American Politics

[EihTooms]

If there is a default, it's because Biden and Yellen and others want a default for political purposes. All they have to do is maintain interest payments on the debt and cut other government expenditures, and there will be no default.

So just "pay the interest" and "cut other government expenditures"?

How about we demonstrate to the world that we are not all Deadbeat Repubs here who can't be trusted to pay the bills Trump and Deadbeat Repubs racked up to the tune of 25% of all the debt the USA had racked up since the beginning without any bullshit hostage-taking and still damaging brinkmanship that might again result in Deadbeat Repubs lowering our credit rating?

You know, the way Deadbeat Repubs did at least 3 times under Trump when he and they added $Trillions to the debt / deficit with practically nothing of value to show for it even before Trump laid the groundwork for, created and developed Trump's Pandemic.

[JustTK]

Fascinating idea put forward here. I am not sure I have ever heard it myself. Its about how capitalism (remember, the freedom ideology) requires closed borders in order to function well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXrWtRZofmE&t=823s

Watch it until 20 min mark. You can apply this to USA too, although its a UK news show.

[JustTK]

And I want reparations too. My family came here and built the steel mills over an hundred years ago. They were severely discriminated against by WASPs. You must be nuts or related to those who are crying. Will you contribute? Reparations have no benefit except to those who do nothing to deserve another handout.

If you read my comment again you will note that I didn't express an opinion. And I am not from USA or Europe so I won't be asked to pay anything.

I am not familiar with your fmily story nor what a WASP is. So I am not position to comment on that. BUt what makes you say "Reparations have no benefit except to those who do nothing to deserve another handout. " IS there a historical record to support your claim?

Let's say I qualify for a payment. I use the money to start a small business that provide for me and my family. This means that I would not qualify for or deserve another benefit, yet the reparation have provided benefit. So surely this is an example which contradicts your statement?

[Tiny 12]

Trump doesn't want his Repub Party and the country to wait until his Fed Chairman appointee gets around to blundering us into another Great Repub Recession / Depression and Massive Jobs Destruction. No, he wants his Repub Party to produce another one by June 1 if not sooner!

Trump urges GOP to let U.S. default on debt if Dems don't accept spending cuts

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/11/trum...ndroidappshare

If there is a default, it's because Biden and Yellen and others want a default for political purposes. All they have to do is maintain interest payments on the debt and cut other government expenditures, and there will be no default.

[Tiny 12]

Also, so now you are saying the inevitable but transitory Trump's Pandemic Crash rebound-related inflation was the fault of Trump and his Repubs for passing the TCJA, which you are now crediting with that rebound? I thought it was evil Joe Biden and his evil Dems who caused that inflation by putting too much money into Americans' pockets and all that. Which flies in the face of what happened when, according to you, Americans had more money put into their pockets by those fabulous Repub tax cuts.

OK, let's look at inflation. At the end of February, 2021, YoY CPI inflation was running 1.7% per year. The Democrats' $1. 9 trillion American rescue plan (ARP) was passed in March, 2021, and the government mailed out $1400 checks to most Americans that month. This was despite the fact that the economy was already humming. The annualized quarterly change in GDP was 35.3% in 3Q 2020, 3.9% in 4Q 2020, and 6.3% in 1Q 2021. Larry Summers noted that COVID had reduced wages by about $250 to $300 billion over the course of 2020. Trump and Pelosi pushed through $900 billion of stimulus in December, 2020 -- the amount would have been much higher if not for the restraining influence of Republican Senators. Then Biden and a Democratic Congress follow up with $1.9 trillion more three months later (the ARP), without a single Republican vote. That was 9% of GDP! So you have 0.9 trillion + 1.9 trillion = 2. 8 trillion in stimulus to bridge a $250 billion to $300 billion gap in reduced wages. That resulted in a savings overhang (savings in excess of what it would have been without the stimulus) of about $2.5 trillion. That is, $2.5 trillion more in cash, chasing goods and services when consumers decided to spend the money.

That's a great recipe for inflation, and that's what happened. At the end of February, 2021, YoY inflation was running 1.7%. The ARP checks again went out in March of 2021. April inflation was 4.2%, and May was 5.0%. Inflation in Europe for the same two months was 1.6% and 2% respectively.

So, again, Biden et al's 1.9 trillion stimulus represented about 9% of GDP, pumped into the economy at the worst possible time.

