Democrat Conor Lamb declares victory in Pennsylvania race

We haven't had 4% growth in more than a decade and most predictions are we will stay near 2% growth in the next decade.

I don't speak for Democrats. I'm an independent. With that said though, the Republicans are in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Expecting the Democrats to do something about government spending isn't realistic when they don't have control. Expecting the Republicans to do something about the rate of increased government spending isn't realistic either though. They just added $1.5 Trillion to the debt.

 

Let's not get this twisted. The tax cut is not about who pays what. The very unpopular tax cut was sold to the American people as a way to grow the economy and bring in better paying jobs, at the cost of adding a huge amount to the debt, because it was supposed to pay for itself with 3-4% growth in the GDP. We haven't had that kind of growth in more than a decade and most economists are not predicting that we will hit 4% growth in the next decade. So, this tax cut will not pay for itself. They never do.

I know you are aware that legislators can craft laws in any way they wish. If they want to stimulate the economy, putting more money into the hands of those that will spend it is the way to go. However, that is NOT what this tax bill did. It put the vast majority of the money into the hands of corporations and the very wealthy. Corporations have already shown us they will buy back their own stock with their tax break, and that is known to stagnate the economy. Less than 16% of the tax cut is going toward higher wages… wages needed for increased spending into the economy, in order to grow it and pay for the tax cut.

However, all that tax cut talk is really not the point. The point is, a Democrat won an election in a VERY gerrymandered district, spending much less money than his opponent, in a district Trump won by 20%, because he was a moderate. Moderates are being elected in swing districts, and incumbent Republicans cannot possibly claim to be any kind of moderate, because they added $1.5 Trillion to the debt to give a tax cut that won't pay for itself. If moderates are being elected, and they are, then incumbent Republicans have a problem.

 

We haven’t had supply side economics in over a decade.

If you believe the static analysis of the JCT based on 2% growth then $150B (3% of spending) will be added per year. If you believe based on history that growth will be 4% that goes away.

What I and everyone expect is for those who express concern over a problem to propose solutions. The D’s are concerned about debt - then propose spending cuts. That would get bipartisan support.

 

It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is that the GDP grows at 3-4% a year, in order to pay for the tax cut, and we are NOT seeing 3-4% annual grown the the GDP and that level of growth is not predicted by economists. So, the idea that the tax cut will pay for itself is fantasy.

Again, the Democrats do not have control of the House, the Senate, or the White House. If spending cuts are going to come, then it will be through Republicans. They are not proposing spending cuts, unless you count Paul Ryan wanting to gut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Let them try that, and we'll not only see a blue wave, we'll see a revolt. Instead of offering spending cuts, Republicans are looking to spend more on defense and to build a wall. Plus, they just added more than a trillion dollars to the debt…. party of fiscal conservatives, right?

 

The tax reform has just been implemented. I’ve shown the Reagan economic data. The Clinton data shows a more rapid response.

Why is it that you refuse to correctly state that the prediction of $1.5T is over 10 years which is $150B per year (3% of federal spending) ??

 

It doesn't matter if it is over 10 years or 100 years. It was sold as being able to pay for itself, AND to provide higher wages and better paying jobs, which is not happening. Republicans passed this tax bill without bipartisan support. Now, Americans are electing moderate Democrats in deeply red, gerrymandered districts. The writing is on the wall with the Conor Lamb win. You either see it or you don't.

 

Of course it matters - it's a 3% per year difference based on a gross underestimation of growth. It was sold on economic growth. The regulations reforms have been ongoing but the tax reform began less than 3 months ago. Americans understand economic growth and the refusal of the D party to support economic growth. They also understand that the D's place a higher priority on illegal aliens than US citizens. Lamb was not selected via primary and ran as a moderate R. We shall see if he keeps his promises and actually stands up to the D party leadership.

 

Grats on your DINO win

 

Hopefully Lamb actually is a DINO and not an illiberal regressive dressed in a T Rex costume.

 

It remains to be seen that there was a "gross underestimation of growth." It also remains to be seen that we will hit sustained 3-4% GDP growth over the next 10 years. We're actually overdue for a recession.

I'd caution claiming that you know what Americans understand.

