Dad Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Did Trump just hire someone straight outta Goldman funking Sachs to be Head of Treasury? What the funk happened to killing off the elites? I'm so disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Did Trump just hire someone straight outta Goldman funking Sachs to be Head of Treasury? What the funk happened to killing off the elites? I'm so disappointed."There will be a tax cut for the middle class," banker, movie producer and former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin told CNBC's Squawk Box in his first public comments on the incoming administration's economic priorities. "Any tax cuts that we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions to pay for it."Tax deductions for charitable contributions would still be allowed, he said. There would be a cap on mortgage interest payments, though "some deductibility" would continue, said Mnuchin.The proposed changes also include cutting the nation's 35% top business tax rate to 15%, along with an effort to encourage repatriation of the estimated $1 trillion that large U.S. corporations hold in foreign subsidiaries to avoid the domestic tax bite. Trump has proposed a special 10% rate on overseas funds the companies shift back to the U.S.Yes, but he's been with Trump for a long time and toeing the Trump line on everything I'm curious though, who should be a Treasury Sec if not a banker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Someone who wasn't involved with the foremost company that was responsible for the housing market collapse, maybe? Someone whose bank wasn't foreclosing the house of an 89 year old widow? Someone who isn't the scum of the earth??? What the funk. This is indefensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Someone who wasn't involved with the foremost company that was responsible for the housing market collapse, maybe? Someone whose bank wasn't foreclosing the house of an 89 year old widow? Someone who isn't the scum of the earth??? What the funk. This is indefensible.I voted for the Tax Plan, I don't get care if he needs to put a rabid dog in power to get it through I'm not defending Mnuchin. I'm defending the policy. I'll get my pitchfork out if and when he backtracks on it "There will be a tax cut for the middle class," banker, movie producer and former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin told CNBC's Squawk Box in his first public comments on the incoming administration's economic priorities. "Any tax cuts that we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions to pay for it." I voted to restrict the power of people like my father who spend their life in New York making 7 figures casually a year and don't care about the rest of us. That's still happening I forgot we were electing the pope for Treasury Secretary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Did Trump just hire someone straight outta Goldman funking Sachs to be Head of Treasury? What the funk happened to killing off the elites? I'm so disappointed.I mean Goldman Sachs owns Hillary so we're basically equally funked as if she had got elected. Hooray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 I mean Goldman Sachs owns Hillary so we're basically equally funked as if she had got elected. Hooray. "There will be a tax cut for the middle class, any tax cuts that we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions to pay for it." Why the hell are you people complaining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Because there's more to being treasurer than just tax cuts? The type of person he is directly suggests the direction he'll seek to take things, and that's generally in a poor direction for us. What happens if he removes all the regulations and contingencies put in place to prevent another 2008 crisis? Or Housing regulations to allow more risky morgates? What does Trump's tax plan do to the poor? I've seen the phrase 'tax breaks for the middle class and up' but what about the majority of the population, the lower class. How does the plan help them? I've seen some places suggest they actually end up paying more taxes. Because the poor paying more tax whilst the rich pay less is not something I would find agreeable. It doesn't matter so much if the rich will or won't be better off, it matters if they are contributing there fair share. One policy, that may or may not achieve what people want from a tax system, does not justify the treasuer by himself. Because any treasurer could do this specific tax policy, it's the kind of stuff that he would personally drive for that's scary. And many wouldn't not trust a former Goldman Sachs official to treat the banks in a way that keeps them from threating society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ivanka-trump-climate-czar-232031 To you guys who desperately want some kinda climate change concessions from Trump *rolls eyes* looks like you're in luck Because there's more to being treasurer than just tax cuts? The type of person he is directly suggests the direction he'll seek to take things, and that's generally in a poor direction for us. What happens if he removes all the regulations and contingencies put in place to prevent another 2008 crisis? Or Housing regulations to allow more risky morgates? What does Trump's tax plan do to the poor? I've seen the phrase 'tax breaks for the middle class and up' but what about the majority of the population, the lower class. How does the plan help them? I've seen some places suggest they actually end up paying more taxes. Because the poor paying more tax whilst the rich pay less is not something I would find agreeable. It