Elizabeth Warren Has Lots of Plans. Together, They Would Remake the Economy

  
Via:  bob-nelson  •  5 days ago  •  62 comments

Elizabeth Warren Has Lots of Plans. Together, They Would Remake the Economy
Ms. Warren could face a difficult path to winning over moderates, but by pushing out so many proposals so early, she is forcing her Democratic rivals to play catch-up

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


originalAs the 23 candidates seeking the Democratic nomination struggle to distinguish themselves, Senator Elizabeth Warren has set herself apart with a series of sweeping proposals that would significantly remake the American economy, covering everything from tax policy to student debt relief and offering a detailed portrait of what her presidency might look like.

Many of the proposals from Ms. Warren, a former Harvard law professor and hawk on financial regulation, could face a difficult path to winning over moderates in a general election, and to gaining approval in Congress if she did take the White House. But the sheer volume of her plans, and their detail and variety, is forcing her rivals to play catch-up and stake out their own positions.

Her proposals would tip power from executives and investors to workers and allow the federal government to more aggressively steer the development of industries. She has called for splintering technology companies, like Amazon, that millions of consumers rely on in their daily lives. She would reduce the rewards for entrepreneurs to build billionaire fortunes and for companies to create global supply chains, scrambling the incentives for work, investment and economic growth.

Ms. Warren would seek big tax increases on the wealthiest individuals and corporations, creating a new tax on household assets that exceed $50 million as well as a new tax on corporate profits. From those two steps alone, she says she would raise at least $3.8 trillion over a decade — money that would go toward her plans on student debt cancellation, free college, child care, the opioid crisis and green manufacturing.

A review of the policy rollouts the 2020 Democrats have made since entering the race shows that Ms. Warren has issued the largest number of detailed plans among the major candidates — roughly 20 in all, on subjects as varied as Big Tech regulation, housing costs and Pentagon contracting. Most of her rivals have released fewer than half a dozen; former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who leads in early polling, has issued only two.

But Ms. Warren has already drawn criticism from centrists and conservatives who say her plans — many calling for new regulations — would hurt business and the economy, stifle innovation and potentially harm the very workers they were intended to help. “Were they to get done, they would cause significant problems,” said Tony Fratto, a former Treasury official in the George W. Bush administration who is a partner at Hamilton Place Strategies in Washington.

By pushing out so many proposals so early, Ms. Warren has framed much of the debate in the Democratic primary race, aiding her own rise in the polls.

“It’s rare, at this stage of a presidential campaign, somebody distinguishes themselves by the boldness and detail of their policies,” said Robert B. Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. “She is asking the biggest questions that exist, and that is: How do you make a free market work? How do you make capitalism actually work for the many rather than the few?”

Warren’s Policy Proposals

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been rolling out detailed policy proposals nearly every week since March, outpacing her major Democratic rivals.

Jan. 24     Wealth tax   link      
Feb. 19     Universal child care   link 
March 8    Breaking up big tech companies   link     
March 16   Housing   link 
March 27   Agriculture   link
April 2       Corporate executive accountability   link 
April 11     Corporate taxation   link
April 15     Public lands   link 
April 22     Student debt cancellation and free college   link
April 24     Maternal mortality   link 
April 26    Military housing   link
May 2      Puerto Rico debt relief   link 
May 8      Opioid crisis   link
May 15    The military and climate change   link 
May 16    Pentagon contracting   link
May 17    Abortion   link 
May 31    Indicting a sitting president   link
June 4    “Economic Patriotism”   link 
June 4    Green manufacturing   link

By Jason Kao/The New York Times

Ms. Warren is hoping that her ambitious agenda will win over Democratic primary voters, and that her emphasis on protecting American workers will have crossover appeal in a general election. But President Trump and his Republican allies would almost certainly use her proposals to portray her as too extreme.

