Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

5 hours ago, OriZ said:

Well lets dissect it: Tax reform bill - personally don't see it helping many people very much, maybe $100-200 a year for most, not really impressive. GDP - a quarterly pop in real GDP growth is always possible but I wouldn't put the cart before the horse, expectations of a sustained 4% are a delusion. Structural drivers of growth are likely to constrain it to less than 2% annually. Creating jobs - umm, it's been the trend for years, and we're close to full employment, don't expect it to continue. Dow jones reaching record highs - said it before and will say it till I'm blue in the face anyone considering this a "good thing" doesn't know a damn thing. The higher this bubble goes, the more there is to fall from and we're already talking a more than 60% decline just as a run of the mill return to normalcy, this will blow up in his face and is the complete opposite of an "achievement". Economic confidence - that's not separate from anything else mentioned, it comes with the territory naturally, and is always highest at or near peaks, duh. Fair trade - protectionism has never been and will never be good for an economy. 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-winners-and-losers-of-the-final-version-of-the-republican-tax-bill-2017-12-18

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-winners-and-losers-of-the-final-version-of-the-republican-tax-bill-2017-12-18

[Póg mo 1,749]

Good thing the deficit no longer matters

[yuna628 9,726]

6 hours ago, OriZ said:

Well lets dissect it: Tax reform bill - personally don't see it helping many people very much, maybe $100-200 a year for most, not really impressive. GDP - a quarterly pop in real GDP growth is always possible but I wouldn't put the cart before the horse, expectations of a sustained 4% are a delusion. Structural drivers of growth are likely to constrain it to less than 2% annually. Creating jobs - umm, it's been the trend for years, and we're close to full employment, don't expect it to continue. Dow jones reaching record highs - said it before and will say it till I'm blue in the face anyone considering this a "good thing" doesn't know a damn thing. The higher this bubble goes, the more there is to fall from and we're already talking a more than 60% decline just as a run of the mill return to normalcy, this will blow up in his face and is the complete opposite of an "achievement". Economic confidence - that's not separate from anything else mentioned, it comes with the territory naturally, and is always highest at or near peaks, duh. Fair trade - protectionism has never been and will never be good for an economy. 

We live in an age where reason and common sense are dead. Who cares about basic economics, they don't teach kids that these days, and the past generation slept through that class anyways...  something something maga?

 

FWIW I agree.

[OriZ 3,157]

11 hours ago, jayjayj said:

 

So you have nothing except opinion and innuendo?  I guess I was expecting too much.

 

 

So I disagree with you about something(I seem to recall I also agreed with you on something else not that long ago - comes with the MOR territory) and you wanna try to insult me? I'm offended.

 

9 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

pretty much most of what is posted in this forum is opinion. 
but when it comes down to finances, i pay attention to what oriz says.

 

9 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I pay attention to the parts I can understand . dude is next level smart

Awww you guys are gonna make me blush 

 

9 hours ago, IDWAF said:

I’ll only speak to that which I know something about.  The tax breaks are more than $100-200 per year.  More like $1-5 thousand.  And that will be each and every year until they are raised again.  But - that’s not until 2019.

 

Still not the flat tax that I would love to see, but it’s a break for 85% of Americans.  

Whoops, I meant per month. I was typing that in a hurry and also forgot to add the part where it's not paid for. They are expecting the magical growth that it will bring about to make it pay for itself but that's a delusion. I don't wanna pay much taxes - god knows I already pay too much - but ya can't just expect magical growth to pay for it. Make no mistake about it this will add loads to the deficit.

 

7 hours ago, yuna628 said:

We live in an age where reason and common sense are dead. Who cares about basic economics, they don't teach kids that these days, and the past generation slept through that class anyways...  something something maga?

 

FWIW I agree.

lol I read the first part of your sentence and thought to myself 'you mean they actually taught that before?' and then I read the second half lol. Yeah alot of ignorance out there about how things actually work, and financial media is largely to blame as well.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 minutes ago, OriZ said:

So I disagree with you about something(I seem to recall I also agreed with you on something else not that long ago - comes with the MOR territory) and you wanna try to insult me? I'm offended.

 

 

Awww you guys are gonna make me blush 

 

Whoops, I meant per month. I was typing that in a hurry and also forgot to add the part where it's not paid for. They are expecting the magical growth that it will bring about to make it pay for itself but that's a delusion. I don't wanna pay much taxes - god knows I already pay too much - but ya can't just expect magical growth to pay for it. Make no mistake about it this will add loads to the deficit.

 

lol I read the first part of your sentence and thought to myself 'you mean they actually taught that before?' and then I read the second half lol. Yeah alot of ignorance out there about how things actually work, and financial media is largely to blame as well.