doesn't matter so much if the rich will or won't be better off, it matters if they are contributing there fair share. One policy, that may or may not achieve what people want from a tax system, does not justify the treasuer by himself. Because any treasurer could do this specific tax policy, it's the kind of stuff that he would personally drive for that's scary. And many wouldn't not trust a former Goldman Sachs official to treat the banks in a way that keeps them from threating society.There's a pretty simple way to look at this. There's something called a multiplier effect, when the government cuts taxes or raises government expenditure, the change in GDP isn't a 1:1 ratio. For Tax cuts it's approximately equal to the MPC (marginal propensity to consume, ie how likely you are to spend the money you get)/(1-MPC) Basically you want a large MPC. (For gov exp, it's just 1/MPC) When Trump talks about cutting taxes for the middle class, but not overall for the upper class, he's not pandering here. He's being quite smart. MPC is often wrongly homogenized. There's a very clear distinction in MPC between wage classes. Typically the richer you are, the lower your MPC is. The ideal would be to personalize each person's tax breaks based on their individual MPC to get the best results, but that's infeasible. Offering Tax Cuts to the very rich, offsets any gains made by the middle class spending. The principle that Trump is betting on is an equivalence statement. x% of y = 1/2 x% of 2y He wants to increase GDP with his tax cuts (and later gov exp) enough to offset the loss of revenue from the tax cut. It's quite doable to go to a 5-6% growth rate if we play this right. And to do that is to cut off the decaying limbs on the MPC, ie the rich It's debatable weather taxing the rich is actually smart here. Right now the goal is to cut taxes for the middle and lower classes and leave the rich untouched, but taxing the rich and lowering taxes on everyone else (gag socialism) would potentially work too There is an important distinction to be made here. I'm talking income taxes here. Corporate taxes are a different beast and need to be dealt with by a SSE method The goal of gov exp in some part is tied into this, MPC/(1-MPC) is an approx the real value is Complex Tax Multiplier = MPC /(1 − (MPC × (1 − MPT) + MPI + MPG + MPM))Where,MPC is marginal propensity to consume;MPT is marginal propensity to tax;MPI is marginal propensity to invest;MPG is marginal propensity of government expenditures; andMPM is marginal propensity to import. MPC Goes upMPG goes upMPT goes down MPI/MPM are more complicated Alaska certifies its results: Trump 163,487 (51.3%), Clinton 116,454 (36.5%), Others 38,767 (12.2%) Kansas certifies its results: Trump 671,018 (56.7%), Clinton 427,005 (36.1%), Others 86,379 (7.3%) One of 12 states to trend Dem vs. '12 Ohio certifies its results: Trump 2,841,005 (51.7%), Clinton 2,394,164 (43.6%), Others 261,318 (4.8%) Massachusetts certifies its results: Clinton 1,995,196 (60.0%), Trump 1,090,893 (32.8%), Others 238,957 (7.2%) Another of the the 12 (Romney was MA's gov) Minnesota certifies: Clinton 1,367,716 (46.4%), Trump 1,322,951 (44.9%), Others 254,146 (8.6%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 I respect and understand most people don't share my views on marriage No, you don't respect most people who don't share your views on marriage. It's easier to just say that you respect people with different views, but everything else you say completely contradicts that with how much you mock people for getting mad, as if you would prefer if people never got mad about anything without your express permission. If you want us to believe you when you claim to respect people who don't share your views, do something other than laugh at people with different views and then claim that you totally weren't making fun of them when that's exactly what you were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Interesting note: Goldman-Sachs banned employees from donating to Trump but not to Hillary. No, you don't respect most people who don't share your views on marriage. It's easier to just say that you respect people with different views, but everything else you say completely contradicts that with how much you mock people for getting mad, as if you would prefer if people never got mad about anything without your express permission. If you want us to believe you when you claim to respect people who don't share your views, do something other than laugh at people with different views and then claim that you totally weren't making fun of them when that's exactly what you were doing. He didn't say he respects and understands most people who don't share his views on marriage, he said he respects and understands most people don't share his views on marriage, not the people but the fact that most people don't share his views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 No, you don't respect most people who don't share your views on marriage. It's easier to just say that you respect people with different views, but everything else you say completely contradicts that with how much you mock people for getting mad, as if you would prefer if people never got mad about anything without your express permission. If you want us to believe you when you claim to respect people who don't share your views, do something other than laugh at people with different views and then claim that you totally weren't making fun of them when that's exactly what you were doing.Care to show where I have been disparaging towards people who don't share my view on marriage? I don't think I've once bashed the Obergefell decision. Nor would I ever. It's