lustylad please explain the logic of the Florida Governor's logic in giving out 450 dollars...

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Chimp talk?

I suppose I should have spoken in Gay-wa-nese to you. Sorry

Let me ask it so someone who fancies himself an economic guru but isn't, might understand.

How logical is it for the government to continually supplement inflated dollars it orginally inflated?

So from your economic guru mountain top...you think it brilliant to continually give away money to counteract the negative effect of inflation your previous giveaway induced.

Wow....and you think Laffer was a joke!

$35 million in Florida isn't exactly going to stoke the fires of inflation. Nevergaveitathought said it much more eloquently:

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the sad state we find ourselves in is that if we don't use the money, it goes back to the black hole of washington, where $35 million is the equivalent of a very skinny gnat on an elephants left rear toe nail

Because I like you I'm going to give you a gift. And no, it will not be chlamydia, because I am not gay. It will be an editorial from LustyLad's and my favorite newspaper.

[Tiny]

Here it is WTF, my gift to you. I agree with Kim. I bet LustyLad does too. And I'm sure you do.

Now can we please hold hands and sing Kumbaya

The GOP’s Self-Defeating Spending Habit
The party can’t run credibly against profligate Democrats if it is complicit.
By Kimberley A. Strassel

What do you get when you cross a Republican with a tech lobbyist? A bipartisan boondoggle. The question is how long the GOP can get away with its posturing on fiscal restraint.

The Senate voted 64-34 to proceed on a semiconductor welfare bill sporting a fictitious $76 billion price tag. Before the vote, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer broadcast his intention to lard it up with billions more in government spending if he crossed the 60-vote filibuster mark. Sixteen Republican senators signed up.

It’s possible the bill could hit $250 billion, all vaguely aimed at promoting U.S. “innovation.” The legislation directs government agencies to assist in the “development” of tech sectors, meaning bureaucrats will funnel the dollars to private companies—chip makers, telcos, cybersecurity outfits, artificial-intelligence shops. Why bother raising capital privately when you have the American taxpayer? Or rather future taxpayers, since the bill’s supporters aren’t even pretending they intend to cover the cost. We’ll borrow from the nation’s toddlers to cut checks to Intel.

This is Republican business as usual. The GOP that is assisting in this quarter-trillion-dollar spendathon is the same GOP that last year provided the votes for a $1 trillion infrastructure boondoggle. The same GOP that in 2020 signed on to not one, not two, three or four, but five Covid “relief” bills, to the tune of some $3.5 trillion. The same GOP that smartly cut taxes in 2017, but pretended it didn’t and blew through discretionary spending caps. The same GOP that has unofficially re-embraced earmarks. The party occasionally takes a breather—say to gripe about the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion Covid bill in 2021—but then it’s right back to the spending grindstone.

When was the last time anyone heard a Republican talk about the need to reform Social Security or Medicare? That disappeared with the election of Donald Trump (opposed to both) and the retirement of Speaker Paul Ryan and never reappeared. Instead, a growing faction of the party sees a future in buying the votes of working- and middle-class voters with costly new entitlement proposals of their own, such as expanded child tax credits. Who wants to dwell on painful budget or welfare reform when Republicans can promote their values by doling out federal cash?

Some will note that “only” 16 Senate Republicans voted to advance the new “innovation” blowout—that the significant majority of the 50-strong GOP caucus remains opposed. But 16 is still a lot. Especially for a party that claims a core belief in “limited government.” The number is a function of a party leadership that is no longer making a top priority of fiscal restraint, giving license to its spenders. That, and outside conservative groups that are increasingly focusing on the culture wars rather than the threat of big government.

Yet the political risks of this GOP spending habit are huge, both in the short and the long run. Republicans correctly blame the Democrats’ 2021 spending for today’s inflation, and public fury over high prices makes for their best shot at retaking the House and Senate this fall. But the potency of the inflation argument will dissipate if the GOP joins yet another spending frenzy. The next time a Republican runs an ad hammering a Democrat for inflation, the target will simply remind voters that it was a bipartisan effort that produced the vast majority of Covid-and-beyond spending.