How much extra money was left in the hands of the people and businesses as a result of the TCJA during the year after the ARP was passed? Well, based on earlier estimates, about 160 billion, or about 0.8% of GDP. It might have been a lot less. Government revenues were 17.4% of GDP in the year ended September 30,2021, and 19.2% of GDP in the year ended September 30,2022. Those numbers are above the long term average (1970 to 2019) of 17%. So maybe the "stimulus" provided by the TCJA in the year after the ARP was passed was considerably less than 0 8%.

But yeah, if it makes you feel secure in the superiority of Democratic Politicians, and you some how identify with that, go on believing that it was the TCJA that kicked off inflation.

[EihTooms]

Trump doesn't want his Repub Party and the country to wait until his Fed Chairman appointee gets around to blundering us into another Great Repub Recession / Depression and Massive Jobs Destruction. No, he wants his Repub Party to produce another one by June 1 if not sooner!

Trump urges GOP to let U.S. default on debt if Dems don't accept spending cuts

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/11/trum...ndroidappshare

[Tiny 12]

The unemployment rate had been in a steady downward trajectory after Bush's Great Repub Recession skyrocketed it starting soon after Obama and the Dems passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. It was clearly zooming downward to below 4% LONG before the TCJA was passed. Neither the TCJA nor anything else proposed, fought for and passed by Repubs had anything whatsoever to do with getting the unemployment rate there.

See attached BLS line chart covering 2007 to 2018 below and please explain how the TCJA got the unemployment rate to "essentially at the same" level it is today, below 4%:

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Also, so now you are saying the inevitable but transitory Trump's Pandemic Crash rebound-related inflation was the fault of Trump and his Repubs for passing the TCJA, which you are now crediting with that rebound? I thought it was evil Joe Biden and his evil Dems who caused that inflation by putting too much money into Americans' pockets and all that. Which flies in the face of what happened when, according to you, Americans had more money put into their pockets by those fabulous Repub tax cuts.

Wow. Those were some miraculous Repub tax cuts; Good and Non Inflationary whenever they do whatever it is you want to give them credit for doing. Quite the opposite of how you characterize that same result with Dem policies. LOL.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I have been reading and hearing warnings from economic experts and gurus about that "Great Biden / Dem Recession, Massive Job Losses and Skyrocketing Unemployment Rate" coming any minute now for, what, 2 1/2 years now. I heard the same thing about the Great Clinton / Dem Recession and the Great Obama / Dem Recession for a full 8 years each.

Biden and the Democrats will have very little to do with your so called "Great Biden / Dem Recession. " I'll blame it mostly on the business cycle and higher interest rates. If the Fed had started raising interest rates when Biden's inflationary American Rescue Plan was passed in 2021, we probably would have been looking at a softer landing. But I blame that more on the Fed than Democrats. Democrats are always going to spend, spend, spend. And the Republicans are almost as bad. The Fed should have been the adult in the room.

A slowdown in bank lending and problems with commercial real estate loans may be contributing factors as well. I would credit Yellen, Gruenberg and Powell for doing what they could to prevent deposit runs and bank failures this year. And say they could have done more if not for political opposition to "bailing out" uninsured depositors. And that political opposition is coming more from the Republican side of the aisle.

I'm going to take the word of the Fed economist over your trend following expertise. And he says 1. 5 million jobs were added by the TCJA, just in 2018.

If you assume those 1. 5 million people would be unemployed if not for the TCJA, then, given that the total labor force is around 155 million, unemployment is around one percentage point lower than it would be otherwise. That would mean the unemployment rate without the TCJA would be 4. 5%, not counting jobs created after 2018 that wouldn't be there without the TCJA.

I am not as you say crediting the TCJA with the rebound after pandemic. The TCJA only cut federal government revenues by 0.8% of GDP. If I were dictator, I'd cut federal government revenues by more. And federal spending by a whole lot more. Over a period of years.

And the pandemic crash would have occurred no matter who was president.

[EihTooms]

We were essentially at the same unemployment rate pre-COVID, thanks in part to the jobs created by the TCJA. And since a Democratic Senate, House and President didn't see fit to modify any of the provisions of the TCJA, the same tax regime, with its favorable effect on jobs, was in effect when Biden took the reins and we rebounded from COVID.

On the other hand, the labor force participation rate, which declined markedly during the Obama administration, was 63.3% pre-COVID, and currently has only rebounded to 62.6%. A lot of people have stopped looking for work.

The majority of analysts are predicting a recession. When that happens, the unemployment rate will go up. Your post, above, will not age well.