not for me. That's really it. You conflated two statements there. Going from marriage to views in general. For example, I will never, and I mean never, have a shred of respect for anyone who defends abortion with respect to that discussion I'm fine being a bigot about abortion Also saying the LGBT movement is going to sheet doesn't have any bearing on how I feel about marriage inequality inb4 you bring that up. The movement blows atm. It doesn't look after all it's parts properly and has a flawed core holding it together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 You have no idea what a bigot is, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 You have no idea what a bigot is, do you?Being unable to accept others having a view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Interesting note: Goldman-Sachs banned employees from donating to Trump but not to Hillary. He didn't say he respects and understands most people who don't share his views on marriage, he said he respects and understands most people don't share his views on marriage, not the people but the fact that most people don't share his views. Ah, thank you. That's a better way of explaining it. Being unable to accept others having a view https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" I'm pretty sure that "bigotry" is not the right way to describe opposing abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 Ah, thank you. That's a better way of explaining it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" I'm pretty sure that "bigotry" is not the right way to describe opposing abortion.Depends, I've met people who say it's an expression of free-speech and a method of expressing one's femininity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 Well, I'm not a woman, so I really have no business trying to say whether or not a woman is right to call it those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 Well, I'm not a woman, so I really have no business trying to say whether or not a woman is right to call it those things.Wondering what your thoughts are on the Carrier thing. They're keeping their jobs here. But the interesting part is that pence's old LT gov offered them an even larger sum than pence and Trump have now and Carrier turned it down So basically Trump threatened them into submission. Do you support this? Context It would cost them about 65 M USD to keep it here (instead of making it in Mexico) Trump offered them 7M USD over 10 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 …I literally just said I have no place to judge if a woman is in the right, so I have no idea why that makes you wonder what my issues are about an issue I haven't paid attention to. If it's like you said, that Trump had to threaten them into submission, then I think the "threaten" part is automatically not going to make me support that, because based on the way you're presenting it, I'm assuming that Trump effectively held them hostage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 …I literally just said I have no place to judge if a woman is in the right, so I have no idea why that makes you wonder what my issues are about an issue I haven't paid attention to. If it's like you said, that Trump had to threaten them into submission, then I think the "threaten" part is automatically not going to make me support that, because based on the way you're presenting it, I'm assuming that Trump effectively held them hostage.Threaten = 35% tariff ~= We'll make sure you don't make a dime selling anything to US For the record, I absolutely support it. Obama did something similar with Caterpiller back in 09. Though the threat was different Also the compensation for each worker is a lot lower w/ Trump than Obama. Personally have no sympathy for companies that are willing to lay of thousands of loyal people to make a buck I'm not tryna trap you if that's the worry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 I'm not tryna trap you if that's the worry That's exactly what I worry about every time you say "I'm curious what you also think about _____" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 That's exactly what I worry about every time you say "I'm curious what you also think about _____"It's a different sorta wealth distribution than Sanders Sanders would wealth distribute with far left Trump does with far right As a Econ major this stuff just interests me. No hidden motives haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 I will say he's sounding a bit more presidential than before. Still not there for me yet, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 I love his Sec Def pick. Even if I wish he was a bit more conciliatory towards Gov. Kasich. If Trump wants a filibuster poof senate he needs Kasich to run in 2018 He sounds like a Southern Democrat, he's honestly everything I could have wanted in a president. Maybe the funking potholes might finally get fixed around here "In Cincinnati, Trump's rally crowd loudly booed Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Trump attacked him for not supporting him but said Kasich did call" This is bad, this is the guy who's gonna help you pass your sheet, you need to bury the hatchet (and I really don't like Gov. Kasich's policies, not one bit) Wtf did he blackmail them with http://www.businessinsider.com/general-mattiss-best-quotes-2016-11/#the-first-time-you-blow-someone-away-is-not-an-insignificant-event-that-said-there-are-some-a-holes-in-the-world-that-just-need-to-be-shot-there-are-hunters-and-there-are-victims-by-your-discipline-you-will-decide-if-you-are-a-hunter-or-a-victim-4 ^^ our new Sec. Def Trump considering 2 current Dems