Trump vows to win 'battles' ahead, at home and abroad

The guy rates his first 100 days as productive, and gave himself an A last week for his performance. He's entirely clueless.

After Trump, nobody should complain anymore about how many Executive Orders

Remember when the Republicans absolutely lost their s**t because Obama signed executive orders? When they called him a 'king' and a 'dictator'? Remember when Trump himself accused Obama as just wanting to play golf and not work with congress? Well it turns out that Obama actually signed less executive orders in his presidency than any president in the past 120 years, and Trump signed more in his first 100 days than any president since WWII. And yet, not only does the right not say anything, some of their leaders are defending Trump on this.

The forefathers are rolling in their graves from the hypocrisy.

Since Trump lied about "insurance for everybody", why should we believe him now on this? Or anything?

After Trump, nobody should complain anymore about how many Executive Orders or how much US Presidents spend going away for the weekend

Instead, he declared himself "thrilled" to be far from "the Washington swamp"

Is he admitting to having built a swamp?

its "fake news" journalists.

So he's thrilled to be away from Bannon, Spicer and Kelly Ann?

Trump will never change, he's a campaigner at heart, a showman who loves talking to his supporters and watch them react at his (dad) jokes. He just loves the attention too much.

I initially thought he were more of a fighter and that he would do his utmost to convince many/most of his detractors (us public, media, politics, economists etc) that they were wrong and that he was indeed the best president for the us, but he hasn't. I think he has already given up actually, just doesn't like dealing with adversity (and doesn't know how to handle it).

Trump will never change, he's a campaigner at heart, a showman who loves talking to his supporters and watch them react at his (dad) jokes. He just loves the attention too much.

Yeah. In the speech where he admitted he didn't know how difficult being president would be, this happened:

the president paused to hand out copies of what he said were the latest figures from the 2016 electoral map.

"Here, you can take that, that's the final map of the numbers," the Republican president said from his desk in the Oval Office, handing out maps of the United States with areas he won marked in red. "It’s pretty good, right? The red is obviously us."

The guy is still hung up on how the election went. He seems entirely clueless as to the fact that the election was just the interview. Being president is the actual job.

The President of the United States is calling the US media fake news.

And he is right!

And yet he is saying this on a "fake news" channel while interviewed by a "fake journalist". Amazing logic.

Trump has done nothing in his first 100 days, and it is increasingly apparent that he won't be able to do anything in the remainder of his time in office, due to his utter incompetence and stupidity. So yes maybe he has stopped trying and instead hosts fellow intellectual pygmies like Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent at the White House because it's more fun than trying to do any work. The good part about all this for the rest of is that the damage from this moron's time in office will be mercifully small.

He has not actually won any battles.

He should quit and go back to his old life where lying was OK.

The President of the United States is calling the US media fake news.

And he is right!

He also called Assad as the source of the sarin gas chemical bombs

Also, 3rd-party media news are still better than state-controlled media news (if 3rd-party media news are that bad, imagine how much worse are state-controlled media news)

fake news

Aka 'reality'. Closing your eyes tightly won't make it go away, I'm afraid.

Such an embarrassing jerk to the American people! Can't stand his hypocrisy, childish behavior, lies and hopelessly out-o-touch-with-reality, hypocritical supporters. Cant wait till he is taken out of the Oval Office in handcuffs.

A tax cut doesn't need to be "paid for" because it is not something that the government spends money on.

While the wording of 'paid for' is incorrect, it doesn't change for the fact that a reduction in taxes means a reduction in revenue, which needs to be covered in some other way - either spending cuts, or alternate methods of finding that revenue. So while they technically do not need to 'pay for' the tax cut, they're still scrambling for alternative methods of making up the loss in tax revenue.

The battle he is most interested in winning is for the title of most corrupt and incompetent President in the entire history of the USA.

He can "vow" all he likes, but every single one of us knows what the outcome will be. He is totally and completely OUT OF HIS DEPTH.

I initially thought he were more of a fighter and that he would do his utmost to convince many/most of his detractors, Trump is just a showman of very little substance, unfortunaetly his parlor tricks have fooled many Americans

I think you mean to say that a reduction in tax rates means a reduction in tax revenue.

Um, they're the same.

This isn't a fact because consider that if tax rates are 100%, then many people wouldn't bother to do anything to generate income (they might leave for greener shores).

Reducing tax rates from 100% to say 33% is likely therefore to result in higher tax revenues, despite the lower tax rate.

Over time. But at the time of cutting taxes, revenue goes down. That revenue needs to be covered.

lower taxes is good for the economy.

Ahh, the good old trickle-down economics fallacy.

