| Norris2k said: The speculation fuels itself largely, tax cut are in the hundreds billions, the derivative market is currently 1200 trillons dollars (20 times the world GDP), so it's a whole different magnitude. Trump is a lot about tax cuts from the begininng, why Wall Street does not care and massively give to Clinton ? Because they want no change, the current situation is very good for them. It's possible money flew to speculation (hard to assess in such a messy economic system), but again, you can't reduce Trump plan to cut spending, it's also about changing corporate rules, an infrastructure program (which is a lot more beneficial than the trillon spent in wars), and a change in the trade with China and Mexico. Also the Trump plan is much more ambitious and much more focused on business than what Bush did. Again, it's much more similar to what Reagan did, and that worked pretty well. Reagan was not just about tax cuts, he totally dealt with the Japanese unfair trade advantage (cheap currency), and Trump seems a lot more than Clinton willing to deal with Chinese problem. And this has a lot to do whith how their campains are financed. I believe that with the level of technology, assets, know-how and infrastructure we have accumulated, it should be great, we should have stable, well paid jobs. And if we don't have it, some people are fighting against our interests, and we need a change. Trump is a change in the right direction. |
You keep loving Reagan but was the economy that great in the 80s? I don't know as much considering I was just growing up then. I do know the 90s were pretty decent economic times but still not best. I know for fact Reagan started driving up debt during the 80s. His plan was cut taxes for rich brackets mainly and increase military spending to outspend Russia in the Cold War.
"When charted in dollars, in Chart 4.01, the total accumulation of federal debt looks huge. Looking back over the last century, the debt back in 1900 doesn’t really register. But by charting accumulated debt as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in Chart 4.02, you get a look at government debt compared to the size of the economy at the time."
" Starting at 45 percent of GDP in 1941 federal debt zoomed, reaching almost 119 percent of GDP in 1946 after the end of the war, with state and local debt adding another 7 percent. For the next 35 years successive governments brought down the debt, but then came President Reagan. He increased the federal debt up to 50 percent of GDP to win the Cold War. President Bush increased the debt to fight a war on terror and bail out the banks. President Obama increased the debt to fund a plan to revive the economy in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008, peaking at 120.6 percent of GDP, federal, state and local in 2014. Debt is expected to decline as percent of GDP in the near future."
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history
You keep touting Reagan like his Voodoo economics was a miracle for the US economy. I'm just not seeing it. You can't cut taxes along with social programs but then pump up the defense budget. Driving up the military budget won't offset the cuts in social programs. Basically, Republicans want to increase the size of government military wise but slash social programs that many Americans rely on. Doesn't seem right in my book. They also say oh there is so much fraud in welfare, food stamps, etc... Sure there is but you know what I believe the US military has way more fraud. If you want to save some money don't increase the military budget. Give it a full audit and get rid of all the bullshit waste projects that we have or have done with private contractors wasting untold billions.