Like other Democrats running for president, she would need her party to not only keep the House next year but also take control of the Senate, a difficult feat, to have any chance of pushing the bulk of her agenda through Congress. Even then, her transformative policies would surely face fierce resistance. In the House, she would face overwhelming opposition from Republican lawmakers as well as misgivings from the sort of centrist Democrats who helped deliver the majority last year. And Senate Republicans would be positioned to block many of her proposals using the filibuster, a tactic that Ms. Warren has said should end but that still enjoys bipartisan support.

originalMs. Warren rolled out a proposal to protect public lands before a trip to Utah in April.
Rick Bowmer/Associated Press

Some of the policy ideas Ms. Warren has promoted in recent months have been hallmarks of her political career. A bankruptcy expert who helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, she has long pushed Democrats to embrace more structural changes to the economy, even at the risk of putting off wealthy donors.

But Ms. Warren’s advisers have also seen the policy rollouts as an opportunity to put pressure on other campaigns and steer the party’s center of gravity leftward. They were keen to announce her student debt cancellation proposal before any other rival’s, partly to claim that turf as their own.

They have also carefully structured the order of her policy announcements, beginning with the “Ultramillionaire Tax” that provided a built-in answer to the question, “How will you pay for it?”

Now, other Democratic campaigns are being measured against Ms. Warren’s policy benchmarks. In a night of back-to-back CNN town-hall events in April, every candidate faced a question that related to a proposal from Ms. Warren.

Ms. Warren’s agenda includes a plan to cancel up to $50,000 in student loan debt, depending on a borrower’s income, and to eliminate tuition at public colleges. She has proposed a universal child care system that would be free for low-income families and limit other families’ costs to 7 percent of their income. And last week, she offered a broad economic program to promote American exports and spur job creation.

As part of that program, Ms. Warren called for a $2 trillion federal investment in climate-friendly industries and suggested other steps like more actively managing the value of the dollar.

Her ideas resonate with a growing group of liberal economists who see evidence that free markets need more forceful government intervention in order to function properly and not just deliver spoils to the very wealthy.


Fans of Ms. Warren’s proposals say they would help the economy by attacking income inequality: New taxes on the rich would fund investments in workers and encourage companies to spend more on wages and strategic investments than on executive pay.

They say that her aggressive use of antitrust regulation would unleash more competition and dynamism in an economy increasingly dominated by incumbent businesses, that her industrial policies would help the United States capture global market share in emerging industries like clean energy and that her spending on child care would encourage more Americans, particularly women, to work.

“You’re going to change norms, you’re going to change the way people act and the things they do with that money,” said Heather Boushey, the executive director at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth and a former top adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. “I can only imagine the kind of innovation and productivity it would unleash in our economy.”

Critics say Ms. Warren — with her proposals for new business regulation and focus on encouraging companies to locate production in the United States, rather than seeking the lowest-cost and most efficient production hubs around the world — will hinder American companies as they attempt to sell into India, China and other developing nations.

“To me that is the biggest risk in this, that you hobble American corporations so they cannot be globally competitive,” Mr. Fratto said. “We want these companies to compete globally. Because sooner or later, they have to.”

Ms. Warren would also risk hurting consumers by breaking up technology companies, particularly Amazon, said Natasha Sarin, a University of Pennsylvania economist who favors many of Ms. Warren’s goals but has written skeptically about her proposed wealth tax. She said taxing wealth could discourage innovation and risk-taking by entrepreneurs who invest time in their ideas hoping for a large payoff down the road.

“It’s a really important shift in how tax policy works in the U.S.,” she said, “and it’s not obvious to me that it’s a shift for the better.”

Ms. Warren would impose a 2 percent annual tax on a household’s assets, including stocks and real estate, that exceed $50 million. She would add another 1 percent tax on assets above $1 billion. Some other advanced countries, like Spain, impose similar taxes. But the United States never has, and some experts question whether Ms. Warren’s plan is constitutional. Some economists, including Ms. Sarin, say the tax would struggle to raise the revenues Ms. Warren forecasts, because it is relatively easy for the ultrawealthy to hide or shield assets from taxing authorities.

