TRUMP TAX CUTS FAILING BADLY (they have ACCOMPLISHED ballooning deficit)

[Centerleftfl]

Remember, what will come NEXT will be YOUR Social Security and Medicare. It's not a scare. It is a fact. I'll give it 5 years tops. The years when the final group of BABYBOOMERS will hit 65. (Think about that!!) It is an immutable fact. In the meantime as TRUMP blows up deficits.

PS This is PRECISELY why he wants the FEDS to cut the rate. He knows the tax cuts were a bust. 1--It can say he did it. 2--The REAL ESTATE BIZ loves it! (Remember folks, the boys are out making deals everywhere. He still has many "friends" in the biz).

The Trump tax cuts are failing badly

Matt Obrien, MAY 31, 2019 - Washington Post (Economics section)

There are a lot of words you could use to describe the Trump tax cuts, but “successful” isn’t one of them.

That, at least, is what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found when it looked at how much Trump’s signature accomplishment has actually, well, accomplished so far. The answer isn’t much. Indeed, the CRS estimates that, in the past year, the tax cuts haven’t added a lot, if anything, to growth in wages, investment or the overall economy. The best you can say is that things might be better in the future.
Or, you know, they might not.

The important thing to understand here is that the Trump tax cuts were supposed to help people by helping corporations first. While households got small, temporary tax cuts — then-House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), you might remember, touted that one secretary was getting an extra $1.50 a week — companies got large, permanent ones. The idea being that this would make companies invest a lot more money in their businesses, which, in turn, would make their workers so much more productive, they’d eventually get bigger raises than they otherwise would have. The administration, for its part, rather absurdly claimed that this would be somewhere between $4,000 and $9,000 per household.
That, at least, is what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found when it looked at how much Trump’s signature accomplishment has actually, well, accomplished so far. The answer isn’t much. Indeed, the CRS estimates that, in the past year, the tax cuts haven’t added a lot, if anything, to growth in wages, investment or the overall economy. The best you can say is that things might be better in the future.

Or, you know, they might not.

The important thing to understand here is that the Trump tax cuts were supposed to help people by helping corporations first. While households got small, temporary tax cuts — then-House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), you might remember, touted that one secretary was getting an extra $1.50 a week — companies got large, permanent ones. The idea being that this would make companies invest a lot more money in their businesses, which, in turn, would make their workers so much more productive, they’d eventually get bigger raises than they otherwise would have. The administration, for its part, rather absurdly claimed that this would be somewhere between $4,000 and $9,000 per household.
of them.

That, at least, is what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found when it looked at how much Trump’s signature accomplishment has actually, well, accomplished so far. The answer isn’t much. Indeed, the CRS estimates that, in the past year, the tax cuts haven’t added a lot, if anything, to growth in wages, investment or the overall economy. The best you can say is that things might be better in the future.

That’s why the most damning news isn’t that the gross domestic product is growing only a bit faster but rather that business investment is. If that doesn’t change, then what little boost there’s been to the economy won’t last long, and barely any of it will reach the middle class. Why is that? Well, the tax cuts were supposed to help in two ways: by giving wealthy shareholders more money to spend and corporations more reason to invest. The problem, though, is that the first part should increase growth for just a little while — and not by much, since rich people don’t tend to spend as much of any tax cut — so that second part really has to work for any of this to be sustainable. It’s also the only way, as we mentioned before, that any of this will trickle down to, shall we say, people in less-exclusive income groups. After all, they’re not getting much of a tax cut themselves, so their only hope is that the people who are benefiting more are putting that money to work in investments that will benefit them, too...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/31/trump-tax-cuts-are-failing-badly/?utm_term=.ef978f72f794

[Centerleftfl]

Don't like that SOURCE. Try this one...

Trump’s Tax Cuts Failed to Deliver
​
Jun 19, 2019
Whatever the benefits, they’re too slight to be meaningful.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-promised-boom

[cawacko]

Pushing Grandma off the cliff scare threats again huh?

[Centerleftfl]

Don't like either of the 2 above, maybe this one will catch your eye...

