Trump gonna slash taxes for corporations to 15% .. instant EPS boost right there ... lets his Goldman buddies run wild and do anything they please.. along with Exxon and Hardee's CEOs .. and anti EPA guy that is now head of EPA.. mega "pro big business" administration aka do whatever they want... and send debt levels up up and away .. along with inflation.. congress gonna let him do anything he wants.. stagflation not a worry at all.. all these businesses are going to reinvest all this tax savings into people cause that's what they always do!... and we gonna bubble like it's 1999 before the mega bust...
get on board now before it's too late!!!
Gold was 650 dow 13250 when thread started way back when in July 2007 before the market top...
49% gain for dow 78% gain for gold.. if you factor in Dow dividends likely pretty close but...
at this snipet in time think markets extremely overvalued/overbought and gold is a great long here after it had a cyclical bear within its long term secular bull (due to continued fiscal irresponsibility)
guess we shall see
49% gain for dow 78% gain for gold.. if you factor in Dow dividends likely pretty close but...
at this snipet in time think markets extremely overvalued/overbought and gold is a great long here after it had a cyclical bear within its long term secular bull (due to continued fiscal irresponsibility)
guess we shall see
Also not just bashing trump to bash him.. I'll give him thumbs up when he makes sense..
gonna be real tough to clean up the massive crony capitalism which occurs within our military industrial complex.. good luck trump I'll be rooting for ya..
--------
[h=1]Trump takes aim at Pentagon’s ‘revolving door’ and Lockheed Martin’s $400 billion F-35 program[/h]By Christian Davenport
December 12, 2016 at 10:45 AM
Checkpoint
A sailor aboard the USS Wasp (LHD-1) signals to the pilot of an F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter to land as it arrives for the first phase of operational testing in May 2015. (Lance Cpl. Remington Hall/U.S. Marine Corps)
Just over a year after Northrop Grumman won the multibillion dollar contract to build a next-generation stealth bomber, the company appointed Mark Welsh, who was serving as Air Force chief of staff at the time of the contract award, to its board.
The appointment, announced Friday, is not unusual in Washington, where former high-ranking Pentagon officials often go to work for the defense industry after their military service. But it comes as President-elect Donald Trump is highlighting the potential conflicts of interests in the “revolving door” between the Pentagon and industry, as he vows to clean up Washington.
On Monday, Trump also took a shot at Lockheed Martin’s $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the most expensive in the history of the Pentagon, saying the “cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20[SUP]th[/SUP].”
Related: It’s been a topsy-turvy fews weeks for the F-35 program
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Trump said there should be a “lifetime restriction” of top defense officials going to work for defense contractors.
“The people that are making these deals for the government, they should never be allowed to go to work for these companies,” he said. “You know, they make a deal like that and then a year later, or two years later, or three years later you see them working for these big companies that made the deal.”
As Air Force chief of staff, Welsh, a former four-star general, had “no involvement in the [bomber] source selection process and provided no input into the decision to award the bomber contract to Northrop Grumman,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said in a statement.
She said that all “departing federal employees are subject to post-government employment conflict of interest restrictions.” Those rules “do not prohibit General Welsh from joining Northrop Grumman. However, those rules may limit what he can do as a member of the board.” She added that the “facts of each former employee’s circumstances impact how these rules will apply,” and that departing Air Force senior leaders “receive detailed guidance on the various post-government employment restrictions they may encounter.”
The United States Air Force Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., receives its first F-35A Lightning II in January 2015. (U.S. Air Force) In announcing Welsh’s appointment, Wes Bush, Northrop’s chief executive, said “his extensive leadership experience and deep understanding of global security are a great fit to our board, and we are excited about the contributions he will make as Northrop Grumman employees around the globe work to create value for our customers and shareholders.”
Former government employees frequently go to work in private industry, leveraging their experience and access to high-paying jobs in consulting, lobbying and contracting.
In 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that 52 of the biggest defense contractors employed 2,435 former generals, senior executives and acquisition officers. Of those, 422 were in a position to work on defense contracts directly related to their former agencies and at least nine may have been working on the same contracts they previously oversaw.
In addition to taking aim at the ties between the Pentagon and its suppliers, Trump has made it clear he intends to crack down on individual programs. Last week, he sent shock waves through the defense establishment when he called for the Air Force One program to be canceled, saying the costs were too high.