Ms. Warren’s campaign has amplified the impact of her policy rollouts by timing many of them to campaign trips. She unveiled her broad economic program and her green manufacturing plan ahead of a visit to Michigan and Indiana. She issued a proposal on public lands before visiting Colorado and Utah. Her opioid plan came before a visit to West Virginia and Ohio.

originalMs. Warren asked if members of the audience knew someone affected
by the opioid crisis during an event in Kermit, W.Va., last month.
Craig Hudson/Charleston Gazette-Mail, via Associated Press

Policy makes up a large part of Ms. Warren’s pitch to voters on the campaign trail, where, from school gyms to house parties, she guides audiences through one proposal after another. She explains her wealth tax by likening it to the property tax paid by homeowners, only broadened to include the “diamonds, the stock portfolio, the Rembrandts and the yachts” of the super-rich.

“Right now in America, there is a real hunger,” Ms. Warren said at a Democratic Party event in Iowa on Sunday. “There are people who are ready for big, structural change in this country. They’re ready for change, and I got a plan for that.”

“I got a plan” has become a personal trademark for Ms. Warren, drawing cheers from crowds and inspiring T-shirts and tote bags. And her policy announcements serve as fund-raising opportunities, too, helping to drive news coverage and give her supporters more reasons to donate.

Though Ms. Warren has far outpaced her major rivals in issuing detailed policy plans, some are working to make up ground.

In just one day last week, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey offered a housing plan that would provide a tax credit to renters, former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas introduced a voting rights plan and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York issued a plan to legalize marijuana.

Mr. Biden — who entered the race in late April, four months after Ms. Warren — introduced a climate plan last week and an education plan the week before. Senator Kamala Harris of California has put forth plans on teacher pay, gun control, equal pay and abortion. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has issued plans about education, rural America and banking.

Mr. Sanders, like other senators in the presidential race, is also drawing on legislation he has proposed in Congress, most notably his “Medicare for all” bill, the latest version of which he introduced in April. Ms. Harris has a bill to create a big tax credit for low- and middle-income Americans. Ms. Warren likes to talk about the anticorruption package that she proposed last year.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., has not released any detailed policy plans, though he has talked about overhauling the Supreme Court and plans to deliver a speech on foreign policy on Tuesday.

For sheer variety, no candidate can match Andrew Yang, a businessman and political newcomer. His website lays out his ideas on roughly 100 topics, including widely shared goals like fighting climate change as well as less common ones like abolishing the penny and supporting the unionization of mixed martial arts fighters. Most of his proposals, though, are described only briefly.

originalMs. Warren promoted her green manufacturing plan in Michigan last week.
Brittany Greeson for The New York Times

One subject Ms. Warren has not broadly addressed in her policy plans is health care, which is a top concern of voters. Ms. Warren supports a Medicare for all system in which the government would provide health insurance to everyone, but she has been less specific on the role she foresees for private insurers.

And Ms. Warren and most of the other Democratic candidates have yet to issue detailed plans on immigration — a central issue for Mr. Trump.

Jared Bernstein, a former White House economic adviser to President Barack Obama and top economist for Mr. Biden when he was vice president, said he applauded Ms. Warren’s ideas but wondered whether the federal government — particularly after several years of management by Mr. Trump — was up to the task of implementing them.

“It’s probably important to be appropriately humble about our ability to see the implications of big interventions,” he said. “But I love the aspirations. I love thinking big.”

Initial image: Mark Felix for The New York Times


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Bob Nelson
1  seeder  Bob Nelson    5 days ago
Warren’s Policy Proposals

Senator Elizabeth Warren has been rolling out detailed policy proposals nearly every week since March, outpacing her major Democratic rivals.

Jan. 24     Wealth tax   link      
Feb. 19     Universal child care   link 
March 8    Breaking up big tech companies   link     
March 16   Housing   link 
March 27   Agriculture   link
April 2       Corporate executive accountability   link 
April 11     Corporate taxation   link
April 15     Public lands   link 
April 22     Student debt cancellation and free college   link
April 24     Maternal mortality   link 
April 26    Military housing   link
May 2      Puerto Rico debt relief   link 
May 8      Opioid crisis   link
May 15    The military and climate change   link 
May 16    Pentagon contracting   link
May 17    Abortion   link 
May 31    Indicting a sitting president   link
June 4    “Economic Patriotism”   link 
June 4    Green manufacturing   link
 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
1.1  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    5 days ago

I categorically reject each and every single one of her proposals as socialist trash.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1    5 days ago
I categorically reject...

