Topic: Trump prosperity update

[hurricanehook]

Oh, yes, ma'am, I did look for it and for the life of me, I couldn't find it.  I saw some nonsense about Obama giving illegals Social Security, but no mention of Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio.  You called them liars and Trump haters, but that still leaves the loose end of their declarations to cut retirement benefits.  You know what I think?  I think you don't have an answer.  I think you know they're planning to cut your retirement programs and you don't care or you don't believe it could happen, because there are enough democrats working to save those programs for you.

here you go flyboy,
from your own previous link:

On the Senate floor during the tax debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asked Rubio and Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) to promise that Republicans would not advance cuts to Medicare and Social Security after their tax bill. Toomey said that there was “no secret plan” to do so, while Rubio said he opposed cuts to either program for current beneficiaries. However, neither closed the door to changing the programs for future beneficiaries.

and:

(Ryan also suggested congressional Republicans were unlikely to try changing Social Security, because the rules of the Senate forbid changes to the program through reconciliation — the procedure the Senate can use to pass legislation with only 50 votes.

[Steve McGarrett]

LOL!  Look at what you just posted! "However, neither closed the door to changing the programs for future beneficiaries." You chastised me for not quitting the forum, yet here you are.  You look for my posts and follow me around the site like a little puppy dog.  Pathetic.  Now watch, he'll be right back here as soon as he logs on.   

[hurricanehook]

LOL!  Look at what you just posted! "However, neither closed the door to changing the programs for future beneficiaries." You chastised me for not quitting the forum, yet here you are.  You look for my posts and follow me around the site like a little puppy dog.  Pathetic.  Now watch, he'll be right back here as soon as he logs on.   

just proved you wrong flyboy.
you should be accustomed to that by now.
I respond to any post I want to
regardless who the poster might be.

[Steve McGarrett]

You're too stupid to understand what's written in front of your face.  You're too stupid to know when you're being ripped off.  In fact, even when you know you're being screwed over, you applaud and beg for more of it. 

Yeah, I'm stupid.  Says a guy who types with his "pointer fingers and thumbs" and who posts "billions of people for thousands of years."   A guy who wonders if his dog would share food with him.  Hey, newsflash!  they're called "index fingers."   Oh, brilliant, cut their budgets by a trillion dollars to keep them solvent.  Yeah, I'm stupid.    


Republicans Will Cut Social Security and Medicare After Tax Plan ...
www.newsweek.com/tax-plan-social-security-medicare-welfare-republicans-rubio-729...
Dec 1, 2017 - To address the federal deficit, which will grow by at least $1 trillion if the tax plan passes, Congress will need to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security, Rubio told reporters this week. ...

Ryan says Republicans to target welfare, Medicare, Medicaid ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../gop-eyes-post-tax-cut-changes-to-welfare-medicare-...
Dec 1, 2017 - As a candidate, Trump vowed not to cut spending on Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. ... Trump recently called on Congress to move to cut welfare spending after the tax bill, and Senate Republicans have cited the need to reduce the national deficit while growing the economy.

[hurricanehook]

Lt. Columbo,
no one has eliminated Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid and no one will.
go tell your 3 other personalities, flyboy, Steve McGarrett, and dalibrul to chill out.

[Steve McGarrett]

no one has eliminated Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid and no one will.

LOL!  Who ever said those programs were eliminated?  Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio both stated a need to make cuts to those programs.  It's right there and you ignore it and post a meaningless statement.  They'll cut the cost of living adjustment, raise the retirement age, and make other cuts to get the trillion-plus dollars needed to pay for their tax cut.  That vast amount of money cannot come from eliminating waste and fraud.  Of course, if democrats take over the house or senate, Ryan and Rubio can forget it. 