Ironic I am watching Money Master right now 

[OriZ 3,157]

19 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Ironic I am watching Money Master right now 

Master or monster?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

What bothers me is how the US government talks about each president comes in with mandatory debt when referring to Social Security and Medicare.  Aren't we the people funding those accounts?  

 

Also should be off limits to borrow from.  That's OUR money.  If the gov't needs more, they need to raise it another way.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

16 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Master or monster?

Monster maybe . George Clooney 

[Póg mo 1,749]

16 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

What bothers me is how the US government talks about each president comes in with mandatory debt when referring to Social Security and Medicare.  Aren't we the people funding those accounts?  

 

Also should be off limits to borrow from.  That's OUR money.  If the gov't needs more, they need to raise it another way.

What do you purpose? A baked goods sale? 

[OriZ 3,157]

49 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

What bothers me is how the US government talks about each president comes in with mandatory debt when referring to Social Security and Medicare.  Aren't we the people funding those accounts?  

 

Also should be off limits to borrow from.  That's OUR money.  If the gov't needs more, they need to raise it another way.

I agree, those should be left untouched. Cut spending elsewhere.

 

34 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Monster maybe . George Clooney 

Yeah money monster. Interesting movie.

[jayjayj 571]

20 hours ago, OriZ said:

Well lets dissect it: Tax reform bill - personally don't see it helping many people very much, maybe $100-200 a year for most, not really impressive. GDP - a quarterly pop in real GDP growth is always possible but I wouldn't put the cart before the horse, expectations of a sustained 4% are a delusion. Structural drivers of growth are likely to constrain it to less than 2% annually. Creating jobs - umm, it's been the trend for years, and we're close to full employment, don't expect it to continue. Dow jones reaching record highs - said it before and will say it till I'm blue in the face anyone considering this a "good thing" doesn't know a damn thing. The higher this bubble goes, the more there is to fall from and we're already talking a more than 60% decline just as a run of the mill return to normalcy, this will blow up in his face and is the complete opposite of an "achievement". Economic confidence - that's not separate from anything else mentioned, it comes with the territory naturally, and is always highest at or near peaks, duh. Fair trade - protectionism has never been and will never be good for an economy. 

I wasn't attempting to insult you, simply pointing out that you are only using opinion and innuendo in your attempt to prove that the Trump administration is falsely claiming "wins".  I was expecting more than that from someone who is knowledgeable about financial issues.

 

The President is claiming these accomplishments, because he was the President when they occurred or continued to occur.  He and his staff believe that his economic policies helped to improve the economy, which then lead to the economic "wins" mentioned in the article.  You can't just dismiss those claims as "bs", well you can I guess, but you would be wrong in doing so.

 

Tax Reform Bill - You now say you meant $100-200 savings per month, which is an odd way to express tax savings.  Your initial assertion that it would be $100-200 per year was one of the main reasons I considered your "dissection" invalid.  Even if we consider you correct at the $100-200 tax savings per month, that is a meaningful amount of money for people at that level.  My brother and his wife make a combined income of around $70,000 per year, with 2 kids and a mortgage.  He ran his previous taxes through the new calculator and found that he will save $3,200 this coming year on taxes.  Again, that is not bread crumbs to people earning at that level.  The calculators are online, feel free to confirm the information yourself.   However, the bullet point claimed that the bill provided $5.5 billion in cuts and repealed the Obamacare mandate - which are both true. 

 

GDP - First of all, Trump didn't claim in the article that he created policies that will create a sustained GDP growth rate of over 4%.  He claimed that his policies helped create GDP growth above 3% - this is true.  However, even if he had claimed to create policies that could sustain GDP growth above 4%, he isn't necessarily wrong and that type of growth is certainly possible from a historical perspective.  In fact, GDP growth above 4% is quite typical in a healthy economy.  The last 10 years or so of GDP growth far under 3% is abnormal and indicates an unhealthy economy, most likely due to bad policy making.  Which structural drivers of economic growth are going to restrain GDP to under 2%?  It is clearly evident that jobs are being created, corporate taxes are going down, investments are going up (admittedly too high for you), trade imbalances are being addressed, and manufacturing is increasing, just to name a few.  Obama error polices that created stagnation and poor GDP growth are being removed almost completely.  All of these structural drivers of the economy are pointing toward increased growth, not lower growth.  If you have structural drivers of the economy pointing toward lower growth, I would be interested in seeing them.  

 

Creating Jobs - The economy did add 1.7 million new jobs and the unemployment did go down - this is true.  Jobs creation has been trending upwards and unemployment has been trending downwards, but we have no way of knowing with certainty which way the numbers would have gone without Trump's new economic policies.  We can take an educated guess, but that would just be a guess.