It’s official: The Trump tax cuts were a bust

Feb 2, 2019 9:45 a.m. ET

Lower taxes helped goose profits and stocks, but did little for jobs or the economy

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/it...ust-2019-01-30

[Centerleftfl]

Don't like those... (For the uninformed, LA Times is considered rather conservative. Of course MEDIA's goal post have been moved)

BUSINESS

Column: A devastating analysis of the tax cut shows it’s done virtually no economic good

[
Trump signals happiness with the GOP tax cut when signing the measure in December 2017.
(Brendan Smialowski / AFP/Getty Images)


By MICHAEL HILTZIKBUSINESS COLUMNIST

MAY 29, 2019 10:01 AM


https://www.latimes.com/business/hil...529-story.html

[Centerleftfl]

And this one...

Why Trump’s Tax Cuts Failed to Spark an Investment Boom



Michael Rainey

The Fiscal Times
June 5, 2019

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-t...214819972.html

[Centerleftfl]

Good ol Time...

Trump Gave Americans a Massive Tax Cut. Few Are Noticing — And That's a Problem for Him
BY SAHIL KAPUR AND LAURA DAVISON / BLOOMBERG
APRIL 15, 2019


https://time.com/5570679/trump-tax-cuts/

[Centerleftfl]

Pushing Grandma off the cliff scare threats again huh?

Yeah I made it all up. This is 9 or 10 months old. Do you really think things have gotten better?

Opinion: Why the latest warnings about cuts to Social Security and Medicare are a reason to worry


Published: Sept 22, 2018 9:05 a.m. ET - MARKETWATCH


Social Security and Medicare are still looking wobbly

You’ve spent a lifetime paying into Social Security, but there’s no guarantee that you’ll get out of it what you’ve put in.n fact, the way things are looking today, the odds aren’t looking too good.

The federal government earlier this year admitted that for the first time since 1982, it needs to dip into Social Security’s trust fund to pay for the program this year. You can interpret this as a warning that—absent action from lawmakers and this or the next few presidents to prop up the system—things could soon get worse—perhaps a lot worse.







And of course there are those RADICALS at Motley Fool

Trump's Social Security
Fix Is Already Faltering

Social Security's year-to-date net cash outflow from asset reserves hit $9 billion through March.



Sean Williams
(TMFUltraLong)

Apr 12, 2019 at 6:06AM

Whether you realize it or not, there's a very good possibility that you're going to be reliant on Social Security (in some capacity) when you retire. An April 2018 Gallup poll found that 84% of nonretirees expect to lean on their Social Security income to some degree to make ends meets. That compares to the 90% of current retirees polled by Gallup who say that they count on their monthly benefit check to help pay their bills.

It's a vital program that's responsible for keeping tens of millions of Americans out of poverty. But it's also a program that's facing its biggest test since its inception more than eight decades ago...

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019...faltering.aspx

[dukkha]

Congressional Research Service is speculation, it's impossible to separate out deregulation and tax cuts
for the current boom

[Centerleftfl]

Congressional Research Service is speculation, it's impossible to separate out deregulation and tax cuts
for the current boom

What BOOM? It's Trump, I guess he and his 'supporters' can call it anything he wants. "Slow but steady" doesn't say boom to me, but than I'm not TRUMPIAN. I couldn't even call this a BOOM if I wanted to. I can read a graph.

2009 to present: 8 years, 7 months and counting

This expansion started with the stimulus spending and tax cuts that passed in early 2009 to battle the Great Recession. The bailout of the auto industry that summer also helped get the economy growing again. But growth has generally been slow, but steady, ever since.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/30/new...ory/index.html

[dukkha]

What BOOM?

ROFL..get your head out of there

[canceled.2021.1]

Personally it has done great economic good for me. I have more of the money I earned. How can that be a bad thing?

Fuck everyone else. Don't care about them

I highly encourage the democrat party to run on a platform of massive tax increases, free healthcare for illegals, reparations and no borders

I think it is a winning strategy. They might even win not only the Presidency but 435 seats in the House and 100 seats in the Senate. That is how popular those positions are with a majority of Americans.

I am really worried now.

[cawacko]

Yeah I made it all up. This is 9 or 10 months old. Do you really think things have gotten better?

Opinion: Why the latest warnings about cuts to Social Security and Medicare are a reason to worry


Published: Sept 22, 2018 9:05 a.m. ET - MARKETWATCH


Social Security and Medicare are still looking wobbly

You’ve spent a lifetime paying into Social Security, but there’s no guarantee that you’ll get out of it what you’ve put in.n fact, the way things are looking today, the odds aren’t looking too good.