It looked like a replay of one of Trump's campaign speeches last year. Yes, you did indeed win Mr. President, so please get off the campaign trail and stop playing golf. It's time to be the president and govern now. Also, the snake bit in his campaign speech was pretty childish. Yes, it may have helped you during the campaign, but those kinds of jabs are going to hurt you and make you look less presidential now. Hasn't anybody around you told you that?

He has not actually won any battles.

To be fair, he did pull his childish, smacked arse face and insulted members of the media he didn't like to their faces.

On that you may have a point, even though you seem unaware of what was actually in the one-page proposal.

Fluff.

That was what was in the one page proposal. The tax code is thousands of pages. Coupled with the regulations, it is probably in the hundred of thousands. I have copies one my desk.

Does the tax code need to be reformed? Sure. As long as you don't want policy involved with the tax code and are willing to disregard the complexity of business transactions or limitations on wealth transfer, the tax code can be simplified.

Along with the supposed doubling of the standard deduction, there would be a reduction in the tax brackets and elimination of some itemized deductions. Make no mistake, this may provide a couple thousand dollars to people earning less than USD250k per year, but for people who make more than that, it will be a huge windfall.

Coupled with eliminating the ACA tax, the elimination of the estate tax, the shortening of the tax brackets, the one page proposal will be a windfall for the wealthy.

The tax breaks are targeted for the truly wealthy. On income, the top 1% will receive 99% of the tax reduction. On the estate tax, 0.2% of the population will receive USD200-300B.

These people do not contribute to the economy as we know it. That has been proven.

Still, since these proposals create deficits reaching beyond 10 years, there is no possibility that enough hard right GoP or Democrats will join to pass this reform.

The proposal was dead on arrival. Another loss for Trump.

I was asking you what should be done about the financial deficit in the absence of Trump's tax cuts. The Trump tax plan could be dropped - under those circumstances the financial deficit would still exist.

But the current issue up for debate is the merit of Trump's tax cuts and not how the federal government's deficit can be reduced or eliminated. The latter is only a subject because the tax cuts will make that problem worse. So at this point all I can say is that the first step in addressing the US Federal government's deficit is to shelve the tax cut plan. What happens after that is a matter for further debate.

Consumers need to produce something themselves in order to earn money to be able to consume in the first place. This is not like a game of Monopoly. People have to produce something first before they have any money to spend. And when you have produced something, and earned money, you can exchange your money for something that someone else has produced, and vice versa. But no one gets anything if no one produces first. Production comes first.

You are really just needlessly turning this into a chicken/egg argument. Production and consumption are in a mutually dependent feedback loop - without one you do not have the other (if nobody makes a product nobody buys it, if nobody buys a product nobody will make it). Which comes first is irrelevant.

I believe the people who earned the money in the first place have a far higher probability of spending it in a way that is value-for-money.

Sure, but how is that relevant? Individuals spend money on things they need, but for a variety of reasons we need government to spend money on certain things because if it didn't nobody else would. Roads, schools, hosptials, etc - private individuals don't spend their own money directly on building and maintaining these things to an optimal level because the markets do not give them an incentive to. Is the government the best agent in terms of getting value for money out of public contracts? Often not. Does that in and of itself mean that we should starve the government of money by giving tax cuts (mainly to the wealthy)? I don't see how it does.

People don't want money just so they can stare loving at it, money is a means to and end. People want to lives richer lives.

The people at the upper end of the wealth spectrum already have (literally) more money than they know what to do with. For most of them their personal desires are well taken care of, so any surplus they receive will be put into an investment vehicle of some sort rather than spent on personal consumption.

If the economy had a surplus of productive business opportunities that were in need of capital to get them going, then maybe a tax cut to the wealthy would produce the touted benefits since they would have more money to invest in such beneficial projects. The economy in the developed world, not just the US, is not in such a situation at the present. Businesses with promising plans have no trouble raising capital as there is a surplus of funds out there looking for places to invest, to the point that a lot of objectively stupid business proposals are also getting funded (particularly in tech ventures). So cutting taxes for the wealthy is really just increasing the supply of dumb money at the top looking for promising business ventures that are in no need of new money. So instead they get put into speculative investments like residential properties in major cities around the world that are considered safe havens for cash but do nothing to spur economic growth (and have quite harmful effects on the cities which are subject to such speculation).

The public system is silly. It's taxing rich people to pay for rich people in many cases.

Rich people in the US have to contribute to the public system. What country doesn't do this (other than Somalia)?

We'd be better off with a diverse range of service options.

Like what, for example? Some children are on waiting lists and waiting lists are a part of life. But many many more children are in the very affordable and quality system. How can Japan do better (please be specific)?

I think you mean to say that a reduction in tax rates means a reduction in tax revenue.

This is actually not a fact, and in any case it needs to be qualified in terms of the time by which this is judged.