for his KC. Would likely replace to be GOP senators... that's 54 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/trump-economic-team-mnuchin-ross.html?ribbon-ad-idx=9&rref=business/economy&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Economy&pgtype=article Critical of Trump but explains what he wants to do, a good read overall http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/19/opinion/what-i-saw-at-the-revolution.html "I had enormous fun thinking about a presidential candidacy and count it as one of my great life experiences. Although I must admit that it still doesn't compare with completing one of the great skyscrapers of Manhattan, I cannot rule out a bid for the presidency" http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-steve-bannon-peter-thiel-214490 some good anti-trump fearmongering for my leftist friends to take solace in Here were the basic details of the deal: Vice President-Elect Mike Pence, who is also Governor of Indiana, offered $10 million in tax breaks to Carrier. They turned it down originally, since it would cost them $65 million to keep the jobs in Indiana. What changed their mind? Trump reportedly threatened the withdrawal of federal defense contracts from Carrier’s parent company, United Technologies, which has $6.7 billion in business with the feds. Trump also threatened to increase tariffs on companies reimporting product after shipping jobs out of the country. So no, Senator Sanders was talking out of his ass as usual. Trump did not "buckle" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted December 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 So no, Senator Sanders was talking out of his ass as usual.Source, please. Also, I need to vent a bit; Am I the only one around here concerned about our environment? I mean, Trump picked (or is considering picking) Myron Ebell, a prominent climate change denier, for head of the EPA -- that should be raising alarms around the country. But no, I don't get a bit of reporting on it or the consequences he (Ebell) might have. Because climate change is real, has been proven to be real and (thus) backed by not only over 90% of scientists, but almost (if not completely) every major political party in the world except the United State's Republican Party. The "evidence" you see that denies it is just peddled by big corporations, donors, and special interests who benefit from industries that cause climate change. One example of these is the oil industry. Now, one thing I wonder is if the oil industry is such a great industry, why can't the billionaires who run the oil companies invest in projects that can make energy without harming the environment? The clearly have the money to fund it and to hire people who do the research, do the innovating, make the devices, and run it without seriously damaging their immense fortunes. So why have they continued to just fight back and spend millions to lobby and promote misinformation about climate change, when they can divert the same resources towards a cleaner energy enterprise? I don't know. But something has to be done about the environment. What do you think? Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/bernie-sanders-carrier-just-showed-corporations-how-to-beat-donald-trump/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.98d2eddac4ba $700,000 per year over 10 years for 800 jobs that would have moved. $875/job/year. Seems like a pretty cheap deal, as econ dev goes. And me made them take a loss, Bernie is getting senile about details he doesn't know Source, please. Also, I need to vent a bit; Am I the only one around here concerned about our environment? I mean, Trump picked (or is considering picking) Myron Ebell, a prominent climate change denier, for head of the EPA -- that should be raising alarms around the country. But no, I don't get a bit of reporting on it or the consequences he (Ebell) might have. Because climate change is real, has been proven to be real and (thus) backed by not only over 90% of scientists, but almost (if not completely) every major political party in the world except the United State's Republican Party. The "evidence" you see that denies it is just peddled by big corporations, donors, and special interests who benefit from industries that cause climate change. One example of these is the oil industry. Now, one think I wonder is if the oil industry is such a great industry, why can't the billionaires who run the oil companies invest in projects that can make energy without harming the environment? The clearly have the money to fund it and to hire people who do the research, do the innovating, make the devices, and run it without seriously damaging their immense fortunes. So why have they continued to just fight back and spend millions to lobby and promote misinformation about climate change, when they can divert the same resources towards a cleaner energy enterprise? I don't know. But something has to be done about the environment. What do you think? Discuss.Wind Energy and Solar Energy can power a whole city? Great. On windless and cloudy days, you can explain to NYC why nothing will work Cut that sheet out man Trump is backing Nuclear Energy, the ONLY alternate energy that's worth a damn Trump playing big ball with China now Make sense seeing that Romney is all but confirmed SOS https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-spoke-with-taiwanese-president-a-major-break-with-decades-of-us-policy-on-china/2016/12/02/b98d3a22-b8ca-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumpdiplomacy-6pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.b942c1ecc121 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.