He later softened his stance, after Boeing’s chief executive called him and vowed to keep the costs of the planes down. But Trump also promised that “if we don’t get the prices down, we’re not going to order them. We’re going to stay with what we have.”
Related: Boeing chief pledges to work with new administration
On Monday, it was Lockheed Martin’s turn, when Trump took to Twitter to blast the F-35 program. For years, the program had gone wildly off the rails, billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.
But in the past couple of years, Pentagon and Lockheed Martin officials have said it has stabilized and that the costs are coming down.
Speaking before a ceremony in which Lockheed was to deliver Israel with its first F-35 aircraft on Monday, Jeff Babione, Lockheed’s executive vice president and general manager, F-35 program, said the company welcomes “the opportunity to address any questions the president-elect has about the program. It’s an amazing program. Lockheed Martin and its industry partners understand the importance of affordability for the F-35 program.”
He called the plane a “great value” with “amazing technology” and said the company has “invested hundreds of millions of dollars” to reduce the price of the airplane more than 60 percent.
The latest strike fighter is the future of stealth technology. (TWP) Earlier this year, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told a Senate hearing, that “our overall assessment is that the program is making solid progress across the board and shows improvement each day while continuing to manage emerging issues and mitigate programmatic risks. We are confident the F-35 team can overcome these challenges and deliver on our commitments.”
At the hearing, however, J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, painted a different picture, saying, “there are still many unresolved significant deficiencies. The program continues to fall behind the planned software block development and testing goals, and sustainment of the fielded aircraft is very burdensome.”
Lockheed’s stock fell by more than 4 percentage points at one point on Monday morning. But Byron Callan, a financial analyst at Capital Alpha Partners, said in a note to investors that Trump’s tweet was “more bark than bite.”
“We strongly doubt that Trump has been fully informed of the F-35 program or alternatives to modernize U.S. tactical aircraft inventories,” he wrote. “As well, we strongly doubt that he has been informed of the unique international nature of the program.”
He added: “We don’t believe investors should panic over the program’s prospects based on a single Trump tweet.”
gonna be real tough to clean up the massive crony capitalism which occurs within our military industrial complex.. good luck trump I'll be rooting for ya..
--------
[h=1]Trump takes aim at Pentagon’s ‘revolving door’ and Lockheed Martin’s $400 billion F-35 program[/h]By Christian Davenport
December 12, 2016 at 10:45 AM
Checkpoint
Just over a year after Northrop Grumman won the multibillion dollar contract to build a next-generation stealth bomber, the company appointed Mark Welsh, who was serving as Air Force chief of staff at the time of the contract award, to its board.
The appointment, announced Friday, is not unusual in Washington, where former high-ranking Pentagon officials often go to work for the defense industry after their military service. But it comes as President-elect Donald Trump is highlighting the potential conflicts of interests in the “revolving door” between the Pentagon and industry, as he vows to clean up Washington.
On Monday, Trump also took a shot at Lockheed Martin’s $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the most expensive in the history of the Pentagon, saying the “cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20[SUP]th[/SUP].”
Related: It’s been a topsy-turvy fews weeks for the F-35 program
In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Trump said there should be a “lifetime restriction” of top defense officials going to work for defense contractors.
“The people that are making these deals for the government, they should never be allowed to go to work for these companies,” he said. “You know, they make a deal like that and then a year later, or two years later, or three years later you see them working for these big companies that made the deal.”
As Air Force chief of staff, Welsh, a former four-star general, had “no involvement in the [bomber] source selection process and provided no input into the decision to award the bomber contract to Northrop Grumman,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said in a statement.
She said that all “departing federal employees are subject to post-government employment conflict of interest restrictions.” Those rules “do not prohibit General Welsh from joining Northrop Grumman. However, those rules may limit what he can do as a member of the board.” She added that the “facts of each former employee’s circumstances impact how these rules will apply,” and that departing Air Force senior leaders “receive detailed guidance on the various post-government employment restrictions they may encounter.”
The United States Air Force Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., receives its first F-35A Lightning II in January 2015. (U.S. Air Force) In announcing Welsh’s appointment, Wes Bush, Northrop’s chief executive, said “his extensive leadership experience and deep understanding of global security are a great fit to our board, and we are excited about the contributions he will make as Northrop Grumman employees around the globe work to create value for our customers and shareholders.”
Former government employees frequently go to work in private industry, leveraging their experience and access to high-paying jobs in consulting, lobbying and contracting.