Lamb decidedly did not run as a moderate Republican. He's just not a hyper-liberal Democrat. THAT is the point you need to see. Moderate Democrats are beating Republicans in historic, gerrymandered, deeply Republican districts. If you think moderate Democrats are going to vote with far right Republicans, think again.

 

This is how the Dems will take Congress this fall.

 

Why are we overdue for a recession ?? We are actually overdue for a recovery which the Trump supply side growth policies will enable.

The Lamb district is going away. Let’s see how Lamb acts in Congress and if he survives a primary in the new district.

 

Close but not quite.

Every time Red or Blue wins an election the Establishment wins and the Oligarchs and international financiers take a little more control of America.

 

They did after the Gingrich/Kasich and the Bush43 tax rate cuts inspite of the CBO predicitions the deficits would explode. It was tax REVENUES that exploded producing surpluses in the former and a paltry $161B with the latter.

It is proven in the last two attempts putting people back to work creating more tax payers through supply side cuts not government spending and hand outs along with restrained spending growth is the formula for fiscal responsibility. A stock buy back increases increases the companies long term capital positions and allow for more expansion and growth and those who sold that stock now have that capital to invest in other growth.

The $97.5 billion in buybacks are good for the economy and the middle class.

The reduced corporate tax rate is estimated to increase U.S. corporate profits by more than 20%. Corporations have a choice concerning what to do with the extra money. Many companies have already invested in their employees by raising starting wages for new workers and by giving bonuses to current employees.

Beyond that, corporations can either make investments in the economy, pay shareholders higher dividends or buy back a portion of their outstanding shares of stock. In real life, the corporations’ first choice is generally to make investments in plants, equipment upgrades and R&D in order to grow at a faster pace while staying ahead of their competitors.


But suppose a company finds it does not have any profitable investment opportunities? In addition, suppose the company owners (the stockholders) say that they, personally, have better investment opportunities outside the company. In that case, the corporation will pay larger dividends to stockholders. In turn, the stockholders take that increased dividend money and reinvest it back into the economy by purchasing stocks of other companies. This, too, will help grow the the U.S. economy.

Occasionally, usually for tax reasons, stockholders do not want a cash dividend. In that case, they would rather the corporation purchase some of its outstanding shares of stock and hold onto those shares. Corporate buybacks tend to increase the price of a share of stock by about the same amount as the dividend. There is no tax liability, at least until investors/stockholders finally choose to sell their shares.


Shareholders who sell their stock back to the company or on the open market do so because they see better investment opportunities elsewhere. For that reason, they sell their shares and then reinvest the proceeds into another company that needs new capital to expand. Either case results in new capital being created and going to growth-oriented firms that need the capital.

On a more individual level, that portion of the GOP tax cut aimed directly at the middle class will stimulate demand for goods and services. At the same time, the tax cuts aimed at corporations will stimulate supply. The result is that the economy will be able to grow with little inflationary pressure.

That’s exactly what the tax cut was meant to accomplish: grow the economy, keep prices stable and help the middle class. And that’s precisely what partisan opponents of the tax cut consistently fail to understand.
https://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/business-of-government/share-buybacks-help-economy-98825/

Of course they can make the claim certainly Democraticts cant with their fiscal record. Lamb won because he mocedbin opposition to the DNC how many Democrats are going to do that? And as the economy continuess to improve and people are working and earning more they'll vote with their pocketbooks.

 

My kids are in their 30's and 40's and reforming SS and Medicare are HIGH on their list of policies they want passed. The Democrats and Obama wouldn't even bring it up. And again the Republicans have not added that to the deficit. That is merely a CBO estimate of over TEN YEARS and they are historically inaccurate and again the Democrats took the last Bush/Republican deficit of a paltry $161B for FY2007 to their WHOPPING $1,400B in just TWO YEARS and kept it over $1,000B for the next three years and only because the Republicans took by the House and forced sequestered did it come down.

 

Exactly why I don't give any post of yours credence.

Associating R's with NAZIS and Islam is not only incorrect, it just shows your ignorance.

 

Exactly! That's why we don't need anymore alt-left left-wing Socialists policies.

 

Yes. Just like your post did. Glad you finally see the ignorance of your post.

