eight-year Bush presidency was just fine, and then magically, when the Democrats took over Congress, the economy tanked? Simple: The Democrats took power. When they took power they pushed their social engineering policy of trying to let minorities who wants to own a house own a house whether they could afford it or not. All the bad loans the banks made, they were browbeat into that by the Left. And THAT was the first domino in line to fall.

As I said: The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. In fact, Democrats did, with policies that can find their genesis in the Clinton years

You are so deluded.

The bad loans that wrecked the financial system originated almost entirely pre-2007:

A proximate cause was the rise in subprime lending. The percentage of lower-quality subprime mortgages originated during a given year rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S.[6][7] A high percentage of these subprime mortgages, over 80% in 2006 for example, were adjustable-rate mortgages.[4] These two changes were part of a broader trend of lowered lending standards and higher-risk mortgage products.[4][8] Further, U.S. households had become increasingly indebted, with the ratio of debt to disposable personal income rising from 77% in 1990 to 127% at the end of 2007, much of this increase mortgage-related.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Housing prices peaked in mid-2006.

Furthermore, which laws specially are you referring to that were passed by the Democratic controlled congress and signed by Bush? Or are you just talking nonsense?

Finally, Democrats controlled congress and the presidency from 2009 and 2011. The economy began recovery in 2009 and has been growing ever since.

It's bad form to be making stuff up.

 

[rexlunae]

Yes, they did, quite well, for six years, until the Democrats got the Congress in his last two years.

Well, I asked specifically about the deficit. And you didn't answer, because I think you know what happened. We went from a budget surplus, nearly unprecedented in US history, to a massive and growing budget deficit. The Democrats and President Obama didn't undo any of this until 2012, and then only a small portion of it, and yet, the predictions by conservatives that it would (somehow) allow us to retire the debt by 2010 were never fulfilled. You can't blame this on Democrats. What do you think happened?

The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. He did not.

I'm not talking about that right now, although I think it is largely true, if only through mismanagement. I'm just talking about how the tax cuts impacted the federal deficit.

Before the Democrats took Congress in 2007 unemployment was 4.1%, gas was $1.70 a gallon, and the economy was expanding.

...as was the budget deficit.

Then the Democrats took Congress in 2007 and promptly destroyed the economy. When Obama became president in 2009 he made it twice as bad.

Ok, then what specific policy did the Democrats implement controlling the Congress that caused that? There was no tax hike, so that couldn't be it.

Let’s do a little math here:

Bush was president for 8 years, from 2001 to 2009.

As I said, in 2007 unemployment was 4.1% and the economy was expanding. That is SIX years into the Bush presidency mind you - SIX OUT OF EIGHT. (And BTW: 4.1% is almost perfect since there is no such thing as a 0% rate.)

One might argue that the high times of the mid-Oughties were being financed by a delirious run of debt, both in the form of underpaying for federal programs and also over-leveraging real estate, which was at inflating prices. The fact that it came crashing down suggests that it wasn't robust growth. And it fits an economic pattern much more common in the early 20th century, of strong boom and bust cycles.

Now, can anyone explain to me why the first six years of the eight-year Bush presidency was just fine, and then magically, when the Democrats took over Congress, the economy tanked? Simple: The Democrats took power.

Well, that is magical thinking. You're not pointing to a piece of legislation or a policy that was enacted. You're literally arguing that just by being in office in the legislature, the Democrats destroyed the economy. Nevermind that they didn't pass any tax hikes. Nevermind that they didn't pass any major new regulatory schemes, or any of the normal right-wing boogeymen that conservatives like to point to in a pinch. Simply by the magic of being elected, they ruined everything.

No. The reason it took 6 years is that it took several years of mismanagement and neglect to inflate that bubble. Some of the blame for the under-regulation falls on Bill Clinton. But most of it falls on the Bush administration, which was asleep at the wheel.

