Kudlow makes Trump look like a Mensa candidate

transporter

Well-Known Member
So here is a poll question for the day...which of these Trump advisors is worse at his job: Rudy Gulliani or Larry Kudlow??

The information below is the kind of bs reserved for people who play economists on TV but have no actual economic background....


Trump adviser eyes entitlement cuts to plug U.S. budget gaps
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A top economic adviser to President Donald Trump said on Monday he expects U.S. budget deficits of about 4 percent to 5 percent of the country’s economic output for the next one to two years, adding that there would likely be an effort in 2019 to cut spending on entitlement programs.

(That's $1t kiddies...and that level of deficit will last well beyond the next one or two years.)

...

“We have to be tougher on spending,” White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said in remarks to the Economic Club of New York, adding that government spending was the reason for the wider budget deficits, not the Republican-led tax cuts activated this year.

The equation is simple: Spending - Revenue = surplus or deficit.

Our inept President, with the more inept Kudlow at his side, signed off on Higher spending and LOWER revenue. The stupidity of either of those in an economy running at/near capacity is stupendous....doing both in an at/near capacity economy is damn near criminal.

...

“We’re going to run deficits of about 4 to 5 percent of GDP for the next year or two, OK. I’d rather they were lower but it’s not a catastrophe,” Kudlow said. “Going down the road, of course we’d like to slim that down as much as possible and we’ll work at it.”

It's not a catastrophe??? When we ran $1t deficits coming out of the worst recession this country had experienced in 80 years, Kuldow and crew were besides themselves. They were apoplectic. This is when large deficits were called for.

Now that they aren't needed, its "not a catastrophe". This guy is perfect for a Trump admin...just as inept, incompetent and unfit as the President.

...

He stated that the biggest factor for revenue was economic growth rate. A quicker pace of growth will bring in more revenue, Kudlow said, and that President Donald Trump’s economic policies were aimed at boosting the U.S. growth rate.

We had a 4.2% annualized GDP in Q2...the deficit widened. We look to be tracking a mid to high 3% GDP for Q3...the deficit is still growing. Once again, the ignorance of "lower taxes leads to higher revenue" is on full display for all to see it for what it is: a bald faced lie (Gilligan and the rest of the ignorati will still claim it works though!!)
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
So here is a poll question for the day ... which of these Trump advisors is worse at his job: Rudy Gulliani or Larry Kudlow??

The information below is the kind of bs reserved for people who play economists on TV but have no actual economic background ....

... what is YOUR Economic Back Ground Baron Keynes

The equation is simple: Spending - Revenue = surplus or deficit.

I see you passed basic math

Our inept President, with the more inept Kudlow at his side, signed off on Higher spending and LOWER revenue. The stupidity of either of those in an economy running at/near capacity is stupendous .... doing both in an at/near capacity economy is damn near criminal.

All YOUR Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and Unfounded OPINION

It's not a catastrophe??? When we ran $1t deficits coming out of the worst recession this country had experienced in 80 years, Kuldow and crew were besides themselves. They were apoplectic. This is when large deficits were called for.

Huh ? Are you trying to say Baron Keynes, we should have been running HUGE deficits during the Obama Years :shrug:

This guy is perfect for a Trump admin ... just as inept, incompetent and unfit as the President.

Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and Unfounded OPINION

We had a 4.2% annualized GDP in Q2 ... the deficit widened. We look to be tracking a mid to high 3% GDP for Q3 ... the deficit is still growing. Once again, the ignorance of "lower taxes leads to higher revenue" is on full display for all to see it for what it is: a bald faced lie (Gilligan and the rest of the ignorati will still claim it works though!!)

funny I saw an article, the IRS is taking in RECORD Taxes ... with the economic uptick


All of this boils down to YOUR Opinion on Economics ....
Baron, what financial institution to YOU Work At ......
How many building s have YOUR Name on them

If Matters or Issues do not FIT YOUR World View .... They are Propaganda to be dismissed

:tantrum

Every post you make is against anyone or any group that doesn't conform to your propagandist viewpoints.

:blahblah:



Keynesian Economics
What is 'Keynesian Economics'

Keynesian economics is an economic theory of total spending in the economy and its effects on output and inflation. Keynesian economics was developed by the British economist John Maynard Keynes during the 1930s in an attempt to understand the Great Depression. Keynes advocated increased government expenditures and lower taxes to stimulate demand and pull the global economy out of the depression. Subsequently, Keynesian economics was used to refer to the concept that optimal economic performance could be achieved -– and economic slumps prevented – by influencing aggregate demand through activist stabilization and economic intervention policies by the government. Keynesian economics is considered a "demand-side" theory that focuses on changes in the economy over the short run.

Read more: Keynesian Economics Definition | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp#ixzz5RS76je2C
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
.
Huh ? Are you trying to say Baron Keynes, we should have been running HUGE deficits during the Obama Years :shrug:

BASICALLY - Keynesian economics says, spend when it's down, save when it's up. That's the simplest description.

The problem with that is, the government *NEVER* saves. I'm not even sure it is equipped to handle saving.
And the pattern has often been, spend a lot when we're down, spend like crazy when we have a lot.

Actually - I don't fault Obama for SOME of the debt he ran up - federal receipts were way down, while federal spending
didn't go up much. What I DO fault him for were decisions he made that resulted in an extremely sluggish economy
such that it took *YEARS* for federal receipts to come even CLOSE to where it was prior to the recession.

Now - I recognize at least one thing in federal and state budgets that you and I also do, but in a different way -
plan a budget for more than a month or more than a year. In my own household, on paper it might look like I'm not changing
anything, but I have a five year plan for erasing debt - but it may involve a little spending at the beginning.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
BASICALLY - Keynesian economics says, spend when it's down, save when it's up. That's the simplest description.

The problem with that is, the government *NEVER* saves. I'm not even sure it is equipped to handle saving.



and I would be 'OK' with that, but Gov NEVER Save, as you said.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Once again, the ignorance of "lower taxes leads to higher revenue" is on full display for all to see it for what it is: a bald faced lie (Gilligan and the rest of the ignorati will still claim it works though!!)

It almost always does, but NOT in the year it is done -

The biggest tax cutter we had was Kennedy - and the 60's just boomed.

As much as the Laffer curve gets discussed, it does carry a simple premise underneath it all - more taxation does not always result in more revenue - at least in future years.
Tax income at 100%, the next year you'll have nothing - tax it at 0%, and THIS year you'll get nothing.

There exists an optimal spot in between - and it moves, over time.

The general rule of taxation is, if you want less of something, tax it more - if you want more of something, tax it less.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The general rule of taxation is, if you want less of something, tax it more - if you want more of something, tax it less.

IIRC something like 25 - 35 % yields the most revenue


Why does the US have the HIGHEST Corp Taxes :shrug:


Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2016


Key Findings:

  • The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world, at 38.92 percent. Due to the recent reduction in Chad’s corporate tax rate, the U.S. rate is exceeded only by the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico.
  • The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate, across 188 countries and tax jurisdictions, is 22.5 percent. After weighting by each jurisdiction’s GDP, the average rate is 29.5 percent.
  • By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate, at 18.88 percent (26.22 percent, weighted by GDP). The G7 has the highest simple average, at 30.21 percent.
  • Larger, more industrialized countries tend to have higher corporate income tax rates than developing countries.
  • The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.5 percent.
  • Every region in the world has seen a decline in its average corporate tax rate in the past thirteen years.
 
Top