The math doesn't work if they collected $4.1 billion of revenue from incremental

Report problem with this ad

Dec 14, 2018
11:49:08am

chilango All-American

The math doesn't work if they collected $4.1 billion of revenue from incremental

tariffs in just a few months (March thru mid-Sept for steel & aluminum, and July or August thru mid-Sept for the first round of Chinese tariffs), with additional massive tariffs kicking in in late September. Not sure how the number you are quoting could make any sense.

This message has been modified

Originally posted on Dec 14, 2018 at 11:49:08am

Message modified by chilango on Dec 14, 2018 at 11:52:10am

Message modified by chilango on Dec 14, 2018 at 11:53:32am

Message modified by chilango on Dec 14, 2018 at 11:53:56am

Report problem with this ad

chilango

Bio page: chilango
Joined: Jul 23, 2009
Last login: Dec 27, 2020
Total posts: 25,771 (33 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

In the 23 months since Trump's inauguration, the S&P has yielded an average annual return of 7.9%. Below the S&P's

Pimpin4Paradise All-American

12/14/18 10:32am

Anyone who believes the president is directly responsible for the stock market

SandYFan

12/14/18 10:33am

Including the President

CSoul

12/14/18 10:34am

Correct.

SandYFan

12/14/18 10:34am

Then Individual 1 is The Quintessential Idiot

Uncle Bluto

12/14/18 11:29am

I guess I’m an idiot then, thanks for pointing that out.

chazen

12/14/18 12:48pm

The S&P is a horrible indicator for how well the economy is doing

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:36am

I'm just going off Trump's own measure. He's the one that has cited stock market performance as a testament to his

Pimpin4Paradise

12/14/18 10:52am

That's because he is a moron

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:52am

Which was really my initial point.

Pimpin4Paradise

12/14/18 10:54am

I’m confused, you’re down the rabbit hole defending him, yet u recognize that

MatthiasG

12/15/18 5:56pm

Please stop making sense. You’re ruining the whole vibe of this board !

chazen

12/14/18 12:48pm

uh, is that how we measure it?

jwf

12/14/18 10:36am

And it's impossible to have a fiscally irresponsible tax cut. Spending defines

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:36am

So if you pass a huge tax cut without cutting spending, what is that called?

mik3

12/14/18 10:40am

Spending too much

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:40am

And what do you think will happen to the deficit in that scenario, when you

mik3

12/14/18 10:48am

Time to cut spending, looks like.

SandYFan

12/14/18 10:49am

Overdue time to cut spending, actually. It should have been done when the tax

mik3

12/14/18 10:57am

Again, revenue hasn't been cut

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:58am

RE: Again, revenue hasn't been cut

mik3

12/14/18 11:05am

No way anyone could ever know that.

jkccoug

12/14/18 4:04pm

Federal revenues have never been higher,

HenderCoug

12/14/18 5:16pm

Inverse democrat policy

pegushin

12/14/18 10:41am

Here's the funny thing: Democrats passing a tax hike along with increased

mik3

12/14/18 10:49am

No tax hike is ever fiscally responsible

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:56am

That's not accurate. It might not be fiscally conservative, but if it reduces

mik3

12/14/18 10:58am

No, fiscal responsibility is defined by what the money is spent on, now how that

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:08am

Not sure what definition you're using. The uber-libs over at AEI make the point

mik3

12/14/18 11:11am

Let me put it this way

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:19am

That's based on SO's definition of "fiscal responsibility" being limited to

mik3

12/14/18 11:24am

That's based on common sense. Governments have been issuing debt securities

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:33am

So it is your personal definition. I cited AEI. It's okay if it's your

mik3

12/14/18 11:38am

No, both are important. In a household, fiscal responsibility is defined by how

chilango

12/14/18 11:15am

So by your definition, somebody who earns $100k and spends it all on hookers

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:18am

If they make $100 million a year, then sure, that's play money. If they earn

chilango

12/14/18 11:23am

If I make $100k and spend $99k on hookers, I'm spending less than I earned. But

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:34am

Of course you're not, because you need more that $1 K to cover all your other

chilango

12/14/18 11:36am

Obviously in this example you would be a bum living on the street

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:43am

I agree, because you don't earn enough to support your hooker habit.

chilango

12/14/18 11:46am

Are you really arguing that more income would make this responsible?

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:56am

Fiscally speaking, yes. Or at least less irresponsible. Morally or ethically is

chilango

12/14/18 11:58am

Let me put it this way. What is more fiscally responsible:

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 12:05pm

The latter. Now let me put it this way — which of these is more fiscally

chilango

12/14/18 12:20pm

Actually, in the context of government, the first is preferred

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 12:56pm

So you think it's more fiscally responsible for a government to spend more than

chilango

12/14/18 1:05pm

No, I said it's irresponsible for the government to accumulate assets from

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 1:10pm

Now this I can agree with.

chilango

12/14/18 1:13pm

The problem is that the govt has cut revenues and increased spending. It is

chilango

12/14/18 10:41am

I read an article yesterday saying receipts were essentially the same before and

byubyu

12/14/18 10:45am

If you exclude the revenue increases from increased tariffs, which are just

chilango

12/14/18 10:54am

And tax cuts have no effect on whether the economy expands or not?