... without having any idea what's in them!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.1    3 days ago

.. without having any idea what's in them!

Makes it easier for him to reject them.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.3  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    3 days ago
Makes it easier for him to reject them.

Oh.

Of course.

I hadn't thought of that.

  jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @1.1    3 days ago

She's undoubtedly the most intelligent of the bunch, but too far left to get elected.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.5  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.4    3 days ago
... too far left...

She isn't actually very far left. Firmly capitalist, for example.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2  seeder  Bob Nelson    5 days ago

... just in case anyone is interested in the facts...

 
 
 
Snuffy
2.1  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    5 days ago
... just in case anyone is interested in the facts...

Oh come now, you know most people here don't want to be bothered by facts...   /s

She has come out with so many detailed plans already,  part of me wonders how long she's been working on this moment.  I almost think that the discussion might be better managed with multiple threads,  one per policy proposal per candidate?  Or maybe one thread per policy proposal to compare between the offerings of all candidates?  I can see I have a lot of homework (and too little time) to do here.

But this thread alone might be interesting as the day goes along. My worry though is that it will just become another sniping ground.

 
 
 
Snuffy
2.2  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    4 days ago

I haven't had time to go thru everything but these are some quick thoughts of mine on a couple of proposals for discussion. 

Wealth tax - not in favor of it. I don't believe in taxing wealth. What countries that have done it are moving away as they have discovered it doesn't generate as much money as they expected. And I don't trust government to not get used to having the extra money and looking for other newer ways to find more money to tax.

Universal Child Care - completely in favor of it. It costs a lot of money to care for children and a lot of families need to have both parents work to afford to raise children. Removing the expense of this could help offset the issues around housing.

Housing - salaries have not kept up with costs in this area. But as mentioned above, if child care costs are managed or eliminated this can free up some family money for housing costs so this one in my opinion would be a lower priority.

Abortion - Government needs to get out from between a doctor and a patient. I was listening to Tucker Carlson tonight driving home from dinner and he had a doctor on who was talking about the Planned Parenthood lawsuit to force all doctors who work at a clinic to perform abortions regardless of their thoughts on the process. The doctor was rather incensed as he felt that PP was forcing their beliefs on to the doctors who felt abortion was wrong. I just had to laugh at the radio as it was so ridiculous.

Indicting a sitting president - not in favor of it at all. This is aimed at one person and not a general proposal despite how she tried to clean it up. IMO a campaign proposal should be about making things better for the public at large and not aimed at a political opponent.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @2.2    3 days ago

Thank you for Replying calmly and intelligently. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3  bugsy    5 days ago

Together, They Would Remake the Economy

And therein lies the problem. The economy is roaring right now thanks to the policies and de regulations this President has put into place. "Remake the economy" sounds alot like "fundamentally transforming this country", and look what that got us....record number of people on food stamps and in poverty, slowest recovery since WWII, and companies fleeing the country in large numbers, just to note a few things, because of the burdensome policies implemented by the Obama admin, including the EPA regulating puddles in your yard after a rain. 

Look at that list you put up. Several of the things on there say "I'm gonna take away from those that earned their money and give it to the leeches who think sitting on the couch all day constitutes a full time job". That will be trillions upon trillions of tax payer dollars to appease the gimme gimme crowd of the left.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @3    5 days ago

Snipe n° 1!

Basically saying, "Everything is great. We mustn't change anything."

Everything's great?

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1    5 days ago

He's saying he is against "Letting the race to the bottom begin in the US."

Warren is another ideolog with no clue on how the real world works. She thinks that you can tax and regulate everything to run the way you want it. Complete government control is her only answer to anything. The real world doesn't work that way.

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    4 days ago

Thanks for that. You are correct in every way.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    3 days ago
Complete government control is her only answer to anything.

funny how the left thinks the federal govt should control the people.  (marxism)

when in reality... in our country, the people/states control the federal govt   (liberty)

when that federal govt starts thinking and acting like it can "control us as if they own us?

that is when we will burn it down and build a new federal govt.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.1.3    3 days ago
funny how the left thinks the federal govt should control the people.  (marxism)

Sweeping generalization... and false.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.4    3 days ago
Sweeping generalization... and false.

your opinion... and not valid.

cheers :)

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.2  XXJefferson#51  replied to  bugsy @3    5 days ago

Well said and correct on every point.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.3  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @3    5 days ago
The economy is roaring right now thanks to the policies and de regulations this President has put into place.