In theory a reduction in tax rates might not lead to a reduction in revenue if the tax cut spurs enough economic growth to make up for the lower rate (ie if there is more economic activity to tax the government can get the same revenue even with a lower rate).

The problem is that all estimates indicate that the Trump cuts won't achieve that. Even the best case forcasts of resulting increases in economic growth as a result of the cuts suggest that this will result in trillions of lost revenue to the Federal government, with no offsetting cuts in spending to make up for them (and in fact increases in spending in a number of very expensive areas).

Also, the cuts are structured in a way that is least effective at promoting economic growth. The vast majority of the benefits go to those at the top end of the income spectrum, who generally just toss the money onto the top of their cash pile (figuratively speaking) rather than spending it and spurring consumption like middle class or lower income people would.

The most important thing now is to ramp up economic growth, getting people into better jobs. Without economic growth, none of the budget deficit problems are going to be addressed.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest 0.2% of the population will do nothing for economic growth. They will do what? Buy another golden luxury boat or an island? How will that money go towards the economy?

Tax cuts to corporations that already pay an effective tax rate of 15% will do nothing for the economy. It will just move cash from tax planning vehicles, assuming they believe the government plans will not backfire and want to horde cash like they are doing now.

The tax cuts are just symbolic gestures with real deficit effects.

Not to mention the probability of this absurd plan passing. It won't.

The problem I have with that is that the experts whose advice has been taken for the whole of the 21st century have failed miserably to achieve good economic outcomes.

Which specific experts are you talking about and what specific good economic outcomes have been missed due to what specific erroneous advice given? I hate it when people deride "experts" as though they were a uniform, anonymous blob. "Experts" can and do have differing opinions on differing policies, so unless you state which specific ones you are attacking statements like this have no meaning.

Rather than listen to those failures, why don't we just let people who earn money through productive activities keep more of what they earn, and see how well or otherwise those positive incentives improve the situation?

Which failures should we stop "listening" to? And which people who earn money through productive activities should we be handing the keys to economic policy to (the guy who cleans the toilets in my building "earns money through productive activities" but I wouldn't necessarily go to him for advice on macroeconomic policy.)

Once the actual real-world effects are clear, then the action to be taken with respect to the budget can be determined later.

Actual real-world effects of what? Are you literally saying we should just ignore all past experience, all expert advice on an extremely complex set of issues that have huge consequences and just hope the worst doesn't happen? That is extraordinarily reckless, especially given that the only thing that you are basing this on is an apparent dislike for "experts" that you have not named.

We've already seen the US debt explode by 10 trillion dollars under the prior administration - why is it that the new administration must be hamstrung by what a bunch of failed 'experts' claim?

The new administration is not "hamstrung" by what Obama's experts dictate, it may come as news to you but Trump has his own set of advisors who say completely different things than what Obama's did.

The experts have been a disaster. It's time for "alternative experts".

Again - what experts and what disaster? And what are "alternative experts"?

Kuroda, Yellen, and any "expert" who is complaining about what their "model" predicts with respect to this tax cut props

And what is their model and what problems with it have you identified?

Meaningfully higher economic growth and resultant happier people.

What is "meaningfully higher" economic growth and how has American reliance on Kuroda and Yellen's economic models frustrated its realization?

People like you and me.

I'm a university professor with a PHD so I may be stained with the "expert" label, though in my defense I'm not an economist.

Even if you don't believe the same of yourself, I believe you know better than you give yourself credit for. So I say lets stop taking so much of your money (or people in the US like you), and the same for everyone, and then let's see what happens.

If I had complete say over my pre-tax income I would probably spend most of the portion otherwise collected in taxes on vintage Star Wars action figures and beer. I'm not to be trusted with decisions like that, let alone with deciding how a government responsible for 300 million people and trillions of dollars should spend its revenue.

Precisely. You are kidding yourself if you think that there exist people who are so much smarter than you who understand exactly the consequences of what all of this complexity would be. No one knows.

Of course nobody knows, the world is way too complex for the human brain with its many cognitive limitations to compute all the information that is out there and accurately predict the future. Which is why we have to evaluate the substance of what experts say with skepticism. But just rejecting everything that everyone who is an "expert" says and smugly assuring yourself that you know better, which seems to be what you are doing here, doesn't really accomplish much.

That didn't stop the US government running up 10 trillion dollars of debt in 10 years, right? Why is this suddenly such a much bigger issue now that the other team is in power?

Because the "other team" has made it an issue by proposing a tax plan that will make that problem much worse rather than better?

So much of what determines tax revenue is out of the government's control in the first place.

Case in point, is GW Bush's tax cuts on dividends and the estate tax. It was supposed to free up capital, fix the nasty wealth inheritance tax, and increase the economy.

Along came 9/11 to stifle the economy. The experiment failed.

A natural disaster or a terrorist would only need to cause another disruption that affects the economy.