[Hollybaere]

LOL!  Who ever said those programs were eliminated?  Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio both stated a need to make cuts to those programs.  It's right there and you ignore it and post a meaningless statement.  They'll cut the cost of living adjustment, raise the retirement age, and make other cuts to get the trillion-plus dollars needed to pay for their tax cut.  That vast amount of money cannot come from eliminating waste and fraud.  Of course, if democrats take over the house or senate, Ryan and Rubio can forget it.

The fact that you know that I called Ryan and Rubio "Trump haters", shows me you saw my reply. Therefore I will not bother to repeat.

Since Social Security is based on your birth year and what you paid in, only those who are far from eligible would be affected by what you claim. If it happens at all.

Speaking of eliminating waste and fraud, if President Trump goes for term limits for Congress and the lifetime retirement, it will have an effect.

Also, don't hold your breath for a Democrat take over in November now that the FISA Memo has caught the eye if We The People.

[Mornac]

Feds Collect Record Taxes in First Month Under Tax Cut; Run Surplus in January

Terence P. Jeffrey
February 12, 2018

(CNSNews.com) - The federal government this January ran a surplus while collecting record total tax revenues for that month of the year, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

January was the first month under the new tax law that President Donald Trump signed in December.

During January, the Treasury collected approximately $361,038,000,000 in total tax revenues and spent a total of approximately $311,802,000,000 to run a surplus of approximately $49,236,000,000.

Despite the monthly surplus of $49,236,000,000, the federal government is still running a deficit of approximately $175,718,000,000 for fiscal year 2018. That is because the government entered the month with a deficit of approximately $224,955,000,000.



The $361,038,000,000 in total taxes the Treasury collected this January was $11,747,870,000 more than the $349,290,130,000 that the Treasury collected in January of last year (in December 2017 dollars, adjusted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator).

The Treasury not only collected record taxes in the month of January itself, but has now collected record tax revenues for the first four months of a fiscal year (October through January).

So far in fiscal 2018, the federal government has collected a record $1,130,550,000,000 in total taxes.



However, despite the record tax collections so far this fiscal year, and despite the one-month surplus in January, the federal government is still running a cumulative deficit in this fiscal year of $175,718,000,000.

That is because while the Treasury was collecting its record $1,130,550,000,000 in taxes from October through January, it was spending $1,306,268,000,000.

The levels of federal taxes and federal spending fluctuate from month to month, and it is not unusual—but not always the case—for the federal government to run a surplus in January.



Over the last twenty fiscal years, going back to 1999, the federal government has run surpluses in the month of January 13 times and deficits 7 times. Six of the Januaries in which the federal government ran deficits overlapped President Barack Obama’s time in office—including January 2009, the month Obama was inaugurated, and the Januaries in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2016.

The federal government also ran a deficit in January 2004, when President George W. Bush was in office.

According to an analysis published on Dec. 21 by the New York Times, a "majority of provisions" in the tax law President Trump signed in December would "go into effect" in January. However, according to the Times' analysis, February "is the earliest that most will see changes in their paychecks."

The Internal Revenue Service released its new withholding tables, based on the tax-cut law, on January 11.

“The Internal Revenue Service today released Notice 1036, which updates the income-tax withholding tables for 2018 reflecting changes made by the tax reform legislation enacted last month,” the IRS said that day in a press release. “This is the first in a series of steps that IRS will take to help improve the accuracy of withholding following major changes made by the new tax law.

“The updated withholding information, posted today on IRS.gov, shows the new rates for employers to use during 2018,” said the IRS release. “Employers should begin using the 2018 withholding tables as soon as possible, but not later than Feb. 15, 2018. They should continue to use the 2017 withholding tables until implementing the 2018 withholding tables.”

The record total federal taxes the Treasury has collected in the first four months of this fiscal year have included $606,726,000,000 in individual income taxes; $75,533,000,000 in corporation income taxes; $371,931,000,000 in Social Security and other payroll taxes; $27,738,000,000 in excise taxes; $7,550,000,000 in estate and gift taxes; $12,634,000,000 in customs duties; and $32,637,000,000 in miscellaneous other receipts.