The unemployment rate had been in a steady downward trajectory after Bush's Great Repub Recession skyrocketed it starting soon after Obama and the Dems passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. It was clearly zooming downward to below 4% LONG before the TCJA was passed. Neither the TCJA nor anything else proposed, fought for and passed by Repubs had anything whatsoever to do with getting the unemployment rate there.

See attached BLS line chart covering 2007 to 2018 below and please explain how the TCJA got the unemployment rate to "essentially at the same" level it is today, below 4%:

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Also, so now you are saying the inevitable but transitory Trump's Pandemic Crash rebound-related inflation was the fault of Trump and his Repubs for passing the TCJA, which you are now crediting with that rebound? I thought it was evil Joe Biden and his evil Dems who caused that inflation by putting too much money into Americans' pockets and all that. Which flies in the face of what happened when, according to you, Americans had more money put into their pockets by those fabulous Repub tax cuts.

Wow. Those were some miraculous Repub tax cuts; Good and Non Inflationary whenever they do whatever it is you want to give them credit for doing. Quite the opposite of how you characterize that same result with Dem policies. LOL.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I have been reading and hearing warnings from economic experts and gurus about that "Great Biden / Dem Recession, Massive Job Losses and Skyrocketing Unemployment Rate" coming any minute now for, what, 2 1/2 years now. I heard the same thing about the Great Clinton / Dem Recession and the Great Obama / Dem Recession for a full 8 years each.

[ChuchoLoco]

Interesting inititaive taken by California here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/08/u...rce/index.html

If it goes ahead, it would set a precedent for other states.

Caricom (an organisation of Caribbean nations) is also pressing Europe for reparations:
https://caricom.org/caricom-ten-poin...atory-justice/

And I want reparations too. My family came here and built the steel mills over an hundred years ago. They were severely discriminated against by WASPs. But worked their asses off only to later lose everything to reverse discrimination. Where's our reparations? You must be nuts or related to those who are crying. Sorry but I've been through reverse discrimination for too many years so I resent this stupid act that I'll pay for. Will you contribute? Nothing like buying votes with our money. You need to spend some time in an inner city and see how free money gets wasted. Oh yes, I forgot you're the guy who said working out has no health benefit. ,it's only for vanity. Reparations have no benefit except to those who do nothing to deserve another handout.

Trump is a fool in so many ways but those who want to give out reparations are bigger fools and I will jump to the other side if this becomes the norm!

[JustTK]

Interesting inititaive taken by California here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/08/u...rce/index.html

If it goes ahead, it would set a precedent for other states.

Caricom (an organisation of Caribbean nations) is also pressing Europe for reparations:
https://caricom.org/caricom-ten-poin...atory-justice/

[Tiny 12]

You forgot to mention we also got a historic economic recovery for America, I would argue leading the world into a historic recovery from the worst Great Repub Economic, Health and National Security Disaster of all time. Oh, and creating 7 Million jobs so far and still counting by remarkable numbers almost every month, a 50+ year record low unemployment rate, an all time low unemployment rate for African Americans, NO Repub-style Great Recession, etc.

We were essentially at the same unemployment rate pre-COVID, thanks in part to the jobs created by the TCJA. And since a Democratic Senate, House and President didn't see fit to modify any of the provisions of the TCJA, the same tax regime, with its favorable effect on jobs, was in effect when Biden took the reins and we rebounded from COVID.

On the other hand, the labor force participation rate, which declined markedly during the Obama administration, was 63.3% pre-COVID, and currently has only rebounded to 62.6%. A lot of people have stopped looking for work.

The majority of analysts are predicting a recession. When that happens, the unemployment rate will go up. Your post, above, will not age well.

[EihTooms]

OK, I'll repeat the link, for the paper written by the Federal Reserve Board economist in 2022:

https://www.dallasfed.org/research/p...58%20 billion.

In 2018 alone, the first year after the provisions of the TCJA took effect, 4.2 million jobs were added, and the economist estimates that 1.5 million of those jobs were attributable to the TCJA. The economist estimates that, in 2018, the TCJA resulted in $158 billion lower federal revenues, which equates to $105,000 per job ($158 billion / 1.5 million jobs = 105,000/ job).

I do not believe it's reasonable to say each job "cost" $105,000. Rather, the the federal government left $158 billion more in the private sector during 2018 as a result of the TCJA, and one of the positive effects was the creation of 1.5 million jobs, in 2018 alone.