The federal government earlier this year admitted that for the first time since 1982, it needs to dip into Social Security’s trust fund to pay for the program this year. You can interpret this as a warning that—absent action from lawmakers and this or the next few presidents to prop up the system—things could soon get worse—perhaps a lot worse.







And of course there are those RADICALS at Motley Fool

Trump's Social Security
Fix Is Already Faltering

Social Security's year-to-date net cash outflow from asset reserves hit $9 billion through March.



Sean Williams
(TMFUltraLong)

Apr 12, 2019 at 6:06AM

Whether you realize it or not, there's a very good possibility that you're going to be reliant on Social Security (in some capacity) when you retire. An April 2018 Gallup poll found that 84% of nonretirees expect to lean on their Social Security income to some degree to make ends meets. That compares to the 90% of current retirees polled by Gallup who say that they count on their monthly benefit check to help pay their bills.

It's a vital program that's responsible for keeping tens of millions of Americans out of poverty. But it's also a program that's facing its biggest test since its inception more than eight decades ago...

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019...faltering.aspx

Social Security has been in trouble for a long time. We all know the numbers. We also know seniors vote the most and don't want anything changed (who cares about the youth) thus politicians are generally afraid to address it.

[Centerleftfl]

Pushing Grandma off the cliff scare threats again huh?

If your comprehension skills are worth a shit, this should cut through YOUR illusions. I'll have to assume YOU are paying in yourself.

Let me reiterate, LA TIMES is considered on the conservative spectrum (the old spectrum that is)


Editorial: Social Security and Medicare are in danger? Nothing to see here, says Trump’s Treasury secretary

[
(Patrick Semansky / Associated Press)


By THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD[/COLOR]
]JUNE 8, 2018
4:05 AM

Trustees overseeing Social Security and Medicare issued yet more warnings this week of the worsening financial health of the programs. In response, Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin told Americans not to worry — the rip-roaring economic growth the Trump administration is whipping up will take care of everything!

Except that it won’t, and pretending that the looming funding shortfalls will magically fix themselves is irresponsible and cowardly.

The reality is that the aging U.S. population leaves a decreasing number of workers to pay the payroll taxes that cover the cost of Social Security’s retirement and disability benefits and Medicare’s hospital coverage. President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program exacerbated that problem by reducing the number of workers paying those taxes. That should be easy enough to fix: Congress could simply restore DACA. Oh, wait.

Meanwhile, Medicare is being strained not only by a burgeoning population of retirees, but also by healthcare costs that are growing faster than inflation or the economy. The Affordable Care Act had a mechanism to address this — an expert panel that would recommend ways to rein in costs without rationing care — but the GOP Congress killed the panel before its members could be appointed.

This administration seems to have the stomach only for pandering to its base with handouts and protectionist tariffs.

So here’s what the numbers say now. The Social Security Trust Fund has started to shrink, with tax revenues and interest no longer covering the annual cost of benefits to about 62 million Americans. By 2034, the trustees estimate, it will be gone, forcing benefits to be cut by nearly one quarter.

The problems in Medicare are more immediate, according to that program’s trustees. The trust fund supporting Medicare’s hospital benefits is expected to run dry in only eight years, or three years sooner than the trustees had previously projected. Without that trust fund, hospital benefits would face steeper and steeper cuts, starting at 9% in 2026 and growing to 22% in 2040. Other parts of Medicare face similar budgetary challenges.

Washington has a number of options. Congress could take steps that raise the revenue coming into the Social Security Trust Fund — for example, by applying payroll taxes to more of a person’s annual wages (the cutoff now is $128,400) or to more types of income than just wages. It could also take steps that reduce the amount of money flowing out of the trust fund — for example, by raising the age at which people can collect full retirement benefits. Similarly, for Medicare, it could bring in more money (through higher payroll tax rates, for example), or it could work more aggressively to tamp down healthcare costs.

The problems have been evident for more than a decade, yet lawmakers have been loath to take steps that could raise taxes or cut benefits. The longer lawmakers wait to make any of these moves, however, the more dramatic the changes will have to be in order to eliminate the shortfall. That’s not politics, that’s math.

