Post by: Little Joe on November 10, 2016, 12:19:26 PM
Was that just sucking up to the new President or did he mean it?
I believe he meant it. I think his anti-Trump remarks largely had to do with his belief that Trump was going to cost the GOP the Oval Office as well as the House and Senate. He now sees that he was wrong and he now sees the potential that Trump offers.
I really used to like Ryan, but I lost some respect during the election. I hope I recover the respect and that he and Trump can work well together to get things done.
Post by: Lucifer on November 10, 2016, 12:22:50 PM
I heard Paul Ryan give a surprisingly upbeat speech yesterday. I say surprisingly because of his anti-Trump stance during the election.
Was that just sucking up to the new President or did he mean it?
I believe he meant it. I think his anti-Trump remarks largely had to do with his belief that Trump was going to cost the GOP the Oval Office as well as the House and Senate. He now sees that he was wrong and he now sees the potential that Trump offers.
I really used to like Ryan, but I lost some respect during the election. I hope I recover the respect and that he and Trump can work well together to get things done.
Ryan sees an opening. Don't look for the honeymoon to last long as Ryan and the establishment republicans try to push Pres. Trump into their agenda.
I would hope I'm wrong, but I seriously don't trust Ryan. Time will tell.
Post by: pilot_dude on November 10, 2016, 02:37:43 PM
Post by: nddons on November 10, 2016, 03:19:40 PM
I think Ryan has been bullied by Boehner and the rest of the blue blood establishment, and think that he will be more of his own man when he commences his own term as Speaker.
I've spoken to him in meetings with various groups, and he seems to be a straight shooter that hasn't yet been totally corrupted by Washington.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 10, 2016, 03:30:35 PM
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jckUQU86KA0/maxresdefault.jpg)
(http://orig08.deviantart.net/c753/f/2013/219/4/7/leonard_nimoy_mirror_mirror_spock_by_dave_daring-d6h3pps.jpg)
Post by: Lucifer on November 10, 2016, 03:34:48 PM
I wouldn't worry so much about Ryan. While I've had issues, he is still more conservative than Trump, and I think Trump would be very, very wise to work closely with Ryan.
I think Ryan has been bullied by Boehner and the rest of the blue blood establishment, and think that he will be more of his own man when he commences his own term as Speaker.
I've spoken to him in meetings with various groups, and he seems to be a straight shooter that hasn't yet been totally corrupted by Washington.
I hope you are right. My concern right now is the establishment republicans are going "Great, we can do whatever we want now" thinking they can get Trump to just tag along.
Let's hope Ryan and other leadership realize the gift they have now and will work with the President to get this accomplished.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 10, 2016, 03:45:48 PM
I hope you are right. My concern right now is the establishment republicans are going "Great, we can do whatever we want now" thinking they can get Trump to just tag along.
Let's hope Ryan and other leadership realize the gift they have now and will work with the President to get this accomplished.
Trump is not a lap dog.
Post by: Lucifer on November 10, 2016, 03:49:27 PM
Trump is not a lap dog.
No doubt. Just hope those in the GOP don't make the mistake and assume that.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 10, 2016, 05:00:30 PM
No doubt. Just hope those in the GOP don't make the mistake and assume that.
Yeah, because:
Post by: nddons on November 10, 2016, 05:38:05 PM
I hope you are right. My concern right now is the establishment republicans are going "Great, we can do whatever we want now" thinking they can get Trump to just tag along.I think that will be the case. There has been very little Ryan could accomplish with Obama in office. There has been a lot of conservative legislation that has gone nowhere.
Let's hope Ryan and other leadership realize the gift they have now and will work with the President to get this accomplished.
Post by: Mase on November 10, 2016, 05:52:25 PM
Post by: Anthony on November 10, 2016, 06:01:01 PM
Chuck U. Schumer will quickly became the all-purpose road block.
He needs to be steam rolled, and flattened by Trump.
Post by: Gary on November 10, 2016, 07:05:14 PM
I think that will be the case. There has been very little Ryan could accomplish with Obama in office. There has been a lot of conservative legislation that has gone nowhere.