When they took power they pushed their social engineering policy of trying to let minorities who wants to own a house own a house whether they could afford it or not. All the bad loans the banks made, they were browbeat into that by the Left. And THAT was the first domino in line to fall.

In 2007, you didn't have to browbeat the banks to make bad loans. They'd make a bad loan in the morning, and then they'd trade 1000x that amount on synthetic derivatives based on it. But it's also not true that banks have been required to make bad loans to minorities. What the rules prohibit is the practice of redlining, i.e. offering commercial banking services in an area where loans are not offered on the same terms of all others. I know it's hard for conservatives to believe, because it's so economically insane, but banks would literally refuse to lend money to perfectly creditworthy people who lived in places that had a lot of people of color. And it wasn't disproportionately people of color who defaulted in the economic disaster of 2007-2008. It was middle-class America and poor America all over.

As I said: The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. In fact, Democrats did, with policies that can find their genesis in the Clinton years

Some of them, yes. Policies supported by the banks, and by many members of both parties.

 

[rexlunae]

No response. So I'll add a little bit, because I'm watching Fox News try to make Trump's economic plan look good.

Republicans keep making the same mistake, over and over again. They think you give more money to businesses, you give more money to "job creators" in the form of tax cuts, and they'll make more jobs and build more competitive businesses, and the economy will roar. And maybe they think the added economic activity will make up for the lost tax revenue. But it just doesn't work that way. What's needed to start or expand a business isn't the money. The money will come to the right business. What's needed is the opportunity. And to create the opportunity, you don't need to empower the already rich and powerful. You need to empower the poor. You need to empower the middle class. You need buying power in the hands of the millions of people who actually buy things. That's the only way to create real wealth, and jobs, and ultimately prosperity in a consumer economy.

These folks who tell you that tax cuts are for the good of the middle class are liars. Especially those who try to tell you that cutting or eliminating the estate (death) tax is in the best interests of "working" families. In fact, most of the time, when a rich politician is talking about "working" families in relation to a tax cut, they're patronizing you and trying to manipulate you. We need to make investments that actually benefit everyone, and especially the poor, and cutting taxes makes it harder to do that, as it puts pressure on to cut expenses rather than making wise investments for the future.

There's one good thing in Trump's economic proposals, which is the investment in infrastructure, but the other side of that is that you simply have to pay for it, and that takes revenue. You can't count on an economic boom to fill the gap, because you can't predict the future.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.....Republicans keep making the same mistake, over and over again. They think you give more money to businesses, you give more money to "job creators" in the form of tax cuts, and they'll make more jobs and build more competitive businesses, and the economy will roar.......

"Give" money? Its their money!! LOL! Your brain is fried man. Its not a matter of "giving" money you half-wit, its a matter of not taking as much away. Its not the government's to "give" in the first place.

We have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world!! Thats why businesses leave and park assets off shore. Business roared when Reagan cut taxes, and as I sated above, business was great when Bush did it. The Democrats destroy it every time.

You haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about. You are just regurgitating the same KoolAid that the media and the Left gives you to drink.

 

[rexlunae]

I see you've earned yourself a time-out. Here are a few thoughts for you to consider when you return.

"Give" money? Its their money!! LOL! Your brain is fried man.

Currently, what we're talking about is money owed in taxes. It's only theirs until their taxes come due. And since all companies benefit from government services, and frequently base their business models on them, this is hardly unfair.

Be honest with me for a moment. You don't care about any of the economic arguments, right? This isn't about what's good for the economy, and it isn't about creating jobs. This is a moral argument pretending to be an economic argument. You're morally opposed to taxes, because you consider them to be theft, and it doesn't matter what level they are at, you think taxes on income are just wrong. Am I right?

Its not a matter of "giving" money you half-wit, its a matter of not taking as much away. Its not the government's to "give" in the first place.

None of this changes anything. It's just semantic quibbling. I think it's fair to say that money owed in taxes belongs to the government. The government, in turn, is owned by the People. Why don't you respond to the substance of the post instead of the minutia.