Originally, the CBO, JCT and others estimated the TCJA would reduce government revenues by around $1.5 trillion over 10 years. (Estimates ran from 1 trillion to 2 trillion according to your link. I'm picking the midpoint.) Again, however, government revenues as a % of GDP were the 2nd highest in 2022 since 1945. And revenues from the corporate income tax in 2022 were much higher than predicted. Thus the reduction may be less than $1.5 trillion.

And, again, the reduction in revenues from the TCJA pales by the side of the additional $5 trillion in unfunded expenditures passed into law by the Democrats in 2021 and 2022. What did we get for those expenditures? Well, inflation kicked off months earlier in 2021 in the USA compared to the rest of the world, as a result of the American Rescue Plan. Inflation in goods and services rose faster than wages, meaning workers real (inflation-adjusted) income dropped. Hundreds of billions will mindlessly be pumped into the pockets of "green energy" entrepreneurs and chip manufacturers who donated to the Democratic Party. And hundreds of billions more will be spent on infrastructure projects in the districts and states of the Congressmen and Senators who voted for the bill. Wouldn't it make more sense if the states and municipalities selected and paid for infrastructure? I can guaran-damn-tee you the money would be spent more efficiently.

Of course, in your view that doesn't matter, because all legislation passed by Democrats is gold and all legislation passed by Republicans is shit. "Democrat good, Republican bad."

My "cut list", accomplished over a period of years (many years for social security and Medicare), would reduce federal government expenditures by a whole lot more than $1.5 trillion. And Californians could still spend just as much money as they want on reparations, green energy, handouts, and everything else under the sun. The problem is that our federal Congressmen, Senators and Presidents want to run everything everywhere. They believe in concentrating as much power as possible in their hands and the hands of the federal bureaucracy. And that's just not as efficient as running and funding government at the state and local level.

You forgot to mention we also got a historic economic recovery for America, I would argue leading the world into a historic recovery from the worst Great Repub Economic, Health and National Security Disaster of all time. Oh, and creating 7 Million jobs so far and still counting by remarkable numbers almost every month, a 50+ year record low unemployment rate, an all time low unemployment rate for African Americans, NO Repub-style Great Recession, etc.

That was probably just a Bothsider / Neithersider oversight since it didn't immediately leap out of your tortured math to come up with something, anything that suggests all those Great Repub Depressions, Great Repub Recessions and Great Repub Jobs Destruction are really no different and, hey, might even be better for America than all those Great Dem Recoveries, Great Dem Economic Expansions and Great Dem Jobs Creation.

[Tiny 12]

Aside from the fact that my point has always been that the $Trillions+ Repub TCJA created FEWER jobs for America with it than without it, proven by your citation of it supposedly creating a paltry 1. 5 million jobs in an uncited or specified number of years vs the number of jobs that were created in that same span of years prior to the passage of it, now that we are down to what would need to be cut in order to pay the extraordinary deficit-ballooning cost of it, do you have any estimation of the millions upon millions of jobs that would be wiped out, what that would do to the economy and for how many years or decades should your dictatorial cuts wish list come true?

You have provided more proof for how and why Repub tax cuts / policy have been and still are disastrous for the USA economy. Maybe Repubs should all move to Singapore and live in Repub Nirvana bliss. Although I'm not sure how another primary goal of Repubs besides wiping out millions of USA jobs, crashing the USA economy and making already wealthy corporations even wealthier, namely to make sure every school child-hating loon is armed with a fully loaded AR-15, will go over with the Singaporeans.

OK, I'll repeat the link, for the paper written by the Federal Reserve Board economist in 2022:

https://www.dallasfed.org/research/p...58%20 billion.

In 2018 alone, the first year after the provisions of the TCJA took effect, 4.2 million jobs were added, and the economist estimates that 1.5 million of those jobs were attributable to the TCJA. The economist estimates that, in 2018, the TCJA resulted in $158 billion lower federal revenues, which equates to $105,000 per job ($158 billion / 1.5 million jobs = 105,000/ job).

I do not believe it's reasonable to say each job "cost" $105,000. Rather, the the federal government left $158 billion more in the private sector during 2018 as a result of the TCJA, and one of the positive effects was the creation of 1.5 million jobs, in 2018 alone.

Originally, the CBO, JCT and others estimated the TCJA would reduce government revenues by around $1.5 trillion over 10 years. (Estimates ran from 1 trillion to 2 trillion according to your link. I'm picking the midpoint.) Again, however, government revenues as a % of GDP were the 2nd highest in 2022 since 1945. And revenues from the corporate income tax in 2022 were much higher than predicted. Thus the reduction may be less than $1.5 trillion.

