Trump will leave office with a historically bad economic record

[Bobob]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

True, lousy management fails and good management also may fail if the business cannot be competitive in the
marketplace.

but there is no requirement for any business to make a profit

I know since I have been there and have experienced both sides of the totem pole.

Then you know that it can be acceptable to take a loss so as to offset the taxes from future earnings. Or that a business can show ZERO profit because it has aggressively reinvested profits and used depreciation schedules

You are referring to "showing a loss".

There is no difference.

A loss is a loss

As a business owner for 30 years, a true financial loss kept me awake all night as I would worry as to how I was going to meet my payroll if it continued. A loss based upon legal write-offs etc. is a whole different ball game. Have you ever had to meet a payroll?

Of course. And when I couldn't I laid people off.

Legally it makes no difference which all the matters in this discussion

Maximizing profits is what for-profit firms have to show, regardless of minimum wage labor costs.

They do not have to show any such thing and since payroll is usually one of the largest expenditures of any business what you pay your employees certainly does matter because payroll expenses are more than the salaries of your employees

Again, have you ever had to meet a payroll? If it is your money, you would think differently than you would if you are expending other people's money.

 

[danielpalos]

It's not fraud at all.

It could be, that is why you have to show some business plan that shows how you expect to maximize profit on a long run basis. Minimizing costs means trying to maximize profits.

there is no requirement for any business plan unless you are borrowing money from a bank.

And how can it be fraud if you are obeying all the tax laws?

Minimizing taxes is Trying to move forward on maximizing profits.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

Seeking a profit is the point. For-profit corporations proclaim they are in it for the Capital not the Social.

A for-profit firm is only a price taker not a price maker regarding statutory wages enacted by Government.

You're just plain wrong.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true

lol. Explain how I am wrong with a valid argument. You simply claiming what you do means nothing but hypocrisy.

You are wrong because as I have told you there are times where it is perfectly acceptable to run at zero or negative profits.

But you don't understand it

For tax preference. Becoming profitable is a goal for any for-profit business.

Actually minimizing tax liability is the goal.

to maximize profits....

You are wrong. Tell you what run a business for 20 years and get back to me

Minimizing costs helps maximize profits.

Wow that's deep.

But meaningless

You need to show that or you may be engaging in fraud.

I have no requirement to show that I minimized costs

Not even to try to maximize profits?

 

[Harry Dresden]

hey danny why dont you tell us what makes you an expert on economics?...why are you dodging that question?....can it be you are just another full of shit poster here?...

Resorting to the fewest fallacies. Right wingers can't do it.

so you have nothing?....you are just another here giving their worthless opinions....

lol. You have rebut my arguments with valid rebuttals; ad hominems are usually just fallacies.

Our welfare clause is General enough to promote solutions.

you cant even give me a reason why i should take the crap you throw out here as some kind of fact.....why should i or anyone else here take you seriously?...why are you avoiding telling everyone here what your expertise is in economics?....i will tell you why....because you dont have any.....you just have some clueless opinions...in other words just a bunch of danny fallicies....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The people who are really going to get squeezed here are the ones making MW to about 12 dollars an hour and those are the people most easily replaced by technology.

So what. Some on the left are for actually solving for economic phenomena not just wasting money on alleged wars.

UC for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment easily solves that dilemma. Only the right wing has a problem mustering, goodwill toward men.

You are talking about welfare not unemployment compensation.

Since you obviously don't know this

All businesses pay State and Federal Unemployment taxes know as SUTA and FUTA the tax is calculated from the payroll of each business. If have never worked you have never been on a payroll therefore you have no claim on any of the money paid by businesses to fund unemployment.

You want to be a welfare bum

danny is just another phony here trying to act like they know what they are talking about....

lol. Yet, it is Right Wingers who have nothing but fallacy.

you are just as phony as they are.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

What you are advocating is not unemployment. It is welfare.

In order to be eligible for unemployment you must have first been employed then have lost that employment through no fault of your own.

You can not say that even if you never had a job and refuse to get one that you are unemployed by no fault of your own. You are choosing to be a bum.

danny has said many times that if you dont want to work you should not have to,but,you should be paid unemployment just the same.....

Equal protection of our at-will employment laws for UC in our at-will employment States; what an economic solution concept.

yea lets pay people who want to sit at home doing nothing....so when are going to go out and get a job?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Not one single private sector business is required to make a profit.

The for-profit private sector is required to seek a profit; only lousy management fails.

No it is not required. it is preferred but not required as I said many business operate at a zero or even negative profit margin in their early years

Words mean things maybe you should buy a dictionary

Seeking a profit is like promoting the general welfare not actually providing for the general welfare of that firm.

the two are completely different.

