Posted on 04/11/2018 9:33:35 AM PDT by Kaslin
No we don't. It's just that it's the most readily available. I know I willingly pay extra for American, or at least non-Chinese/Viet Nam, stuff, if I can find it...
I don’t disagree, but bad trade deals took food off the table. The debt is miles away from the kitchen.
Where is this magical golden kingdom wherein the value of currency doesn’t fluctuate, even when based upon precious metals? For that matter, where is it that there is no legislation regarding currency and the value of it, allowing gold to shine at it’s true, inherent brilliance? The value of gold is measured in what? Fiat currency.
Exactly!
Man I wish we had more thinkers here.
The tax bill was passed, and it is likely to double federal tax receipts within a few years.
That WILL help with the budget deficit.
Seems almost like Democrats are posting here sometimes.
For heaven’s sake folks...
The tax cut will result in federal tax receipts going up 100% in a few years.
More jobs in the U. S. means less payouts for welfare, unemployment, section 8 housing, food stamps...
Corporations are opening new plants in the U. S. Foreign concerns are as well.
Trump does care about the deficit, and he has worked on it. He has also focused on foreign trade inequities.
Market fluctuations happen, and the total value of that fluctuation is irrelevant to our trade problems. Trump can easily multitask debt issues and trade issues, especially since we are in a much better position at this point in time to deal with the Chinese unfair trade. Our economy is strong, theirs has become much weaker and we are their biggest customer in the world. Not to mention that Xi has already made noises about doing better.
I'm not aware of any projections that agree with that.
More jobs in the U. S. means less payouts for welfare, unemployment, section 8 housing, food stamps...
We're at near statistical full employment as it is. Demand for food stamps and Medicaid hasn't gone down that much, if at all.
Corporations are opening new plants in the U. S. Foreign concerns are as well.
Already planned for.
Trump does care about the deficit, and he has worked on it. He has also focused on foreign trade inequities.
He needs to work harder on the first.
Re: The debt crisis is a result of the trade issues.
I disagree.
The debt crisis is caused by decades of reckless spending and unfunded political promises.
Increasing national income and tax revenue will simply allow higher levels of reckless spending and more unfunded political promises.
We were talking about the latest round. Nobody I know of has projected revenues doubling within a few years.
We are nowhere near full employment. We are 40-45 million short of full employment.
Government statistics disagree with you.
We should have between 195 to 200 million people working in the United States right now. I am talking about able bodied people between the ages of 21 to 65. We have around 150-155 million people working now.
Department of Labor calculates the work force as all individuals aged 16 and up who are working and all individuals 16 and up who are unemployed and actively looking for work. Not counted are people in institutions, the military and those not looking for work. Those not looking for work include full time students, those retired, those unemployed by choice like stay at home moms, and those unemployed and not looking for work because they are discouraged. That figure last month was almost 162 million employed and 6.6 million unemployed. Unemployment rate of about 4%. Economic full employment is calculated between 4 and 5 percent.
Trump is also taking action to make it easier for welfare type people to get hired.
What's preventing them from getting hired now?
Both of these groups credited the tax cuts for their new plans to open plant or bring in new investment from overseas.
Any new plant opening not or in the near future was in the planning stages for a few years.
He's done just fine on both. He's been in office now for 15 months. You cannot simply end deficit spending in a few months. It takes time for action and that action to result in vast improvement.
The spending plan he just signed will send the deficits to new levels.
For every additional dollar in revenue gained, Congress spends two.
I used to say Democrats spend two, but now it is incredibly obvious that both parties are responsible for this.
I don’t dissagree that the spending and unfunded promises part contributed to it.
You need to do both, tackle the trade AND control the spending. But the trade is the more important piece.
We were talking about the latest round. Nobody I know of has projected revenues doubling within a few years.
Okay, the CBO didn't. The MSM didn't. Democrats didn't. Leftist Republicans didn't. Who was it you expected to? It is widely acknowledge in Conservative circles that tax cuts result in increased tax revenue, after a realtively short dip in the amount of the tax cuts. As business expands, more jobs are created, and the economy heats up, tax receipts do go up. If you wish to spout the Leftist party line, don't expect me to join you. Reagan tax cuts resulted in increased federal revenue and even the Kennedy tax cuts resulted in increased federal tax receipts. This is the norm.
We are nowhere near full employment. We are 40-45 million short of full employment.
Government statistics disagree with you.
Okay, well if you wish to believe we have roughly 4.5% unemployment, be my guest. I don't know of a single Conservative that does.
