Other Resources The Political Joe » Trump approval ratings Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2018-01-02 12:16 PM
in reply to: Bob Loblaw

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Synon Seems a bit odd... give a massive tax break to businesses, a small temporary tax break to individuals, then go try and spend more money we don't have? I've always blamed dems for thinking we are dealing with monopoly money, but apparently the GOP is even more fiscally irresponsible. Pretty sure collecting less money and spending more money is not going to help the deficit. Why didn't the GOP do what's best for our country when it opposed the $478B infrastructure bill along party lines in 2016? Now all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot?

The argument about giving "massive tax breaks to businesses" and "small temporary tax breaks to individuals" falls very flat because people know why they did it that way.  The Republicans wanted to give larger tax cuts to individuals and larger tax cuts to corporations, but because of the obstructionist Democrats they had to work within the reconciliation process that limited the deal to $1.5T.  The only way they could do the level they did was to clip two years off the end of the individual cuts.  The reason they chose that was because there's not a single Democrat or Republican who will make those cuts go away, but the entire Democratic party who enjoys demonizing corporations would most definitely let temporary corporate cuts sunset.  So the tax cuts for individuals will be permanent.
The Democrats need to be careful campaigning on the issue as well because they only need 7 senators to agree to make them permanent and it could be done this week.  The Democrats don't want them to be permanent and refuse to vote on it, will be the campaign commercials.

Don't forget, Trump isn't really a conservative in the sense of traditional Republicans.  The Republican party has been against infrastructure spending and lots of other things in the past because nobody wanted to pay for it.  Trump is kind of a different duck though and he's leading on this issue and willing to look at it in different ways.  The Republicans appear to be getting in line behind him and he should also get a fair amount of Democratic support.  We can all agree that it's needed to be done for a long time, but the problem is that nobody wants to pay for it.  I'll be genuinely curious what comes out in the plan because I'm not a huge fan myself of spending trillions of dollars without a way to pay for it. 
One point that Trump has made which is really a good one is that we've spent $6T on the wars in the middle east.  This has to stop and we can use this money to rebuild American infrastructure.

That is a really good point. Maybe Trump should actually listen to what he's saying instead of continuing to send more and more troops over there. 

There's two ways to deal with it.  Wipe out the threat and leave, or leave the threat in place and leave.  I'm with you that I want our troops out of there, but there's some work that needs to be done first.  ISIS was emboldened by the prior administration's weakness and grew unabated.  They're almost gone after less than a year of Trump.



2018-01-02 1:42 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

, Arizona
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings
but that's just a gauge as to how many people are currently seeking unemployment.

That's not true. The survey is much more comprehensive than that, you can read the methodology on the BLS site if you wish, here is a small snip

"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed."

It only takes a small uptick in the GDP for that $1.5T number to be wiped out. This tax cut could be a surplus, but honestly none of us will know for sure until it really gets going.


Yes, we will have to wait and see. I have a VERY hard time seeing how these numbers could result in a surplus, I stand by my earlier statement, cutting taxes without adding debt would be a miracle. Company A has revenue of $1B in sales with a 15% profit margin. For the Feds to collect the same amount in taxes as last year (at 35%), Company A will need to make nearly $1.7B in sales this year. Not's not even remotely close to a small uptick, not by a long shot.

I agree we do need to reform entitlement programs (SS is not an entitlement program) to make them sustainable. However I'm sure we have very different views on how we create healthy productive members of society. I'd rather our ridiculous defense budget be cut (which it sounds like is going to be raised) than other programs that help our own citizen.
2018-01-02 4:36 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Synon Seems a bit odd... give a massive tax break to businesses, a small temporary tax break to individuals, then go try and spend more money we don't have? I've always blamed dems for thinking we are dealing with monopoly money, but apparently the GOP is even more fiscally irresponsible. Pretty sure collecting less money and spending more money is not going to help the deficit. Why didn't the GOP do what's best for our country when it opposed the $478B infrastructure bill along party lines in 2016? Now all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot?

The argument about giving "massive tax breaks to businesses" and "small temporary tax breaks to individuals" falls very flat because people know why they did it that way.  The Republicans wanted to give larger tax cuts to individuals and larger tax cuts to corporations, but because of the obstructionist Democrats they had to work within the reconciliation process that limited the deal to $1.5T.  The only way they could do the level they did was to clip two years off the end of the individual cuts.  The reason they chose that was because there's not a single Democrat or Republican who will make those cuts go away, but the entire Democratic party who enjoys demonizing corporations would most definitely let temporary corporate cuts sunset.  So the tax cuts for individuals will be permanent.
The Democrats need to be careful campaigning on the issue as well because they only need 7 senators to agree to make them permanent and it could be done this week.  The Democrats don't want them to be permanent and refuse to vote on it, will be the campaign commercials.

