Is there trouble ahead for the Trump economic agenda?

But Republicans faced a lose-lose situation, since dumping Ryan's lemon-flavored production will leave the party flapping in the wind searching for answers, and likely for an extended period of time.


It's likely to be a very chaotic year.
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I'd read an article weeks b4 which stated the only thing worse for the GOP than not passing Ryancare was to pass it.

Did I quote you? I just got a jump on some of the Trump whiners like Dr Stupid and Asswipe that will hurl Trump caca. Originally Posted by bambino

So you figured you'd defend flung doo that wasn't flung.

You fucked up a decent discussion with your paranoia and inability to keep your bullshit in your intestines, where it belongs. Cheese and RICE! Cheese and RICE!

Or were you late for half price fatback at the local stube and get your licks in before they ring the bell?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!



And I agree with y'all. Good post and yeah, it's going to take them months to screw this one up, not weeks like they devoted to ACA repeal and replace. Chit, it ought to take a couple of years to do it right, with everybody working together. But that's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

Plus, Congress is likely to be extremely gunshy after last week's debacle. Another misstep, especially one perceived to be in haste, will result in catastrophic political consequences.

Any of Twitler's agendas at this point are in danger of being stopped, which is why I don't think he'll be presenting any proposals to Congress.https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/...llusion-russia

So you figured you'd defend flung doo that wasn't flung.

You fucked up a decent discussion with your paranoia and inability to keep your bullshit in your intestines, where it belongs. Cheese and RICE! Cheese and RICE!

Or were you late for half price fatback at the local stube and get your licks in before they ring the bell?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!



And I agree with y'all. Good post and yeah, it's going to take them months to screw this one up, not weeks like they devoted to ACA repeal and replace. Chit, it ought to take a couple of years to do it right, with everybody working together. But that's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

Plus, Congress is likely to be extremely gunshy after last week's debacle. Another misstep, especially one perceived to be in haste, will result in catastrophic political consequences.

Any of Twitler's agendas at this point are in danger of being stopped, which is why I don't think he'll be presenting any proposals to Congress.https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/...llusion-russia Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What's that RussianRider? USA Traitor. SAD

Twitter shields Trump from what he's afraid of the most and that's public speaking. He cannot sell anything to the American people or to members of Congress because he doesn't have a good enough command of the issues. Also he simply cannot articulate anything and keep the cohesion of a single line of thought together. His interviews prove that. He was talking to Bill O'Reilly recently when Bill asked him a question he couldn't keep his thoughts together and it led to him trashing America and saying we have bad people and killers in the intel community. You know he said directly live on TV the shit these Hicks have for years been accusing Obama of.

My point is that Trump cannot sell or articulate any plan to Congress or the American people without reducing it to a 3 bullet talking point. This level of ignorance is absurd. Shame on Trumps supporters for gleefully accepting this level if willful ignorance. What a disgrace

Has he shit the bed yet today?

Conservative commentators such as Steve Forbes, Stephen Moore, and Larry Kudlow have often opined that if we were to re-run the Reagan playbook," we could restore the growth rates of the early-to-mid '80s or the last half of the '90s. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

If the Republicans and Trump tried that they would get exactly what Reagan got, exploding debit, only worse and on a much bigger scale.

What most do not realize is that getting the health care package passed was the key to getting the budget to work. That is where all the dollars were going to come from for his grand plans. Not going to happen now. If Trump spends like he wants to spend it is going to be hell.

Everyone is talking about creating jobs but the US is close as you can come to full employment. Let me ask everyone, how many people do you know are out of work and looking for a job and can't find one?

Trump's is going to run smack into the truth about jobs, growth and the economy. You can lie to people all you want but reality is another matter.

I'd read an article weeks b4 which stated the only thing worse for the GOP than not passing Ryancare was to pass it. Originally Posted by WTF

Quit for fckng lying, you can't read.

What most do not realize is that getting the health care package passed was the key to getting the budget to work. That is where all the dollars were going to come from for his grand plans. Not going to happen now. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Nonsense, Louie. The CBO estimated the Ryan healthcare plan would save $337 billion over the next decade. That's $34 billion a year in a $4 trillion budget, less than 1% of current spending. Only a knucklehead who has never studied the federal budget would suggest that relatively small amount is critical ("where all the dollars were going to come from" - lol!) to funding all other GOP plans.

