oldandslow wrote:
Quote:
Tax cuts: A+. We are taxed too much for half the stupid shit that government funds. Budget deal: F- a joke. We should wait for the effects of the tax cuts to manifest before we spend like drunken sailors.
Okay, you are anti-government spending and anti-tax. Fine, that IS NOT the same as being anti-deficit. Anti-tax folks delude themselves all the time that they care about the deficit. No way that Trump's tax bill gets an "A+" from anybody who has an honest concern about deficits.
"Obama’s fiscal policies were a joke. A one time $400? Please. ..." You are 100% correct, it was WAY too small.
"The payroll tax was mildly helpful, but at what expense? Reducing entitlement funding? " Oops, you are 100% correct it was WAY too costly... Wait, these can't both be 100% correct....
"What has QE done except to further exacerbate the wealth gap? "... uh, it supported the housing market, buttressed the stock market and saved the pension system, which increased overall economic activity. Is that the answer that you are looking for if? If not, then you are 100% correct, the government should NOT help the 1% (admittedly it favored wealthy folks more, and it may not have been worth the cost).
"The wealthy pay the taxes. Who else should get a break?" Well, given that you complained that QE only helped the 1%, isn't it fair to raise tax rates on the sliver of populace that was helped?
You are picking talking points that are often at odds with each other.
Look, we don't disagree as much as it sounds. We have been giving an enormous boost to capital growth for over a generation (low inflation, low interest rates, preferred tax policy,...), often via government policy and that has been the jet fuel that drives the world economy. It is extremely unclear how to unwind it or if that is even a good idea. We presently have the wealthiest global and US economy in history, along with historic levels of relative inequality and increasing economic segregation. A more ideologically "pure" market may in fact be substantially poorer and more unequal.
Re: "Much of the slow growth under Obama’s can be attributed to Obama’s anti growth regulatory policies. " It can be attributed to lots of things, I had a big list in the previous post. Blaming/lionizing Obama is convenient, but ignores lots of other factors and remains a matter of near-religious faith. The economy has grown steadily for 8 years. There is no parallel universe that we can view to test other outcomes.
Speaking of budget deficits:
http://money.cnn.com/...t-deficit/index.html
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-february-budget-report-shows-first-signs-of-wider-deficits-to-come-2018-03-12
Agreed, we are not that polarized. You can be anti deficits and pro tax cuts if you fundamentally believe that the govt wastes too much of our money on things it was never intended to do. If you believe the big problem is spending, there is no conflict. If the Trump tax cuts create budgets surpluses 3 years from now, Congress will spend every dime plus some more.
I agree that QE mitigated pain and provided a basis for recovery. Combined with decade of zero interest rates helped as well, but again at what cost and how do we unwind it? QE really benefitting “the 1%” (anyone invested in the market is a better way to look at it) was probably an unintended consequence of the policy, really where else was capital flowing (where else could it and get any return)? Would we be better off long term if things were allowed to crater a bit? Would we have recovered quicker? And what about the govt role in creating the housing bubble? I’m not anti govt, im anti stupid govt, i.e. limited govt.
Lastly, it is hardly religious faith to see what massive regulation, bad corporate tax policy, and bad trade practices/ negotiations do to limit economic growth.