The only people who define what is good or bad for their businesses are the owners. And there can be times when running at low, no or negative profit can be deemed acceptable by the business owners

You miss the point. For-profit firms are expected to be profit oriented as their reason for existence.

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

danny would know this if he knew what he was talking about.....but he thinks he is an expert.....the guy did not even know were ellis island was....

Your bigotry is showing. Simply having a legal place to go prevents an illegal problem and an illegal underclass.

you had better learn what bigotry means.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

Seeking a profit is the point. For-profit corporations proclaim they are in it for the Capital not the Social.

A for-profit firm is only a price taker not a price maker regarding statutory wages enacted by Government.

You're just plain wrong.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true

danny has proven in these posts to be a phony....like i said he did not know were ellis island was....had to told by myself and about 5 other posters where it was....he thought it was somewhere on the southern border....

 

[Harry Dresden]

You don't understand business or tax law.

A business can show zero or negative profit and not lose money.

You might know this if you ever ran a business

Seeking a profit is the point. For-profit corporations proclaim they are in it for the Capital not the Social.

A for-profit firm is only a price taker not a price maker regarding statutory wages enacted by Government.

You're just plain wrong.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true

lol. Explain how I am wrong with a valid argument. You simply claiming what you do means nothing but hypocrisy.

You are wrong because as I have told you there are times where it is perfectly acceptable to run at zero or negative profits.

But you don't understand it

For tax preference. Becoming profitable is a goal for any for-profit business.

Actually minimizing tax liability is the goal.

to maximize profits....

You are wrong. Tell you what run a business for 20 years and get back to me

danny is an expert on these matters....cant you tell by the shit he is throwing around here?...

 

[danielpalos]

hey danny why dont you tell us what makes you an expert on economics?...why are you dodging that question?....can it be you are just another full of shit poster here?...

Resorting to the fewest fallacies. Right wingers can't do it.

so you have nothing?....you are just another here giving their worthless opinions....

lol. You have rebut my arguments with valid rebuttals; ad hominems are usually just fallacies.

Our welfare clause is General enough to promote solutions.

you cant even give me a reason why i should take the crap you throw out here as some kind of fact.....why should i or anyone else here take you seriously?...why are you avoiding telling everyone here what your expertise is in economics?....i will tell you why....because you dont have any.....you just have some clueless opinions...in other words just a bunch of danny fallicies....

We have a Constitution. Why should I take right wingers seriously about Constitutional law or economics?

 

[danielpalos]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

What you are advocating is not unemployment. It is welfare.

In order to be eligible for unemployment you must have first been employed then have lost that employment through no fault of your own.

You can not say that even if you never had a job and refuse to get one that you are unemployed by no fault of your own. You are choosing to be a bum.

danny has said many times that if you dont want to work you should not have to,but,you should be paid unemployment just the same.....

Equal protection of our at-will employment laws for UC in our at-will employment States; what an economic solution concept.

yea lets pay people who want to sit at home doing nothing....so when are going to go out and get a job?...

You have no solution. Why do you complain about those who do?

 

[Harry Dresden]

hey danny why dont you tell us what makes you an expert on economics?...why are you dodging that question?....can it be you are just another full of shit poster here?...

Resorting to the fewest fallacies. Right wingers can't do it.

so you have nothing?....you are just another here giving their worthless opinions....

lol. You have rebut my arguments with valid rebuttals; ad hominems are usually just fallacies.

Our welfare clause is General enough to promote solutions.

you cant even give me a reason why i should take the crap you throw out here as some kind of fact.....why should i or anyone else here take you seriously?...why are you avoiding telling everyone here what your expertise is in economics?....i will tell you why....because you dont have any.....you just have some clueless opinions...in other words just a bunch of danny fallicies....

We have a Constitution. Why should I take right wingers seriously about Constitutional law or economics?

like i have been asking you.....why should anyone here take you seriously about economics?...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

What you are advocating is not unemployment. It is welfare.

In order to be eligible for unemployment you must have first been employed then have lost that employment through no fault of your own.

You can not say that even if you never had a job and refuse to get one that you are unemployed by no fault of your own. You are choosing to be a bum.

danny has said many times that if you dont want to work you should not have to,but,you should be paid unemployment just the same.....

Equal protection of our at-will employment laws for UC in our at-will employment States; what an economic solution concept.

yea lets pay people who want to sit at home doing nothing....so when are going to go out and get a job?...

You have no solution. Why do you complain about those who do?

your solution is paying people to be non productive.....that aint a solution danny....

 

[Nostra]

Falling unemployment
Record DOW
Low Inflation
Vaccines being delivered that will open the economy further.

Oh, And Danny is a dumbass. How can you guys continue to read his drivel?

 

[danielpalos]

hey danny why dont you tell us what makes you an expert on economics?...why are you dodging that question?....can it be you are just another full of shit poster here?...

