Republican tax cut will not trickle down

[The Derp]

Besides the rising stock market, the middle class did seem to suffer an abnormally slow jobs and wage recovery from the recession.

Ah, but according to you, the middle class benefits from increasing the stock market. So if the middle class didn't do well under Obama, then a rising, record stock market isn't the cure for what ails them, hence there's no reason to cut corporate profit taxes.

This is what I mean when I say you hold two conflicting positions. Only one can be true...so either growth in the stock market does help the middle class, as you've argued, or it doesn't, as you're also arguing.

I know, but typically a deep recession sees a v-shaped recovery. Obama had more like an L-shaped recovery.

Well, Bush and the Conservatives caused the recession, then refused to do anything to recover it. So you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[danielpalos]

Wages should be outpacing inflation.

 

[danielpalos]

The Moon Bats are really confused about his.

Every analysis of either the House plan or the Senate plan that I have seen has my family saving money on income taxes.

That is money that will trickle down to the local productive economy rather than being given to some stupid government bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by greedy special interest groups. You know, greedy special interest groups like the welfare queens and illegals.

I don't think these stupid Moon Bats really understand how trickle down economics works. That comes from getting all their news like this from sources like Comedy Central, Democratunderground and Mother Jones.

Nothing but income redistribution if it adds to the debt.

 

[The Derp]

Cut the shit out of those rates........

Why? They don't result in increased investment or expansion, since all that happens pre-tax. All it does is increase the price of the share so that shareholders and top executives benefit. Cutting corporate profit taxes doesn't stimulate any growth, and it never will.

After 8.5 years of recovery, we'd better be at record profit levels.
Even Obama's regulatory frenzy couldn't kill corporations.

So now you're arguing the untenable position of record corporate profits happened in spite of the regulations you claim hurt corporations. Which is impossible to prove. So you're trying to have it both ways; you're saying that Obama's regulations hurt corporate profits, yet corporate profits reached record highs during Obama. So those regulations didn't hurt corporate profits, and you're just saying they did because you are ideology-over-country.

Not too many? Great. How many?

You tell me. You're the one who screeched about these excessive regulations, can't name a single one, and can't account for the fact that even with these regulations, corporations reached record profits and the market nearly tripled in size. It's looking more and more like Obama was good for the economy and business, and Conservatives are bad. After all, corporations didn't reach record profits during Bush at the rate they reached those profits during Obama. Bush and the Conservatives crashed the market.

I'm pretending that idiotic regulations impact GDP, jobs and wages? LOL!

Yes you are because you can't prove they did. So you're making shit up and coasting on your "conventional wisdom" which we're finding out isn't "conventional" at all and doesn't qualify as "wisdom" so much as "fantasy".

Lack of a V-shaped recovery, weak wage growth, slow job growth......maybe it was the regulations?

Wait a second! You were just arguing that a soaring stock market benefits the middle class. Now you're saying it doesn't. So you hold two conflicting positions in the same thought and come off looking confused.

 

[danielpalos]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage for lower taxes!

 

[The Derp]

Except that when we look at the historical record, tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates has ALWAYS produced increased revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and even Clinton when he dropped the capital gains tax rate.[NOTE: This is where you shift to squawking about the debt and deficits instead of tax revenues.]

No it didn't. In fact, after Bush cut taxes in 2001, revenue levels for 2001-2004 were below the revenue collected in 2000. It took a mortgage bubble to get revenues back to what they were in 2000. So you took four steps back to take one step forward. How many steps does that leave you behind?

Kennedy didn't cut taxes, LBJ did, and the LBJ tax cuts were accompanied by a 50% increase in government spending. Reagan also was a victim of diminshed revenue, with revenue in 1983 below revenue for 1982.

And the Capital Gains Tax Cut is what caused the dotcom bubble burst. But even with that, Clinton was still running budget surpluses.