The estate tax was never meant to be a revenue generator. It was intended as wealth transfer to prevent a two class society. It still hasn't worked fully in that regard because wealth creates wealth so easily. If anything, the estate tax should be increased because it doesn't do a good enough job at limiting wealth transfer.

That's good news for most everyone, isn't it. As for the rich, who cares. They pay loads more tax in the first place, it's impossible to reduce taxes without giving them a cut because the rules have to be the same for all. But who cares, if most everyone is getting a tax cut. 

You appear to care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be concerned with the taxes rich people pay.

The fact remains that the wealthy tend to stay wealthy in spite of the marginal tax rates or the estate tax. Their money earns money, and the favorable tax rates on that income (like dividends and long term capital gains) already benefit them. They have the means and should not benefit from tax rates lower than others pay.

I care because I don't like what will be a debt increase of all debt increases and don't believe in fairy dusted supply side economics. The rich will just invest more of their money in the stock market, which is just a money supply question and not a question of increased consumption that will increase the economy.

This tax break would be a debt increase that breaks the camels back. Russia couldn't be more proud of Trump and may have finally beat the U.S. using Reagan's gambit against the USSR.

Except this time, they put an egotistical idiot in the presidency, and he is doing all the work for them in breaking the U.S. economy.

The proper way to fix the economy is to empower the workers by giving them more of the company profits where they work. The company also benefits because the workers are working together with the company.

Germany is a better example of this and has a stronger and more resilient economy as a result.

Trump is seriously delusional. He might make it selling used cars, but I don't think he's going to last much longer as pres.

The upside-down sign in the background really makes the picture.

Look at child care in this country. It's completely sub-standard in how it fails to meet demand.

It's about half the price (or even lower) than what you can find in the US.

Some PHD person should not have to pay for my kids' education or my health care

Some cancers cost in the 100s of thousands. Childhood genetic cancers can cost over a million.

I'm eager to contribute money to help the needy who don't have the means to be able to obtain what meets their needs

Donations?

I think my favourite part of a Trump rally is starring at the slack-jawed yokels behind him frothing at the mouths for the moment they'll get to chant something. It would be great to see the Donald hang out at one of their houses for a weekend. They could climb the broke down tractor on the front lawn, or go for a swim in the above ground Coleman pool/duck pond, or maybe just relax poolside with some Spam and crackers.

"Hey Cletus, don't furgit the Kool-Aid. And bring out yer Grand Wizard robes to show the Donald!"

Can the moderator please delete the last two posts. I don't know why but they came out very strangely formatted. My apologies. I hope this one works.

President Delusional-hycporcite-liar-in-chief is an embarrassment to the USA. A dummy who needs to start reading more than business books and stop watching Fake News. He is an idiot when it comes to history and emotional intelligence. He is president for himself and the conflict of interest is very clear. His supporters are hypocritical at best because they would never allow a democrat to act 1/10th as bad this guy.

Promised to release his taxes once elected, now refuses to. If there is nothing there, then it shouldn't be a problem. We all know that the audit is not what is stopping him. It is what is in them that the doesn't want anyone to see.

Bashed President Obama for taking vacations. Has already taken 24 days in just 100. In eight years President Obama only took 298 which is a paltry number compared to other presidents in the past and congressmen/women. This translates to Dumb, Dumb Donald being on pace to pass him The former president in less than one term.

Talked about cutting wasteful spending, but . . .  Continues to go to Florida every weekend on Air Force One. Continues to go to other states to hold campaign rallies even though the election is long over. Has already spent $24M of tax payer money going back and forth to Florida, while Obama  spent only $98M in eight years. That means in a little more than one year, he will pass President Obama. Believe it or not, the former President spent quite a bit less than past presidents, but was still bashed for it by the hypocrite-in-chief. The first son and his trophy wife stay in Washington to the tune of $150,000 a day,which means in the first 100 days it has cost the taxpayers a whopping $15M.Whether the two actually go to Washington, D.C. when the school year ends, nobody knows, but I would speculate that that has as much of a chance happening as Trump releasing his tax returns.

Praises tyrants like Putin. Today called Kim Jung Un a ‘Smart Cookie.’ Compliments and courts tyrannical leaders like Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

Watches and often repeats erroneous and out right fake news from the originator of all fake news in the United States, FOX NEWS. Can not tell the truth or admit he is wrong even when  shown proof of it.

Flip flopped and failed on a number of issues that he said he would fix in his first 100 days.

Bashed Hillary Clinton for speaking at Goldman Sachs and said that he would drain the swamp, but actually ended up flooding it with alligators by hiring Steve Mnunchin of Goldman Sach, Rex Tillerson from ExxonMobil and a few other odd characters.

Does not even drink but tweets like a drunk at 3AM.  