So, you're a FoxNews viewer.  Most economists fear we are "roaring" straight into another recession.

More China tariffs could push the US into a ‘Trump recession,’ consumer tech group CEO says

DONALD TRUMP’S WAR ON CARS IS PUSHING THE US CLOSER TO A RECESSION

The Odds For A Trump Recession Are Inching Higher

And in case you have not been watching the stock market, Trump's own metric for the economy, the economy was doing better under Obama.  While Trump has been riding the wave for the last 2 years, all indications show a slow down on the economy.

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3    4 days ago
Most economists fear we are "roaring" straight into another recession.

I don't know, are these the same economists who predicted that we  would be in a recession if not a depression within six months of Trump taking the oath?  Cousins to the warriors who predicted WW3 within the first year?

The economy is doing well, could be better but unemployment is very low, wages are slowly increasing, inflation is under control, the stock market is doing well which is good news for my 401k.  All in all, it's not bad. But I try to take a long view of the economy rather than jump from the ledge after a negative daily run.

 
 
 
lib50
3.3.2  lib50  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.1    4 days ago

Could you post a link to those predictions please?  I don't remember that.

 
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.4  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.3    3 days ago

My, my, my....

The first two links don't work... so I presume this little list was exhumed from some anti-left storehouse, without being verified...

The third link depends on such well-known economists as Michael Moore.

And the fourth link... this is s-o-o-o-o-o typical! It's about Paul Krugman's election night meltdown.  For the last while, I've systematically added this to each of my one or two Krugman seeds each week:

I've posted this before, but apparently "some" readers haven't noticed. I'll post it often, to be sure that a widely held mistaken idea eventually is corrected:
I made a bad economic call on election night 2016, predicting a Trump recession. But I quickly realized that political dismay had clouded my judgment, and retracted the call three days later.    - Paul Krugman

So... either Tex hasn't been keeping up with everyone's favorite economist... or Tex knows perfectly well that this canard has been duck soup for a very long time already, and continues to broadcast something he knows to be false.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.4    3 days ago

I am so sorry you are completely, utterly incapable of using Google or other search engines.

It's a real pity.

 
 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.6    3 days ago

Thanks. Not sure why my links didn't work, but when I googled it, I could bring them up just fine.

first link that "didn't work":

• “Donald Trump’s first gift to the world will be another financial crisis.” — Headline in the U.K. Independent. “He gives every impression that he will soon be hustling America — and possibly the entire world — in the direction of another catastrophic financial crisis.”
• “I have no stocks. I advise people not to invest in the stock market, not now. Way too dangerous.” — Filmmaker Michael Moore, August 2017.

• “It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? A first-pass answer is never… So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.” — Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.
• “Trump’s domestic policies would lead to recession.” — Mitt Romney, March 2016.
• “If Trump wins we should expect a big markdown in expected future earnings for a wide range of stocks — and a likely crash in the broader market [if Trump becomes president].” —Eric Zitzewitz, former chief economist at the IMF, November 2016.
• “Under Trump, I would expect a protracted recession to begin within 18 months. The damage would be felt far beyond the United States.” — Former Clinton and Obama chief economist Larry Summers, June 2016

• “Citigroup: A Trump Victory in November Could Cause a Global Recession” — Bloomberg Financial News headline, August 2016.
• “I have never seen an election in which the markets have so strong of a view as to what was good and bad about the outcome. And what you saw was the markets rallying yesterday because of the FBI thing on Sunday. And the reason I mention this particularly is if the likely event happens and Trump wins you will see a market crash of historic proportions, I think … The markets are terrified of him.” — Steve Rattner, MSNBC economic guru, October 2016.
• “Wall Street is set up for a major crash if Donald Trump shocks the world on Election Day and wins the White House. New research out on Friday suggests that financial markets strongly prefer a Hillary Clinton presidency and could react with panicked selling should Trump defy the polls and deliver a shocking upset on Nov. 8.” — Ben White, Politico, October 2016.
And finally, and most unambiguously:
• “A President Trump Could Destroy the World Economy” — Title of a Washington Post editorial, October 2016

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.8  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.6    3 days ago

You're really insisting on how important you consider the economic opinions of Michael Moore... jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.9  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.7    3 days ago
“It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover? A first-pass answer is never… So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.” — Paul Krugman of the New York Times the day after the election.