Source

[Mornac]

Americans Expect Biggest Pay Jump in Years

New York Fed survey results jibe with jobs report wage gauge

Matthew Boesler
February 12, 2018



Americans are more optimistic about wage growth than they have been in years. U.S. consumers anticipate earnings will rise 2.73 percent in the coming year, the most since data collection began in 2013, according to the results of a New York Fed survey released Monday and conducted last month. January was only the third month in the survey’s 56-month history in which expected wage growth topped expected consumer price inflation, which fell slightly, to 2.71 percent.

Source

[Mornac]

Record Number of U.S. Small-Business Owners Say It’s a Good Time to Expand

Vince Golle
February 13, 2018

Optimism among small companies in the U.S. rose more than forecast in January, fueled by a record number of owners who said now was a good time to expand, according to a National Federation of Independent Business survey released Tuesday.

HIGHLIGHTS OF SMALL-BUSINESS OPTIMISM (JANUARY)

Overall index rose by 2 points to 106.9 (est. 105.3), close to November’s 107.5 reading that was highest in monthly data to 1986

32% said now was a good time to expand businesses, exceeding all monthly figures to 1986 and quarterly readings back to 1973

Net 41% expect economy to improve, up from 37% month earlier

Six of the 10 components that make up the small-business optimism index increased in January, producing one of the strongest readings in the 45-year history of the survey. The figures show sustained, sturdy business sentiment since the November 2016 election. A measure of plans to boost capital spending in coming months increased by 2 points to 29 percent, consistent with other data indicating robust outlays for equipment. One in five small companies said they plan to boost hiring, unchanged from the prior month, as finding qualified workers remains problematic and underscores a tight job market.



Officials’ Comment

The new tax law “produced the most recent boost to small-business optimism,” NFIB’s William Dunkelberg and Holly Wade said in a report. “And federal government-related cost pressures continue to abate, offering a more supportive business climate for small firms. Consumer spending remains supportive, and business spending and housing remain strong.”

Other Details

34 percent of NFIB respondents reported job openings in January, up from 31 percent a month earlier
Share of owners raising average selling prices rose to a net 11 percent, the highest since July 2014, from 8 percent

Plans to add to inventories rose to a net 3 percent

Source

[Mornac]

Home Prices Hit Records in Almost Two-Thirds of U.S. Cities

Prashant Gopal
February 13, 2018

Home prices jumped to all-time highs in almost two-thirds of U.S. cities in the fourth quarter as buyers battled for a record-low supply of listings.

Prices for single-family homes, which climbed 5.3 percent from a year earlier nationally, reached a peak in 64 percent of metropolitan areas measured, the National Association of Realtors said Tuesday. Of the 177 regions in the group’s survey, 15 percent had double-digit price growth, up from 11 percent in the third quarter.

Home values have grown steadily as the improving job market drives demand for a scarcity of properties on the market. While prices jumped 48 percent since 2011, incomes have climbed only 15 percent, putting purchases out of reach for many would-be buyers.

The consistent price gains “have certainly been great news for homeowners, and especially for those who were at one time in a negative equity situation,” Lawrence Yun, the Realtors group’s chief economist, said in a statement. “However, the shortage of new homes being built over the past decade is really burdening local markets and making homebuying less affordable.”

Sales of previously owned homes, including single-family houses and condos, increased 4.3 percent to a seasonally adjusted rate of 5.62 million in the fourth quarter, the Realtors said. At the end of December, only 1.48 million existing homes were available for sale, 10.3 percent less than a year earlier.

The most expensive markets were San Jose, California, where the median price was $1.27 million, followed by San Francisco, the Irvine, California, area, Honolulu and San Diego.

The San Jose area had a 26 percent increase in prices, the biggest of any region, followed by Reno, Nevada, and the Putnam/Dutchess County area, north of New York City. The biggest decline was in Glens Falls, New York, where prices dropped almost 12 percent. Cumberland, Maryland, and Elmira, New York, followed.