Don't forget, Trump isn't really a conservative in the sense of traditional Republicans.  The Republican party has been against infrastructure spending and lots of other things in the past because nobody wanted to pay for it.  Trump is kind of a different duck though and he's leading on this issue and willing to look at it in different ways.  The Republicans appear to be getting in line behind him and he should also get a fair amount of Democratic support.  We can all agree that it's needed to be done for a long time, but the problem is that nobody wants to pay for it.  I'll be genuinely curious what comes out in the plan because I'm not a huge fan myself of spending trillions of dollars without a way to pay for it. 
One point that Trump has made which is really a good one is that we've spent $6T on the wars in the middle east.  This has to stop and we can use this money to rebuild American infrastructure.

That is a really good point. Maybe Trump should actually listen to what he's saying instead of continuing to send more and more troops over there. 

There's two ways to deal with it.  Wipe out the threat and leave, or leave the threat in place and leave.  I'm with you that I want our troops out of there, but there's some work that needs to be done first.  ISIS was emboldened by the prior administration's weakness and grew unabated.  They're almost gone after less than a year of Trump.

LOL, they're not almost gone. Bush Jr said mission accomplished. Obama said the global war on terror is over. Meanwhile Trump just increased the number of our forces in Afghanistan by several thousand and told Mattis he can have as many as he needs. Trump will eventually get to claim that he's destroyed ISIS, and he'll be more or less technically correct. But before he's even done tweeting his own praise, some offset of ISIS will be rising up to fill the void. Or maybe it'll be a rival group of ISIS that hates us just as much will step in. We've been the Great Satan to them since the 70's, and every civilian casualty from our bombing creates an opportunity for those extremists to go recruiting. If (a big if) Trump clears out Afghanistan they'll just move the fighting to Egypt or Syria or Georgia or some other chithole country we got no business being in. 

And that's just the un-winnable war on terror. We're completely forked if Trump's tweets start a war with Iran, or if he goads lil' rocketman to launch one of those lil' rockets at the winter Olympics. 

2018-01-02 6:40 PM
in reply to: Synon

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

Originally posted by Synon
but that's just a gauge as to how many people are currently seeking unemployment.
That's not true. The survey is much more comprehensive than that, you can read the methodology on the BLS site if you wish, here is a small snip "Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed."
It only takes a small uptick in the GDP for that $1.5T number to be wiped out. This tax cut could be a surplus, but honestly none of us will know for sure until it really gets going.
Yes, we will have to wait and see. I have a VERY hard time seeing how these numbers could result in a surplus, I stand by my earlier statement, cutting taxes without adding debt would be a miracle. Company A has revenue of $1B in sales with a 15% profit margin. For the Feds to collect the same amount in taxes as last year (at 35%), Company A will need to make nearly $1.7B in sales this year. Not's not even remotely close to a small uptick, not by a long shot. I agree we do need to reform entitlement programs (SS is not an entitlement program) to make them sustainable. However I'm sure we have very different views on how we create healthy productive members of society. I'd rather our ridiculous defense budget be cut (which it sounds like is going to be raised) than other programs that help our own citizen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your BLS quote make my point?  "UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed"

To better understand the increase in revenue you have to look at how and when our government collects it's taxes.  You're absolutely correct (i checked the math) that a company would have to either become substantially more profitable or increase revenues substantially at the same profit level to generate the identical revenues for the Feds.  However, the government collects taxes almost every time money changes hands.  So if for example that company took the $22.5M in tax savings and used it to hire people the government would now collect less taxes from the company on direct profit, but they would collect more taxes on payroll to the new employees.  Then those employees pay income taxes, social security taxes, etc..
I'm super over simplifying it, but the general idea is that every time money changes hands the government gets their cut so the more money there is into the system the more opportunity there is for the government to make more tax revenues.  Of course companies aren't going to use all the money to hire new employees and quite frankly nobody knows how it will really pan out.  As Trump talked about after the tax cuts were passed into law, there was nobody on their economic team that anticipated companies giving $1000+ bonuses to employees as a result of the tax cuts.  For those the company was taking a portion of that money and paying their employees more money.  That money is taxed at ordinary income rates for those individuals so a cut of it goes right back to the government through income taxes.