In 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that 52 of the biggest defense contractors employed 2,435 former generals, senior executives and acquisition officers. Of those, 422 were in a position to work on defense contracts directly related to their former agencies and at least nine may have been working on the same contracts they previously oversaw.
In addition to taking aim at the ties between the Pentagon and its suppliers, Trump has made it clear he intends to crack down on individual programs. Last week, he sent shock waves through the defense establishment when he called for the Air Force One program to be canceled, saying the costs were too high.
He later softened his stance, after Boeing’s chief executive called him and vowed to keep the costs of the planes down. But Trump also promised that “if we don’t get the prices down, we’re not going to order them. We’re going to stay with what we have.”
Related: Boeing chief pledges to work with new administration
On Monday, it was Lockheed Martin’s turn, when Trump took to Twitter to blast the F-35 program. For years, the program had gone wildly off the rails, billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.
But in the past couple of years, Pentagon and Lockheed Martin officials have said it has stabilized and that the costs are coming down.
Speaking before a ceremony in which Lockheed was to deliver Israel with its first F-35 aircraft on Monday, Jeff Babione, Lockheed’s executive vice president and general manager, F-35 program, said the company welcomes “the opportunity to address any questions the president-elect has about the program. It’s an amazing program. Lockheed Martin and its industry partners understand the importance of affordability for the F-35 program.”
He called the plane a “great value” with “amazing technology” and said the company has “invested hundreds of millions of dollars” to reduce the price of the airplane more than 60 percent.
The latest strike fighter is the future of stealth technology. (TWP) Earlier this year, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told a Senate hearing, that “our overall assessment is that the program is making solid progress across the board and shows improvement each day while continuing to manage emerging issues and mitigate programmatic risks. We are confident the F-35 team can overcome these challenges and deliver on our commitments.”
At the hearing, however, J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, painted a different picture, saying, “there are still many unresolved significant deficiencies. The program continues to fall behind the planned software block development and testing goals, and sustainment of the fielded aircraft is very burdensome.”
Lockheed’s stock fell by more than 4 percentage points at one point on Monday morning. But Byron Callan, a financial analyst at Capital Alpha Partners, said in a note to investors that Trump’s tweet was “more bark than bite.”
“We strongly doubt that Trump has been fully informed of the F-35 program or alternatives to modernize U.S. tactical aircraft inventories,” he wrote. “As well, we strongly doubt that he has been informed of the unique international nature of the program.”
He added: “We don’t believe investors should panic over the program’s prospects based on a single Trump tweet.”
[h=1]The Narrative Changes: Republicans "Pour Cold Water" On Trump's Massive Stimulus, Will Block Tax Cuts[/h]The driving catalyst behind the furious market rally since the presidential election has been the market's hope that Trump will unleash a "huge", still undetermined, debt-funded financial stimulus package, which will grease the volatile handover from monetary to fiscal policy, boosting inflation and rerating risk assets higher. Indeed, the market was so transfixed by this hope, that it has so far ignored all warning signs, duly noted previously on this website.
Nearly a month ago, we warned that when comparing Trump's proposed budget and the House's own budget blueprint, "An Unexpected $12 Trillion Hole Emerges In Donald Trump's Plan To "Make America Great Again"."
As we first demonstrated, there was a massive $12 trillion debt difference between the plan that Trump espoused, which envisioned a $5 trillion cumulative increase in debt...
Debt Under Central Estimate of Candidates' Proposals (Percent of GDP)
... compared to the budget blueprint approved by the house earlier this year, which in turn seeks to reduce the deficit versus current projections by $7 trillion over the next ten years, mainly through spending cuts: the result is a $12 trillion "hole" between the Trump and the House budgets.
Needless to say, the market didn't care.
We followed up just a few days later with "A "Big Problem" Emerges For Trump's Economic Plan", where we reported that while the market may (still) be blissfully unaware about the emerging conflict between Trump's debt-fueled vision for the future, Republican politicians had started to notice. As we wrote, Republican lawmakers warned "that there could be a major obstacle to enacting President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda: the national debt."
“I was disappointed that it wasn’t brought up in the campaign — anybody’s campaign really — it really wasn’t mentioned,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said of deficits and debt. “So I’m very concerned about it. It’s going to be tough to address if there’s no push from outside of the Congress,” he added. “I’m very concerned about it. It’s the biggest problem we face, by far.”