Hw do you believe Trump/Ryan will handle that part of the Republican party that are very focused on budget deficits? I haven't seen much on what programs Trump wishes to cut, yet he has promised to maintain Social Security, re-build the military and do a major infrastructure spending boost. Coupled with a big tax cut, I see a huge increase to the Federal deficit.
Post by: Anthony on November 10, 2016, 07:16:22 PM
Hw do you believe Trump/Ryan will handle that part of the Republican party that are very focused on budget deficits? I haven't seen much on what programs Trump wishes to cut, yet he has promised to maintain Social Security, re-build the military and do a major infrastructure spending boost. Coupled with a big tax cut, I see a huge increase to the Federal deficit.
Good question. I'm wondering the same thing. I think he plans on larger economic growth to increase revenue even at lower tax rates. But will it be enough?
Post by: Lucifer on November 10, 2016, 07:20:41 PM
Hw do you believe Trump/Ryan will handle that part of the Republican party that are very focused on budget deficits? I haven't seen much on what programs Trump wishes to cut, yet he has promised to maintain Social Security, re-build the military and do a major infrastructure spending boost. Coupled with a big tax cut, I see a huge increase to the Federal deficit.
The waste of the federal government is massive. Start by cutting waste, get rid of duplicate programs. Then, start cutting out foreign aid to countries that hate us. Start making other countries pay their rightful share in NATO and countries we provide military support, have them pay.
Rand Paul keeps track of wasteful government programs. They add up fast. The government gives it away faster than they can print it.
And then there are entitlements. As my dad use to say, "If you keep putting food on the porch the dog will never hunt".
Time to make some dogs hungry.
Post by: Gary on November 10, 2016, 07:42:01 PM
Good question. I'm wondering the same thing. I think he plans on larger economic growth to increase revenue even at lower tax rates. But will it be enough?
Agree that the President-elect is banking on a huge increase in the economy. Unfortunately, I just don't see that happening. Coupled with the fact the rest of the worlds economy is stagnant and potential trade tariffs, if the economy doesn't boom big time, the debt will mushroom. Rolling the dice and hoping for a seven..... The effect on revenue will be immediate, increases to the economy, if any, will take years.
But, so far it is all talk, I'll wait to see action.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 10, 2016, 08:23:20 PM
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on November 10, 2016, 08:32:34 PM
Agree that the President-elect is banking on a huge increase in the economy. Unfortunately, I just don't see that happening. Coupled with the fact the rest of the worlds economy is stagnant and potential trade tariffs, if the economy doesn't boom big time, the debt will mushroom. Rolling the dice and hoping for a seven..... The effect on revenue will be immediate, increases to the economy, if any, will take years.
But, so far it is all talk, I'll wait to see action.
I don't know.... repatriating $2-3 Trillion might give the ol' economy a little bump...
Post by: Anthony on November 11, 2016, 04:52:22 AM
The economy tanked in 08 and Obama did everything to keep it that way, like his hero FDR. It got too expensive to hire people, thanks to his biggest "achievement."
You can't tax, borrow, and spend your way out of recession. You must have policies that allow the private sector to prosper, and grow. Private sector economic growth is the key. FDR was saved by WWII. God forbid we need that.
Post by: Gary on November 11, 2016, 07:00:26 AM
I don't know.... repatriating $2-3 Trillion might give the ol' economy a little bump...
That is possible. Yet, there is no obligation for those companies to return that money here nor is there any way the government could force those companies to spend it in ways that would increase jobs in the US. More than likely those companies will continue to do what they are now doing, invest the money such that they get the best return.
Post by: Joe-KansasCity on November 11, 2016, 07:06:36 AM
That is possible. Yet, there is no obligation for those companies to return that money here nor is there any way the government could force those companies to spend it in ways that would increase jobs in the US. More than likely those companies will continue to do what they are now doing, invest the money such that they get the best return.
True, but if the tax burden to bring those earnings back on shore is removed, the best use of those resources may change drastically.
Post by: Anthony on November 11, 2016, 07:09:41 AM
True, but if the tax burden to bring those earnings back on shore is removed, the best use of those resources may change drastically.
Exactly. Give them an incentive to move their operations back to the U.S. which is obviously tied to that action, not investment elsewhere.