I'm totally with you on cutting defense spending as well, but I have a slight shift in my justification.  I feel we can do just as much or more than we are doing today on far less money.  I was in the military in the 90's and saw first hand the atrocious waste and fraud that was happening.  Remember the $1000 toilet seat covers and coffee pots?  The defense department has so much waste that we could probably double our current military strength on half the budget.
I saw a headline a few weeks ago that the pentagon can't account for $10T in spending and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

You might be surprised how much we have in common on entitlement and SS reform.  There's a lot of waste in those areas as well that needs to be cleaned up outside of any reform.  Stop sending money to dead people and cut down on fraud, etc are easy ones.

2018-01-02 6:42 PM
in reply to: Bob Loblaw

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Synon Seems a bit odd... give a massive tax break to businesses, a small temporary tax break to individuals, then go try and spend more money we don't have? I've always blamed dems for thinking we are dealing with monopoly money, but apparently the GOP is even more fiscally irresponsible. Pretty sure collecting less money and spending more money is not going to help the deficit. Why didn't the GOP do what's best for our country when it opposed the $478B infrastructure bill along party lines in 2016? Now all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot?

The argument about giving "massive tax breaks to businesses" and "small temporary tax breaks to individuals" falls very flat because people know why they did it that way.  The Republicans wanted to give larger tax cuts to individuals and larger tax cuts to corporations, but because of the obstructionist Democrats they had to work within the reconciliation process that limited the deal to $1.5T.  The only way they could do the level they did was to clip two years off the end of the individual cuts.  The reason they chose that was because there's not a single Democrat or Republican who will make those cuts go away, but the entire Democratic party who enjoys demonizing corporations would most definitely let temporary corporate cuts sunset.  So the tax cuts for individuals will be permanent.
The Democrats need to be careful campaigning on the issue as well because they only need 7 senators to agree to make them permanent and it could be done this week.  The Democrats don't want them to be permanent and refuse to vote on it, will be the campaign commercials.

Don't forget, Trump isn't really a conservative in the sense of traditional Republicans.  The Republican party has been against infrastructure spending and lots of other things in the past because nobody wanted to pay for it.  Trump is kind of a different duck though and he's leading on this issue and willing to look at it in different ways.  The Republicans appear to be getting in line behind him and he should also get a fair amount of Democratic support.  We can all agree that it's needed to be done for a long time, but the problem is that nobody wants to pay for it.  I'll be genuinely curious what comes out in the plan because I'm not a huge fan myself of spending trillions of dollars without a way to pay for it. 
One point that Trump has made which is really a good one is that we've spent $6T on the wars in the middle east.  This has to stop and we can use this money to rebuild American infrastructure.

That is a really good point. Maybe Trump should actually listen to what he's saying instead of continuing to send more and more troops over there. 

There's two ways to deal with it.  Wipe out the threat and leave, or leave the threat in place and leave.  I'm with you that I want our troops out of there, but there's some work that needs to be done first.  ISIS was emboldened by the prior administration's weakness and grew unabated.  They're almost gone after less than a year of Trump.

LOL, they're not almost gone. Bush Jr said mission accomplished. Obama said the global war on terror is over. Meanwhile Trump just increased the number of our forces in Afghanistan by several thousand and told Mattis he can have as many as he needs. Trump will eventually get to claim that he's destroyed ISIS, and he'll be more or less technically correct. But before he's even done tweeting his own praise, some offset of ISIS will be rising up to fill the void. Or maybe it'll be a rival group of ISIS that hates us just as much will step in. We've been the Great Satan to them since the 70's, and every civilian casualty from our bombing creates an opportunity for those extremists to go recruiting. If (a big if) Trump clears out Afghanistan they'll just move the fighting to Egypt or Syria or Georgia or some other chithole country we got no business being in. 