And, again, the reduction in revenues from the TCJA pales by the side of the additional $5 trillion in unfunded expenditures passed into law by the Democrats in 2021 and 2022. What did we get for those expenditures? Well, inflation kicked off months earlier in 2021 in the USA compared to the rest of the world, as a result of the American Rescue Plan. Inflation in goods and services rose faster than wages, meaning workers real (inflation-adjusted) income dropped. Hundreds of billions will mindlessly be pumped into the pockets of "green energy" entrepreneurs and chip manufacturers who donated to the Democratic Party. And hundreds of billions more will be spent on infrastructure projects in the districts and states of the Congressmen and Senators who voted for the bill. Wouldn't it make more sense if the states and municipalities selected and paid for infrastructure? I can guaran-damn-tee you the money would be spent more efficiently.

Of course, in your view that doesn't matter, because all legislation passed by Democrats is gold and all legislation passed by Republicans is shit. "Democrat good, Republican bad."

My "cut list", accomplished over a period of years (many years for social security and Medicare), would reduce federal government expenditures by a whole lot more than $1.5 trillion. And Californians could still spend just as much money as they want on reparations, green energy, handouts, and everything else under the sun. The problem is that our federal Congressmen, Senators and Presidents want to run everything everywhere. They believe in concentrating as much power as possible in their hands and the hands of the federal bureaucracy. And that's just not as efficient as running and funding government at the state and local level.

[EihTooms]

If I were dictator? I'd cut the military. We already spend more than the next highest 9 countries put together on defense. And move spending and taxation to the states and localities over time. The power of the purse and decisions on how to spend are best made closest to the people, not in Washington D.C. This would entail cuts in education, health, transportation, housing, labor, etc. Cut out most agriculture subsidies and corporate welfare. And with time replace Social Security and Medicare with something like what Singapore has, where individuals use their own accounts funded through payroll contributions to pay for retirement and, say, the first $10,000 of medical expense per year. That would be backed up with a safety net, including medical insurance. You'd keep expenditures at the federal level which make sense. I'd probably fund the NIH and pandemic preparedness expenditure at similar levels as you would if you were dictator, for example. And we do need a military, just a smaller one.

This left-of-center Tax Policy Center piece must be dated too, like the Brookings piece. They say, "Tax revenues will average just 16.7 percent of GDP from 2020 to 2024, according to CBO's latest projections. That's well below the 17.4 percent of GDP average from 1970 to 2019. " First of all, from an Excel download of the following data, the average federal receipts as a % of GDP from 1970 to 2019 were 17.0%. Federal receipts as a % of GDP in fiscal 2021 and 2022 were 17.4% and 19.2% respectively. Receipts in 2022 were in fact the second highest of any year since 1945, and the fourth highest in American history. And the only tax changes the Democratic government which controlled the presidency and Congress during 2021 and 2022 made didn't take effect until January 1, 2023. So tax revenues under the TCJA tax regime are far outperforming what the CBO predicted.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

Absolutely untrue. Please recall the Federal Reserve piece from 2022 that estimated the TCJA added 1.5 million jobs. Tax cuts create jobs. From Mertens and Ravn's classic paper, "A cut in the APITR (average personal income tax rate) raises employment, lowers the unemployment rate, and increases hours worked per worker. " Which makes sense. When the government's taking less of your paycheck, you're more motivated to work. There's probably some kind of multiplier effect too, where by leaving more money in the hands of the people to spend on consumption you end up growing employment.

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprin...103.4.1212.pdf

Well, the Trump family owns pass through entities like LLC's and Sub S Corporations. The tax breaks for those expires at the end of 2025. The permanent cuts for for C Corporations, and I don't believe they account for a significant part of the family's worth.

I believe in treating taxpayers equally so would agree with you about the special tax break businesses like Trump's received in the TCJA. Only large companies with either lots of employment expense or lots of depreciation expense received the benefit of the QBI deduction, and Trump's rental real estate businesses qualified. I also agree with you about the corporate shield and dodging taxes. It's nuts that Trump was able to bankrupt his Atlantic City operation, and as a result receive $900 million in carried forward tax losses that he used to shield income in future years. It was his bondholders that lost the money, and yet he still ended up with the tax deduction. There's a good NYT series on this if you're interested.