Some Republicans will argue that Americans—even conservative voters—are less worried about federal spending or the deficit than they were a decade ago. But Gallup reported in March that 75% of Americans still worry about those issues “a great deal” or “a fair amount.” An Ipsos poll from last year similarly found 75% of Americans are worried about the national debt and its effect on the economy.

It played in GOP primaries—where voters are sending a message. The media put down Illinois Rep. Mary Miller’s victory in June over fellow incumbent Rep. Rodney Davis entirely to Mr. Trump’s support of her. Less noticed was the contrast on spending. Mr. Davis signed up for millions of dollars worth of earmarks; Ms. Miller none. A similar dynamic played out in a West Virginia primary between two incumbents. Rep. Alexander Mooney (who supported no earmarks and voted against the infrastructure measure) beat Rep. David B. McKinley (who supported both).

The Biden inflation is educating new generations about the real-world costs of loose government money. In the next presidential election and beyond, those voters will look for an alternative to the progressive left that dominates the Democratic Party and wants to double the size of government. A complicit Republican Party isn’t credible in its claims of fiscal discipline, or any sort of an alternative. It’ll be Democrat Lite.

The GOP still has the ability to restore its reputation on spending, but it needed to start yesterday. A good first step would be saying no to any form of Mr. Schumer’s corporate-welfare blowout.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gop...rs-11658439991

[biomed1]

Spirited debate is fine, however . . .

#1 - Avoid cases of unprovoked rudeness to others. No place for it here. Yes, with the dynamic nature of the threads and topics, tempers will flare and things will become heated from time to time. You may often encounter individuals who become passionate or emotional when expressing one's opinion or point of view. That's all understood and perfectly acceptable within reason…….but, start slamming or bashing another member and be met with consequences.

#4 - Blatant insults or hostility toward another member will be met with staff intervention. This applies to using our coed forums for name calling, personal attacks, or vulgar slang terms to describe fellow members. If you have legitimate concerns about another member here, share them tactfully in the appropriate private forums or with staff.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

$35 million in Florida isn't exactly going to stoke the fires of inflation. Nevergaveitathought said it much more eloquently:

You've missed the point. Which is why I targeted my question to our brilliant economist.

Let me simplify. Forget the amount or the cause.

Does one ramp down inflation by

A) Giving out more free money

B) Making excuses for giving out free money?

Because the Governor said he was giving away more money to offset inflation.

[nevergaveitathought]

find that quote

but the source of the giveaway seems to be the biden administration

what is desantis supposed to do? wear a hair shirt and be the one governor to not to use the giveaway?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Here it is WTF, my gift to you. I agree with Kim. I bet LustyLad does too. And I'm sure you do.

Now can we please hold hands and sing Kumbaya

The GOP’s Self-Defeating Spending Habit
The party can’t run credibly against profligate Democrats if it is complicit.
By Kimberley A. Strassel

What do you get when you cross a Republican with a tech lobbyist? A bipartisan boondoggle. The question is how long the GOP can get away with its posturing on fiscal restraint.

The Senate voted 64-34 to proceed on a semiconductor welfare bill sporting a fictitious $76 billion price tag. Before the vote, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer broadcast his intention to lard it up with billions more in government spending if he crossed the 60-vote filibuster mark. Sixteen Republican senators signed up.

It’s possible the bill could hit $250 billion, all vaguely aimed at promoting U.S. “innovation.” The legislation directs government agencies to assist in the “development” of tech sectors, meaning bureaucrats will funnel the dollars to private companies—chip makers, telcos, cybersecurity outfits, artificial-intelligence shops. Why bother raising capital privately when you have the American taxpayer? Or rather future taxpayers, since the bill’s supporters aren’t even pretending they intend to cover the cost. We’ll borrow from the nation’s toddlers to cut checks to Intel.

This is Republican business as usual. The GOP that is assisting in this quarter-trillion-dollar spendathon is the same GOP that last year provided the votes for a $1 trillion infrastructure boondoggle. The same GOP that in 2020 signed on to not one, not two, three or four, but five Covid “relief” bills, to the tune of some $3.5 trillion. The same GOP that smartly cut taxes in 2017, but pretended it didn’t and blew through discretionary spending caps. The same GOP that has unofficially re-embraced earmarks. The party occasionally takes a breather—say to gripe about the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion Covid bill in 2021—but then it’s right back to the spending grindstone.