And that's just the un-winnable war on terror. We're completely forked if Trump's tweets start a war with Iran, or if he goads lil' rocketman to launch one of those lil' rockets at the winter Olympics. 

lol, alrighty then

2018-01-02 7:12 PM
in reply to: Synon

User image

Champion
7550
500020005002525
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

Originally posted by Synon
but that's just a gauge as to how many people are currently seeking unemployment.
That's not true. The survey is much more comprehensive than that, you can read the methodology on the BLS site if you wish, here is a small snip "Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed."
It only takes a small uptick in the GDP for that $1.5T number to be wiped out. This tax cut could be a surplus, but honestly none of us will know for sure until it really gets going.
Yes, we will have to wait and see. I have a VERY hard time seeing how these numbers could result in a surplus, I stand by my earlier statement, cutting taxes without adding debt would be a miracle. Company A has revenue of $1B in sales with a 15% profit margin. For the Feds to collect the same amount in taxes as last year (at 35%), Company A will need to make nearly $1.7B in sales this year. Not's not even remotely close to a small uptick, not by a long shot. I agree we do need to reform entitlement programs (SS is not an entitlement program) to make them sustainable. However I'm sure we have very different views on how we create healthy productive members of society. I'd rather our ridiculous defense budget be cut (which it sounds like is going to be raised) than other programs that help our own citizen.

Personal anecdote...probably 10 years ago, I got done doing my taxes and my federal income tax liability and my state income tax liability were almost identical in spite of the federal rate being 15% and the state rate being 3.2%.  (Lots of kids, lots of deductions worth far more at the federal level.)  

That 35% is a marginal rate describing how the last dollar (after credits, deductions, exemptions, etc.) is taxed, not the overall tax rate.  A 15% rate with far fewer adjustments can easily generate more revenue.  

 

 



2018-01-02 7:16 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7550
500020005002525
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

Originally posted by tuwood

(earlier portion deleted, I replied separately)

I'm totally with you on cutting defense spending as well, but I have a slight shift in my justification.  I feel we can do just as much or more than we are doing today on far less money.  I was in the military in the 90's and saw first hand the atrocious waste and fraud that was happening.  Remember the $1000 toilet seat covers and coffee pots?  The defense department has so much waste that we could probably double our current military strength on half the budget.
I saw a headline a few weeks ago that the pentagon can't account for $10T in spending and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

You might be surprised how much we have in common on entitlement and SS reform.  There's a lot of waste in those areas as well that needs to be cleaned up outside of any reform.  Stop sending money to dead people and cut down on fraud, etc are easy ones.

The "waste" in defense spending won't be cut as long as "defense" is secondary to economic impacts associated with "defense spending."  Cutting that waste eliminates jobs for constituents in someone's district.  

2018-01-02 11:16 PM
in reply to: McFuzz

User image

, Arizona
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your BLS quote make my point? "UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed"

To better understand the increase in revenue you have to look at how and when our government collects it's taxes. You're absolutely correct (i checked the math) that a company would have to either become substantially more profitable or increase revenues substantially at the same profit level to generate the identical revenues for the Feds. However, the government collects taxes almost every time money changes hands. So if for example that company took the $22.5M in tax savings and used it to hire people the government would now collect less taxes from the company on direct profit, but they would collect more taxes on payroll to the new employees. Then those employees pay income taxes, social security taxes, etc..
I'm super over simplifying it, but the general idea is that every time money changes hands the government gets their cut so the more money there is into the system the more opportunity there is for the government to make more tax revenues. Of course companies aren't going to use all the money to hire new employees and quite frankly nobody knows how it will really pan out. As Trump talked about after the tax cuts were passed into law, there was nobody on their economic team that anticipated companies giving $1000+ bonuses to employees as a result of the tax cuts. For those the company was taking a portion of that money and paying their employees more money. That money is taxed at ordinary income rates for those individuals so a cut of it goes right back to the government through income taxes.

I'm totally with you on cutting defense spending as well, but I have a slight shift in my justification. I feel we can do just as much or more than we are doing today on far less money. I was in the military in the 90's and saw first hand the atrocious waste and fraud that was happening. Remember the $1000 toilet seat covers and coffee pots? The defense department has so much waste that we could probably double our current military strength on half the budget.
I saw a headline a few weeks ago that the pentagon can't account for $10T in spending and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

You might be surprised how much we have in common on entitlement and SS reform. There's a lot of waste in those areas as well that needs to be cleaned up outside of any reform. Stop sending money to dead people and cut down on fraud, etc are easy ones.


Sounds like spending a dollar to earn a dime. The money is going to change hands regardless of the tax bill, the amount coming back through income tax is going to be a tiny fraction of what was given to the businesses. That's of course if that money ends up in the hands of employees at all, which given the priorties from the survey I mentioned seems unlikely. Maybe I will be surprised. The economy seemed to already be in good shape before this, makes it hard to feel like we aren't being played.

That 35% is a marginal rate describing how the last dollar (after credits, deductions, exemptions, etc.) is taxed, not the overall tax rate. A 15% rate with far fewer adjustments can easily generate more revenue.


