| Trump is not a great businessman, and he is not good for the US economy. |
| Mr. Trump told Republicans he would “love to raise tariffs” and cut income taxes on Americans
Companies often pass on the cost of tariffs to consumers in the form of higher prices. As a result, economists say, lower-income households would be hit hardest by tariffs since they spend a greater share of their income on goods. Income taxes tend to fall more heavily on wealthier Americans since many low-income workers do not make enough money to owe federal income taxes. Kimberly Clausing, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who served in the Treasury Department under President Biden {. . .} and Maurice Obstfeld, also of the Peterson Institute {. . .} also calculated what would happen if the United States imposed enough tariffs to earn the maximum level of revenue, $780 billion, and then cut income taxes by a similar amount across all income groups. They found that the result would be a net 8.5 percent reduction in after-tax income for the lowest-earning 20 percent of Americans, compared with an 11.6 percent increase for the highest-earning 1 percent. Source: "Trump’s Proposed Tax Cuts and Increased Tariffs Could Hurt Poorer Households" By Ana Swanson, Andrew Duehren and Luke Broadwater - NY Times - 7/17/24 When it comes to economic policy, Mr. Trump is not a remotely normal candidate. A second Trump term would pose enormous risks to our economy. At a time when our country was already on an increasingly risky debt trajectory, President Trump’s first-term tax initiatives added an estimated $3.9 trillion to the national debt, according to Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute. Mainstream analyses concluded that the result — increasing demand in an already full employment economy while having a negligible effect on business investment — added very little benefit in the shorter term and virtually nothing in the longer term. And Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would further harm our fiscal picture. A Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget report said that extending the 2017 tax cuts alone would add another $3.9 trillion to the federal debt and increase our debt-to-G.D.P. ratio by approximately 10 percent. This would likely lead to higher interest rates and greater inflation while undermining business confidence, and could reduce our resilience in the face of future national-security or economic crises. Mr. Trump would also reduce legal immigration at a time when our economy needs additional workers at all skill levels. Companies are already moving some operations outside of the United States in order to find needed staff. Ordering the military to deport millions, as he has threatened to do, would not only lead to widespread social instability but also fail to approach the issue of undocumented workers in a way that meets our economic needs. On trade, raising tariffs across the board — as Mr. Trump has promised repeatedly to do — would increase prices for American producers and consumers, reduce our global competitiveness and likely lead other countries to retaliate against our exporters. In a second term he’s promised to take this approach further, for example, by pledging to reward political allies in the oil and gas industry by throttling renewable energy, one of the world’s fastest growing industries, and one where we are in fierce competition with China. Mr. Trump has said he would like to withdraw from NATO obligations and has threatened to abandon our allies in Europe if they are attacked. Such threats would immediately shake confidence in America’s defense commitments and could embolden our adversaries to act in hostile ways, increasing global instability that threatens our supply chains and our markets and increasing the risk of armed conflict. Of course, if Mr. Trump were actually to follow through on these threats, the damage would be far worse. The rule of law is an essential underpinning of our economy. Mr. Trump’s proposed plans would undermine the rule of law in multiple ways, including using the F.B.I. and the Justice Department to target his adversaries, likely doing the same with the I.R.S., firing United States attorneys if they refuse his order to prosecute a political enemy, using his pardon power to immunize political allies from the consequences of lawbreaking and continuing to reject the fairness and freedom of our elections. Mr. Trump would also fill his cabinet and senior staff with people whose primary qualification is loyalty to him. In such a scenario, the White House and federal agencies would be expected to make decisions not on the policy merits but in order to satisfy Mr. Trump’s ego, angers, whims, personal business interests and political vendettas. When it comes to managing crises — an essential component of any president’s economic stewardship — Mr. Trump’s first term paints a troubling picture. As the pandemic spread across the United States, Trump bungled the response with indecision, a focus on politics over the public well-being and erratic behavior. Economic damage from the pandemic was inevitable. But a more effective leader could have substantially limited that harm. Nearly every element of Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda would create great risk of economic harm. In aggregate, there is a high likelihood that his agenda would lead to chaos and unpredictability, including global instability, in that way reducing investment and business activity. Meanwhile, inflation would be increased by tariffs, immigration restrictions and larger fiscal deficits. Some may feel that we made it through one Trump term and are thus likely to make it through another. But a more apt analogy is that after surviving one round of economic Russian roulette, Donald Trump is asking us to take another spin — only this time with many more bullets in the chamber. That would be a very dangerous game. Source: "The Enormous Risks a Second Trump Term Poses to Our Economy" - By Robert E. Rubin and Kenneth I. Chenault - July 8, 2024 In March 2018, a day after announcing sweeping tariffs on metals imported from America’s allies and adversaries alike, President Donald J. Trump took to social media to share one of his central economic philosophies: “Trade wars are good, and easy to win.” As president, Mr. Trump presided over the biggest increase in U.S. tariffs since the Great Depression, hitting China, Canada, the European Union, Mexico, India and other governments with stiff levies. They hit back, imposing tariffs on American soybeans, whiskey, orange juice and motorcycles. U.S. agricultural exports plummeted, prompting Mr. Trump to send $23 billion to farmers to help offset losses. Studies show that the tariffs resulted in higher prices for American consumers and factories that depend on foreign inputs, and reduced U.S. exports for certain goods that were subject to retaliation. Spirit exports to Europe declined by 20 percent after the European Union imposed a 25 percent retaliatory tariff on American whiskey in response to the Trump administration’s tariffs on steel and aluminum. And the China tariffs increased the prices that retailers had to pay for their products, forcing them to either raise prices for their customers or cut into their profits. “We need a trade policy, not just more tariffs,” said David French, executive vice president of government relations at the National Retail Federation. His group, which represents department stores, e-commerce sites and grocers, ran a television ad campaign opposing the Trump tariffs in 2018. “All they’ve done is add friction to the supply chain and cost consumers $220 billion.” A recent analysis by the Peterson Institute of International Economics found that if Mr. Trump did impose a 10 percent tariff on all goods and a 60 percent tariff on China, it would cost a typical household in the middle of the income distribution about $1,700 in increased expenses each year. Another analysis, by the right-leaning American Action Forum, estimated that a 10 percent tariff could impose additional annual costs of up to $2,350 per American household. Adding a 60 percent tariff on China would add another $1,950 to U.S. household costs. Source: "Trump Eyes Bigger Trade War in Second Term" By Ana Swanson and Alan Rappeport - NY Times - 6/27/24 O yes, and Trump University — defrauding students. The football league he destroyed. Stiffing people he hired. Hiring undocumented immigrants. Trump is not wealthy because of his business acumen. He is less wealthy than he claims — which is why he won’t release his tax returns. What wealth he has is not based on doing useful things. He is wealthy for three reasons. Inherited hundreds of millions of dollars from Dad. Borrows huge sums of money. Dodges taxes. Elect Trump and all we’ll see is what we saw before. Huge tax cuts for the wealthy, huge borrowing of public money, huge surge in the national debt. Huge benefits to his family — loans of hundreds of millions to Jared Kushner from Middle Eastern dictators. Good at handling the economy??? How have we allowed voters to think this? This narrative needs to be said again and again. Along with informing voters of Donald’s business failures and his disastrous and dishonest conduct in many of his enterprises. Trump is a great self promoter. With a track record of failure in private business. Source: "Voters believe Trump would handle the economy better??? Six bankruptcies! Failed casinos!" by boblite- Daily Kos - 5/29/2024 |
No one has submitted a comment on this statement yet.
Be the first and submit your feedback below.
Submit your comment below |