Notice i didn't say that is Rs, but equated it to be same as your post.

 

I think you should understand that Conor Lamb ran against cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and for affordable health care in a deeply red district that Trump won by 20 points, and beat the Republican candidate. What your kids want may or may not be what the majority wants. Reform can take many forms. One thing that would go a long way toward helping Social Security is removing caps, but I don't imagine that is the kind of reform you mentioned.

We don't have to push things out ten years to see what the tax cut is doing to our country. We're not seeing higher wages in a country where most make less than $50K and have less than $1000 in savings including retirement. We are seeing one time bonuses, and even then, only about 3 million got bonuses in a population of 300+ million. Something came out in the West Virginia teachers' strike that was important. Even though many of the teachers were getting approximately a $1000 raise each year, their health care costs went up $300 a month. If the tax cut had actually been designed to help the economy, rather than rich campaign donors, it would have been written very differently. The problem is this time, Americans are aware that they are going to collectively pay back more than a trillion dollars to temporarily get an extra $50 twice a month, or so… and it was reflected in the Lamb election.

 

The economy is cyclic and one business cycle averages about 69 months. We've been in an unusually long expansion made possible by near zero interest rates and low inflation. The expansion started in 2009. It's 2018. I think you can do the math. A nine year expansion is unusual when the average cycle is less than 6 years. Thus we are overdue for a recession.

I find the Lamb district election to be very interesting, in that Republicans were willing to spend a whole lot of money backing Saccone despite redistricting.

 

There is no fundamental reason for a recession. There has been no expansion. An economy growing at 2% is treading water with a zero interest rate life preserver. The Fed would not raise rates (as they are now) because the economy (employment) was not performing. The expansion is just beginning after the Obama stagnation Presidency.

D’s outspent the R’s 5 to 1 with most of the money coming from outside the state. The election remains uncertified.

 

There HAS been an expansion since 2009. From your favored source, WSJ.

U.S. Economic Expansion Could Become Longest on Record
Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal see 43% probability of a recession in the next three years

The Fed raised interest rates 3 times in 2017. They expect to increase rates again 3 times in 2018. The FED desperately needs higher interest rates because if they stay near zero, they cannot be cut in a recession, and that is exactly how the FED fights recession- cut interest rates and quantitative easings.

Lamb has 600+ more votes than Saccone, in a district Trump won by 20 points. Let them recount. The point that the electorate has changed remains.

Your information about campaign spending is inaccurate.

 

2% (1% is built in due to population growth) with zero interest rate is treading water. In no way is that considered an economic expansion. It's positive growth but at a pathetic rate.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/republ...e-in-pennsylvania-special-election-1520164801

 

Strawman no one is running on cuts to benefits EXCEPT Democrats who want to means test and cut benefits the more you earn IF you get it at all. REFORMING SS and Medicare and Medicaid is what is needed and the only thing the Democrats ever offer is make it bigger and more expensive and cut benefits for the higher earners and those who saved a lot for their retirements. And what my kids aren't necessarily what the minority wants either. LOTS of their friends voice the same, they are working and paying into the system and they if it is not reformed there won't be anything their. They are also trying to save in their own 401k's and seeing that if they have more of that money in an investment account they would have a lot more at retirement.

I don't care what CBO says about it I care about previous historical results.

Last labor report we were on for a 2.5% annual rate. It was increase in spite of the fact we have a good number on people entering the workforce. And those people come off being government expense to being government revenue. And the teachers portion of their insurance went up about 3% between 2007 and 2017 from just under $500 to about $600 a month. That actually sounds a whole lot better than the rest of us who saw incomes drop during that period. So don't think citing government workers who did the best of all us as your example is not going to score many points with me. What Americans who know recent economic history know that if history repeats itself incomes will be rising long term employment looks good and with everyone working and fewer people on government subsistence and more people EARNING money and spending it is great for the economy and their lives.

So the closer we get to the mid-terms and if the economy keeps improving how will the Democrats make the argument to go back to the disastrous Democrat fiscal and economic policies of 2008-2015. Other than play the politics of jealousy and envy.

 

One that could barely keep it's head above water. The worst recovery and employment in modern history. The worst fiscal policy in modern history. What are you trying to brag about it.