Coolidge? You want to use the 1920's as your lead example? Wow. Of course, the 1920's were a highly inflationary period, and the gains of the 1920's were wiped out by the market collapse that laissez-faire policies and low taxes caused.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Besides the rising stock market, the middle class did seem to suffer an abnormally slow jobs and wage recovery from the recession.

Ah, but according to you, the middle class benefits from increasing the stock market. So if the middle class didn't do well under Obama, then a rising, record stock market isn't the cure for what ails them, hence there's no reason to cut corporate profit taxes.

This is what I mean when I say you hold two conflicting positions. Only one can be true...so either growth in the stock market does help the middle class, as you've argued, or it doesn't, as you're also arguing.

I know, but typically a deep recession sees a v-shaped recovery. Obama had more like an L-shaped recovery.

Well, Bush and the Conservatives caused the recession, then refused to do anything to recover it. So you have no one to blame but yourself.

Ah, but according to you, the middle class benefits from increasing the stock market.

You betcha!

So if the middle class didn't do well under Obama, then a rising, record stock market isn't the cure for what ails them,

A rising stock market didn't make up for their slow job and wage growth.

hence there's no reason to cut corporate profit taxes. ​

We need to compete with much lower corporate rates around the world.
Cut the shit out of those corporate rates!!!​

​

Well, Bush and the Conservatives caused the recession, then refused to do anything to recover it.​

The recession ended in June 2009. For the next 7.5 years Obama piled on the regulations.
He'd have done worse things to the economy than Obamacare, if the people hadn't given the Republicans a gain of 63! House seats in 2010.

​

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Republican tax cuts won't trickle down, CEO writes in scathing op-ed

It's not a surprise to Todd Carmichael, co-founder and CEO of La Colombe Coffee Roasters in Philadelphia.

"I can tell you what no other CEO wants to tell you," Carmichael writes in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer: "A half-trillion dollars of corporate tax giveaways proposed by the GOP aren't going to do a thing for the middle class, or create a single job. Because what every CEO knows but won't tell you is this: A tax break for their company simply means a fatter bottom line. Not jobs. Not investment." CEOs have "a powerful fiduciary duty to return all profits to shareholders — not to the employees, or the suppliers, or the community and certainly not to the unemployed or left behind," he explained. "Profit goes to shareholders (and the CEO) and not to the employees."


Just like when we cut taxes before. Cut taxes on the wealthy........and they just keep it

Is this anything like the $40,000,000,000 to $70,000,000,000 PER MONTH that the Obama administration gave to corporations and the super wealthy for over four years? Did that trickle down?

 

[The Derp]

You betcha!

Except when they don't, except they do, but they don't, but only when they do, except for when they don't.

^That's the summary of your position.

A rising stock market didn't make up for their slow job and wage growth.

Right, so how will cutting corporate profit taxes result in job growth or wage growth if the market was already growing exponentially? The answer is that they won't. And you know it. So the argument that cutting corporate profit taxes will result in job and wage growth is a fallacy, then.

We need to compete with much lower corporate rates around the world.

Cut the shit out of those corporate rates!!!​

They're not competing in that regard. There's no competition among businesses for who can have the highest profit margin which is all a cut to corporate profit taxes does; improve the profit margin. And we know form the last 8 years that record corporate profits don't translate to job or wage growth...as you pointed out. So cutting the corporate profit tax doesn't create jobs, doesn't increase wages, doesn't have anything to do with the pre-tax investment or expansion. All it does is increase the share price which only benefits a very narrow group of shareholders, board members, and executives. So thanks for helping me make the case that there's no economic benefit to cutting corporate profit tax.

The recession ended in June 2009. For the next 7.5 years Obama piled on the regulations.

And yet, despite that...record corporate profits, record consecutive job creation (75 months), and record stock market gains. So now you're arguing that Obama's regulations were good for business because of those results. So why are you arguing they aren't? Clearly they are as profits and the market reached record highs throughout Obama's term. Are you now suddenly realizing that what's good for Wall Street and the stock market isn't what's good for everyone else? Welcome to 2009.