When was the last time anyone heard a Republican talk about the need to reform Social Security or Medicare? That disappeared with the election of Donald Trump (opposed to both) and the retirement of Speaker Paul Ryan and never reappeared. Instead, a growing faction of the party sees a future in buying the votes of working- and middle-class voters with costly new entitlement proposals of their own, such as expanded child tax credits. Who wants to dwell on painful budget or welfare reform when Republicans can promote their values by doling out federal cash?

Some will note that “only” 16 Senate Republicans voted to advance the new “innovation” blowout—that the significant majority of the 50-strong GOP caucus remains opposed. But 16 is still a lot. Especially for a party that claims a core belief in “limited government.” The number is a function of a party leadership that is no longer making a top priority of fiscal restraint, giving license to its spenders. That, and outside conservative groups that are increasingly focusing on the culture wars rather than the threat of big government.

Yet the political risks of this GOP spending habit are huge, both in the short and the long run. Republicans correctly blame the Democrats’ 2021 spending for today’s inflation, and public fury over high prices makes for their best shot at retaking the House and Senate this fall. But the potency of the inflation argument will dissipate if the GOP joins yet another spending frenzy. The next time a Republican runs an ad hammering a Democrat for inflation, the target will simply remind voters that it was a bipartisan effort that produced the vast majority of Covid-and-beyond spending.

Some Republicans will argue that Americans—even conservative voters—are less worried about federal spending or the deficit than they were a decade ago. But Gallup reported in March that 75% of Americans still worry about those issues “a great deal” or “a fair amount.” An Ipsos poll from last year similarly found 75% of Americans are worried about the national debt and its effect on the economy.

It played in GOP primaries—where voters are sending a message. The media put down Illinois Rep. Mary Miller’s victory in June over fellow incumbent Rep. Rodney Davis entirely to Mr. Trump’s support of her. Less noticed was the contrast on spending. Mr. Davis signed up for millions of dollars worth of earmarks; Ms. Miller none. A similar dynamic played out in a West Virginia primary between two incumbents. Rep. Alexander Mooney (who supported no earmarks and voted against the infrastructure measure) beat Rep. David B. McKinley (who supported both).

The Biden inflation is educating new generations about the real-world costs of loose government money. In the next presidential election and beyond, those voters will look for an alternative to the progressive left that dominates the Democratic Party and wants to double the size of government. A complicit Republican Party isn’t credible in its claims of fiscal discipline, or any sort of an alternative. It’ll be Democrat Lite.

The GOP still has the ability to restore its reputation on spending, but it needed to start yesterday. A good first step would be saying no to any form of Mr. Schumer’s corporate-welfare blowout.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gop...rs-11658439991

She got a couple things wrong but mostly she has just parroted wtf I've been telling you Reagan loving Trump converts.

You just regifted my gift!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

find that quote

?

Find the quote!!!???


It is in the original post!

You need to head back in to the facility before they put a Silver Alert out!

[nevergaveitathought]

you obviously have either misinterpreted his meaning and intent or purposely twisted it into the idea that he says he is fighting inflation by giving out the money

to aid his citizens affected by the biden inflation is much different than cause or add to the cause as you indicated in your ramp down multiple choice misdirection

the whole thing is part and parcel of the same dilemma we all find ourselves in, accept some small vote buying payoff, which yes adds to our sorry state, or not accept it when all others do knowing that not accepting it doesn't slow nor stop or have one tad of effect on our decline by doing so

so your multiple choice misdirection has no validity

all desantis is doing is aiding his citizens in the defined absolute state and environment in which he operates

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

She got a couple things wrong but mostly she has just parroted wtf I've been telling you Reagan loving Trump converts.

You just regifted my gift!

I'm a Trump convert. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm a Trump convert. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are with his tax cut nonsense.

We've already had this discussion...Reagan's cut increased income inequality and so will Trump's.

You sure as hell can't grade them after a pandemic in which both party's lit the economy with free money!