C'mon, Tex!! You can't just post shit without bothering to read!

And for God's sake... LOOK at the "crazy leftist economistss" you're citing:
 - U.K. Independent
 - Michael Moore
 - Mitt Romney
 - IMF
 - Bloomberg Financial News
 - Politico
 - Washington Post

Do you pay attention to what you're posting?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.3.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3    3 days ago
So, you're a FoxNews viewer.

Riiiiight.  So are CNBC, Reuters, Bloomberg and evey other news outlet just fabricating all the numbers?   Do stop.

  Most economists fear we are "roaring" straight into another recession.

It's not "most".  It's "some".  And it's been going on since long before Trump.  Economies don't expand forever, and we've had the longest non-recession run in recent history.  

 
 
 
lib50
3.3.11  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.3    3 days ago

Yes, the market has gone up.  And down.  And up and down.  Volatility isn't a good thing.  And the market doesn't reflect the broader economy any more, and Trump hasn't done better than Obama, but it is still working for some Americans who invest in the market.  The things he is currently doing are putting us on the precipice.  He exploded the debt, for reason except to give himself and his buds gift.  Those things come due with time.   Most of the good economic news is a continuation of Obama policies, you can check the links for the graphs and details. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/433337-trumps-base-cant-handle-the-truth-hes-wrecking-their-economy

Trump claims he’s produced record-breaking job growth. In fact, more jobs were added during Obama's final 18 months (206,000 per month) than during Trump's first 18 months in office (193,000 jobs per month). U.S. job growth peaked in 2010.

The GDP growth that delights Trump supporters is likely to be short-lived. Trump’s tax cuts failed to launch the promised investment boom that was supposed to lead to long-term growth. In fact, growth may already be slowing. Initial jobless claims, a proxy for layoffs, recently rose by 8,000. A growing number of economists and 73 percent of money managers predict a recession later this year or next.

Trump’s tax cuts pose significant risk to the economy, which seems to have escaped the notice of his base. The cuts ballooned the deficit, because they reduced government revenues without generating enough growth to compensate. In FY18, corporate tax receipts shrank by $92 billion, while the deficit grew by $113 billion. And it’s getting worse. Just in the first four months of FY19, the deficit grew another $124 billion.

Although Obama and Bush added more to the deficit than Trump, they had to spend billions to recover from the Great Recession. Trump on the other hand took office when the economy, wage and job growth were strong, yet he cut taxes and blew up the deficit and debt anyway.

Historically, low unemployment and GDP growth meant more people paid more taxes and deficits shrunk. But because of Trump’s tax cuts, that’s not happening now. Other than during wartime, this decoupling of the deficit from the business cycle has never happened before.

Debt has soared under Trump, and the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio has grown to 105 percent, the highest since 1950. Rising debt-to-GDP ratios often signal a recession. Every percentage point of debt above 77 percent reduces economic growth by 1.7 percent, which means we’re losing over half of our potential GDP growth to debt.

Trump’s tax cuts will also widen the income and wealth gaps between Trump’s cheerleaders and the very rich. According to bond ratings firm Moody’s, it will likely put pressure on the U.S.’s fiscal strength and weigh on its credit profile.

The threat of a credit downgrade is implicit in Moody’s narrative. A lower rating will lead not only to higher Treasury rates but also to higher rates on residential mortgages and consumer spending (which is two thirds of our economy).

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/trumps-economic-policies-failed-to-deliver-promised-3percent-growth-in-2018.html

New government data on Thursday morning show that Trump, too, has failed to reach the 3 percent promised land, according to one major metric. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis measured 2018 growth at 2.9 percent, matching the peak Obama enjoyed in 2015.

