Bull market, how long for?

iro

This Trump tax cut focuses on Corporations and lower earners not the high earning individuals Clinton chose so not comparable, the radical (and personally much appreciated) de-regulation of financial markets allowed a stock market rise that benefited the Public purse which led to the surplus as indeed your link confirms.

So the Reagan structural reforms DID lead to a Clinton surplus.

talexuser

iro wrote: »

So the Reagan structural reforms DID lead to a Clinton surplus.

Only if you don't read the link.

iro

talexuser wrote: »

Only if you don't read the link.

'An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets,'

rest my case.

Hope this happens again!

talexuser

iro wrote: »

'An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets,'

rest my case.

Hope this happens again!

Yes, as specifically described it was called the dot com bubble.

iro

talexuser wrote: »

Yes, as specifically described it was called the dot com bubble.

Which nontheless raised tax revenue and only harmed the 'greatest fools' who chose to take part in it.

The real economy was hardly disturbed by it and but for the ridiculous behaviour of the Federal Reserve in pumping excess liquidity into the US economy post 911 this Golden benign period would most likely have continued.

le_loup

iro wrote: »

They'd regularly go through the checkout line speaking on their cell phones.

I have a high regard for Americans but may I ask you please to go and pollute another place and let us Brits do it our way? Thanks buddy.

iro

le_loup wrote: »

I have a high regard for Americans but may I ask you please to go and pollute another place and let us Brits do it our way? Thanks buddy.

Quote from a US book buddy. This thread is about the US in case you had not spotted that.

le_loup

Gosh, you really are here for the ten shilling argument.


Incidentally, quotes normally come with quotes.

economic

IanManc wrote: »

Your parents hadn't paid for the complete infrastructure of the country that they found when they came here, had they? They used roads, hospitals, and every other public service that other people's taxes had paid for.

You haven't thought your argument through. Everything in the country that they used when they arrived had been paid for by the people who were already here, and their parents.

Your "why should I subsidise someone else's life?" attitude is utterly naïve.

So why do you expect me to subsidize someone else's life exactly?

Why should i work for someone else to use my tax money? The tax money i have paid pays for the infrastructure etc you talk about. Why should i pay anything more then this?

I have paid my legal share of taxes. I always try to minimize this as much as possible.

economic

talexuser wrote: »

Absolute rubbish, Clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

And interest rates falling by more then half (when Clinton became president) had zero effect on the deficit/debt???