“We did not hear anything about entitlement reform from either of the candidates, and that’s a serious issue,” said Michael Sargent, a research associate at The Heritage Foundation. “You cannot address the growth in spending without addressing entitlement issues.” Well, perhaps if the campaign was engaged in non-stop daily midslinging between Trump and Clinton, someone would have "heard" about it. Alas, now it is a little too late.
Compounding the problem is the expected Federal rate hike to arrest rising inflation, which would increase the cost of the nation’s debt. Flake noted on the Senate floor in September that for every quarter point that interest rates rise, the federal government would have to spend an additional $50 billion annually to service the debt.
Ultimately, the problem regarding the US debt is not so much Trump's, as that of Republicans who would have to support it. Readers will recall that Congressional Republicans assailed President Obama early in his tenure over soaring federal deficits, which exceeded $1 trillion dollars during his first four years in office. As a result, debt reduction was the main focus of GOP leaders after they took back control of the House in 2010. “It is a problem and going to be a problem. Don’t forget that Obama has doubled the debt and if interest rates were at their historic norms, the deficit would be $612 billion bigger,” said former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas).
The market, once again, did not care.
That may change now, however, with Bloomberg reporting what we have been saying for the past month, namely that republicans, under Mitch McConnell, have "poured cold water on the idea of a massive stimulus package, effectively laying out markers on taxes and spending that that could cramp Trump’s ambitions."
As Bloomberg explains, Trump’s race to enact the biggest tax cuts since the 1980s went under a caution flag Monday when during a news conference, "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned he considers current levels of U.S. debt “dangerous” and said he wants any tax overhaul to avoid adding to the deficit."
In other words, the market's narrative that Trump will be the president to pursue a seemingly "liberal" economic growth agenda, one funded by trillions in new debt issuance, just got a very rude wake up call.
“I think this level of national debt is dangerous and unacceptable,” McConnell said, adding he hopes Congress doesn’t lose sight of that when it acts next year. “My preference on tax reform is that it be revenue neutral,” he said. There is one problem with revenue neutral growth when it comes to risk asset prices: they, too, remain neutral.
In other words, if McConnell - who now appears set on collision course with the biggest drier of Trump's growth strategy - gets his way, the entire Trumpflation rally may be unwound.
Here, Bloomberg repeats what we have warned all along: "The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan think tank, has projected that Trump’s plans would increase the debt by $5.3 trillion over a decade, with deficits already over $600 billion a year and rising on autopilot. If Trump achieves the plans he has laid out, “the deficit’s going to be a lot higher than expected, at least in the short term,” said Stan Collender, a budget expert and former Democratic congressional aide. It could rise to $1 trillion per year for four years, he said."
Then there is the debt limit, which will need to rise next year to avoid defaulting on government obligations; McConnell said he wasn’t sure if that would be paired with any deficit-reduction measures next year as it was in 2011, when Republicans held the debt limit hostage and extracted more than $2 trillion in deficit cuts over a decade from President Barack Obama.
House Speaker Paul Ryan has also said he wants tax changes to be deficit-neutral, indicating that Republicans will assume positive macroeconomic benefits from tax cuts to ease the projected budgetary hit - a process known as dynamic scoring that is popular on the right.
McConnell offered little specificity on changes to Obamacare, saying the Senate would kick off the new year with an Obamacare resolution and then start working on a replacement. Simply waiting wasn’t an option, he said. “The notion that we could do nothing and allow the current law to implode is unacceptable,” McConnell said. “So, I hope no one believes no action is possible or appropriate.”
That replacement process could take as long as three years, according to Republican senators, although some conservatives, particularly in the House, want a much faster timeline. In the short term, eliminating all of Obamacare -- including its taxes and Medicare cuts -- would add to the deficit, the Congressional Budget Office concluded in 2015. Before the election, McConnell had said he hoped to work on limiting eligibility for programs like Medicare and Social Security if Hillary Clinton was elected. He didn’t repeat that call Monday. That in turn would make the optionality of any Trump debt-funded stimulus even more remote, and could forece Trump to choose between repealing Obamacare and pursuing tax cuts and economic stimulus.
Finally, even if all the changes are implemented immediately, and the GOP rolls over, virtually none of Trump's stimulus package will generate any impact on the economy until some time in 2018 as Goldman calculated last week.
One interesting wrinkle, as Bloomberg notes, is that Trump has named McConnell’s wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, to head the Department of Transportation, which would likely make her one of his point people on any infrastructure package. That particular "horse trade", may be the wildcard that helps Trump clinch his desired stimulus package, especially if no other Republicans dare to defy the President-elect.