Yet you and our resident economic guru still attempt to.

2018 and 19 were unmitigated failures, the only years you can objectively compare.

https://cepr.net/the-great-failure-o...s-big-tax-cut/

Center for Economic and Policy Research ESMenu
> BLOG > THE GREAT FAILURE OF DONALD TRUMP’S BIG TAX CUT
• ARTICLE CoronavirusHealth and Social Programs Beat the Press

The Great Failure of Donald Trump’s Big Tax Cut
03/19/2020 12:00AM

DEAN BAKER

The fact that Donald Trump’s tax cut did not produce the investment and growth that was promised is widely known. There was a modest uptick in growth in 2018, from 2.4 percent the prior year to 2.9 percent in 2018, but this pace fell back to 2.3 percent last year. Virtually, all forecasts showed the growth rate falling still lower in 2020, even before the coronavirus began to impose large economic costs.

This is well below the 3.0 percent growth, for as far as the eye can see, promised by the Trump administration. In fact, the 2.5 percent average growth rate for the first three years of the Trump administration is only slightly better than the 2.3 percent average growth rate for the last three years of the Obama administration.

More important than the growth figures is the fact that there is zero evidence that it gave any substantial boost to investment. The investment share of GDP crept up slightly from 13.2 percent of GDP in 2017 to 13.5 percent in 2018, but it was back down to 13.4 percent last year. And, in the fourth quarter of 2019 it was back to 13.2 percent. The investment share never got as high as the 13.7 percent reached in 2014 under Obama. There certainly is not much of a boom story here.

Some tax cut proponents insist that the tax cut would have led to the promised boom had it not been for Donald Trump’s trade war. While there is little doubt that the trade war has had a negative effect on investment and growth, the impact would have to be far larger than any models project in order for the trade war to have been the only thing that stifled an investment boom. Also, from the standpoint of touting Donald Trump’s economic record, it is a bit hard to maintain that his tax cut would have led to a great investment boom, if not for damage caused by his ill-conceived trade war.

The story of the tax cut and the economy is simple. We gave a large tax cut, a bit less than $200 billion a year (around 0.9 percent of GDP), with the main beneficiaries being rich people. And, the rich spent a reasonable portion of their tax cut, leading to a boost in consumption and a boost to growth. This proves the old theory that if we give people more money, they will spend more. Of course, that is more true if we give the money to low and middle income people, but even high income people will spend more when they have more money.

The tax cut did lead to a large increase in the budget deficit, which is not necessarily a problem, except that we could have instead done things with this money like provide free child care, extend health care coverage, provide large subsidies to promote clean energy and conservation. In effect, we targeted increasing consumption by the rich instead of these alternative uses of resources.



The Tax Gaming Continues!

While the investment and growth failures of the tax cut are widely known, there is another failure of the tax cut which has gotten less attention. The main selling point of the corporate tax cut, which was at the center of the Trump plan, was that it would lead to an investment boom, leading to more rapid productivity growth and higher wages, but there was another more plausible story they also pushed.

The pre-Trump corporate tax rate was 35 percent, but few businesses were paying taxes at anything close to this rate. The overall average was close to 21 percent. The 35 percent statutory rate put us at the top of the OECD. However, our actually tax collections were slightly below the median.

The Trumpers argued that they would lower the rate, but would eliminate the loopholes, so that we would actually collect something close to the new 21 percent statutory rate. If this were true, it would actually be a change for the better.

The point is that whatever our tax take actually is, we want to minimize the resources involved in collecting this tax. When corporations employ elaborate tax avoidance or evasion strategies to get their tax rate down, they are employing considerable resources in this effort. This is a complete waste from an economic perspective. We have highly educated people working as tax lawyers and accountants instead of engaged in work that could have social benefits, such as improving medical technology or teaching.

These tax avoidance and evasion strategies also contribute to income inequality, since there is big money in designing them. If a clever accountant can find a way to save Apple or Google $400 million on their taxes, then these companies would come out ahead paying them $399,999,999. We shouldn’t design our economy so that tax gaming is one of the best ways to make a big fortune.

