like_that;1836027 wrote:Sticky wages.

QuakerOats;1836022 wrote:Economic growth rates will be the most important, followed by tax rate cuts.

The former will lift all boats, the latter will create additional purchasing power.

All of this within the context of vastly reduced regulation and greater individual liberty.

ptown_trojans_1;1836031 wrote:Economic growth by wages, GDP, labor participation I assume then?
Otherwise, you are just listing boiler plate words and phrases.
Tax cuts don't mean jack shit if it doesn't increase productivity and improve wages.

sleeper;1836034 wrote:We already have historically low tax rates. Boomers just want to screw over future generations with greater deficits because they will be dead before the impacts starting destroying the economy.

This is why I support a 80% tax bracket for anyone aged 50 or above that makes more than $250k per year. I also support increasing the death tax to 90% for any amount over $100k for the next 30 years; this is simply to pay for all the lost taxes that Boomers didn't pay to support the government they voted for.

ptown_trojans_1;1836019 wrote:Doesn't mean jack shit until there is a ground breaking and actual deal for jobs.

I have a question now. What is your measure for success for Trump? The unemployment rate? The labor participation rate? GDP growth? Wage increases?
Just curious.

To me, it is the labor participation rate and the wage increase/ stagnation rates.

like_that;1836038 wrote:So you want to punish the boomers.

fish82;1836044 wrote:I can't wait to retire and have sleeper pay to stock my liquor cabinet every month. :laugh:

sleeper;1836042 wrote:No, punish is a bad word. I simply want them to pay for the government they voted for and never paid for.

Simple.

like_that;1836046 wrote:That's another way of saying you want to punish them.

Serious question, because boomers piss me off too (not as much as you), but who exactly are you referring to when you blame boomers for all this debt?

like_that;1836040 wrote:How about decreasing our debt? Doesn't seem like either side is interested in that.

ptown_trojans_1;1836028 wrote:Sure, last month Sallie Mae was hit with some lawsuits and a few years ago they had to pay penalties for misleading borrowers
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/18/pf/college/navient-sallie-mae-sued-cfpb/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/01/18/student-loan-servicer-navient-hit-with-three-government-lawsuits-in-one-day/?utm_term=.62ce33612592
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sallie-mae-to-pay-97-million-for-cheating-troops-on-student-loans/2014/05/13/bd76c2d8-dabb-11e3-b745-87d39690c5c0_story.html?utm_term=.482a6b177331

ptown_trojans_1;1836031 wrote:Economic growth by wages, GDP, labor participation I assume then?
Otherwise, you are just listing boiler plate words and phrases.
Tax cuts don't mean jack shit if it doesn't increase productivity and improve wages.

QuakerOats;1836052 wrote:GDP growth; we cannot begin to address our debt until we achieve real growth. We can, and should, put ALL spending on the table, most importantly entitlements, in order to decrease spending.

like_that;1836040 wrote:How about decreasing our debt? Doesn't seem like either side is interested in that.

QuakerOats;1836052 wrote:GDP growth; we cannot begin to address our debt until we achieve real growth. We can, and should, put ALL spending on the table, most importantly entitlements, in order to decrease spending.

sleeper;1836045 wrote:I'd be happy to keep it stocked with cat food. I could feed a lot of Boomers with cat food.

Azubuike24;1836065 wrote:Reduce expenses...

sleeper;1836060 wrote:Good to know you are okay with cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

QuakerOats;1836082 wrote:SS and Medicare should be privatized so that the money is there for the retirees who can then use it for retirement and buying medical coverage, and then leave significant amounts to their heirs upon death.

fish82;1836063 wrote:You'll be stocking it with expensive single malt.

Enjoy.

QuakerOats;1836088 wrote:Run the calcs on where you would be if you had your 6.2% contribution plus your employer's 6.2% match, over a 45 year career, at various rates of return. Then take that massive nest egg, and peel off the earnings each year to supplement your retirement income, live well, and leave damn near the entire principle balance to your heirs. The numbers are very, very substantial.

QuakerOats;1836088 wrote:Run the calcs on where you would be if you had your 6.2% contribution plus your employer's 6.2% match, over a 45 year career, at various rates of return. Then take that massive nest egg, and peel off the earnings each year to supplement your retirement income, live well, and leave damn near the entire principle balance to your heirs. The numbers are very, very substantial.