 

Dow Jones -  You're just being a alarmist bear.  However, we very well could be in a late-stage bull-market.  If it falls, as there are several indicators of a pending correction, it creates further opportunities to make money and it will eventually go back up.  Historically speaking again, there is nothing abnormal about bull-market runs and subsequent corrections.   

 

Economic Confidence -  Economic Confidence did rise to a 17 year high - this is true.  It not only increased, it increased higher than expected.  When you say "near a peak", I can only conclude you meant when the DOW Jones is near a peak, since you said this immediately after you mentioned that you think the Dow Jones "bubble" is going to pop.  I'm sure you are well aware that the Dow Jones going up or down is only a partial factor when calculating confidence in the economy and that the Economic Confidence Model mainly includes average consumers, not just Wall Street bankers and stock brokers.

 

Fair Trade - Identifying and rectifying unfair trade practices and trade imbalances is not protectionism.  Creating a business friendly environment in the U.S. is not protectionism.  Creating incentives for U.S. companies to bring profits and resources back to the U.S. is not protectionism.  Working to increase U.S. exports is not protectionism.  Prioritizing the enforcement of U.S. trade laws is not protectionism.  I'd challenge you here to be specific and provide details on which policy or achievement you think is protectionism, so we can actually debate it.     

 

 

[jayjayj 571]

7 hours ago, OriZ said:

So I disagree with you about something(I seem to recall I also agreed with you on something else not that long ago - comes with the MOR territory) and you wanna try to insult me? I'm offended.

 

Don't be offended.  We can agree and disagree on many topics.  As I explained in my longer post, my point was that I expected more than just opinion and innuendo from someone who is financially knowledgeable.  

[OriZ 3,157]

1 hour ago, jayjayj said:

I wasn't attempting to insult you, simply pointing out that you are only using opinion and innuendo in your attempt to prove that the Trump administration is falsely claiming "wins".  I was expecting more than that from someone who is knowledgeable about financial issues.

 

The President is claiming these accomplishments, because he was the President when they occurred or continued to occur.  He and his staff believe that his economic policies helped to improve the economy, which then lead to the economic "wins" mentioned in the article.  You can't just dismiss those claims as "bs", well you can I guess, but you would be wrong in doing so.

 

Tax Reform Bill - You now say you meant $100-200 savings per month, which is an odd way to express tax savings.  Your initial assertion that it would be $100-200 per year was one of the main reasons I considered your "dissection" invalid.  Even if we consider you correct at the $100-200 tax savings per month, that is a meaningful amount of money for people at that level.  My brother and his wife make a combined income of around $70,000 per year, with 2 kids and a mortgage.  He ran his previous taxes through the new calculator and found that he will save $3,200 this coming year on taxes.  Again, that is not bread crumbs to people earning at that level.  The calculators are online, feel free to confirm the information yourself.   However, the bullet point claimed that the bill provided $5.5 billion in cuts and repealed the Obamacare mandate - which are both true. 

 

GDP - First of all, Trump didn't claim in the article that he created policies that will create a sustained GDP growth rate of over 4%.  He claimed that his policies helped create GDP growth above 3% - this is true.  However, even if he had claimed to create policies that could sustain GDP growth above 4%, he isn't necessarily wrong and that type of growth is certainly possible from a historical perspective.  In fact, GDP growth above 4% is quite typical in a healthy economy.  The last 10 years or so of GDP growth far under 3% is abnormal and indicates an unhealthy economy, most likely due to bad policy making.  Which structural drivers of economic growth are going to restrain GDP to under 2%?  It is clearly evident that jobs are being created, corporate taxes are going down, investments are going up (admittedly too high for you), trade imbalances are being addressed, and manufacturing is increasing, just to name a few.  Obama error polices that created stagnation and poor GDP growth are being removed almost completely.  All of these structural drivers of the economy are pointing toward increased growth, not lower growth.  If you have structural drivers of the economy pointing toward lower growth, I would be interested in seeing them.  

 

Creating Jobs - The economy did add 1.7 million new jobs and the unemployment did go down - this is true.  Jobs creation has been trending upwards and unemployment has been trending downwards, but we have no way of knowing with certainty which way the numbers would have gone without Trump's new economic policies.  We can take an educated guess, but that would just be a guess.

 

Dow Jones -  You're just being a alarmist bear.  However, we very well could be in a late-stage bull-market.  If it falls, as there are several indicators of a pending correction, it creates further opportunities to make money and it will eventually go back up.  Historically speaking again, there is nothing abnormal about bull-market runs and subsequent corrections.   

 

Economic Confidence -  Economic Confidence did rise to a 17 year high - this is true.  It not only increased, it increased higher than expected.  When you say "near a peak", I can only conclude you meant when the DOW Jones is near a peak, since you said this immediately after you mentioned that you think the Dow Jones "bubble" is going to pop.  I'm sure you are well aware that the Dow Jones going up or down is only a partial factor when calculating confidence in the economy and that the Economic Confidence Model mainly includes average consumers, not just Wall Street bankers and stock brokers.