He'd have done worse things to the economy than Obamacare, if the people hadn't given the Republicans a gain of 63! House seats in 2010.

​

So wait a second...you first argued that Obama's "regulations" harmed the economy, even though the economy reached multiple records for profits, stock market size, and consecutive monthly employment. So that wasn't true, was it? Secondly, I asked you to name one -just one- regulation that you can prove harmed economic growth and you can't. And starting the month Obamacare was signed into law, Obama created 75+ consecutive months of job creation. A record-long streak that started the month Obamacare was signed into law.

The problem is you have nothing. You hang your hat on the gain of the teabags in 2010...ummm OK...so they gained seats by lying about Medicare. The same Medicare they accused Obama of cutting they now want to cut to pay for tax cuts for the rich. And what have you done with these wild majorities? Nothing. No major legislation passed. You couldn't even repeal Obamacare. That's because you don't fundamentally understand health care, but posture that you do. Which begs the question; since you're posturing about health care, what else are you posturing?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cut the shit out of those rates........

Why? They don't result in increased investment or expansion, since all that happens pre-tax. All it does is increase the price of the share so that shareholders and top executives benefit. Cutting corporate profit taxes doesn't stimulate any growth, and it never will.

After 8.5 years of recovery, we'd better be at record profit levels.
Even Obama's regulatory frenzy couldn't kill corporations.

So now you're arguing the untenable position of record corporate profits happened in spite of the regulations you claim hurt corporations. Which is impossible to prove. So you're trying to have it both ways; you're saying that Obama's regulations hurt corporate profits, yet corporate profits reached record highs during Obama. So those regulations didn't hurt corporate profits, and you're just saying they did because you are ideology-over-country.

Not too many? Great. How many?

You tell me. You're the one who screeched about these excessive regulations, can't name a single one, and can't account for the fact that even with these regulations, corporations reached record profits and the market nearly tripled in size. It's looking more and more like Obama was good for the economy and business, and Conservatives are bad. After all, corporations didn't reach record profits during Bush at the rate they reached those profits during Obama. Bush and the Conservatives crashed the market.

I'm pretending that idiotic regulations impact GDP, jobs and wages? LOL!

Yes you are because you can't prove they did. So you're making shit up and coasting on your "conventional wisdom" which we're finding out isn't "conventional" at all and doesn't qualify as "wisdom" so much as "fantasy".

Lack of a V-shaped recovery, weak wage growth, slow job growth......maybe it was the regulations?

Wait a second! You were just arguing that a soaring stock market benefits the middle class. Now you're saying it doesn't. So you hold two conflicting positions in the same thought and come off looking confused.

They don't result in increased investment or expansion,

When they do, I'll be sure to point out your error.

All it does is increase the price of the share so that shareholders and top executives benefit.

Don't forget the middle class. Even union members benefit when their pension funds do better.

So now you're arguing the untenable position of record corporate profits happened in spite of the regulations

If a corporation spends an additional $1 billion a year on regulations, that doesn't lower profits by $1 billion?
Talk about untenable......LOL!

You tell me. You're the one who screeched about these excessive regulations,

Reg Stats | Regulatory Studies Center | The George Washington University

Looks like a bunch.

It's looking more and more like Obama was good for the economy and business, and Conservatives are bad. After all, corporations didn't reach record profits during Bush at the rate they reached those profits during Obama.

Corporate profits are larger with a bigger economy? Tell me more.....DURR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cut the shit out of those rates........

Why? They don't result in increased investment or expansion, since all that happens pre-tax. All it does is increase the price of the share so that shareholders and top executives benefit. Cutting corporate profit taxes doesn't stimulate any growth, and it never will.

After 8.5 years of recovery, we'd better be at record profit levels.
Even Obama's regulatory frenzy couldn't kill corporations.

So now you're arguing the untenable position of record corporate profits happened in spite of the regulations you claim hurt corporations. Which is impossible to prove. So you're trying to have it both ways; you're saying that Obama's regulations hurt corporate profits, yet corporate profits reached record highs during Obama. So those regulations didn't hurt corporate profits, and you're just saying they did because you are ideology-over-country.