Thanks for sharing your experience, there are definitely situations where that's true. I haven't done any research on if businsess deductions are being eliminated (the only ones I've read about all seem to target individuals, not businesses). If you are suggesting that they are going to generate a similar amount of revenue for the Fed in spite of the lower tax rate then nothing has actually changed, they moved some numbers around but the end result is the same. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why they would bother passing a bill if it's all a wash and the net result is the same. Everything I've seen indicates it's not a wash and businesses are the clear winners of this bill, else it's not much of a tax cut.
2018-01-03 10:18 AM
in reply to: Synon

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

Originally posted by Synon
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your BLS quote make my point? "UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed" To better understand the increase in revenue you have to look at how and when our government collects it's taxes. You're absolutely correct (i checked the math) that a company would have to either become substantially more profitable or increase revenues substantially at the same profit level to generate the identical revenues for the Feds. However, the government collects taxes almost every time money changes hands. So if for example that company took the $22.5M in tax savings and used it to hire people the government would now collect less taxes from the company on direct profit, but they would collect more taxes on payroll to the new employees. Then those employees pay income taxes, social security taxes, etc.. I'm super over simplifying it, but the general idea is that every time money changes hands the government gets their cut so the more money there is into the system the more opportunity there is for the government to make more tax revenues. Of course companies aren't going to use all the money to hire new employees and quite frankly nobody knows how it will really pan out. As Trump talked about after the tax cuts were passed into law, there was nobody on their economic team that anticipated companies giving $1000+ bonuses to employees as a result of the tax cuts. For those the company was taking a portion of that money and paying their employees more money. That money is taxed at ordinary income rates for those individuals so a cut of it goes right back to the government through income taxes. I'm totally with you on cutting defense spending as well, but I have a slight shift in my justification. I feel we can do just as much or more than we are doing today on far less money. I was in the military in the 90's and saw first hand the atrocious waste and fraud that was happening. Remember the $1000 toilet seat covers and coffee pots? The defense department has so much waste that we could probably double our current military strength on half the budget. I saw a headline a few weeks ago that the pentagon can't account for $10T in spending and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. You might be surprised how much we have in common on entitlement and SS reform. There's a lot of waste in those areas as well that needs to be cleaned up outside of any reform. Stop sending money to dead people and cut down on fraud, etc are easy ones.
Sounds like spending a dollar to earn a dime. The money is going to change hands regardless of the tax bill, the amount coming back through income tax is going to be a tiny fraction of what was given to the businesses. That's of course if that money ends up in the hands of employees at all, which given the priorties from the survey I mentioned seems unlikely. Maybe I will be surprised. The economy seemed to already be in good shape before this, makes it hard to feel like we aren't being played.
That 35% is a marginal rate describing how the last dollar (after credits, deductions, exemptions, etc.) is taxed, not the overall tax rate. A 15% rate with far fewer adjustments can easily generate more revenue.
Thanks for sharing your experience, there are definitely situations where that's true. I haven't done any research on if businsess deductions are being eliminated (the only ones I've read about all seem to target individuals, not businesses). If you are suggesting that they are going to generate a similar amount of revenue for the Fed in spite of the lower tax rate then nothing has actually changed, they moved some numbers around but the end result is the same. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why they would bother passing a bill if it's all a wash and the net result is the same. Everything I've seen indicates it's not a wash and businesses are the clear winners of this bill, else it's not much of a tax cut.

But that dime is still in circulation and gets taxed at every exchange of hands.  from employer to employee from employee to boat shop from boat shop to employee etc.
Don't get me wrong, if nothing grows or changes then you're absolutely correct that the treasury won't get dollar for dollar back so the concept is to have the economy grow as a result of all the new money changing hands that results in a bigger pie.
The tax cuts themselves were $5.5T and the conservative scoring used to estimate the total impact came up with $4T in growth based on a fairly conservative GDP growth number.  So if the GDP ticks up, even a little bit more than they forecast then the $1.5T goes down quickly. 

2018-01-03 10:18 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Synon Seems a bit odd... give a massive tax break to businesses, a small temporary tax break to individuals, then go try and spend more money we don't have? I've always blamed dems for thinking we are dealing with monopoly money, but apparently the GOP is even more fiscally irresponsible. Pretty sure collecting less money and spending more money is not going to help the deficit. Why didn't the GOP do what's best for our country when it opposed the $478B infrastructure bill along party lines in 2016? Now all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot?