Nearly a month ago, we warned that when comparing Trump's proposed budget and the House's own budget blueprint, "An Unexpected $12 Trillion Hole Emerges In Donald Trump's Plan To "Make America Great Again"."
As we first demonstrated, there was a massive $12 trillion debt difference between the plan that Trump espoused, which envisioned a $5 trillion cumulative increase in debt...
Debt Under Central Estimate of Candidates' Proposals (Percent of GDP)
... compared to the budget blueprint approved by the house earlier this year, which in turn seeks to reduce the deficit versus current projections by $7 trillion over the next ten years, mainly through spending cuts: the result is a $12 trillion "hole" between the Trump and the House budgets.
Needless to say, the market didn't care.
We followed up just a few days later with "A "Big Problem" Emerges For Trump's Economic Plan", where we reported that while the market may (still) be blissfully unaware about the emerging conflict between Trump's debt-fueled vision for the future, Republican politicians had started to notice. As we wrote, Republican lawmakers warned "that there could be a major obstacle to enacting President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda: the national debt."
“I was disappointed that it wasn’t brought up in the campaign — anybody’s campaign really — it really wasn’t mentioned,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said of deficits and debt. “So I’m very concerned about it. It’s going to be tough to address if there’s no push from outside of the Congress,” he added. “I’m very concerned about it. It’s the biggest problem we face, by far.”
“We did not hear anything about entitlement reform from either of the candidates, and that’s a serious issue,” said Michael Sargent, a research associate at The Heritage Foundation. “You cannot address the growth in spending without addressing entitlement issues.” Well, perhaps if the campaign was engaged in non-stop daily midslinging between Trump and Clinton, someone would have "heard" about it. Alas, now it is a little too late.
Compounding the problem is the expected Federal rate hike to arrest rising inflation, which would increase the cost of the nation’s debt. Flake noted on the Senate floor in September that for every quarter point that interest rates rise, the federal government would have to spend an additional $50 billion annually to service the debt.
Ultimately, the problem regarding the US debt is not so much Trump's, as that of Republicans who would have to support it. Readers will recall that Congressional Republicans assailed President Obama early in his tenure over soaring federal deficits, which exceeded $1 trillion dollars during his first four years in office. As a result, debt reduction was the main focus of GOP leaders after they took back control of the House in 2010. “It is a problem and going to be a problem. Don’t forget that Obama has doubled the debt and if interest rates were at their historic norms, the deficit would be $612 billion bigger,” said former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas).
The market, once again, did not care.
That may change now, however, with Bloomberg reporting what we have been saying for the past month, namely that republicans, under Mitch McConnell, have "poured cold water on the idea of a massive stimulus package, effectively laying out markers on taxes and spending that that could cramp Trump’s ambitions."
As Bloomberg explains, Trump’s race to enact the biggest tax cuts since the 1980s went under a caution flag Monday when during a news conference, "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned he considers current levels of U.S. debt “dangerous” and said he wants any tax overhaul to avoid adding to the deficit."
In other words, the market's narrative that Trump will be the president to pursue a seemingly "liberal" economic growth agenda, one funded by trillions in new debt issuance, just got a very rude wake up call.
“I think this level of national debt is dangerous and unacceptable,” McConnell said, adding he hopes Congress doesn’t lose sight of that when it acts next year. “My preference on tax reform is that it be revenue neutral,” he said. There is one problem with revenue neutral growth when it comes to risk asset prices: they, too, remain neutral.
In other words, if McConnell - who now appears set on collision course with the biggest drier of Trump's growth strategy - gets his way, the entire Trumpflation rally may be unwound.
Here, Bloomberg repeats what we have warned all along: "The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan think tank, has projected that Trump’s plans would increase the debt by $5.3 trillion over a decade, with deficits already over $600 billion a year and rising on autopilot. If Trump achieves the plans he has laid out, “the deficit’s going to be a lot higher than expected, at least in the short term,” said Stan Collender, a budget expert and former Democratic congressional aide. It could rise to $1 trillion per year for four years, he said."
As for Trump’s infrastructure plan, touted as costing roughly $1 trillion but with more than 80 percent of the financing coming from the private sector, McConnell said he’s looking forward to seeing the details.