Note to Cap'n (this is over the heads of the rest of yinz) - it may represent a bit more of a setback to tax reform, if one considers the CBO estimate is a NET figure that included the impact of the removal of those annoying odumbocare taxes (such as the 3.8% surcharge on capital gains). Those levies will remain on the books for now. The uncertainty over whether/when they will be repealed obviously complicates the overall tax reform effort.

fcuekrs...

We still need cheap money. Obama had 8 years of free money. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I agree. That free money which we print and borrow is the envy of the world. We borrow in dollars, buy in dollars, denominate all our debt in dollars, print the shit when we feel the need, and the rest of the world goes along with it. Why? Their own currencies are a joke, except for the Swiss. The Swiss Franc is solid, but let's ignore that.

Why? We cannot balance our budget and cut taxes, and stop the giveaways to the 47% of the population of this country of losers who demand free housing, free health care, free food, free,free,free..... they would revolt!!!

So fuck it - keep printing the money, we have all the food, technology, military power, water, oil, coal, etc that we need. The only consequence will be inflation - so buy gold, land, buildings, oil company stock, etc. and it will go up with inflation.

The US government will never default to ourselves, SS and Medicare will always be paid, and we will pay back all the other suckers with printed money denominated in our dollars. We have won and made the rest of the world our bitches!!!

What is the worst that could happen anyway? Trump declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus?

God Bless America!!!

Nonsense, Louie. Originally Posted by lustylad

Here is an excellent article from the WSJ that explains it all

www.wsj.com/articles/time-to-redo-the-math-on-tax-reform-prospects-1490630394?mod=e2fb


The failed health bill would have made tax reform easier because it created budgetary offsets that made it easier to cut corporate taxes without adding to the deficit. The border tax Republicans have proposed to help pay for tax cuts might also fall by the wayside.

Quit for fckng lying, you can't read. Originally Posted by canuckeight

And you can't seem to type a coherent sentence

Here is an excellent article from the WSJ that explains it all

http://www.wsj.com/articles/time-to-...30394?mod=e2fb


The failed health bill would have made tax reform easier because it created budgetary offsets that made it easier to cut corporate taxes without adding to the deficit. The border tax Republicans have proposed to help pay for tax cuts might also fall by the wayside. Originally Posted by BigLouie

I don't disagree that the failure to repeal/replace odumbocare makes tax reform more problematic. I disagree with your idiot claim it was "the key to getting the budget to work" and "where all the dollars were going to come from" for the entire Trump agenda. Exaggerate much, Louie?

It took odumbo 14 months to cobble together his clusterfuck healthcare plan in 2009/10. Obviously it will take the GOP more than 17 days to pass a replacement. This is NOT because they didn't have a replacement plan ready, but to allow a reasonable amount of time for political horse-trading. Has everyone forgotten the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase" that greased the way for the ACA's passage?

It took Reagan 18 months or so to enact tax reform back in 1986. Timeline expectations for passing a similar reform today need to be lowered. Here's an interesting discussion of how Reagan did it:


There’s Plenty of Hope for Tax Reform
Elbows are flying, and the situation seems ‘ominous.’ It’s beginning to look a lot like 1986.

By DAVID M. SMICK and JOHN D. MUELLER
March 2, 2017 6:56 p.m. ET

J.P. Morgan chief James Dimon said this week that tax reform is unlikely to pass Congress in 2017. Last week Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, took to the Senate floor to attack a pillar of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s tax reform plan, the border-adjustment tax, as “stupid.” Politico described the House tax reform’s prospects as “ominous.”

To which Ronald Reagan might have said, “Well, there you go again.”

Tax-reform plans are always attacked viciously at first. When the president ultimately signs the bill, however, those who once declared it “dead on arrival” often end up next to him on the platform, trying to score a pen. It is tough for Republicans to vote against a plan that helps both labor and capital—or, as Nobel economics laureate Theodore Schultz called them, “human and nonhuman capital.”

We were involved in the successful 1981 and 1986 tax-reform efforts. In both cases, designing tax policy was not pretty. Elbows flew. Yet in both instances, the pessimistic conventional wisdom proved incorrect.