Oh and let’s not forget that he said he would be too busy to play golf but does so every weekend. In fact, did an interview from his own golf course in Virginia just today as he often does from Florida as well. 

Spews nonsense about history. Andrew Jackson, a large slave owner, died 16 years before the civil war and even though slavery was being debated in the first half of the century, Trump actually said, “He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War.” Impossible for him to saying ANYTHING about the civil war when he was long dead. Claiming that Jackson actually said, “There is no reason for this” in reference to the civil war is just as amazingly bizarre as . . . “People don’t realize,” Trump continued, “you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?” Um dummy! It was about slavery. And Andrew Jackson would naturally had supported slavery since, duh, he was a slave owner, the institutor of the “Trail of Tears”, the forced removal for numerous Native American Tribes and freedmen from the Southeast. 

I can't wait till this idiot is in jail.

Even now without tax cuts, there is a great budget deficit and the US has loads of debt. If we put tax cuts aside, what is your proposal to eliminate the financial deficit? If we are assuming tax revenues will stay the same, then the only way to fix the financial deficit is to cut spending, anyway.

You can't assume tax revenue will stay the same. In order for it to do that the math is extremely clear, you would need a rate of economic growth much much higher than anything the tax cut or any other economic policies are capable of producing.

Economic growth is driven by production, not consumption.

The size of the economy is measured by the amount of goods and services produced in a given year, so that is technically correct, but you need consumer demand to exist for those goods and services to be produced in the first place so its kind of an irrelevant distinction to be drawing. Production relies on consumption and vice versa.

Economic growth as a process is driven by two factors - population growth and increases in productivity. Population growth increases the size of the economy simply because there are more workers and consumers and thus more production. Increases in productivity happen when efficiency increases and those workers are able to produce more with the same amount of input (labor and raw materials).

My problem with the tax cuts (at least in terms of balancing the budget) is that it contributes nothing to either of these and thus offers no real path towards an increase in economic growth. Tax cuts are largely irrelevant to population growth and do nothing in and of themselves to promote increases in efficiency unless they are targeted in a way that encourages increased productivity, which the proposed ones do not. A drastic cut in the corporate tax rate across all corporations merely results in a windfall for shareholders, but does nothing in itself to encourage those companies to be more productive. Likewise a tax cut to the extremely wealthy (which is mostly where this one is going) does nothing to encourage them to be more productive.

People rely on day care in order to be able to work

No they are trying and there are also plenty of more expensive private options. There is nothing pathetic about it. Once you get in the quality of care is very good on a global standard. And more affordable. There is not a shortable but it's still a good system.

Yes I think the needy should be given support so they can make their own choices.

Japan's insurance system?

"Mr. President, the media is not fake news," he said. - Indeed, it is just various ways of looking at and presenting the same thing, depending on what your agenda is. So in a way, everybody is right, and each and every perspective will be a little different.

As for results, after the Flynn incident and with the Syria bombing it became apparent that Mr. Trump's original foreign policies were stopped and turned around. From that point on, whatever the DS wants is happening. It seems that he is still allowed to do some internal US stuff... Kinda sad. I was hoping he could make it.

I'm just wondering how the Americans can continue to trust him. Talk soon much about NK but no action. Kim dared him with yet another (failed) missile and he backed off. Now wants to talk diplomatically with the fatty kid.

The cost of child care here is irrelevant given the government doesn't guarantee your child a place. 

They don't in the US as well.

Problem is just as bad or worse in the US with shortage. But at least Japan does not burn you financially once you get your child in. Is it a very good environment for children. Sorry, life is not easy. And sorry about the potato chips and butter.

The government should acknowledge that it is pathetic at running child care services

How so? Once your child is in what is the exact problem (please be specific)

As for expensive health care treatments there may be a case for government to provide assistance 

Is there a case or not? Please be specific.

but for people going to see the doctor because they have a runny nose

A runny nose? When did I say runny nose? I'm talking about expensive treatments. Child genetic disorders that often bankrupt even middle class families with insurance. What should be done about those cases? But you don't believe in insurance(?)

I'm a university professor with a PHD

Ph.D.? I've also seen it as PhD but never PHD. What is a PHD?

As a non-American

Where are you from? And why are you staying in a country that you hate so much?

No they are trying and there are also plenty of more expensive private options.

You don't live in my area, I see.

Japan's insurance system?

The public system is silly. It's taxing rich people to pay for rich people in many cases. Rich people should be taxed to pay for poor people, and then the rich people pay for themselves.

If rich people had to pay the full cost when the go to the doctor for a runny nose, they'd think better of it before doing so. All that money saved could be targeted at the needy instead.

Problem is just as bad or worse in the US with shortage. But at least Japan does not burn you financially once you get your child in.