Post by: Lucifer on November 11, 2016, 07:10:28 AM
That is possible. Yet, there is no obligation for those companies to return that money here nor is there any way the government could force those companies to spend it in ways that would increase jobs in the US. More than likely those companies will continue to do what they are now doing, invest the money such that they get the best return.
That's why it is so important to take away the barriers here in the US and make this country a great place to invest and to create companies. With our current tax code and mind boggling regulations on business investors look elsewhere.
Small business is the backbone of this economy. Promote these businesses rather than strangle them with government regulation and beauracracy. This in turn creates income, produces jobs and adds to the tax base.
Post by: Little Joe on November 11, 2016, 07:23:12 AM
That is possible. Yet, there is no obligation for those companies to return that money here nor is there any way the government could force those companies to spend it in ways that would increase jobs in the US. More than likely those companies will continue to do what they are now doing, invest the money such that they get the best return.There is no obligation that they keep that money offshore either. They do it because it is in their best financial interest. If you allow them the opportunity to repatriate that money without confiscating most of it, and then overtaxing any profits on the amount they are allowed to keep, many of them will repatriate much of their cash. And the multiplier effect will turn it into much more than the original $trillions the bring back.
Post by: LevelWing on November 11, 2016, 09:14:27 AM
The waste of the federal government is massive. Start by cutting waste, get rid of duplicate programs. Then, start cutting out foreign aid to countries that hate us. Start making other countries pay their rightful share in NATO and countries we provide military support, have them pay.Good luck going anywhere near entitlement reform. I agree that it needs to happen but it's a political non-starter. The proverbial "third rail" of American politics. For effective entitlement reform to occur, a plan would have to be developed ahead of mentioning it to anyone (good luck with that as well) and then you'd need an excellent sales pitch. The Democrats are going to do everything they can do make it out to be terrible. Remember the commercial of Ryan pushing granny off the cliff? It'll be worse than that.
Rand Paul keeps track of wasteful government programs. They add up fast. The government gives it away faster than they can print it.
And then there are entitlements. As my dad use to say, "If you keep putting food on the porch the dog will never hunt".
Time to make some dogs hungry.
Post by: Lucifer on November 11, 2016, 09:20:24 AM
Good luck going anywhere near entitlement reform. I agree that it needs to happen but it's a political non-starter. The proverbial "third rail" of American politics. For effective entitlement reform to occur, a plan would have to be developed ahead of mentioning it to anyone (good luck with that as well) and then you'd need an excellent sales pitch. The Democrats are going to do everything they can do make it out to be terrible. Remember the commercial of Ryan pushing granny off the cliff? It'll be worse than that.
So we just cower in a corner and look the other way? What a defeatist attitude.
I'm for finding a better way that works for everyone. It's time to stop a select few that us the government to buy votes from always having it their way.
Post by: Little Joe on November 11, 2016, 09:23:21 AM
Agree that the President-elect is banking on a huge increase in the economy. Unfortunately, I just don't see that happening. Coupled with the fact the rest of the worlds economy is stagnant and potential trade tariffs, if the economy doesn't boom big time, the debt will mushroom. Rolling the dice and hoping for a seven..... The effect on revenue will be immediate, increases to the economy, if any, will take years.Trump way under-spent Hillary on the campaign, and he won anyway by running a more efficient campaign and only spending money where it needed to be spent. Hillary threw money at the campaign like a drunken Congressman and lost. The amount of money spent is not always the predictor of outcome. And things don't need to cost as much as the government is willing to pay.
But, so far it is all talk, I'll wait to see action.
Post by: LevelWing on November 11, 2016, 09:25:09 AM
So we just cower in a corner and look the other way? What a defeatist attitude.I pointed out how to go about it. I also said it needs to be done. I also noted the political realities involved. No defeatist attitude here.
I'm for finding a better way that works for everyone. It's time to stop a select few that us the government to buy votes from always having it their way.
There has been no meaningful reform in decades, if ever. Given how large of a project this is it'll take more than just throwing something together and ramming it through Congress like what was done with Obamacare.