Consider how events unfolded. In the year leading up to the enactment of the 1981 Reagan tax program, GOP tax-policy makers, like today, were at each other’s throats. President Reagan and Rep. Jack Kemp (R., N.Y.) presented the outward image of a close father-son team. Actually, on tax policy, Kemp was a constant thorn in Reagan’s side.

As for 1986, people forget that tax reform came about as a kind of fluke. GOP negotiators shrewdly took advantage of what seemed initially a disastrous development. In the two years leading up to its enactment, the conventional wisdom was that tax reform was dead. On Capitol Hill, a House controlled by Democrats and a Senate controlled by Republicans, each with intraparty divisions, had reached a stalemate on tax reform. But something unexpected happened that turned out to be a positive catalytic force.

At the time, former Merrill Lynch chairman Donald Regan was Reagan’s (sometimes politically deaf) Treasury secretary. At Treasury a group of mostly nonpolitical tax strategists cobbled together a radical tax-reform plan that skewered special interests and reduced the top personal income-tax rate to 35% from 50%.

Both the corporate lobbying community and the Reagan White House were furious. Adding to the confusion, around that time White House Chief of Staff James Baker and Regan switched jobs. It was now Mr. Baker’s responsibility as Treasury secretary to sell Regan’s controversial plan.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. It wasn’t. Republican tax strategists used the new radical plan as a wedge to break the ideological and partisan logjam. After a fair amount of jockeying for position, a bipartisan group of congressional tax writers hammered out a compromise, which knocked off the Regan plan’s rough edges, cut the top tax rate to 28% from 50%, and taxed investment income the same as wages (eliminating what some now call the “Warren Buffett’s Secretary Problem”—taxing Main Street at much higher rates than Wall Street).

If history is any guide, it would be wise for the pessimists to hold off on signing tax reform’s death notice. That’s because Republicans risk dire consequences if they don’t achieve the promised 3% to 4% economic growth by fall 2018.

It is unlikely that deregulation alone can accomplish this goal. The huge gains in the U.S. stock market since the election are based largely on investors’ anticipation that bold tax reform is coming—and soon. If the GOP can’t deliver on tax reform, ObamaCare replacement and economic growth, there’s the real definition of “stupid.”

True, the border-adjustment tax is complicated. The proposal, which would eliminate the corporate income tax and place a 20% tax on imports, assumes that a stronger dollar will counter any effect of rising consumer prices. Executives of Wal-Mart and other retailers hate the tax because of the risk that the cost of imports could rise. But if you don’t have a job, you can’t buy much. And no one denies that the structure of the U.S. corporate tax code has put American companies at a global disadvantage.

The border-adjustment tax has its pros and cons. One downside is that the world could retaliate if the U.S. taxes imports. Its upside is that the new tax would allow the broader rate-cutting tax-reform package to be revenue neutral, like the successful 1986 reform.

The border-adjustment tax would raise more than $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years, according to the Tax Foundation. If rejected, what will replace it to assure revenue neutrality? Without a substitute, any incentive from cutting marginal income-tax rates would be tiny. And remember, there is no free lunch if the Republican Congress and the administration expand the deficit. Because the current account balance equals the excess of national saving over investment, a tax-reform stimulus that busts the budget deficit would make the president’s promise to reduce the trade deficit impossible.

Successful tax reform often begins with a catalyst, even a controversial one, which stirs up debate and brings the relevant parties to the table. House Republicans should insist on the border-adjustment tax until opponents offer an acceptable alternative. In Washington, rhetoric is cheap, but a plan beats no plan. And a continuation of the tax status quo would be bad news for congressional Republicans, the Trump administration and Main Street.

Mr. Smick, the author of “The Great Equalizer: How Main Street Capitalism Can Create an Economy for Everyone” (PublicAffairs, 2017), was Rep. Jack Kemp’s chief of staff from 1979-84. Mr. Mueller, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., was Kemp’s staff economist from 1979-88.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/theres-...orm-1488498990
.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omni...on_Act_of_1990

Ronnie sold arms to Iran and his tax policy created a huge deficit. Most overrated President since you new favorite, Putin.



.