The argument about giving "massive tax breaks to businesses" and "small temporary tax breaks to individuals" falls very flat because people know why they did it that way.  The Republicans wanted to give larger tax cuts to individuals and larger tax cuts to corporations, but because of the obstructionist Democrats they had to work within the reconciliation process that limited the deal to $1.5T.  The only way they could do the level they did was to clip two years off the end of the individual cuts.  The reason they chose that was because there's not a single Democrat or Republican who will make those cuts go away, but the entire Democratic party who enjoys demonizing corporations would most definitely let temporary corporate cuts sunset.  So the tax cuts for individuals will be permanent.
The Democrats need to be careful campaigning on the issue as well because they only need 7 senators to agree to make them permanent and it could be done this week.  The Democrats don't want them to be permanent and refuse to vote on it, will be the campaign commercials.

Don't forget, Trump isn't really a conservative in the sense of traditional Republicans.  The Republican party has been against infrastructure spending and lots of other things in the past because nobody wanted to pay for it.  Trump is kind of a different duck though and he's leading on this issue and willing to look at it in different ways.  The Republicans appear to be getting in line behind him and he should also get a fair amount of Democratic support.  We can all agree that it's needed to be done for a long time, but the problem is that nobody wants to pay for it.  I'll be genuinely curious what comes out in the plan because I'm not a huge fan myself of spending trillions of dollars without a way to pay for it. 
One point that Trump has made which is really a good one is that we've spent $6T on the wars in the middle east.  This has to stop and we can use this money to rebuild American infrastructure.

That is a really good point. Maybe Trump should actually listen to what he's saying instead of continuing to send more and more troops over there. 

There's two ways to deal with it.  Wipe out the threat and leave, or leave the threat in place and leave.  I'm with you that I want our troops out of there, but there's some work that needs to be done first.  ISIS was emboldened by the prior administration's weakness and grew unabated.  They're almost gone after less than a year of Trump.

LOL, they're not almost gone. Bush Jr said mission accomplished. Obama said the global war on terror is over. Meanwhile Trump just increased the number of our forces in Afghanistan by several thousand and told Mattis he can have as many as he needs. Trump will eventually get to claim that he's destroyed ISIS, and he'll be more or less technically correct. But before he's even done tweeting his own praise, some offset of ISIS will be rising up to fill the void. Or maybe it'll be a rival group of ISIS that hates us just as much will step in. We've been the Great Satan to them since the 70's, and every civilian casualty from our bombing creates an opportunity for those extremists to go recruiting. If (a big if) Trump clears out Afghanistan they'll just move the fighting to Egypt or Syria or Georgia or some other chithole country we got no business being in. 

And that's just the un-winnable war on terror. We're completely forked if Trump's tweets start a war with Iran, or if he goads lil' rocketman to launch one of those lil' rockets at the winter Olympics. 

lol, alrighty then

We're not at war with ISIS, we're at war with "Terror". Right now ISIS is the big name. Before that it was Al Qaeda, which we defeated (except they're back in Syria, fighting alongside the rebels we're aiding). And before that it was the Taliban, which we defeated (except they're back in control over much of southern Afghanistan). We've been messing around over there for 17 70 years, but Trump will end that. 

So yeah. We'll spend another trillion or so having our military chase ISIS down until they're nothing but a hundred guys hiding in rat holes and Trump will claim his victory over ISIS. And then we'll roll right along with our war on terror against Hezbollah or Tahrir al-Sham or Boko Haram or Hamas. We're not fighting a war against a country that can be beat down until they surrender. We're fighting religious fundamentalists. We'll win the war on terror about the same time we win the war on drugs. 

Here's my guarantee. When Trump leaves office, even if that's not for 7 more years, we'll still be in the middle east fighting our war on terror. I'll happily eat crow if Trump can find a way to "win" and get us out of there, but he won't. 

2018-01-03 10:43 AM
in reply to: Bob Loblaw

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Synon Seems a bit odd... give a massive tax break to businesses, a small temporary tax break to individuals, then go try and spend more money we don't have? I've always blamed dems for thinking we are dealing with monopoly money, but apparently the GOP is even more fiscally irresponsible. Pretty sure collecting less money and spending more money is not going to help the deficit. Why didn't the GOP do what's best for our country when it opposed the $478B infrastructure bill along party lines in 2016? Now all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot?