rcbyufan

12/14/18 10:56am

Increased deficit spending does, which can take the form of tax cuts combined

chilango

12/14/18 11:00am

It's certainly not proven that they cut revenues. That's a faith position.

rcbyufan

12/14/18 10:45am

Not really, it's a math question.

chilango

12/14/18 10:55am

Tariff revenues are less than 1% of budgeted revenues

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:57am

They're much higher now than in many decades, and without them, revenues would

chilango

12/14/18 11:01am

Ha. You really believe that? The overall economy is so complex there is

rcbyufan

12/14/18 10:59am

"A few months before they passed, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the

chilango

12/14/18 11:39am

CBO forecasts are not anywhere near science. Closer to astrology. Now I'm not

rcbyufan

12/14/18 11:44am

CBO forecasts are non-partisan & infinitely closer to science than to astrology.

chilango

12/14/18 11:51am

If you taught 1000 people to do CBO forecasts and then locked then in separate

rcbyufan

12/14/18 12:01pm

Depends on the economists and the astrologers. And more importantly, every one

chilango

12/14/18 12:23pm

Ha. True. I'm obviously taking an extreme position here. I don't mean to malign

rcbyufan

12/14/18 2:09pm

No revenues have been cut

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:55am

The government revenue is up 3.5% year on year. Nice try.

AZ Coug

12/14/18 4:32pm

"Let's decrease tax revenues and not touch spending" being sold as not being

mik3

12/14/18 10:50am

The tax cuts did not decrease revenues

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:54am

Would tax revenues had been higher with higher tax rates? There's your

mik3

12/14/18 10:57am

No. How much money the government seizes from the private sector

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 10:59am

That's not how it works. By the way, your faith based position is just as

rcbyufan

12/14/18 11:01am

I understand there are dynamic effects, and lowering tax rates will have an

mik3

12/14/18 11:08am

Yes they did, they are lower than they would have been without the tax cuts.

chilango

12/14/18 11:03am

Incorrect. Customs duties are only $3.1 billion higher than projected

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:16am

Nope. "A few months before they passed, the Congressional Budget Office

chilango

12/14/18 11:27am

And incremental tariff revenues collected were over $4 billion as of mid-Sept.,

chilango

12/14/18 11:33am

Read the Treasury report. Tariffs are $41.3 billion out of $3.3 Trillion in

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:38am

The math doesn't work if they collected $4.1 billion of revenue from incremental

chilango

12/14/18 11:49am

The figure I'm quoting comes directly from the Treasury report this week

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:55am

Ramped debt. Period

MatthiasG

12/15/18 5:53pm

Fiscally irresponsible? Cut all taxes for anyone earning more than 150,000/year.

Y2k

12/14/18 11:58pm

Wasting recession fighting tools at peak stock mkt, yeah, such thing exists

MatthiasG

12/15/18 5:43pm

A tax cut means more money in my pocket. I'm done caring about how much those

byubyu

12/14/18 10:37am

A sour market is money out of your pocket. A lot more than the pittance you probably saw from a

Pimpin4Paradise

12/14/18 10:53am

No it's not.

byubyu

12/14/18 10:55am

A sour market is a great opportunity to put money in your pocket

Skeptical Optimist

12/14/18 11:27am

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Uncle Bluto

12/14/18 11:30am

The S&P is not the economy.

zonacougar

12/14/18 11:03am

Markets don’t wait for inauguration, start your measurement on 11/9/2016

DirtyWater

12/14/18 11:04am

Someone has bought into the Trump idea that his administration started on

mik3

12/14/18 11:14am

You don’t think markets started pricing before he was officially in office?

itsuptoyou

12/14/18 12:25pm

To an extent, sure. But I don't buy that everything that happened starting then

mik3

12/14/18 1:54pm

I seem to remember a certain liberal economist named Kruger telling the

Monomachos

12/14/18 2:37pm

I think the numbers are different if you do it from the election results instead

AFewThoughts

12/14/18 11:37am

Oops looks like I didn't scan all the comments see argument above. I'm a hack!

AFewThoughts

12/14/18 11:39am

Very biased.it's more fair to measure market performance from election night.

roseyscenario

12/14/18 2:47pm

Haven't tax revenues gone up? What are you talking about?

byuwahoo

12/14/18 3:46pm

No, down slightly. And spending up. Deficit is mushrooming.

chilango

12/14/18 3:52pm

I know spending is up, in part because of increased interest rates.

byuwahoo

12/14/18 4:02pm

Interest rates impact private spending, not government spending

Sumguy

12/15/18 7:34am

Dead wrong.

AZ Coug

12/14/18 4:46pm

Do you have any data to support that claim?

Pimpin4Paradise

12/14/18 5:04pm

Yep. Easy to find online. Up 3.5% year on year.

AZ Coug

12/14/18 5:07pm

RE: Yep. Easy to find online. Up 3.5% year on year.

Sandstone Cougar

12/14/18 5:20pm

Wrong. Here is the actual data, which I also posted above: "A few months before

chilango

12/14/18 8:43pm

Yes, you are dead wrong. Actual data with links posted above.

chilango

12/14/18 8:45pm

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad