Have the Trump corporate tax cuts and amnesty freebies paid for themselves yet?

I keep looking for stats to show that the freebies we gave to corporations at the expense of current workers and future unborn debt slaves will pay off. They promised us that these freebies will pay for themselves many times over in the short, mid and long term. 

So how are we looking from a government tax claim perspective and how has that reduced our current budget deficit? Since we are in the middle of a FED induced coma we surely would see an enormous impact given that we gave away a T plus to corps and it has to trickle down right?

And what does it mean when long term rates invert lower than short term rates, is that a good economic sign, something out of the Trump business gameplan?

I will say this. As much as I think trickle down economics is a scam, as much as I think the tax cuts are an affront to +95% of the people, the cuts have lead to job growth. They are not solely responsible for all new jobs, even just all of those in the manufacturing sector, but there are some new jobs that the tax cuts are durectly responsible for. I haven't seen numbers on wage growth to know what, if any, effect the cuts have had on that.

Tax freebies do not stimulate demand and thus supply constraints which lead to hiring. We have been in a FED zone for a solid 4-5 years and even though the job creation is mostly lower to low middle class, it cost the FED several T to get us here, then we give away a T here and there between corp tax cuts and amnesty, I sure as crap hope that something has come from it. 

We are not in a crisis but Trump is spending like we are, I saw today that government spending hit its peak last month which eclipsed the crisis spending...and what do we have to show for it exactly? Wage growth is tepid, there is no wage inflation and outside of corp profit goosing there is no inflation to be seen and why is that moron Kudlow wanting the FED to CUT rates???

So is this equal to the like 10 T we have spent to make it happen? In the face of a pretty calm environment why do we need record government debt and historic low interest rates? 

In reality the beneficiaries of this are the elite and corps, they have been spending record number of monies and debt on buybacks, lets not kid ourselves. So hurrah for a 3% econ growth with out of control spending and debt.

I’m guessing your a glass half empty type of guy em my right?

Heres how I look at things... We the people are going to be taxed whether the the national deficit goes up, down, or sideways

As a small business owner I’ll take the booming economy, even if it’s propped up by low interest rates, and stack as many chips as I can. Ride the wave until it breaks but be ready for the lean times

So instead of Obama vs Trump/Repub that you love, why not address the real math and economics of what you just posted?

How much should the differential in "growth" cost in your opinion? So even if we go with your exaggerated figures of 1% more in growth (twice sounds good but in reality it is 1%, not a real large double). How much should we spend to get that extra 1% to you?

The FED is supporting Trump's Atlantic City approach to "growth" by racking up debt and hoping that the marginal cost of that debt will be less than the growth you get from that debt...he was wrong with his companies as they went to BK several times and he is wrong about the numbers with government. Just think of what interest costs will be if rates were even REMOTELY close to historic averages. THAT is why Kudlow the clown wants the FED to cut rates to zero again because that will bring down the cost of government interest costs and that will make him and Trump look better and people might ignore the debt total number.

The issue is that Trump was a reckless CEO with his companies and floated debt at enormous rates but that debt was SHORT TERM...government debt is 10 to 30 years and the real interest costs are much much more. The mentality Trump has is wrong for a government where it MIGHT work for certain corporate scenarios.

I doubt you will answer my question because you rarely do, but how much should that marginal economic growth cost to create?

The man asked you a simple question. Deflect & spin is a lousy stance. If you don't know, say you don't know. No one would be surprised by that response.

sicknesscity,

Keep in mind that the currency rate is relative to another so the comment about printing meaning devaluing isnt as simple as it seems. In theory printing an excess of currency would equate to devaluing because there is more supply than demand and the value of the total basket of currency should go down because there is more of it....but in reality the currency value is always versus another currency. 

Devaluing also can come from a reduction in buying power due to the same reasons I listed above and that is usually called inflation..but the problem is that inflation only comes when there is excess demand for goods and services not just because there is more currency in circulation. I think there has been enormous inflation in the system already but there are some large flaws to how CPI is calculated as it is done by unit cost and not by price per ounce or pound and since corps have been cheating by reducing sizing it masks inflation. There is also some deflation in areas where government subsidies have created a glut of supply (milk is a good example as is grains etc) and so prices are artificially low to support certain industries and that has created deflation...but that has a cost to the taxpayer with the government debt so it really isnt deflation in the bigger picture.

The currency depreciation only happens if the currency in question is valued against a stronger currency and thus is weaker...and usually that happens because of country internals and the level of civil unrest or how strong one economy is relative to another. Some examples are the Lira imploding due to political unrest...the fact that the British pound and the Euro have been 10-30% stronger than the USD for a very long time when its not likely that those economies are THAT much stronger than ours. More goes into the currency value equation than supply, especially since other countries/unions are also printing so it neuters the imbalance of the USD increase.