Post by: nddons on November 11, 2016, 09:33:53 AM
That is possible. Yet, there is no obligation for those companies to return that money here nor is there any way the government could force those companies to spend it in ways that would increase jobs in the US. More than likely those companies will continue to do what they are now doing, invest the money such that they get the best return.I guess only government "force" will work, right? No need to use pro-growth tried-and-true incentives to help private industry grow and prosper, when the full force of Government control could do soooo much more.
Post by: nddons on November 11, 2016, 09:38:52 AM
Good luck going anywhere near entitlement reform. I agree that it needs to happen but it's a political non-starter. The proverbial "third rail" of American politics. For effective entitlement reform to occur, a plan would have to be developed ahead of mentioning it to anyone (good luck with that as well) and then you'd need an excellent sales pitch. The Democrats are going to do everything they can do make it out to be terrible. Remember the commercial of Ryan pushing granny off the cliff? It'll be worse than that.This is why Trump must work with Ryan. Trump said he wouldn't touch entitlements, but Ryan has a plan. If the GOP can't get entitlement reform done now, then we are truly financially doomed as a country.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 11, 2016, 09:40:37 AM
...pushing Granny off the cliff?
Hilarious considering many want single payer, and it means exactly that due to high cost of EOL care. Death Panels, anyone?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 11, 2016, 09:42:14 AM
Trump way under-spent Hillary on the campaign, and he won anyway by running a more efficient campaign and only spending money where it needed to be spent. Hillary threw laundered money at the campaign like a drunken Congressman and lost. The amount of money spent is not always the predictor of outcome. And things don't need to cost as much as the government is willing to pay.FTFY
Post by: MarkZ on November 11, 2016, 08:08:29 PM
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Post by: LevelWing on November 12, 2016, 04:31:19 AM
Wouldn't any incentives or dis-incentives to "help" corporations repatriate their money involve some sort of government regulation/intervention?I believe it'd have to be a change in the law.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Post by: Little Joe on November 12, 2016, 06:59:43 AM
Wouldn't any incentives or dis-incentives to "help" corporations repatriate their money involve some sort of government regulation/intervention?It would involve removing government regulations/taxes. Yes, it would take an action on the part of the government, but it would be an action to remove restrictions and taxes, not add them.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Suppose I had you chained in a cellar and I beat you every day. You HATE everything I do. Then, I decide to let you go, but you refuse because that would require that I do something (ie, unchain you and get out of your way).
Post by: MarkZ on November 12, 2016, 07:16:33 AM
It would involve removing government regulations/taxes. Yes, it would take an action on the part of the government, but it would be an action to remove restrictions and taxes, not add them.I thought we were talking about how to "incentivize" a company to repatriate. How would removing restrictions and taxes do that.
Suppose I had you chained in a cellar and I beat you every day. You HATE everything I do. Then, I decide to let you go, but you refuse because that would require that I do something (ie, unchain you and get out of your way).
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Little Joe on November 12, 2016, 08:42:59 AM
I thought we were talking about how to "incentivize" a company to repatriate. How would removing restrictions and taxes do that.Come on; you are smarter than that. Or are you being facetious?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
There are already lots of reasons for those companies to repatriate their cash.
Highways, railways, seaports, telecommunications infrastructure, stable utilities, an educated work force (ok, this one is arguable), and even political stability. And there are many other reasons to locate and invest here. The main reasons companies are holding their cash off shore are high taxes,oppressive regulations and low wages. Reduce those two of the three and the balance switches back to this being one of the best places in the world to invest.
Post by: MarkZ on November 12, 2016, 10:23:16 AM
Come on; you are smarter than that. Or are you being facetious?I was referring to the manufacturing jobs that were shipped overseas. I guess we were thinking of two separate ideas.
There are already lots of reasons for those companies to repatriate their cash.
Highways, railways, seaports, telecommunications infrastructure, stable utilities, an educated work force (ok, this one is arguable), and even political stability. And there are many other reasons to locate and invest here. The main reasons companies are holding their cash off shore are high taxes,oppressive regulations and low wages. Reduce those two of the three and the balance switches back to this being one of the best places in the world to invest.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Post by: Number7 on November 12, 2016, 10:34:37 AM
Wouldn't any incentives or dis-incentives to "help" corporations repatriate their money involve some sort of government regulation/intervention?
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Yes.
Forcing government OUT of the business of limiting success and picking winners and losers.