Resorting to the fewest fallacies. Right wingers can't do it.

so you have nothing?....you are just another here giving their worthless opinions....

lol. You have rebut my arguments with valid rebuttals; ad hominems are usually just fallacies.

Our welfare clause is General enough to promote solutions.

you cant even give me a reason why i should take the crap you throw out here as some kind of fact.....why should i or anyone else here take you seriously?...why are you avoiding telling everyone here what your expertise is in economics?....i will tell you why....because you dont have any.....you just have some clueless opinions...in other words just a bunch of danny fallicies....

We have a Constitution. Why should I take right wingers seriously about Constitutional law or economics?

like i have been asking you.....why should anyone here take you seriously about economics?...

I actually resort to the fewest fallacies. Any other questions?

 

[danielpalos]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

What you are advocating is not unemployment. It is welfare.

In order to be eligible for unemployment you must have first been employed then have lost that employment through no fault of your own.

You can not say that even if you never had a job and refuse to get one that you are unemployed by no fault of your own. You are choosing to be a bum.

danny has said many times that if you dont want to work you should not have to,but,you should be paid unemployment just the same.....

Equal protection of our at-will employment laws for UC in our at-will employment States; what an economic solution concept.

yea lets pay people who want to sit at home doing nothing....so when are going to go out and get a job?...

You have no solution. Why do you complain about those who do?

your solution is paying people to be non productive.....that aint a solution danny....

Under Capitalism with our use of fiat money? Why do You believe not. Explain your reasoning.

 

[Harry Dresden]

hey danny why dont you tell us what makes you an expert on economics?...why are you dodging that question?....can it be you are just another full of shit poster here?...

Resorting to the fewest fallacies. Right wingers can't do it.

so you have nothing?....you are just another here giving their worthless opinions....

lol. You have rebut my arguments with valid rebuttals; ad hominems are usually just fallacies.

Our welfare clause is General enough to promote solutions.

you cant even give me a reason why i should take the crap you throw out here as some kind of fact.....why should i or anyone else here take you seriously?...why are you avoiding telling everyone here what your expertise is in economics?....i will tell you why....because you dont have any.....you just have some clueless opinions...in other words just a bunch of danny fallicies....

We have a Constitution. Why should I take right wingers seriously about Constitutional law or economics?

like i have been asking you.....why should anyone here take you seriously about economics?...

I actually resort to the fewest fallacies. Any other questions?

so they are still fallacies right?.....like i said danny.....you are a phony....

 

[danielpalos]

Falling unemployment
Record DOW
Low Inflation
Vaccines being delivered that will open the economy further.

Oh, And Danny is a dumbass. How can you guys continue to read his drivel?

All of that minus the vaccines was already happening anyway. It is not like your guy had to turn a Recession around.

 

[danielpalos]

hey danny why dont you tell us what makes you an expert on economics?...why are you dodging that question?....can it be you are just another full of shit poster here?...

Resorting to the fewest fallacies. Right wingers can't do it.

so you have nothing?....you are just another here giving their worthless opinions....

lol. You have rebut my arguments with valid rebuttals; ad hominems are usually just fallacies.

Our welfare clause is General enough to promote solutions.

you cant even give me a reason why i should take the crap you throw out here as some kind of fact.....why should i or anyone else here take you seriously?...why are you avoiding telling everyone here what your expertise is in economics?....i will tell you why....because you dont have any.....you just have some clueless opinions...in other words just a bunch of danny fallicies....

We have a Constitution. Why should I take right wingers seriously about Constitutional law or economics?

like i have been asking you.....why should anyone here take you seriously about economics?...

I actually resort to the fewest fallacies. Any other questions?

so they are still fallacies right?.....like i said danny.....you are a phony....

You have no valid arguments; that makes you even phonier.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Like i said welfare.

And, you would be wrong. A social safety net is not necessarily welfare. UC already exists in our Republic and is distinct from means tested welfare and more efficient as a result. You wanting to confuse the issue is a fallacy not an argument.

What you are advocating is not unemployment. It is welfare.

In order to be eligible for unemployment you must have first been employed then have lost that employment through no fault of your own.

You can not say that even if you never had a job and refuse to get one that you are unemployed by no fault of your own. You are choosing to be a bum.

danny has said many times that if you dont want to work you should not have to,but,you should be paid unemployment just the same.....

Equal protection of our at-will employment laws for UC in our at-will employment States; what an economic solution concept.

yea lets pay people who want to sit at home doing nothing....so when are going to go out and get a job?...

You have no solution. Why do you complain about those who do?

your solution is paying people to be non productive.....that aint a solution danny....

Under Capitalism with our use of fiat money? Why do You believe not. Explain your reasoning.

if everyone is being paid not to work.....how will anything get done?.....take your time answering that...