Hello, I’m certainly not trying to roast anyone—just sharing some perspective. So with that, most of the Dow surge is driven by J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs, on the promise of less financial regulations, notably the repeal of Dodd-Frank. And what about the massive Bond sell-off? The spike in yields marked the largest two-week rise since November 2001. Expectations the Trump administration will move to sharply cut taxes and increase spending, making for larger deficits, and higher interests rates. SS, Medicare (nondiscretionary spending), and the Military (over 50% of discretionary spending) make up over 75% of the Federal budget. Due to an ageing population coupled with recipients living longer, even if you do nothing to SS & Medicare (a Trump promise), the cost will increase. Meanwhile, Trump plans to decrease revenues (i.e., massive tax cuts-mostly going to the top 5%) and spend more on the military and a 1 Trillion on infrastructure.
…show more content…
Earlier you alluded to Supply-side economics-or now commonly called, “Trickle-Down”. It is worth noting that George H.W. Bush while debating Reagan in the 1980 primary referred to it as “voodoo economics.” I think he was right. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming and we had the largest middle-class in US history, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate over 90%. Today, the richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of around 24%. Lower taxes on the wealthily has not lead to the promise of robust growth—but for the record, I’m not one of those “soak the rich” advocates. After all, I’m near the top 10% and would consider myself in the economically, “thriving” category. Moreover, I can understand the idea of correlation, does not always mean causation and with all things related to the economy, there are just too many variables to ever effectively do a controlled
Earlier you alluded to Supply-side economics-or now commonly called, “Trickle-Down”. It is worth noting that George H.W. Bush while debating Reagan in the 1980 primary referred to it as “voodoo economics.” I think he was right. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the economy was booming and we had the largest middle-class in US history, the wealthiest Americans paid a top income tax rate over 90%. Today, the richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of around 24%. Lower taxes on the wealthily has not lead to the promise of robust growth—but for the record, I’m not one of those “soak the rich” advocates. After all, I’m near the top 10% and would consider myself in the economically, “thriving” category. Moreover, I can understand the idea of correlation, does not always mean causation and with all things related to the economy, there are just too many variables to ever effectively do a controlled