We have the HIGHEST corporate tax rate in the world!! Thats why businesses leave and park assets off shore. Business roared when Reagan cut taxes, and as I sated above, business was great when Bush did it. The Democrats destroy it every time.

And yet, people still do business in the US. We have, in fact, one of the largest economies in the world.

Business doesn't need a tax break, and the larger point is that it wouldn't significantly stimulate the economy if they got one.

You haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about. You are just regurgitating the same KoolAid that the media and the Left gives you to drink.

Says the guy who practically sounds like a cut-rate Fox News economist. You've got all these claims, all these ideas, but no facts to back them up. And you still haven't said a single thing about how you would tackle the deficit your policies would open up.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

True and un-refuted:

So, the Bush tax cut. Those worked, you think?.......

Yes, they did, quite well, for six years, until the Democrats got the Congress in his last two years. The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. He did not.

Before the Democrats took Congress in 2007 unemployment was 4.1%, gas was $1.70 a gallon, and the economy was expanding.

Then the Democrats took Congress in 2007 and promptly destroyed the economy. When Obama became president in 2009 he made it twice as bad.

Let’s do a little math here:

Bush was president for 8 years, from 2001 to 2009.

As I said, in 2007 unemployment was 4.1% and the economy was expanding. That is SIX years into the Bush presidency mind you - SIX OUT OF EIGHT. (And BTW: 4.1% is almost perfect since there is no such thing as a 0% rate.)

Now, can anyone explain to me why the first six years of the eight-year Bush presidency was just fine, and then magically, when the Democrats took over Congress, the economy tanked? Simple: The Democrats took power. When they took power they pushed their social engineering policy of trying to let minorities who wants to own a house own a house whether they could afford it or not. All the bad loans the banks made, they were browbeat into that by the Left. And THAT was the first domino in line to fall.

As I said: The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. In fact, Democrats did, with policies that can find their genesis in the Clinton years

 

[rexlunae]

Yes, they did, quite well, for six years, until the Democrats got the Congress in his last two years. The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. He did not.

Before the Democrats took Congress in 2007 unemployment was 4.1%, gas was $1.70 a gallon, and the economy was expanding.

That's quite impressive, if it's true. Your claim is that in a single year, without control of the Senate or the Presidency and therefore the ability to pass legislation, the Democrats somehow managed to wreck the economy. And you expect us to believe that without even a suggestion of what policy might have caused it. Just a change of letters beside names on ballots produces economic Armageddon.

But the fact of the matter is that when the Democrats took control of the House, the factors that would lead to the great recession were already well in motion. Home prices peaked in 2005 (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-chart-20) and continued falling until the banks that had funded the economic boom with wild bets went bust.

But that isn't the point. That's not what we were talking about. The claim that supply siders like to make is that lower taxes allow the government to collect more revenue because they stimulate the economy and produce more revenue at a lower rate. So I asked for you to share how you thought it worked in the Bush years. We had a small surplus when Bush took office. And then Bush cut taxes, twice. What do you think happened to the deficit when he did that? Did it go up, or down? Do you know the answer? Here's a hint:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

Then the Democrats took Congress in 2007 and promptly destroyed the economy. When Obama became president in 2009 he made it twice as bad.

It's like magic.

Let’s do a little math here:

Bush was president for 8 years, from 2001 to 2009.

As I said, in 2007 unemployment was 4.1% and the economy was expanding. That is SIX years into the Bush presidency mind you - SIX OUT OF EIGHT. (And BTW: 4.1% is almost perfect since there is no such thing as a 0% rate.)

Six out of eight? That's almost a passing grade!