 

Fair Trade - Identifying and rectifying unfair trade practices and trade imbalances is not protectionism.  Creating a business friendly environment in the U.S. is not protectionism.  Creating incentives for U.S. companies to bring profits and resources back to the U.S. is not protectionism.  Working to increase U.S. exports is not protectionism.  Prioritizing the enforcement of U.S. trade laws is not protectionism.  I'd challenge you here to be specific and provide details on which policy or achievement you think is protectionism, so we can actually debate it.     

 

 

The reason I didn't go into too much detail was because I already have in the past and I see no reason to repeat myself endlessly apart from saying that I think at the very least that part of his accomplishments is not true. You are free to disagree but of course it is my opinion and only time will tell if I'm right or wrong. I've gone into detail in the past explaining why sustained growth above 4% or even 3% is laughable to me that they consider possible right now - that's  not an opinion, it's simply math. Again, time will tell. Corporate profits are already near record levels, the effective US corporate tax rate (taxes actually paid as a fraction of pre tax income) is already at 20% even without tax cuts. Productivity growth and employment are the drivers of economic growth and since we're already near full employment, and since civilian labor force growth is dropping(that's demographics), and productivity growth has also been slowing over the last few decades. It has nothing to do with this president or the other - GDP has been in decline for decades, this is not an economy that can support 4% GDP. 

 

I am not just an alarmist bear, in fact between 2009-2015 I've been a raging bull. But I go by the valuations which by reliable measures are the highest they've ever been. If you think that's sustainable I have no doubt you will be proven wrong. This isn't just a normal "bull market run" and you can thank the Federal Reserve for that, but for Trump, who correctly called the market a bubble before he was elected, to now take credit(which isn't his) for the market being an even bigger bubble is baffling to say the least. I think it is more a cyclical issue and won't be as much his fault as the left will claim once it crashes and burns, but I have no intention of defending him at that time because if you take credit for creating it you should own up to it when it crumbles.

 

Governments don't create jobs. I don't see it as "Trump created jobs". US economic growth has expanded at a rate of 2.1% annually in the 7 year period since 2010, nearly half of this growth was due to the decline in the unemployment rate, which is a wholly cyclical factor. One of the core drivers of productivity growth is expansion in net US domestic investment. Booms in real US investment are closely associated with deterioration in the trade deficit, because you export securities to foreigners in order to finance the boom. Because payments have to balance, this means you also export fewer goods for any given level of imports. The bottom line is that investment booms tend to be associated with larger trade deficits, so not surprisingly, booms in US real investment typically emerge from a position of near balance or surplus in the US current account.

 

Now, add the current 0.4% growth rate in the civilian labor force to 0.6% growth in productivity, and you get the current “structural” growth rate of the U.S. economy; that is, the growth rate in the absence of changes in the unemployment rate. The labor force component of structural growth is largely baked in the cake due to demographics, which leaves productivity growth as the main factor that could raise structural US growth.

 

Still, given civilian labor force growth of just 0.4%, even an acceleration of productivity growth from the current rate of 0.6% to the 1972-2008 rate of 1.9% would still produce only 2.3% structural economic growth. Anything greater than that would have to be driven by a decline in the unemployment rate from the already low level of 4.1%.

 

I didn't say economic confidence didn't rise, I'm just saying that's a given with the point we're at in the current cycle and has very little to do with Trump. Economic confidence normally doesn't decline substantially till after the markets and the economy. What I meant when I said near peak was for the economy as a whole, not just the markets. 

 

 

1 hour ago, jayjayj said:

Don't be offended.  We can agree and disagree on many topics.  As I explained in my longer post, my point was that I expected more than just opinion and innuendo from someone who is financially knowledgeable.  

It was a joke man.

[OriZ 3,157]

3 hours ago, jayjayj said:

Don't be offended.  We can agree and disagree on many topics.  As I explained in my longer post, my point was that I expected more than just opinion and innuendo from someone who is financially knowledgeable.  

btw regarding the monthly tax thing, I get that that might be a little weird to some. The reason I look at it that way though is due to several factors, the first one being back in Israel you get paid once a month, not weekly, and taxes are always automatically taken out, to the point where unless you're self employed you don't even have to file a return unless you want to because you believe you're owed money back, but it's usually not the case. It was weird for my wife when she lived there with me that I didn't have to file, because she's used to it always being done here no matter what. The second reason is with our business, we set aside that money every month, because we don't wanna end up with a huge bill we're not expecting come tax season, and we also pay the estimated taxes every 3 months. I'm just used to thinking in terms of months not years I guess.

Edited December 27, 2017 by OriZ