The argument about giving "massive tax breaks to businesses" and "small temporary tax breaks to individuals" falls very flat because people know why they did it that way.  The Republicans wanted to give larger tax cuts to individuals and larger tax cuts to corporations, but because of the obstructionist Democrats they had to work within the reconciliation process that limited the deal to $1.5T.  The only way they could do the level they did was to clip two years off the end of the individual cuts.  The reason they chose that was because there's not a single Democrat or Republican who will make those cuts go away, but the entire Democratic party who enjoys demonizing corporations would most definitely let temporary corporate cuts sunset.  So the tax cuts for individuals will be permanent.
The Democrats need to be careful campaigning on the issue as well because they only need 7 senators to agree to make them permanent and it could be done this week.  The Democrats don't want them to be permanent and refuse to vote on it, will be the campaign commercials.

Don't forget, Trump isn't really a conservative in the sense of traditional Republicans.  The Republican party has been against infrastructure spending and lots of other things in the past because nobody wanted to pay for it.  Trump is kind of a different duck though and he's leading on this issue and willing to look at it in different ways.  The Republicans appear to be getting in line behind him and he should also get a fair amount of Democratic support.  We can all agree that it's needed to be done for a long time, but the problem is that nobody wants to pay for it.  I'll be genuinely curious what comes out in the plan because I'm not a huge fan myself of spending trillions of dollars without a way to pay for it. 
One point that Trump has made which is really a good one is that we've spent $6T on the wars in the middle east.  This has to stop and we can use this money to rebuild American infrastructure.

That is a really good point. Maybe Trump should actually listen to what he's saying instead of continuing to send more and more troops over there. 

There's two ways to deal with it.  Wipe out the threat and leave, or leave the threat in place and leave.  I'm with you that I want our troops out of there, but there's some work that needs to be done first.  ISIS was emboldened by the prior administration's weakness and grew unabated.  They're almost gone after less than a year of Trump.

LOL, they're not almost gone. Bush Jr said mission accomplished. Obama said the global war on terror is over. Meanwhile Trump just increased the number of our forces in Afghanistan by several thousand and told Mattis he can have as many as he needs. Trump will eventually get to claim that he's destroyed ISIS, and he'll be more or less technically correct. But before he's even done tweeting his own praise, some offset of ISIS will be rising up to fill the void. Or maybe it'll be a rival group of ISIS that hates us just as much will step in. We've been the Great Satan to them since the 70's, and every civilian casualty from our bombing creates an opportunity for those extremists to go recruiting. If (a big if) Trump clears out Afghanistan they'll just move the fighting to Egypt or Syria or Georgia or some other chithole country we got no business being in. 

And that's just the un-winnable war on terror. We're completely forked if Trump's tweets start a war with Iran, or if he goads lil' rocketman to launch one of those lil' rockets at the winter Olympics. 

lol, alrighty then

We're not at war with ISIS, we're at war with "Terror". Right now ISIS is the big name. Before that it was Al Qaeda, which we defeated (except they're back in Syria, fighting alongside the rebels we're aiding). And before that it was the Taliban, which we defeated (except they're back in control over much of southern Afghanistan). We've been messing around over there for 17 70 years, but Trump will end that. 

So yeah. We'll spend another trillion or so having our military chase ISIS down until they're nothing but a hundred guys hiding in rat holes and Trump will claim his victory over ISIS. And then we'll roll right along with our war on terror against Hezbollah or Tahrir al-Sham or Boko Haram or Hamas. We're not fighting a war against a country that can be beat down until they surrender. We're fighting religious fundamentalists. We'll win the war on terror about the same time we win the war on drugs. 

Here's my guarantee. When Trump leaves office, even if that's not for 7 more years, we'll still be in the middle east fighting our war on terror. I'll happily eat crow if Trump can find a way to "win" and get us out of there, but he won't. 

I hear you and agree in general.  The change of radical islam is something that will take generations to fix because, as you mentioned, it's a radical ideology and not confined within borders.

Trump has been doing a lot that doesn't get many headlines on that issue though.  The Saudi purge was massive and it took down some big players who have been funding these terror organizations.  I don't know if Trump or the CIA are involved in Iran, but there's a big revolution going on there right now with a lot of civilians dying fighting for freedom.  Our news doesn't want to cover it for some reason.
#freeiran



2018-01-25 9:46 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

But I thought all the world leaders hated Trump...

2018-01-26 5:11 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings
Two polls put him at 45%. Others have him much lower. One would think the statisticians would be more objective. But I guess the same pollsters told us HRC was going to win in a landslide.