Source

[Steve McGarrett]

Multiculturalism!    

[Hollybaere]

Multiculturalism!    

What a total dim-wit!!
 "Playback has been disabled on other websites by the owner".

[Steve McGarrett]

Of course it has.  I knew that.  So what?  Click the link and go to Youtube.  Or don't.  I don't care.   

[Steve McGarrett]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/donald-trump-federal-budget-deficit/index.html

Trump's budget would add trillions to the deficit. Voters probably won't care.

By Harry Enten, CNN

Updated 6:12 AM ET, Tue February 13, 2018

CNN) — President Donald Trump's budget plan could add more than $7 trillion to the country's debt over the next decade. Such a plan goes against supposed Republican orthodoxy of trying to eliminate (or at least bring down) the federal budget debt and deficit. Some Republican members of Congress have voiced their frustration with raising deficits, which could derail Trump's budget proposal.

Yet polling suggests it is unlikely that Trump will receive too much of a backlash for raising deficits, including from those who voted for him.

Reducing the budget isn't an important issue for most Americans. According to a January Pew Research Center survey, just 48% of Americans said reducing the federal deficit should be a top priority for Trump and Congress to address this year. That ranked 14th out of 19 issues tested. Defending the country from a terrorist attack, the top priority for Americans, was listed by 73% of respondents.

Indeed, most voters didn't think Trump would do a good job concerning the deficit before he was put into office. Only 17% thought the budget deficit would be in a lot better shape if Trump became president than it was in 2016, according to a June 2016 Pew Research Center survey. When you lump in those who thought the deficit would be in at least a little better shape than it was in 2016, the percentage who thought it would be in better shape climbs to a still relatively low 41%. That's lower than similar figures for immigration, security from terrorism and the economy at large.

Of course, Trump is often mostly concerned about his base. Reducing deficits isn't that important of an issue to these supporters, either; 59% of Republicans and independents who lean Republican ranked it as a top priority in Pew's 2018 poll, which put it at 11th of 19 issues -- more of a concern for Republicans than for the general population, but still not close to being a top issue. It was below not only other economic topics (strengthening the economy at 78% and improving the job situation at 66%), but also other Trump priorities such as immigration and terrorism. On both immigration and terrorism, a majority of Trump supporters in 2016 thought a Trump presidency would coincide with the country being in a lot better shape on those issues. On the deficit, a minority (37%) of Trump supporters thought the country would be in a lot better position under a Trump administration than in 2016.

Now, it would be easy to say that Republicans don't care about the deficit because former President Barack Obama is out of the White House. You may remember that reducing the federal debt and deficit was a rallying cry of the tea party. Indeed, 81% of Republicans and Republican leaners listed reducing the deficit as a top priority in 2013.

Yet, the percentage of Republicans who thought that the deficit was a top priority fell during the latter part of the Obama administration. After reaching a high of a high of 81% in 2013, 69% of Republican and Republican leaning independents said it was top priority in 2016. Last year, when Trump took office, it was down to 63%.

The drop in importance of the budget deficit seems to be part of a longer term downward trend for all Americans caring about economic issues. As the economy improved over the course of the Obama administration, the percentage of voters who listed strengthening the economy, improving the job situation and the budget deficit as a top priority declined.

The big question is whether members of Congress, many of whom built their political careers on calls to cut spending and reduce force the country to live within its means, will care about the public's lack of interest in deficits. It's possible that they won't, and Trump's budget, which is important as a statement of his ideals and is not a spending bill, will get stopped in its tracks, replaced with ideas in the forthcoming Congressional budget. But given that they already passed a tax plan that will likely add than a trillion to deficits on its own, it seems unlikely that Republican lawmakers will care too much about raising the deficit further if it gets in the way of other priorities.