Anyhow, whether or not their promises on eliminating tax gaming were ever sincere, it is now clear that they were not accurate. We have lowered the tax rate, as they intended, but tax gaming continues to be as robust as ever.

We can see this clearly from the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projections on corporate tax collections. In April of 2018, after the tax cut had been passed into law, CBO projected that we would collect $307 billion in corporate taxes this year. In January of this year, it projected that we would collect $234 billion in corporate taxes, a difference of more than 20 percent. This comes to less than 11 percent of projected profits.

The failure to limit tax gaming is also apparent in the continuing growth in the foreign share of corporate profits. The simplest and most common form of tax gaming is to have profits recorded in a tax haven like Ireland or the Cayman Islands. It is very difficult for governments to determine where profits were actually earned. For this reason, companies would rather have their profits booked in a country with a very low tax rate.

The latest data on profits from the Federal Reserve Board show that the tax cut did not discourage companies from booking their profits abroad. In fact, the foreign share of corporate profits rose from 21.3 percent in 2017, the last year before the tax cut, to 26.1 percent last year.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

You are with his tax cut nonsense.

We've already had this discussion...Reagan's cut increased income inequality and so will Trump's.

You sure as hell can't grade them after a pandemic in which both party's lit the economy with free money!

Yet you and our resident economic guru still attempt to.

2018 and 19 were unmitigated failures, the only years you can objectively compare.

https://cepr.net/the-great-failure-o...s-big-tax-cut/

Center for Economic and Policy Research ESMenu
> BLOG > THE GREAT FAILURE OF DONALD TRUMP’S BIG TAX CUT
• ARTICLE CoronavirusHealth and Social Programs Beat the Press

The Great Failure of Donald Trump’s Big Tax Cut
03/19/2020 12:00AM

DEAN BAKER

The fact that Donald Trump’s tax cut did not produce the investment and growth that was promised is widely known. There was a modest uptick in growth in 2018, from 2.4 percent the prior year to 2.9 percent in 2018, but this pace fell back to 2.3 percent last year. Virtually, all forecasts showed the growth rate falling still lower in 2020, even before the coronavirus began to impose large economic costs.

This is well below the 3.0 percent growth, for as far as the eye can see, promised by the Trump administration. In fact, the 2.5 percent average growth rate for the first three years of the Trump administration is only slightly better than the 2.3 percent average growth rate for the last three years of the Obama administration.

More important than the growth figures is the fact that there is zero evidence that it gave any substantial boost to investment. The investment share of GDP crept up slightly from 13.2 percent of GDP in 2017 to 13.5 percent in 2018, but it was back down to 13.4 percent last year. And, in the fourth quarter of 2019 it was back to 13.2 percent. The investment share never got as high as the 13.7 percent reached in 2014 under Obama. There certainly is not much of a boom story here.

Some tax cut proponents insist that the tax cut would have led to the promised boom had it not been for Donald Trump’s trade war. While there is little doubt that the trade war has had a negative effect on investment and growth, the impact would have to be far larger than any models project in order for the trade war to have been the only thing that stifled an investment boom. Also, from the standpoint of touting Donald Trump’s economic record, it is a bit hard to maintain that his tax cut would have led to a great investment boom, if not for damage caused by his ill-conceived trade war.

The story of the tax cut and the economy is simple. We gave a large tax cut, a bit less than $200 billion a year (around 0.9 percent of GDP), with the main beneficiaries being rich people. And, the rich spent a reasonable portion of their tax cut, leading to a boost in consumption and a boost to growth. This proves the old theory that if we give people more money, they will spend more. Of course, that is more true if we give the money to low and middle income people, but even high income people will spend more when they have more money.

The tax cut did lead to a large increase in the budget deficit, which is not necessarily a problem, except that we could have instead done things with this money like provide free child care, extend health care coverage, provide large subsidies to promote clean energy and conservation. In effect, we targeted increasing consumption by the rich instead of these alternative uses of resources.



The Tax Gaming Continues!

While the investment and growth failures of the tax cut are widely known, there is another failure of the tax cut which has gotten less attention. The main selling point of the corporate tax cut, which was at the center of the Trump plan, was that it would lead to an investment boom, leading to more rapid productivity growth and higher wages, but there was another more plausible story they also pushed.

