Archive

Impressed by Trump administration

  • sleeper
    like_that;1836027 wrote:Sticky wages.
    Not sure what this has to do with the post quoted.

    Wages are sticky. Read an Econ 101 book and grow up.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1836022 wrote:Economic growth rates will be the most important, followed by tax rate cuts.

    The former will lift all boats, the latter will create additional purchasing power.

    All of this within the context of vastly reduced regulation and greater individual liberty.
    Economic growth by wages, GDP, labor participation I assume then?
    Otherwise, you are just listing boiler plate words and phrases.
    Tax cuts don't mean jack shit if it doesn't increase productivity and improve wages.
  • sleeper
    ptown_trojans_1;1836031 wrote:Economic growth by wages, GDP, labor participation I assume then?
    Otherwise, you are just listing boiler plate words and phrases.
    Tax cuts don't mean jack shit if it doesn't increase productivity and improve wages.
    We already have historically low tax rates. Boomers just want to screw over future generations with greater deficits because they will be dead before the impacts starting destroying the economy.

    This is why I support a 80% tax bracket for anyone aged 50 or above that makes more than $250k per year. I also support increasing the death tax to 90% for any amount over $100k for the next 30 years; this is simply to pay for all the lost taxes that Boomers didn't pay to support the government they voted for.
  • like_that
    sleeper;1836034 wrote:We already have historically low tax rates. Boomers just want to screw over future generations with greater deficits because they will be dead before the impacts starting destroying the economy.

    This is why I support a 80% tax bracket for anyone aged 50 or above that makes more than $250k per year. I also support increasing the death tax to 90% for any amount over $100k for the next 30 years; this is simply to pay for all the lost taxes that Boomers didn't pay to support the government they voted for.
    So you want to punish the boomers.
  • fish82
    ptown_trojans_1;1836019 wrote:Doesn't mean jack shit until there is a ground breaking and actual deal for jobs.

    I have a question now. What is your measure for success for Trump? The unemployment rate? The labor participation rate? GDP growth? Wage increases?
    Just curious.

    To me, it is the labor participation rate and the wage increase/ stagnation rates.
    Add in GDP growth, and that results in a pretty good overall barometer.
  • like_that
    How about decreasing our debt? Doesn't seem like either side is interested in that.
  • sleeper
    like_that;1836038 wrote:So you want to punish the boomers.
    No, punish is a bad word. I simply want them to pay for the government they voted for and never paid for.

    Simple.
  • fish82
    I can't wait to retire and have sleeper pay to stock my liquor cabinet every month. :laugh:
  • sleeper
    fish82;1836044 wrote:I can't wait to retire and have sleeper pay to stock my liquor cabinet every month. :laugh:
    I'd be happy to keep it stocked with cat food. I could feed a lot of Boomers with cat food.
  • like_that
    sleeper;1836042 wrote:No, punish is a bad word. I simply want them to pay for the government they voted for and never paid for.

    Simple.
    That's another way of saying you want to punish them.

    Serious question, because boomers piss me off too (not as much as you), but who exactly are you referring to when you blame boomers for all this debt?
  • sleeper
    like_that;1836046 wrote:That's another way of saying you want to punish them.

    Serious question, because boomers piss me off too (not as much as you), but who exactly are you referring to when you blame boomers for all this debt?
    No. They took out a loan and enjoyed a life on that loan and the plan is to die before they have to pay for it. If you take out a personal loan, and then die before you pay it off, it comes out of your estate. This is no different.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    like_that;1836040 wrote:How about decreasing our debt? Doesn't seem like either side is interested in that.
    Nope.
    That went out the window with Trump and his increases in DOD and infrastructure.

    On that note, Governors are submitting their list of projects to the Trump Administration.
    There is a top 50 and then a list of 300 deep. Trump will narrow that down for the $150B list.
    Sounds like it is a mix of federal, state and local, and private.
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article131145979.html
  • Con_Alma
    I'm not too convinced that the borrowers were screwed over in those lawsuits other than the lac of following the SCRA by the contracted company Navient. That one seems pretty clear they were in the wrong and it definitely cost the service members money.