It's like saying it's ok because there are ambulances at the bottom of cliffs. People rely on day care in order to be able to work, if your child doesnt get a place in day care, think about what that means for you financially...

Sone people are prepared to pay more, some are less. Having a one size fits all solution that fails many doesn't get a pass mark. We'd be better off with a diverse range of service options.

Once your child is in what is the exact problem (please be specific)

Child not being in (lack of supply of service) is the primary issue, there are minor things I have found deficient after getting the first kid in but those are bearable, even if they would be resolvable under a non- government run system. But do not take your eyes off the lack of service in the government system. We can complain about the quality once they get the basics right.

Is there a case or not? Please be specific.

Yes I think the needy should be given support so they can make their own choices.

why are you staying in a country that you hate so much?

If I hated it I wouldn't want to see it change to adopt systems that would result in people having far better access to child care.

viking68,

Tax cuts for the wealthiest 0.2% of the population 

The proposal is to almost double the standard deduction - that's a tax cut for anyone paying income tax, as I read it.

The tax cuts are just symbolic gestures with real deficit effects.

Tax cuts either have real effects, or they don't. It can't be only one and not the other.

Not to mention the probability of this absurd plan passing. It won't.

On that you may have a point, even though you seem unaware of what was actually in the one-page proposal.

The cost of child care here is irrelevant given the government doesn't guarantee your child a place. One child care place in my neighborhood has a waiting list of 200+ kids. It's unbelievable, until you remember that the government runs the system.

The government should acknowledge that it is pathetic at running child care services, butter and potato production and stop wasting our tax revenues in their failed efforts. When they fail constantly the money should stop. Like what happens when a company goes bankrupt. If this were commercial services they'd be out of customers already. The free markets could not possibly do a worse job.

Then all the government needs to do is direct the tax revenues it does take towards those who really need it. Stop using our own money on useless systems that don't work and get out of our way.

As for expensive health care treatments there may be a case for government to provide assistance there, but for people going to see the doctor because they have a runny nose, they should really pay for that themselves if they have the means, which most do.

Trump is seriously delusional. He might make it selling used cars, but I don't think he's going to last much longer as pres.

I felt the same way 8 years ago in the beginning, but look what happened. He'll be fine, last year, he couldn't get elected, then he can't win and now he'll get kicked out, so far, liberal predictions have been sadly and embarrassingly wrong. Go, Trump!

Which specific experts are you talking about 

Kuroda, Yellen, and any "expert" who is complaining about what their "model" predicts with respect to this tax cut propsal.

what specific good economic outcomes have been missed 

Meaningfully higher economic growth and resultant happier people.

which people who earn money through productive activities should we be handing the keys to economic policy to 

People like you and me.

I don't believe for a second that someone in central government has a better idea about how to spend your own money than you do. Maybe you feel otherwise but personally I'm a big boy who can make good decisions by myself. Even if you don't believe the same of yourself, I believe you know better than you give yourself credit for. So I say lets stop taking so much of your money (or people in the US like you), and the same for everyone, and then let's see what happens.

Actual real-world effects of what? Are you literally saying we should just ignore all past experience, all expert advice on an extremely complex set of issues 

Precisely. You are kidding yourself if you think that there exist people who are so much smarter than you who understand exactly the consequences of what all of this complexity would be. No one knows.

that have huge consequences and just hope the worst doesn't happen? 

That didn't stop the US government running up 10 trillion dollars of debt in 10 years, right? Why is this suddenly such a much bigger issue now that the other team is in power?

the tax cuts will make that problem worse.

This is supposition though. One can google for historical charts of US federal tax revenues, which show that tax revenues have increased over time since WWII. This is despite tax rates being much higher at times in the past than they are now.

What will definitely make the problem worse is not tax cuts, but expenditures continuing to exceed revenues. That is the definition of a budget deficit. Tax revenues will probably continue to increase into the future, but the financial deficit too will persist so long as expenditures continue to increase to a greater degree than tax revenues.

for a variety of reasons we need government to spend money on certain things because if it didn't nobody else would. Roads, schools, hosptials, etc 

I don't believe it's true that no one would spend on education and health care if government didn't, and people had more of their money to spend as they saw fit. I for one want to ensure my children get a good education.

Some PHD person should not have to pay for my kids' education or my health care, nor should I have to pay for theirs. I'm eager to contribute money to help the needy who don't have the means to be able to obtain what meets their needs, but it's silly for the government to take money from me and from a PHD, and then provide the PHD and me with substandard services, when we could do a much better job of selecting an appropriate service by ourselves. If I am unsatisfied then I am betting the needy are too.

Look at child care in this country. It's completely sub-standard in how it fails to meet demand. The government system has failed (it's failing my family right now). It's not that I can't afford to pay more, it's that the system the government has put in place restricts the choices I have available. A system not run by bereaucrats could hardly be a bigger failure.

any surplus they receive will be put into an investment vehicle of some sort rather than spent on personal consumption.