The pre-Trump corporate tax rate was 35 percent, but few businesses were paying taxes at anything close to this rate. The overall average was close to 21 percent. The 35 percent statutory rate put us at the top of the OECD. However, our actually tax collections were slightly below the median.

The Trumpers argued that they would lower the rate, but would eliminate the loopholes, so that we would actually collect something close to the new 21 percent statutory rate. If this were true, it would actually be a change for the better.

The point is that whatever our tax take actually is, we want to minimize the resources involved in collecting this tax. When corporations employ elaborate tax avoidance or evasion strategies to get their tax rate down, they are employing considerable resources in this effort. This is a complete waste from an economic perspective. We have highly educated people working as tax lawyers and accountants instead of engaged in work that could have social benefits, such as improving medical technology or teaching.

These tax avoidance and evasion strategies also contribute to income inequality, since there is big money in designing them. If a clever accountant can find a way to save Apple or Google $400 million on their taxes, then these companies would come out ahead paying them $399,999,999. We shouldn’t design our economy so that tax gaming is one of the best ways to make a big fortune.

Anyhow, whether or not their promises on eliminating tax gaming were ever sincere, it is now clear that they were not accurate. We have lowered the tax rate, as they intended, but tax gaming continues to be as robust as ever.

We can see this clearly from the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projections on corporate tax collections. In April of 2018, after the tax cut had been passed into law, CBO projected that we would collect $307 billion in corporate taxes this year. In January of this year, it projected that we would collect $234 billion in corporate taxes, a difference of more than 20 percent. This comes to less than 11 percent of projected profits.

The failure to limit tax gaming is also apparent in the continuing growth in the foreign share of corporate profits. The simplest and most common form of tax gaming is to have profits recorded in a tax haven like Ireland or the Cayman Islands. It is very difficult for governments to determine where profits were actually earned. For this reason, companies would rather have their profits booked in a country with a very low tax rate.

The latest data on profits from the Federal Reserve Board show that the tax cut did not discourage companies from booking their profits abroad. In fact, the foreign share of corporate profits rose from 21.3 percent in 2017, the last year before the tax cut, to 26.1 percent last year.

Uh, haven't I already read this somewhere before?

The only reason you say that 2018 and 2019 were unmitigated failures is because Trump, a Republican, was president. GDP growth of 2.3% to 2.9% isn't bad. Compare to 1.6% average under Obama, during which time the USA was rebounding (very anemically) from a bad recession.

If you could maintain 2.6% GDP growth (average of 2018 and 2019) for 40 years, then the economy would grow by 179%. If you just do the 1.6% average during the Obama administration, that's just 88% growth.

That's not to say that who's president has much to do with GDP growth. It doesn't.

[Jacuzzme]

Fuck the entire idea of “income inequality”, it’s just stupid. Some people are just smarter, more motivated and hard working than others and nothing is going to change that. The only way to make income more equal is to make everyone equally poor. That’s been tried and ends up with millions in chains or worse.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Uh, haven't I already read this somewhere before?

The only reason you say that 2018 and 2019 were unmitigated failures is because Trump, a Republican, was president. GDP growth of 2.3% to 2.9% isn't bad. Compare to 1.6% average under Obama, during which time the USA was rebounding (very anemically) from a bad recession.

If you could maintain 2.6% GDP growth (average of 2018 and 2019) for 40 years, then the economy would grow by 179%. If you just do the 1.6% average during the Obama administration, that's just 88% growth.

That's not to say that who's president has much to do with GDP growth. It doesn't.

Now you know why I called you a Trump convert!

Boy if I did know better my head would still be spinning after reading that distortion on steroids!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Fuck the entire idea of “income inequality”, it’s just stupid. Some people are just smarter, more motivated and hard working than others and nothing is going to change that. The only way to make income more equal is to make everyone equally poor. That’s been tried and ends up with millions in chains or worse.

Yes....we should continue to March into a state of being like say The Congo or other third world shitholes. Great idea.

[Jacuzzme]

Yeah, much better to march into Stalinist Russia than an actual meritocracy.