Instead of annual 2018 growth, the White House emphasized a different growth measure comparing growth from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018.

By that measure, the economy grew 3.1 percent. But Obama, too, reached 3 percent growth on a four-quarter basis four different times.

Where Obama failed to enjoy 3 percent annual growth was on the BEA’s official annual number. His 2015 peak was 2.9 percent, like Trump’s for 2018. Thursday’s preliminary 2.9 percent figure could later be revised, although economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics said the most likely direction would be down.

For the rest of the president’s term, economic forecasters agree, that number will decline.

“2018 will be the high-water mark for growth in the Trump administration,” Zandi predicted. He expects the decade-old economic expansion will shrink to 1.1 percent growth in 2020, with a better-than-even chance of recession.

There is a reason most Americans don't feel like they are a part of any economic boom.  Because the boom wasn't for them, it was for the top.

 
 
 
Snuffy
3.3.12  Snuffy  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.8    3 days ago
You're really insisting on how important you consider the economic opinions of Michael Moore...

Bob, please. He was only one in a list in that article.  You had asked for a link to those predictions because  you didn't remember them. I've provided a couple of links and you want to shoot it down because of Michael Moore?  I thought you were better than that.  There are others, perhaps they will mean a bit more to you?

Eric Zitzewitz, former chief economist at the IMF
Larry Summers, former Clinton & Obama chief economist
Simon Johnson, MIT economics professor
Bloomberg Financial News
Steve Rattner, MSNBC economics guru and former Obama Car Czar
Ben White, Politico

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.13  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.12    3 days ago

As I have already indicated, what you're actually proving is that a lot of people, all over the spectrum, thought Trump might do some crazy stuff.

They forgot, at least momentarily, that basic economic policy is run by the Fed, which has maintained a constant cap since the turn-around in 2009-10.

A President doesn't have much direct impact on the economy. I said that when things turned around under Obama, and I've been saying it ever since.

A President has very little means for making the economy better. Congress has to cooperate.

A President can make the economy worse, by means such as ill-advised tariffs. oh, wait....

So... Trump has not crashed the economy.

Yet.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.14  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.9    3 days ago

Yep---most of those are left-wing people or organizations.

Why do you keep focusing on Krugman when we already know he's an asshat?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.15  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.14    3 days ago
Why do you keep focusing on Krugman...?

Two reasons:
- He's very smart. His analyses are astute.
- He makes conservatives froth.

The two are linked. Conservatives have no legitimate answers, which drives them crazy.

 
 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.17  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.15    3 days ago

Talking to you about Krugman always reminds me of a famous Reagan quote.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.18  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.16    3 days ago

You should read more yourself, and count less on sources that you do not read.

At least... I hope you didn't read the Quora article... My opinion would drop even further...

I figured I'd count the number of titles, to get a percentage of errors. But a funny thing happened on the way... I noticed an article on Iceland. I followed that mess fairly closely, and Krugman seemed to be on target.

I re-read. Yup. Spot on.

So Krugman was right on one hundred percent of the articles I checked.

How many did you check?    jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.19  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.18    3 days ago

Remember what Reagan said?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.20  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.19    3 days ago

"Tear down this wall!"

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.21  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.20    3 days ago

Context, Bob, context.

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.3.22  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.21    3 days ago

Bumper stickers always have a ring of truth, even when they're as silly as this.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.3.23  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.3.22    3 days ago

Sometimes the simple truth is silly.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.4  Jack_TX  replied to  bugsy @3    3 days ago
And therein lies the problem.

Not the only problem.

The economy is roaring right now thanks to the policies and de regulations this President has put into place.

It's roaring right now thanks to nearly a decade of mostly being left alone by the govt.

"Remake the economy" sounds alot like "fundamentally transforming this country", and look what that got us....record number of people on food stamps and in poverty, slowest recovery since WWII, and companies fleeing the country in large numbers, just to note a few things, because of the burdensome policies implemented by the Obama admin, including the EPA regulating puddles in your yard after a rain.  Look at that list you put up. Several of the things on there say "I'm gonna take away from those that earned their money and give it to the leeches who think sitting on the couch all day constitutes a full time job". That will be trillions upon trillions of tax payer dollars to appease the gimme gimme crowd of the left.