That's typically what the rich would do, and you're right, rather than blow the money away on useless consumer goods, they will invest it. That investment ends up producing things, and if they produce good things that will not only employ people, but provide consumers with new things to spend on. This is the growth in economic growth. People already have flat screen TV and smartphones. We need more new investment to create the new things (and economic growth) of tomorrow.

But the more the government taxes the money away, the less such risky investment will occur.

a lot of objectively stupid business proposals are also getting funded

Who cares. A lot of ideas will fail, but when a few hit the mark, boom, lots of great things happen - new products and happier consumers. The only losers of failed investments are the people who risked that money. It needn't concern anyone else, and it won't concern the people who are employed in those exciting new ventures.

it doesn't change for the fact that a reduction in taxes means a reduction in revenue

I think you mean to say that a reduction in tax rates means a reduction in tax revenue.

This is actually not a fact, and in any case it needs to be qualified in terms of the time by which this is judged.

This isn't a fact because consider that if tax rates are 100%, then many people wouldn't bother to do anything to generate income (they might leave for greener shores).

Reducing tax rates from 100% to say 33% is likely therefore to result in higher tax revenues, despite the lower tax rate.

And the qualification about time is necessary because the changes in incentives brought about by the lower tax rates do not have overnight effects.

All of this is extremely complex and the only fact I see is that no one can accurately predict the outcome.

But lower taxes is good for the economy. Here at JT we often see people saying that the government should reverse the consumption tax rate hike - that is because people understand the negative effects of higher taxes.

Ironically overseas when someone proposes cutting the tax rates people are up in arms for the opposite reason (despite budget deficits being a constant feature of the US and Japan for years now already, with nothing done to seriously address those issues)

which needs to be covered in some other way - either spending cuts, or alternate methods of finding that revenue. 

I would like to see a balanced budget, but consider that in the absense of tax rate cuts in the 8 years of the prior administration, nothing was done to reduce (e.g. "cover") the budget deficit.

I think you mean to say that a reduction in tax rates means a reduction in tax revenue.

Um, they're the same.

Please. Tax rates and tax revenues are obviously not the same.

Over time. But at the time of cutting taxes, revenue goes down. 

Can you prove that? 

If you start at 100%, what are your tax revenues?

If tax rates go to 33% what will tax revenues be, and by when?

Who is the genius that knows these answers? You show me that genius and I'll show you a liar or person with deluisions.

That revenue needs to be covered.

By when does it need to be covered? 

The US has racked up 10 trillion dollars of extra debt over recent years - why didn't the deficit that caused that need to be covered? 

Why the new rule for tax cuts to covered instantaneously?

Ahh, the good old trickle-down economics fallacy.

When people get to keep the money they earned in the first place, businesses and workers alike, there is no need for "trickle down" - there is just keeping more of what is earned by oneself in the first place.

"Trickle-down" is when the government taxes us, spends our money in inefficient ways, and we get a trickle back in return - usually in poor quality services.

a reduction in tax rates might not lead to a reduction in revenue if the tax cut spurs enough economic growth to make up for the lower rate 

Precisely.

The problem is that all estimates indicate that the Trump cuts won't achieve that.

The problem I have with that is that the experts whose advice has been taken for the whole of the 21st century have failed miserably to achieve good economic outcomes.

Rather than listen to those failures, why don't we just let people who earn money through productive activities keep more of what they earn, and see how well or otherwise those positive incentives improve the situation?

Once the actual real-world effects are clear, then the action to be taken with respect to the budget can be determined later. We've already seen the US debt explode by 10 trillion dollars under the prior administration - why is it that the new administration must be hamstrung by what a bunch of failed 'experts' claim?

The experts have been a disaster. It's time for "alternative experts".

Even now without tax cuts, there is a great budget deficit and the US has loads of debt. If we put tax cuts aside, what is your proposal to eliminate the financial deficit? If we are assuming tax revenues will stay the same, then the only way to fix the financial deficit is to cut spending, anyway.

Is that your proposal? What do you suggest be cut in order to fix the financial deficit?

the cuts are structured in a way that is least effective at promoting economic growth.

Government spending these days does nothing for economic growth. The prior administration implemented a fiscal stimulus package - but look at the pathetic economic growth rates that resulted. Look at what happens in Japan every time the government spends money in the name of promoting economic growth.

The vast majority of the benefits go to those at the top end of the income spectrum, who generally just toss the money onto the top of their cash pile (figuratively speaking) rather than spending it and spurring consumption 

Economic growth is driven by production, not consumption.

If I had complete say over my pre-tax income I would probably spend most of the portion otherwise collected in taxes on vintage Star Wars action figures and beer.