Not too many? Great. How many?

You tell me. You're the one who screeched about these excessive regulations, can't name a single one, and can't account for the fact that even with these regulations, corporations reached record profits and the market nearly tripled in size. It's looking more and more like Obama was good for the economy and business, and Conservatives are bad. After all, corporations didn't reach record profits during Bush at the rate they reached those profits during Obama. Bush and the Conservatives crashed the market.

I'm pretending that idiotic regulations impact GDP, jobs and wages? LOL!

Yes you are because you can't prove they did. So you're making shit up and coasting on your "conventional wisdom" which we're finding out isn't "conventional" at all and doesn't qualify as "wisdom" so much as "fantasy".

Lack of a V-shaped recovery, weak wage growth, slow job growth......maybe it was the regulations?

Wait a second! You were just arguing that a soaring stock market benefits the middle class. Now you're saying it doesn't. So you hold two conflicting positions in the same thought and come off looking confused.

Wait a second! You were just arguing that a soaring stock market benefits the middle class. Now you're saying it doesn't. So you hold two conflicting positions in the same thought and come off looking confused.

The middle class benefits from higher stock prices, even if Obama is adding stupid regulations that harm job growth and wage growth.

 

[Thinker101]

Except that when we look at the historical record, tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates has ALWAYS produced increased revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and even Clinton when he dropped the capital gains tax rate.[NOTE: This is where you shift to squawking about the debt and deficits instead of tax revenues.]

No it didn't. In fact, after Bush cut taxes in 2001, revenue levels for 2001-2004 were below the revenue collected in 2000. It took a mortgage bubble to get revenues back to what they were in 2000. So you took four steps back to take one step forward. How many steps does that leave you behind?

Kennedy didn't cut taxes, LBJ did, and the LBJ tax cuts were accompanied by a 50% increase in government spending. Reagan also was a victim of diminshed revenue, with revenue in 1983 below revenue for 1982.

And the Capital Gains Tax Cut is what caused the dotcom bubble burst. But even with that, Clinton was still running budget surpluses.

Coolidge? You want to use the 1920's as your lead example? Wow. Of course, the 1920's were a highly inflationary period, and the gains of the 1920's were wiped out by the market collapse that laissez-faire policies and low taxes caused.

In other words, your trailer park looks the same as it did 20 years ago.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Republican tax cuts won't trickle down, CEO writes in scathing op-ed

It's not a surprise to Todd Carmichael, co-founder and CEO of La Colombe Coffee Roasters in Philadelphia.

"I can tell you what no other CEO wants to tell you," Carmichael writes in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer: "A half-trillion dollars of corporate tax giveaways proposed by the GOP aren't going to do a thing for the middle class, or create a single job. Because what every CEO knows but won't tell you is this: A tax break for their company simply means a fatter bottom line. Not jobs. Not investment." CEOs have "a powerful fiduciary duty to return all profits to shareholders — not to the employees, or the suppliers, or the community and certainly not to the unemployed or left behind," he explained. "Profit goes to shareholders (and the CEO) and not to the employees."


Just like when we cut taxes before. Cut taxes on the wealthy........and they just keep it

Is this anything like the $40,000,000,000 to $70,000,000,000 PER MONTH that the Obama administration gave to corporations and the super wealthy for over four years? Did that trickle down?

It's okay for Democrats to give out the money to their rich buddies but not the other way around, that is some how repugnant to them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You betcha!

Except when they don't, except they do, but they don't, but only when they do, except for when they don't.

^That's the summary of your position.

A rising stock market didn't make up for their slow job and wage growth.

Right, so how will cutting corporate profit taxes result in job growth or wage growth if the market was already growing exponentially? The answer is that they won't. And you know it. So the argument that cutting corporate profit taxes will result in job and wage growth is a fallacy, then.

We need to compete with much lower corporate rates around the world.