Warren is definitely popular among the "somebody else should pay my bills" crowd.  But I agree, "remaking" a very robust economy is akin to Mercedes "remaking" their championship Formula 1 cars or the Patriots "remaking" their championship football team.  Things are going great, and we definitely don't want that..... *eyeroll*

Winning doesn't actually suck, and Warren is going to have a hard time convincing most Americans that it does.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    5 days ago

“Economic patriotism”

so democrafs are nationalists again.

If you like national socialism, and corpratism, Warren is for you.  Large Businesses trade being called names for massive corporate welfare.

Good deal for them 

 
 
 
freepress
5  freepress    5 days ago

She has long been a champion of the middle class. She was the real leader in consumer protection from predatory lending, exorbitant bank fees and policies, to advocating for higher pay for middle class Americans.

She is a true leader and she has never waivered in her committment to helping Americans with everyday financial issues.

Nevertheless she persisted and will stick with the notion of the American dream for a strong middle class. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.1  XXJefferson#51  replied to  freepress @5    5 days ago

If her policies were all enacted there will no longer be an American middle class.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.1    5 days ago
If her policies were all enacted there will no longer be an American middle class.

Do you seriously imagine that anyone believes that you know what's in her policies?

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
5.1.2  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.1    5 days ago

What secular progressives believe that I know of her political propaganda proposals is of no concern to me.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @5.1.2    3 days ago
What secular progressives believe that I know of her political propaganda proposals is of no concern to me.

Then why are you posting on a public forum in response to a "secular progressive's" article???

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2  Jack_TX  replied to  freepress @5    3 days ago

She has proven herself willing to sacrifice prosperity for many of us in order to protect the most lazy and most ignorant in our society.   I disagree with that philosophy.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6  seeder  Bob Nelson    5 days ago

Of four Comments posted by NT conservatives, the number rejecting Warren’s propositions is... four. No surprise there.

Of four Comments posted by NT conservatives, the number demonstrating even the slightest knowledge of Warren’s propositions is... zero... No surprise there, either. Sadly.

 
 
 
lib50
6.1  lib50  replied to  Bob Nelson @6    5 days ago

Can't even debate them because they can't debate the policies, they just ramble on about 'socialism' without specifics. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  lib50 @6.1    5 days ago
Can't even debate them because they can't debate the policies, they just ramble on about 'socialism' without specifics. 

It's been this way for so long that I doubt they understand.

Bumper sticker slogans have become an adequate substitute for ideas.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7  It Is ME    3 days ago

Total government control of the population is the best thing on the planet (Warren Idea). jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

It's worked so well throughout the decades ! jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

" But the sheer volume of her plans, and their detail and variety, is forcing her rivals to play catch-up and stake out their own positions."

There is no catch up needed from her rivals. They, like she, will be gung-ho on EVERYTHING she has said on their next TV appearance.

All dozen of them are the same ! They cave in a millisecond !

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @7    3 days ago
Total government control of the population is the best thing on the planet (Warren Idea).

That is a lie.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1    3 days ago
That is a lie.

And which of her proposal leaves out any government intervention and regulation ?

256

"Change My Mind" !

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @7    3 days ago
Total government control of the population is the best thing on the planet (Warren Idea).

That is a lie.

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2    3 days ago

That's your idea of changing my mind ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Really ? jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.2  seeder  Bob Nelson  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.1    3 days ago
changing my mind

Why on Earth would I even want to get that close to your mind?

What a horrible idea!

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.2.2    3 days ago

You must agree with what I said. 

Now your commenting about ME ! jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Good job in changing my mind to vote for lizzy ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8  Freedom Warrior    3 days ago

 Warren is just another phony phucking bitch and I doubt any one of these so-called ideas have ever worked ever in the history of mankind . 

  Plus I doubt she even thinks that they make sense. Other than to appeal to a bunch of fucking losers   One thing for sure they’ve never worked for me and they never will. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

JohnRussell
WallyW
Jim of the Great Northwoods
Bob Nelson


69 visitors