Posted on 03/21/2019 9:05:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Trump has promised an economic boom that will last for years to come, but he’s unlikely to get one without the help of Congress to pass major new legislation, according to estimates by Trump’s own economic team.
To achieve about 3% growth for the next decade, Trump would need a big infrastructure bill, more tax cuts, additional deregulation, and policies that transition more people off government aid and into full-time jobs, according to the 2019 Economic Report of the President, released Tuesday by Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers.
There’s skepticism that Trump will be able to get all of these policies through Congress, especially with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) leading the House.
“Washington is a really hard place to get things done,” said Kevin Hassett, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, but he stressed that his biggest concern for growth was Trump’s policies getting rolled back or Medicare for All becoming reality.
he report shows for the first time that the White House is predicting a lot weaker growth if all of Trump’s new policies do not come through. Growth would be about 2.5% in 2022 if no additional policies were implemented, according to White House calculations. By 2026, growth could fall to about 2%, the model suggests.
A lot is riding on whether Trump can achieve his promised 3% growth. Without it, his tax cuts will add substantially more to the debt than they already have, and Democrats would have an easier time hammering his economic track record.
To achieve the higher growth rate, the White House assumes that the individual tax cuts will be made permanent (they’re currently slated to expire after 2025)
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The 3% White House growth prediction — which is used in the president’s budget and has been criticized by outside experts as a “gimmick” — also assumes more deregulation, especially in the finance industry, and a push for “improving self-sufficiency” by placing more work requirements on recipients of government aid. Some of those initiatives might be possible to implement through executive action.
[SNIP]
Many economists have described the Trump economy as a sugar high. They have predicted that growth will spike after the president’s passage of a large tax cut and driving up government spending, and that growth will return to about 2% by 2020 — or that the economy could tumble into a recession.
The White House has pushed back against the naysayers, arguing that the economy has exceeded expectations since Trump took office and shows little sign of slowing.
“For the second consecutive year, economic growth has either matched or surpassed my Administration’s forecast, and the economy has growth at a 3.1% rate over the last four quarters,” Trump wrote in the report.
Sorry, NO. I was against it when 0bama, Clinton and Bush all suggested it.
“To achieve about 3% growth for the next decade, Trump would need a big infrastructure bill, more tax cuts, additional deregulation, and policies that transition more people off government aid and into full-time jobs, according to the 2019 Economic Report of the President, released Tuesday by Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers. “
That is better known as the platform for 2020
I am with you on principle, but an infrastructure bill is probably a political necessity.
Democrats citing crumbling roads and bridges played a major part in taking Scott Walker down in Wisconsin. Those are real-world kitchen table issues in the Rust Belt, and Trump HAS to win there.
Are they blind? It is happening right in front of their eyes. The national debt clock has slowed to a crawl and about to go backwards.
Demographics are primarily what the economists cite as the headwind to economic growth. Older average age, and a low birth rate are the hindrances demographically.
Infrastructure is what our government should be doing
I believe this is something President Trump could really shine at in the long run.
First time in history we have a developer president doing infrastructure instead of lawyers.
Socialism made it too expensive for the average american to have kids
So we have to import them
Illegal immigration has nothing to do with “compassion” it has everything to do with saving government pensions.
Taxing the people in Bismark, ND for a bridge in San Francisco is goofy and wrong.
Good point.
All that needs to be done is the following:
Unleash freedom on We the People, adhere to the Constitution in spirit as well as the word, and the economy will grow by 5% as far as the eye can see.
And there will be far less social strife since mob rule will be a thing of the past.
After the chokehold put on by Bush-Clinton-Bush-0bama, there is plenty of room for growth yet to be had.
“Illegal immigration has nothing to do with “compassion” it has everything to do with saving government pensions.”
I beg to differ.
It has everything to do with replacing the white population.
Leftists, publicly brainstorming how they can sabotage the economy, for their own political gain.
I think private entities should ban together for infrastructure!!! They can name the airports, roads and bridges after their companies!!
We are interconnected, that bridge may be very important in getting goods to ND
Saving government pensions.
Government workers don’t care what color you are, just as long as you are paying taxes to float their pensions.
Since whites can’t afford to have families anymore, they need to import a new breed of slaves to pay the taxes (or eventually to pay the taxes) to keep the pensions afloat.
Its the dirty little secret that nobody talks about
No it is not
That bridge in San Fransisco, even though the person in Bismark will never personally use the bridge, will be a net benefit for everyone in the country, goods and services can pass, some of those goods might even reach Bismark, ND.
We should, as a country, build two new crossings in to New York, A bridge and a new tunnel. Because of the aging infrastructure.
Infrastructure and defense are the best things a country can invest into. I would say education as a third as well, but I look as education as a more local issue as it should be.
At 22 trillion dollars in debt, the leviathan has no problem getting the Fed to grease up the printing presses, or foreign entities to buy Treasuries, so having ‘enough’ taxpayers are not a major requirement.
Despite the low unemployment rate, there are still over one million Americans out of work. Yet little to no effort to retrain, move them around, or whatever to get them to where the jobs are. Why? The illegal invasion is costing us untold billions so spending money cannot be the issue why this is not happening.
Also, robots, kiyosks, etc., will be taking quite a few jobs of people, especially low skilled labor at an increasing rate. Robots do not pay taxes.
There are too many uneducated, unskilled people who don’t know English coming in too fast for the country to absorb - at great cost to the country in dollars, lives, and property. And there is no end in sight.
At best the cheap labor express gets their slaves, and the liberals get their voters. But the longer term objective.
This is the way I see it - and those are my reasons. I understand you differ, and so do many others.
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.