Cut the shit out of those corporate rates!!!​

They're not competing in that regard. There's no competition among businesses for who can have the highest profit margin which is all a cut to corporate profit taxes does; improve the profit margin. And we know form the last 8 years that record corporate profits don't translate to job or wage growth...as you pointed out. So cutting the corporate profit tax doesn't create jobs, doesn't increase wages, doesn't have anything to do with the pre-tax investment or expansion. All it does is increase the share price which only benefits a very narrow group of shareholders, board members, and executives. So thanks for helping me make the case that there's no economic benefit to cutting corporate profit tax.

The recession ended in June 2009. For the next 7.5 years Obama piled on the regulations.

And yet, despite that...record corporate profits, record consecutive job creation (75 months), and record stock market gains. So now you're arguing that Obama's regulations were good for business because of those results. So why are you arguing they aren't? Clearly they are as profits and the market reached record highs throughout Obama's term. Are you now suddenly realizing that what's good for Wall Street and the stock market isn't what's good for everyone else? Welcome to 2009.

He'd have done worse things to the economy than Obamacare, if the people hadn't given the Republicans a gain of 63! House seats in 2010.

​

So wait a second...you first argued that Obama's "regulations" harmed the economy, even though the economy reached multiple records for profits, stock market size, and consecutive monthly employment. So that wasn't true, was it? Secondly, I asked you to name one -just one- regulation that you can prove harmed economic growth and you can't. And starting the month Obamacare was signed into law, Obama created 75+ consecutive months of job creation. A record-long streak that started the month Obamacare was signed into law.

The problem is you have nothing. You hang your hat on the gain of the teabags in 2010...ummm OK...so they gained seats by lying about Medicare. The same Medicare they accused Obama of cutting they now want to cut to pay for tax cuts for the rich. And what have you done with these wild majorities? Nothing. No major legislation passed. You couldn't even repeal Obamacare. That's because you don't fundamentally understand health care, but posture that you do. Which begs the question; since you're posturing about health care, what else are you posturing?

We need to compete with much lower corporate rates around the world.
Cut the shit out of those corporate rates!!!

They're not competing in that regard.

Ireland disagrees. The EU has been whining about Ireland for YEARS!

So wait a second...you first argued that Obama's "regulations" harmed the economy,

You want to make the argument they didn't? LOL!

You couldn't even repeal Obamacare.

They'll try again after they take 5+ Senate seats from the Dems in 2018.

 

[BluesLegend]

Republican Tax Cut Will Not Trickle Down

Yet president Kennedy (JFK) facing similar economic challenges advocated for EXACTLY the same tax reforms president Trump is about to sign into law. Its on tape to a speech Kennedy gave to an economic group in NY.

His alcoholic brother Ted Kennedy was once asked about president Kennedy's support of tax cuts, that every dollar of reduced taxation would help create new jobs and new paychecks, which in turn create more jobs and paychecks, and ultimately more tax revenue, when someone threw this in Ted Kennedy's face he popped a gasket and got angry.

 

[Boss]

Except that when we look at the historical record, tax cuts to the top marginal tax rates has ALWAYS produced increased revenue. It happened under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and even Clinton when he dropped the capital gains tax rate.[NOTE: This is where you shift to squawking about the debt and deficits instead of tax revenues.]

No it didn't. In fact, after Bush cut taxes in 2001, revenue levels for 2001-2004 were below the revenue collected in 2000. It took a mortgage bubble to get revenues back to what they were in 2000. So you took four steps back to take one step forward. How many steps does that leave you behind?

Kennedy didn't cut taxes, LBJ did, and the LBJ tax cuts were accompanied by a 50% increase in government spending. Reagan also was a victim of diminshed revenue, with revenue in 1983 below revenue for 1982.

And the Capital Gains Tax Cut is what caused the dotcom bubble burst. But even with that, Clinton was still running budget surpluses.