Mnuchin’s prescription? Count on tax cuts, deregulation and the administration’s whipsaw trade moves to “generate the long-term growth needed to help secure these programs and lead them to a more stable path.” Yes, and tax cuts pay for themselves, bank regulations caused the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, climate change is a Chinese hoax and there really was a pedophile ring operating out of that pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C.

That’s a dangerous fantasy. This administration seems to have the stomach only for pandering to its base with handouts and protectionist tariffs. It doesn’t have the guts to confront the difficult fiscal problems that threaten the programs relied on by millions of older Americans...

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/edit...608-story.html

[cawacko]

If your comprehension skills are worth a shit, this should cut through YOUR illusions. I'll have to assume YOU are paying in yourself.

Let me reiterate, LA TIMES is considered on the conservative spectrum (the old spectrum that is)


Editorial: Social Security and Medicare are in danger? Nothing to see here, says Trump’s Treasury secretary

[
(Patrick Semansky / Associated Press)


By THE TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD[/COLOR]
]JUNE 8, 2018
4:05 AM

Trustees overseeing Social Security and Medicare issued yet more warnings this week of the worsening financial health of the programs. In response, Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin told Americans not to worry — the rip-roaring economic growth the Trump administration is whipping up will take care of everything!

Except that it won’t, and pretending that the looming funding shortfalls will magically fix themselves is irresponsible and cowardly.

The reality is that the aging U.S. population leaves a decreasing number of workers to pay the payroll taxes that cover the cost of Social Security’s retirement and disability benefits and Medicare’s hospital coverage. President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program exacerbated that problem by reducing the number of workers paying those taxes. That should be easy enough to fix: Congress could simply restore DACA. Oh, wait.

Meanwhile, Medicare is being strained not only by a burgeoning population of retirees, but also by healthcare costs that are growing faster than inflation or the economy. The Affordable Care Act had a mechanism to address this — an expert panel that would recommend ways to rein in costs without rationing care — but the GOP Congress killed the panel before its members could be appointed.

This administration seems to have the stomach only for pandering to its base with handouts and protectionist tariffs.

So here’s what the numbers say now. The Social Security Trust Fund has started to shrink, with tax revenues and interest no longer covering the annual cost of benefits to about 62 million Americans. By 2034, the trustees estimate, it will be gone, forcing benefits to be cut by nearly one quarter.

The problems in Medicare are more immediate, according to that program’s trustees. The trust fund supporting Medicare’s hospital benefits is expected to run dry in only eight years, or three years sooner than the trustees had previously projected. Without that trust fund, hospital benefits would face steeper and steeper cuts, starting at 9% in 2026 and growing to 22% in 2040. Other parts of Medicare face similar budgetary challenges.

Washington has a number of options. Congress could take steps that raise the revenue coming into the Social Security Trust Fund — for example, by applying payroll taxes to more of a person’s annual wages (the cutoff now is $128,400) or to more types of income than just wages. It could also take steps that reduce the amount of money flowing out of the trust fund — for example, by raising the age at which people can collect full retirement benefits. Similarly, for Medicare, it could bring in more money (through higher payroll tax rates, for example), or it could work more aggressively to tamp down healthcare costs.

The problems have been evident for more than a decade, yet lawmakers have been loath to take steps that could raise taxes or cut benefits. The longer lawmakers wait to make any of these moves, however, the more dramatic the changes will have to be in order to eliminate the shortfall. That’s not politics, that’s math.

Mnuchin’s prescription? Count on tax cuts, deregulation and the administration’s whipsaw trade moves to “generate the long-term growth needed to help secure these programs and lead them to a more stable path.” Yes, and tax cuts pay for themselves, bank regulations caused the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, climate change is a Chinese hoax and there really was a pedophile ring operating out of that pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C.

That’s a dangerous fantasy. This administration seems to have the stomach only for pandering to its base with handouts and protectionist tariffs. It doesn’t have the guts to confront the difficult fiscal problems that threaten the programs relied on by millions of older Americans...

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/edit...608-story.html

The (UC)LA Times is conservative? Insert not sure if serious gif here.

The article is correct, there is a shortfall of S.S. and benefits are going to have to be cut or taxes raised (or both). Politicians don't want to deal with that.