“What I hope we will clearly avoid, and I’m confident we will, is a trillion-dollar stimulus,” he said. “Take you back to 2009. We borrowed $1 trillion and nobody could find that it did much of anything. So we need to do this carefully and correctly and the issue of how to pay for it needs to be dealt with responsibly.”
Then there is the debt limit, which will need to rise next year to avoid defaulting on government obligations; McConnell said he wasn’t sure if that would be paired with any deficit-reduction measures next year as it was in 2011, when Republicans held the debt limit hostage and extracted more than $2 trillion in deficit cuts over a decade from President Barack Obama.
House Speaker Paul Ryan has also said he wants tax changes to be deficit-neutral, indicating that Republicans will assume positive macroeconomic benefits from tax cuts to ease the projected budgetary hit - a process known as dynamic scoring that is popular on the right.
McConnell offered little specificity on changes to Obamacare, saying the Senate would kick off the new year with an Obamacare resolution and then start working on a replacement. Simply waiting wasn’t an option, he said. “The notion that we could do nothing and allow the current law to implode is unacceptable,” McConnell said. “So, I hope no one believes no action is possible or appropriate.”
That replacement process could take as long as three years, according to Republican senators, although some conservatives, particularly in the House, want a much faster timeline. In the short term, eliminating all of Obamacare -- including its taxes and Medicare cuts -- would add to the deficit, the Congressional Budget Office concluded in 2015. Before the election, McConnell had said he hoped to work on limiting eligibility for programs like Medicare and Social Security if Hillary Clinton was elected. He didn’t repeat that call Monday. That in turn would make the optionality of any Trump debt-funded stimulus even more remote, and could forece Trump to choose between repealing Obamacare and pursuing tax cuts and economic stimulus.
Finally, even if all the changes are implemented immediately, and the GOP rolls over, virtually none of Trump's stimulus package will generate any impact on the economy until some time in 2018 as Goldman calculated last week.
One interesting wrinkle, as Bloomberg notes, is that Trump has named McConnell’s wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, to head the Department of Transportation, which would likely make her one of his point people on any infrastructure package. That particular "horse trade", may be the wildcard that helps Trump clinch his desired stimulus package, especially if no other Republicans dare to defy the President-elect.
Sure, I come in to say hello and you put me to work. I'll answer then I'm outta here
It's all about economic growth. Lower taxes and fewer regulations will spur economic growth and revenues will increase not decrease revenues. When Trump scales back regulations, he will be reducing unneessary spending. Maintaining an over-burdensome regulatory body costs a lot of money. He's talking about gutting government programs, like Obamacare and the federal department of education and even bureaucrats in the Pentagon. He's talked about cutting government employees in DC. So while he's talking about eliminating programs and downsizing DC, nobody is talking about the fact that he actually would be reducing spending, which would be mind boggling save for the fact that's DC being DC.
"A rising tide raises all boats", and it grows tax revenues as well. We haven't any decent economic growth in a decade.
How is keeping jobs in America NOT a conservative position? What in the constitution states the President shouldn't do that? I believe our government should work to make sure the international playing field is not tilted against us, I believe our government should work to help retain jobs and attract new jobs to the country. The federal government's single biggest constitutional responsibility is to preserve the welfare of the nation (welfare was never meant to represent the bastardized interpretations it has today).
Finally, when has the CBO or anybody in DC been accurate about predictions? Why should I care about their predictions?
Have a great day old friend.
hey, why don't you financial forum wizards sign up for the college bowl contest
c'mon man, go outside and play a little, it's healthy
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1072602
c'mon man, go outside and play a little, it's healthy
http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1072602
The standard conservative response..
we saw exactly this in action during bush's tenure .. how did that end for us a massive housing and financial bubble..
guess we just doomed to repeat the cycle... as most just don't seem to get what ills us economically..
That said due to how much debt we have now it's gonna be a lot more difficult for the republicans and trump to pull it off this time.. as the true fiscal conservatives will be screaming in the GOP ear stop being hypocrites and do what you were preaching for the last 8years.. get governments financials in order and quit ballooning our debt/GDP ratio...
for now it's get your Dow 20k party hat ready and root on the trump bubble debting and spending like a liberal..