Home Depot just announced bonuses....over 150 companies have done so after the tax cuts. Getting harder for the dems to spin the tax cuts.
2018-01-26 8:13 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings
I found this interesting:

"Trump’s problem is not with Republicans, 83 percent of whom approved of the job he did during his first year, which is in line with support for George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon. But Trump had historically low support from Democrats: Only 8 percent approved of him, far short of the average 44 percent approval presidents received from the opposition party in the previous 60-plus years."


Tells me the people who elected him still support him. Also tell me what he has done the last year has not made democrats happy.

I think the 'blue wave' it going to hit a red tide in November. If reps have good sense they will run on the economy and nothing else! Ignore being pulled off message and pull everything back to the economy. Racism, sexism, environment, climate change, crime, whatever....tie it to the (hopefully) still booming economy.



2018-01-26 10:05 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

Originally posted by Rogillio I found this interesting: "Trump’s problem is not with Republicans, 83 percent of whom approved of the job he did during his first year, which is in line with support for George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon. But Trump had historically low support from Democrats: Only 8 percent approved of him, far short of the average 44 percent approval presidents received from the opposition party in the previous 60-plus years." Tells me the people who elected him still support him. Also tell me what he has done the last year has not made democrats happy. I think the 'blue wave' it going to hit a red tide in November. If reps have good sense they will run on the economy and nothing else! Ignore being pulled off message and pull everything back to the economy. Racism, sexism, environment, climate change, crime, whatever....tie it to the (hopefully) still booming economy.

Honestly the only thing the Democrats have to run on is DACA, climate, and feelings (Trump says bad words).  The Republicans should easily hold the majorities.

There's no such thing as a former Trump supporter.  When he won the election there were a lot of Republicans who believed he was a liberal in disguise and didn't vote for him.  After seeing his conservative agenda and court nominees they're all in now so his Republican support is far greater than it was before the election.  According to polling he's also more than doubled his support in the African American community.  Sure, it's still in the teens, but compared to low single digits during the election it's a game changer.  The AA community are not fans of illegal immigration because the potential jobs in the lower income areas tend to go to illegal aliens versus the AA community.  Since Trump has taken office the AA unemployment is at it's lowest rate in history.

Oh, and we're only one year in and have two and a half more to go before the election.  Not to mention the Democrats seem to be falling for the trap of carting out yet another uber rich out of touch old guy/gal for nominees (Warren, Kerry, etc.)

2018-02-02 9:36 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_admin...


Trump at 49% approval according to Rasmussen. Granted, Rasmussen usually runs high but the trend on almost all of the polls is upwards. RCP average of all polls is 42%.

My guess is this bump was because of the SOTU address and will be short lived.....till the next time Trump tweets something stupid. OTOH the bump might be because people are starting to see more money in their paychecks and/or watching their 401k plans growing.


2018-02-02 10:11 AM
in reply to: Rogillio

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

It's a combination of a lot of things.  The media has tried very hard to paint Trumps tax plan as bad and that he's as an imbecile and mentally unstable.  However, as his actual performance creeps out into the US the tide has been steadily shifting.  His economic approval rating is rocketing up as the tax cuts get passed and people are seeing the effects on the economy. 
We just had a crazy good jobs report with wages increasing the most since 2009 (when they were severely depressed to begin with).

2018-02-04 4:00 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings

But but but... The Blue Wave!!!
Polls swing toward GOP, easing fears of midterm disaster

We still have several more months of good economic news to roll in before the midterms as well.

Here's a big question.  If, and it's a big if, the RNC manages to hold onto their majorities or even God forbid add to their majorities will the DNC finally get a clue that they're out of touch with the American people?  I would vote no.  Will probably the China China that interferes with the next election.  ;-)

2018-02-06 12:35 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump approval ratings
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Trump approval ratings Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Trump and the Wollman Ice rink

Started by Rogillio
Views: 637 Posts: 2

2017-03-02 9:01 AM tuwood

Trump bashing

Started by Rogillio
Views: 685 Posts: 4

2017-03-02 12:50 PM mdg2003

President Trump

Started by Left Brain
Views: 703 Posts: 10

2017-03-02 4:01 PM Hook'em

Trump approval rating

Started by Rogillio
Views: 803 Posts: 15

2017-02-01 5:02 PM Left Brain

Trump steeling (sic) unions! Pages: 1 2

Started by Rogillio
Views: 1738 Posts: 29

2017-01-26 3:39 PM mdg2003