Stats don't lie. I ran a forty year study, and if our growth had continued on through 2000 to the present, we would have 195 to 200 million people with jobs in the United States. Both GHWB and GHB were terrible when it came to job creation during their terms in office. GW was by far the worst on record for 48 years. The first term of Obama wasn't much better, but by the end of his second term job growth had returned to previous norms. That has continued under Trump. When you have an average of 9.75% increase in jobs per administration, and 12 years go by without any growth, you tell me what the job defict would be if you started with roughly 140-145 million jobs. You're looking at a job creation deficit of about 14-14.5 million every four years. In twelve years, that works out to roughly 42 million fewer jobs. This is exactly what took place under GW and Obama, for roughly three and a half four year terms. That 42 million people have not been hired into the workplace. We have returned to normal job growth, but it hasn't expanded enough to hire in all the 42 million that were not hired during the Bush and Obama administrations.
The government games unemployment stats. They are based on people who are looking for work. They are not based on people of working age, and how many are not employed.
We should have between 195 to 200 million people working in the United States right now. I am talking about able bodied people between the ages of 21 to 65. We have around 150-155 million people working now.
Department of Labor calculates the work force as all individuals aged 16 and up who are working and all individuals 16 and up who are unemployed and actively looking for work. Not counted are people in institutions, the military and those not looking for work. Those not looking for work include full time students, those retired, those unemployed by choice like stay at home moms, and those unemployed and not looking for work because they are discouraged. That figure last month was almost 162 million employed and 6.6 million unemployed. Unemployment rate of about 4%. Economic full employment is calculated between 4 and 5 percent.
That's a pat answer that seems to have been copied and pasted. It really doesn't address reality in reasoned terms.
If someone has given up on finding work, are they no longer unemployed? No. I don't happen to know of too many 16 year olds who live outside their parents home and are paying their own way. Most kids through 21 are either in school or perhaps working, but I would not consider them a reasoned body of people to consider part of the work force. Their numbers would skew the work force figures, since a large percentage would be in high school or college. For this reason I only address people from 21-65. For the same reason I don't count retirees, I don't count kids.
I'm am not addressing stay at home moms either. Why did you post this nonsense. I explained how I camp up with the figures I did, and I did not count under 21 or over 65. I also made it clear that the increase in population dumped millions of new people into the workplace jobs pool every year. Over four years, that works out to around 14 million new workers. We had been putting those people to work since 1960, when I began my study. That continued on until 2000, and pretty much started up again in the 2012-14 range. The roughly 42 million who did not enter the work force from 2000-2012,14, have not gone back to work. They are still unemployed. Refusing to address them is insulting to this group. They should have been employed by our economy. Now the government acts as if they don't exist. That's pure B.S.
Trump is also taking action to make it easier for welfare type people to get hired.
What's preventing them from getting hired now?
Reported in the news over the last few days, Trump is trying to do away with at least some state requirements that demand a person obtain a license to work. These are hinderances to people getting jobs quickly.
Both of these groups credited the tax cuts for their new plans to open plant or bring in new investment from overseas.
Any new plant opening not or in the near future was in the planning stages for a few years.
I stated that I was only addressing what domestic and foreign business entities had attributed to being as a result of the tax cuts, yet here you are again tossing out this irrelevant statement again.
He's done just fine on both. He's been in office now for 15 months. You cannot simply end deficit spending in a few months. It takes time for action and that action to result in vast improvement. The spending plan he just signed will send the deficits to new levels.
The spending plan he just signed was for $1 trillion dollars over roughly 8 months. Are you aware our federal budget is about $3.65 trillion dollars anually now? Explain how this $1 trillion dollar appropriations bill for 8 months, anualizes out to more than the $3.65 trillion we have been spending anually.
That is what took place under Reagan. I’m not convinced yet that type of thing will take place under Trump.
Folks tried to game the recent appropriations bill as some sort of return to terrible deficits. I don’t see it that way at all.
That appropriations bill was for $1 trillion dollars over roughly 8 months. Our nation’s budget is now roughly $3.65 trillion per year. Please explain to me how $1 trillion over 8 months anualizes out to more than $3.65 trillion.
No doubt 'never-Trump' townhall.com has a brilliant idea how we are going to pay down that debt without adding tax paying jobs...
How many Trumpsters do you know that supported that farce??? I don't know of any...
Welfare people aren't counted in that full employment chart...There are millions upon millions of Americans who are employable that are not on the chart...
So we should send the rest of our work to China to decrease our debt...
No.
We need Trump to work on Trade and National Debt issues at the same time.
And, just so you know...
Even though Trump collected record tax revenues in the first six months of Fiscal 2018, Trump has spent more and borrowed more than Obama spent and borrowed in the first six months of Fiscal 2017.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.