- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: We have a great economy, folks.
Posted on 7/27/18 at 10:49 am to TigerBait1971
Posted on 7/27/18 at 10:49 am to TigerBait1971
The truth is that while we have a very hot economy, real wages for the largest segment of workers has fallen. Trickle down is not working. The benefits of the tax cuts stay at the top and inequality is growing. Real wages are calculated factoring for inflation. The increase in the price gasoline has been a huge factor. Like tariffs, the consumer gets the bill for shitty foreign policy decisions (Iran).
LINK
Meanwhile we borrowed an additional $1 trillion at the beginning of 2018. Of course our national debt continues to grow each year regardess of who is POTUS.
quote:
The answer is, largely, in the companies' coffers. Businesses are spending nearly $700 billion on repurchasing their own stock so far this year, according to research from TrimTabs. Corporations set a record in Q2, announcing $433 billion worth of buybacks — nearly doubling the previous record, which was set in Q1.
When a company buys back some of its outstanding shares, the effect is usually to boost the value of the rest of its stock, sometimes making the company appear more valuable on paper. Because many senior executives are paid in company shares, buybacks temporarily boost their pay (as well as other shareholders' portfolios), sometimes at the expense of investments in infrastructure or workers.
The popularity of stock buybacks in the wake of the corporate tax cuts has drawn lawmakers' attention. A group of senators wrote to the SEC late last month, asking the agency to review the rules around buybacks. "The explosion of stock buybacks has funneled corporate profits to wealthy shareholders and corporate executives instead of workers and long-term investments that spur sustained economic growth," they wrote.
The money that has trickled down to workers this year hasn't been permanent, PayScale found. "One of the things we saw is firms are leaning more toward giving bonuses rather than straight pay increases," said Bardaro. "It's flashy, it makes you feel good, but it then doesn't stick around and compound year over year."
Some economists have cautioned against judging the tax cuts too quickly, saying it could take up to four years before their full effects are felt. But for the executives in the top sliver of earners, the windfall has already been record-setting.
LINK
Meanwhile we borrowed an additional $1 trillion at the beginning of 2018. Of course our national debt continues to grow each year regardess of who is POTUS.
Posted on 7/27/18 at 10:53 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
defense iirc
So, how come the defense stimulus by Trump produced 4% growth and the Obama stimulus did not?
This post was edited on 7/27/18 at 10:56 am
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:04 am to Zach
quote:Pfffttt!! He doesn't even know the difference between "sell" and "sale" or "there" and "their."
I bet you $100 you cannot diagram that sentence.

Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:12 am to Big12fan
quote:
Trickle down is not working.
quote:
Some economists have cautioned against judging the tax cuts too quickly, saying it could take up to four years before their full effects are felt.
You contradicted your own article. We don't know what is working or not yet so don't claim it isn't.
The buybacks are a concern of mine but that is part of the nature of the free market. If unemployment continues to stay this low, wages will go up.
I hate the talking point that buybacks only help the wealthy. The whole country and economy and anyone with any investments benefits from higher stock prices.
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:15 am to Sidicous
quote:
Unions actually
i'm talking about from this last spring man
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:19 am to Zach
quote:
So, how come the defense stimulus by Trump produced 4% growth and the Obama stimulus did not
we had a quarter of 4.5 in 2009 when that stimulus was suppposedly kicking in
depends who you ask though. some will say it was way too small, some will say there wasn't enough available productive spending, some will say it doesn't even work under perfect conditions, some will say what it was spent on was too inefficient
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:20 am to LSURussian
Damn. If you could do that in calligraphy it would be a fine piece of art.
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:24 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
we had a quarter of 4.5 in 2009 when that stimulus was suppposedly kicking in
Obama had 32 quarters to choose from. He averaged 1%. Trump hit 4 in his first 6. Do you think he'll average 1%?
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:25 am to Zach
quote:
Obama had 32 quarters to choose from
you asked about quarters supposedly impacted by stimulus
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:27 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
you asked about quarters supposedly impacted by stimulus
OK, if the stimulus worked the quarter Obama did it why didn't he renew it the other 31 quarters?
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:29 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
i'm talking about from this last spring man
Trump's omnibus signing?
Yeah that was only signed due to military funding. At that point last Spring military payroll was soon be unfunded.
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:31 am to Zach
quote:
if the stimulus worked the quarter Obama did it why didn't he renew it the other 31 quarters
i'm sure he'd have loved to
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:32 am to Sidicous
quote:
Yeah that was only signed due to military funding
ok, it still increased discretionary spending bigly
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:32 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
i'm sure he'd have loved to
Then why didn't he?
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:34 am to Zach
quote:
Then why didn't he?
he chose to spend his political capital on obamacare, and probably wasn't going to be able to get any more expansionary fiscal policy anyway
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:38 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
he chose to spend his political capital on obamacare, and probably wasn't going to be able to get any more expansionary fiscal policy anyway
Well, let's file the first clause as 'I guess he can't walk and chew gum at the same time.' Now, on to the second clause.
Why wouldn't he get more 'expansionary fiscal policy anyway"?
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:39 am to Zach
quote:
let's file the first clause as 'I guess he can't walk and chew gum at the same time.'
PPACA sucks, but getting it passed wasn't quite as easy as chewing gum
quote:
Why wouldn't he get more 'expansionary fiscal policy anyway"?
because congress wasn't in his pocket enough to get more
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:44 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
because congress wasn't in his pocket enough to get more
So, Obama proposed stimulus for 32 quarters and the GOP stopped it? If not, why not? He could have said 'See, my stimulus gave us tremendous growth but the Republicans won't let me continue the progress. I keep proposing it and they keep refusing to pass it.'
Posted on 7/27/18 at 11:50 am to Zach
quote:
So, Obama proposed stimulus for 32 quarters and the GOP stopped it?
no he proposed his stimulus package and they allocated spending by project and time in some way i don't know
quote:
He could have said 'See, my stimulus gave us tremendous growth but the Republicans won't let me continue the progress. I keep proposing it and they keep refusing to pass it.'
do you have a point with this regarding the stimulus from the tax cuts & spending increases in the last several months & this quarter's figure?
Popular
Back to top


1