You have convinced me that you should be listening to me on this one!

I'm not to be trusted with decisions like that, let alone with deciding how a government responsible for 300 million people and trillions of dollars should spend its revenue.

You were only to be entrusted with more of your own money to take care of your own affairs as you see fit, not the affairs of 300 million people. The point is that each person would make more decisions for themselves, and the people living far away in never-never-land, fewer. If the government types have less people to concern themselves with, then perhaps they will get more of it right. We should hope so given that some people do depend on assistance from the rest of us.

Because the "other team" has made it an issue by proposing a tax plan that will make that problem much worse rather than better?

This is why I was asking you what you'd do to fix the problem. The tax cut may or may not make the problem worse, but the budget deficit problem exists, irrespective.

Personally, I'd have the government cut some spending. That's sure to bring down expenditures.

Make no mistake, this may provide a couple thousand dollars to people earning less than USD250k per year

That's good news for most everyone, isn't it. As for the rich, who cares. They pay loads more tax in the first place, it's impossible to reduce taxes without giving them a cut because the rules have to be the same for all. But who cares, if most everyone is getting a tax cut.

Still, since these proposals create deficits reaching beyond 10 years

As a non-American, I have ascertained that there are some such rules around this, but it seems strange to me that the government was able to rack up 10 trillion dollars in debt over the past 10 years, but can't cut tax rates without pretending that tax revenues will not be a single dollar less as a result. So much of what determines tax revenue is out of the government's control in the first place.

You can't assume tax revenue will stay the same. 

I was asking you what should be done about the financial deficit in the absence of Trump's tax cuts. The Trump tax plan could be dropped - under those circumstances the financial deficit would still exist. 

So what spending would you cut to fix it?

The Trump tax cuts do not cause the existing financial deficit. Current expenditures being in excess of current tax revenues do.

The size of the economy is measured by the amount of goods and services produced in a given year, so that is technically correct

It's correct, full stop. Consumers cannot consume what has not been produced. 

you need consumer demand to exist for those goods and services to be produced in the first place 

Consumers need to produce something themselves in order to earn money to be able to consume in the first place. This is not like a game of Monopoly. People have to produce something first before they have any money to spend. And when you have produced something, and earned money, you can exchange your money for something that someone else has produced, and vice versa. But no one gets anything if no one produces first. Production comes first.

do nothing in and of themselves to promote increases in efficiency unless they are targeted in a way that encourages increased productivity

I believe the people who earned the money in the first place have a far higher probability of spending it in a way that is value-for-money. People don't want money just so they can stare loving at it, money is a means to and end. People want to lives richer lives. People in government on the other hand don't care because they are spending other people's money and they get paid themselves either way.

So you're in favor of TPP? Sure the guy is flip-flopping around like a salmon on a dry river bed, but to say he's done nothing is just childish. What's next? Rolling out with the tin foil hat comments?

Republicans scramble for ways to pay for Trump's promise this week of major tax cuts 

This is backwards.

There are two pieces to the government budget, government expenditures and government revenues. 

Expenditures is about how much is spent (and on what). 

Revenues is about taxes collected.

"Tax cuts" are a conscious decision to reduce the amount of revenues collected (typically in recognition of the damage that taxation causes to economic activity). 

A tax cut doesn't need to be "paid for" because it is not something that the government spends money on. It's that the government decides to try to extract less from the tax payers in the first place.

The issue of tax cuts seems to be conflated with that of budget deficits and debt - and these things are not new issues. Budget deficits occur when expenditures exceed tax revenues, which can happen irrespective of any specific set of tax rates. Budget deficits can be resolved by a combination of lower expenditures and higher tax revenues.

Lower expenditures can be achieved by more efficient, prioritized government spending. 

Higher tax revenues can be achieved by higher economic growth (which typically boosts tax revenues) or changes to tax rates / structure that boosts the amount of revenues collected.

The thing is, no one knows exactly how the massive US economy will respond to whatever cocktail of economic policies ends up being enacted. Proclamations about tax cuts needing to be 'paid for' are completely backwards at the least, and based on faulty assumptions about what can accurately be understood at worst.

The most important thing now is to ramp up economic growth, getting people into better jobs. Without economic growth, none of the budget deficit problems are going to be addressed.

Any discussion about "pay for" should be in the context of government expenditures, not in the context of tax revenue collection.

Trump has done nothing in his first 100 days, and it is increasingly apparent that he won't be able to do anything in the remainder of his time in office, due to his utter incompetence and stupidity. So yes maybe he has stopped trying and instead hosts fellow intellectual pygmies like Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent at the White House because it's more fun than trying to do any work. The good part about all this for the rest of is that the damage from this moron's time in office will be mercifully small.

fake news