Aside from the fact that my point has always been that the $Trillions+ Repub TCJA created FEWER jobs for America with it than without it, proven by your citation of it supposedly creating a paltry 1. 5 million jobs in an uncited or specified number of years vs the number of jobs that were created in that same span of years prior to the passage of it, now that we are down to what would need to be cut in order to pay the extraordinary deficit-ballooning cost of it, do you have any estimation of the millions upon millions of jobs that would be wiped out, what that would do to the economy and for how many years or decades should your dictatorial cuts wish list come true?

You have provided more proof for how and why Repub tax cuts / policy have been and still are disastrous for the USA economy. Maybe Repubs should all move to Singapore and live in Repub Nirvana bliss. Although I'm not sure how another primary goal of Repubs besides wiping out millions of USA jobs, crashing the USA economy and making already wealthy corporations even wealthier, namely to make sure every school child-hating loon is armed with a fully loaded AR-15, will go over with the Singaporeans.

[Tiny 12]

Where would you have cut spending to pay for the $Trillions+ the Repub TCJA was projected to cost the American taxpayer in exchange for not even a 1 percentage point increase in GDP Growth and a Million fewer jobs with it than without it?

If I were dictator? I'd cut the military. We already spend more than the next highest 9 countries put together on defense. And move spending and taxation to the states and localities over time. The power of the purse and decisions on how to spend are best made closest to the people, not in Washington D.C. This would entail cuts in education, health, transportation, housing, labor, etc. Cut out most agriculture subsidies and corporate welfare. And with time replace Social Security and Medicare with something like what Singapore has, where individuals use their own accounts funded through payroll contributions to pay for retirement and, say, the first $10,000 of medical expense per year. That would be backed up with a safety net, including medical insurance. You'd keep expenditures at the federal level which make sense. I'd probably fund the NIH and pandemic preparedness expenditure at similar levels as you would if you were dictator, for example. And we do need a military, just a smaller one.

Tax Policy Center

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brie...budget-outlook

This left-of-center Tax Policy Center piece must be dated too, like the Brookings piece. They say, "Tax revenues will average just 16.7 percent of GDP from 2020 to 2024, according to CBO's latest projections. That's well below the 17.4 percent of GDP average from 1970 to 2019. " First of all, from an Excel download of the following data, the average federal receipts as a % of GDP from 1970 to 2019 were 17.0%. Federal receipts as a % of GDP in fiscal 2021 and 2022 were 17.4% and 19.2% respectively. Receipts in 2022 were in fact the second highest of any year since 1945, and the fourth highest in American history. And the only tax changes the Democratic government which controlled the presidency and Congress during 2021 and 2022 made didn't take effect until January 1, 2023. So tax revenues under the TCJA tax regime are far outperforming what the CBO predicted.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

Either way, there is no reason on Earth based on their historical record of behavior and results that the entire point of Repubs jacking up the deficit by $Trillions+ for an economic "stimulus" that accomplished virtually nothing except to produce fewer jobs .

Absolutely untrue. Please recall the Federal Reserve piece from 2022 that estimated the TCJA added 1.5 million jobs. Tax cuts create jobs. From Mertens and Ravn's classic paper, "A cut in the APITR (average personal income tax rate) raises employment, lowers the unemployment rate, and increases hours worked per worker. " Which makes sense. When the government's taking less of your paycheck, you're more motivated to work. There's probably some kind of multiplier effect too, where by leaving more money in the hands of the people to spend on consumption you end up growing employment.

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprin...103.4.1212.pdf

BTW, I wasn't referring to the Qualified Business Income Deduction when I mentioned Trump Crime Family "style" busines tax breaks that were made permanent. Criminals like the Trumps will always be able to launder income through one corporate shield or another in order to dodge paying taxes.

Well, the Trump family owns pass through entities like LLC's and Sub S Corporations. The tax breaks for those expires at the end of 2025. The permanent cuts for for C Corporations, and I don't believe they account for a significant part of the family's worth.

I believe in treating taxpayers equally so would agree with you about the special tax break businesses like Trump's received in the TCJA. Only large companies with either lots of employment expense or lots of depreciation expense received the benefit of the QBI deduction, and Trump's rental real estate businesses qualified. I also agree with you about the corporate shield and dodging taxes. It's nuts that Trump was able to bankrupt his Atlantic City operation, and as a result receive $900 million in carried forward tax losses that he used to shield income in future years. It was his bondholders that lost the money, and yet he still ended up with the tax deduction. There's a good NYT series on this if you're interested.