Coolidge? You want to use the 1920's as your lead example? Wow. Of course, the 1920's were a highly inflationary period, and the gains of the 1920's were wiped out by the market collapse that laissez-faire policies and low taxes caused.

Well.. YES, it DID! What you are doing is applying revenues for 2001 where the cuts were made retroactive. I don't deny that a tax cut today will not improve the economy of yesterday. A tax cut cannot stimulate an economy that has already happened. You have to look at the economy once the tax cuts were in place and having an influence. When we do that, we see that tax revenues increased, even though they were minimal under the Bush cuts because Bush cut taxes across the board and didn't expand the base.

and the LBJ tax cuts were accompanied by a 50% increase in government spending.

See? I told you that you would attempt this. You Democrats ALWAYS want to jump from tax revenues to the deficit and debt. Spending increased the debt, not increased revenues from tax cuts. If anything, the increased tax revenue prevented the deficits from being even greater. The argument is over tax rates and subsequent revenue produced... that has nothing to do with spending and debt.

And you're just flat wrong about Reagan's tax cuts. You're also wrong about your idiotic speculations as to why the economy tanked and what caused it. You're absolutely clueless, as are most Democrats.

 

[The Derp]

The middle class benefits from higher stock prices, even if Obama is adding stupid regulations that harm job growth and wage growth.

But Obama's regulations haven't harmed job or wage growth, and you've yet to prove they do. In fact, Obama's record 75+ month streak of job creation began the month Obamacare was signed into law.

After 8 years, Obama created net 11.7 million private sector jobs, which is only 3 million less than Reagan created over 8 years.

 

[The Derp]

We need to compete with much lower corporate rates around the world.
Cut the shit out of those corporate rates!!!

But you lack any economic justification for doing so. You say that doing so will lead to stock market growth, but we just came from an 8 years period where the market nearly tripled in size, yet you complain that the middle class got screwed during Obama. So, OK, then that means a roaring market doesn't cue what ails the middle class at all.

Ireland disagrees. The EU has been whining about Ireland for YEARS!

Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than ours, and higher than the UK's. Also, Ireland's growth hasn't been great and had multiple quarters over the last 3 years with negative growth:

You want to make the argument they didn't? LOL!

No, no...it's on you to prove your assertion. You say his "regulations" hampered growth, yet you can't cite a single regulation that did and how. You make a very lazy argument that relies on your own brand of "conventional wisdom" which is that any government regulation hurts the economy. However, that point has no support to it. It's you trying to shoehorn in your bullshit rhetoric. In fact, the opposite can be the case; Obamacare caused 75+ consecutive months of private sector job growth - which is a record. The new Obamacare "regulations" created jobs. That's why he had 75+ straight months of positive job growth.

What's also funny is that the states that employed your trickle down ideas (KS being the best example but also LA, WI, AZ, NJ) generally had growth below the national average (both in terms of GDP and jobs). Which means it is Conservative policy that harms growth, not Obama's policy.

They'll try again after they take 5+ Senate seats from the Dems in 2018.

If you couldn't do it earlier this year, you'll never be able to do it. It's just another empty promise that is intended to lure gullible Conservatives into supporting policy that is against their personal interests.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Derp]

Yet president Kennedy (JFK) facing similar economic challenges advocated for EXACTLY the same tax reforms president Trump is about to sign into law. Its on tape to a speech Kennedy gave to an economic group in NY.

No, they're not exactly the same (did Kennedy propose reducing the tax on pass-through's? No.) And it should be noted that LBJ passed the tax cuts, but also increased spending by 50% and put in place Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[Boss]

No, they're not exactly the same (did Kennedy propose reducing the tax on pass-through's? No.) And it should be noted that LBJ passed the tax cuts, but also increased spending by 50% and put in place Medicare and Medicaid.

But tax cuts and the revenues they produce have nothing to do with decisions on spending and the budget. If your boss gives you a $100 a week raise but your wife goes out and spends $500 a week, is that "deficit" the fault of your boss increasing your pay? No... it's the fault of your wife spending more money.