Yes, you can have a booming economy when you're financing it on credit. You can also have quite a party if you withdraw all your money, take advances on all your credit cards, and blow it in one night in Vegas. And then the bill comes due. And I'm not even talking about the federal deficit, which wasn't out of control at that time. I'm talking about the massive debts being packaged and repackaged in ever more arcane mortgage securities. And it happened under the Bush administration's noses, without them ever realizing what was going on. Yes, the economy was growing. But the growth was unsustainable, and driven by debt. Bush's wild spending spree on unfunded wars and unfunded tax cuts (which is actually tied to specific policies that he pushed, not just his proximity to elected office) was one element of a much larger mania.

Now, can anyone explain to me why the first six years of the eight-year Bush presidency was just fine, and then magically, when the Democrats took over Congress, the economy tanked?

I mean, if it sounds like magic to you...

Simple: The Democrats took power. When they took power they pushed their social engineering policy of trying to let minorities who wants to own a house own a house whether they could afford it or not. All the bad loans the banks made, they were browbeat into that by the Left. And THAT was the first domino in line to fall.

Except that they didn't take power. They took one house of Congress. That's not really enough to push a social agenda. And even if it were, two years isn't even close to enough time to blow up the mortgage market with bad debt. That was happening before the election. Do you remember the ads on TV for all sorts of adjustable rate mortgages? That wasn't an innovation of Democratic control of the House of Representatives. That was happening for years at that point. And, contrary to the race-blaming that so many conservatives love to do, it wasn't because banks started lending to people who aren't white.

As I said: The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. In fact, Democrats did, with policies that can find their genesis in the Clinton years

I didn't say that Bush caused the economic crisis. My point is that he blew up the deficit, long before the economic crisis. He didn't do much to prevent the economic crisis. Neither did the Democrats. Neither party is innocent on that score, although the Republicans held most of the federal power at the time, including the executive branch, which could perhaps have stopped it. Still, many Democrats, including the current nominee for President and her husband have been very friendly to the banks, and that has generally had a negative impact on policy. However, the only politicians currently trying to do anything reign in the near impunity of the banks are Democrats, and that's worth something too.

We should have been running very small deficits during the economic boom period, or even running a surplus and paying the debts down. That way, when an economic crisis hits, we don't have to spend trillions of dollars that we don't have dealing with it.

 

[annabenedetti]

Yes, you can have a booming economy when you're financing it on credit. You can also have quite a party if you withdraw all your money, take advances on all your credit cards, and blow it in one night in Vegas. And then the bill comes due. And I'm not even talking about the federal deficit, which wasn't out of control at that time. I'm talking about the massive debts being packaged and repackaged in ever more arcane mortgage securities. And it happened under the Bush administration's noses, without them ever realizing what was going on. Yes, the economy was growing. But the growth was unsustainable, and driven by debt. Bush's wild spending spree on unfunded wars and unfunded tax cuts (which is actually tied to specific policies that he pushed, not just his proximity to elected office) was one element of a much larger mania.

Great post, all of it. And you're spot on about the magical thinking.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Larry Kudlow: Donald Trump Is the middle-class growth candidate
Kudlow: Donald Trump Is the middle-class growth candidate

......In general terms, he will pledge to lower marginal tax rates on both large and small businesses and on all income classes. He also will propose a hike in the standard deduction for families and special deductions for childcare and the elderly.

All of these polices will help the middle class. Trump's plan will generate substantial new investment, business formation, jobs, and growth – and, hence, higher wages.

Trump is the pro-growth candidate in this race. Hillary Clinton is the anti-growth candidate. Trump wants to expand national income and the economic pie. Clinton wants to redistribute income and shrink the pie.

In past columns, I have equated Trump's tax-reduction plan to the JFK and Ronald Reagan tax cuts, which generated economic booms of roughly 5 percent growth per year. President Barack Obama, by comparison, has raised taxes, spending, and regulations, producing the worst recovery since World War II. And Clinton intends to follow in Obama's footsteps with a Bernie Sanders-like, left-wing policy mix. She is the Democrats' anti-JFK. What a pity...........