    Do you know he those other lawsuits turned out?
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1836031 wrote:Economic growth by wages, GDP, labor participation I assume then?
    Otherwise, you are just listing boiler plate words and phrases.
    Tax cuts don't mean jack shit if it doesn't increase productivity and improve wages.

    GDP growth; we cannot begin to address our debt until we achieve real growth. We can, and should, put ALL spending on the table, most importantly entitlements, in order to decrease spending.
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1836052 wrote:GDP growth; we cannot begin to address our debt until we achieve real growth. We can, and should, put ALL spending on the table, most importantly entitlements, in order to decrease spending.
    Good to know you are okay with cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  • O-Trap
    like_that;1836040 wrote:How about decreasing our debt? Doesn't seem like either side is interested in that.
    They haven't really been interested in that for awhile.
    QuakerOats;1836052 wrote:GDP growth; we cannot begin to address our debt until we achieve real growth. We can, and should, put ALL spending on the table, most importantly entitlements, in order to decrease spending.
    Um ... sure we can. We can stop spending so much.

    That's like saying we can't stop the bleeding until we find blood for a transfusion.
  • fish82
    sleeper;1836045 wrote:I'd be happy to keep it stocked with cat food. I could feed a lot of Boomers with cat food.
    You'll be stocking it with expensive single malt.

    Enjoy.
  • Azubuike24
    Reduce expenses...
  • O-Trap
    Azubuike24;1836065 wrote:Reduce expenses...
    What he said.
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;1836060 wrote:Good to know you are okay with cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

    SS and Medicare should be privatized so that the money is there for the retirees who can then use it for retirement and buying medical coverage, and then leave significant amounts to their heirs upon death.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1836082 wrote:SS and Medicare should be privatized so that the money is there for the retirees who can then use it for retirement and buying medical coverage, and then leave significant amounts to their heirs upon death.

    So ... like a regular retirement fund?
  • QuakerOats
    Run the calcs on where you would be if you had your 6.2% contribution plus your employer's 6.2% match, over a 45 year career, at various rates of return. Then take that massive nest egg, and peel off the earnings each year to supplement your retirement income, live well, and leave damn near the entire principle balance to your heirs. The numbers are very, very substantial.
  • QuakerOats
    Intel CEO Brian Krzanich met with President Donald Trump today, announcing a $7 billion investment in an Arizona semiconductor factory.
    Krzanich said that the Chandler facility, named Fab 42, would employ about 3,000 people at its peak in "high-tech, high-wage jobs."
    More than 10,000 additional jobs would be created in support of the factory in surrounding areas, he said.
    "This factory will produce the most powerful computer chips on the planet, powering the best computers, the best data centers [and] autonomous cars," he said.




    Winning again today ...............hard to take.
  • O-Trap
    fish82;1836063 wrote:You'll be stocking it with expensive single malt.

    Enjoy.
    Scotch? I knew I liked you.
    QuakerOats;1836088 wrote:Run the calcs on where you would be if you had your 6.2% contribution plus your employer's 6.2% match, over a 45 year career, at various rates of return. Then take that massive nest egg, and peel off the earnings each year to supplement your retirement income, live well, and leave damn near the entire principle balance to your heirs. The numbers are very, very substantial.
    You essentially just made the case for getting rid of Social Security.

    Finally, I can stop paying into a fund I'll never see the returns on.
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1836088 wrote:Run the calcs on where you would be if you had your 6.2% contribution plus your employer's 6.2% match, over a 45 year career, at various rates of return. Then take that massive nest egg, and peel off the earnings each year to supplement your retirement income, live well, and leave damn near the entire principle balance to your heirs. The numbers are very, very substantial.
    Google "The Great Depression" and read your history.

    Christ, no wonder we elected another Hitler, no one reads history.