Also your response makes perfect sense in a TRUE FREE MARKET where a small business man is treated the same as mega corporation.. no bailouts for anybody! Carrier wants to go to Mexico cause Mexico can make things much much cheaper than us so be it.. free markets flush out the weak.. those workers will have to learn a new trade for the quickly evolving global economy ..let the chips fall where they may.. today big corporations/banks etc run Washington and thus write the laws in their favor, know how to work around them, etc.. everybody in business looking to buddy buddy to trump now so they can get political favors..
free markets have been dead for a long time and this is why the standard republican way of deregulation let the corporations do pretty much whatever they please will end in misery as we say during the bush years... mega corporations are soulless and only care about next quarter results.. they've proven time and agin they don't take these extra profits and reinvest it in the company and people.. they do the opposite the buy back stock.. increase dividends.. or buy out small companies/competition creating psedo monopolies axing jobs and bad for consumer..
free markets have been dead for a long time and this is why the standard republican way of deregulation let the corporations do pretty much whatever they please will end in misery as we say during the bush years... mega corporations are soulless and only care about next quarter results.. they've proven time and agin they don't take these extra profits and reinvest it in the company and people.. they do the opposite the buy back stock.. increase dividends.. or buy out small companies/competition creating psedo monopolies axing jobs and bad for consumer..
Keynesian stimulus in the trillions is blowing a hole in the deficit/debt any way you put it, it won't matter how much the economy grows. If you don't care about that stuff then fine have at it, but no way is it fiscally conservative and doubtful it ends well.
And giving a tax break/subsidy so a company can protect union jobs isn't capitalism and it isn't free market competition. It is managing an economy, where are the tax breaks for Carriers competitors? Carrier small scale but it is picking winners and losers. Giving a company preferential treatment isn't creating a strong environment for economic growth, it is propping up a single entity.
And giving a tax break/subsidy so a company can protect union jobs isn't capitalism and it isn't free market competition. It is managing an economy, where are the tax breaks for Carriers competitors? Carrier small scale but it is picking winners and losers. Giving a company preferential treatment isn't creating a strong environment for economic growth, it is propping up a single entity.
That too .. good to have a little backup patsfan..
in the end we have become a one party system of fiscal liberalism.. as fiscal liberalism is good for the financial elites and mega corporations that run Washington.... conservatives just talk about debt and fiscal issues .. when they don't have full control to do as they please.. now that they got full control it's full speeed ahead lets debt party to make ourselves look good and hope it doesn't somehow end how it did during bush years...
in the end we have become a one party system of fiscal liberalism.. as fiscal liberalism is good for the financial elites and mega corporations that run Washington.... conservatives just talk about debt and fiscal issues .. when they don't have full control to do as they please.. now that they got full control it's full speeed ahead lets debt party to make ourselves look good and hope it doesn't somehow end how it did during bush years...
Another thing with stimulus is we pretty much know it doesn't work for a wide, wide variety of reasons. Most of the $ just gets directed to campaign donors, projects big corps can take advantage of, wasted through bureaucracy, pork barrel spending. We've seen this throughout history.
If states want to fix roads, airports, etc then they can do that themselves. Let the states pay for it with increased tolls, atleast then people can vote and have control on what gets fixed rather than congress just steer funds towards their own districts. (Or in a President's case, the place that elected him i.e Rust Belt)
Torching off a few trillion dollars isn't going to save the day.
If states want to fix roads, airports, etc then they can do that themselves. Let the states pay for it with increased tolls, atleast then people can vote and have control on what gets fixed rather than congress just steer funds towards their own districts. (Or in a President's case, the place that elected him i.e Rust Belt)
Torching off a few trillion dollars isn't going to save the day.
No bullshit wars to start like invading Iraq to spend like crazy on government side now that US is currently in sick of meddling in foreign affairs mode.. "peace through strength" Reagan stuff..
gotta waste/inefficiently spend federal money on infrastructure now..that said we might actually get something useful out of it.. vs what we got outta "the war on terror" (more enemies ISIS etc)
government massively spending more than they bring in creating this economic facade of normalcy.. our day to pay will come eventually and those that pay won't be the elite.. as usual it will be the middle class/poor that take the worst of it..
gotta waste/inefficiently spend federal money on infrastructure now..that said we might actually get something useful out of it.. vs what we got outta "the war on terror" (more enemies ISIS etc)
government massively spending more than they bring in creating this economic facade of normalcy.. our day to pay will come eventually and those that pay won't be the elite.. as usual it will be the middle class/poor that take the worst of it..
In the years immediately after the Bush tax cuts, the economy grew AND the deficit was declining due to increased tax revenues, your argument pertaining to such is catagorically incorrect. The financial crisis of 2008 was not created by the Bush tax cuts.
Peace
