Republican top priority.....Raise taxes on the poor

[BlackSand]

Why would you prevent companies from deducting a typical business expense?

To get the government out of the board room and allow the market to control costs.

We also don't need to ignore the fact the government already uses big oil ... And its ability to supply gasoline to everyone through the end of a nozzle at any pump ... As a fricken cash-cow.

There is no easy answer.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. There is no problem with supply in today's economy. Low wages is what feeds it.

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why?

Because you're wrong.

Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business

Say that taxes are too high and they stop you from opening your shoe business in the first place.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy.

Sure there is, my shoe business is on the drawing board, not creating jobs and sales.

Low wages is what feeds it.

You can raise the minimum wage, but the employees in the store I never opened won't benefit.

You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month.

Excellent! This will encourage me to expand from 2 stores to 3. More jobs, more sales, more profits!

But taxes aren't too high. Revenue as a percentage of GDP in this country is at 16%. That's near a historic low. Both Bush and Obama made sure to cut taxes during the recessions. That of course created more national debt.

The investment class is doing better now more than ever.

Of course they would.

Lol it wouldn't matter if you opened a new store you goon. Demand was the same as it was before. If your business suffered before it would suffer even more because demand in the area remained unchanged.

But taxes aren't too high.

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Lol it wouldn't matter if you opened a new store you goon. Demand was the same as it was before.

LOL! My taxes have been cut, I can stimulate more demand with lower prices you idiot.

So you would lower your prices and open a new store? Man you would make a terrible business man

So you would lower your prices and open a new store?

You're right, if I want to increase demand I'd raise prices. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would you prevent companies from deducting a typical business expense?

To get the government out of the board room and allow the market to control costs.

We also don't need to ignore the fact the government already uses big oil ... And its ability to supply gasoline to everyone through the end of a nozzle at any pump ... As a fricken cash-cow.

There is no easy answer.

.

To get the government out of the board room and allow the market to control costs.

Charging a business on their revenues, by disallowing deduction of expenses, is not getting the government out of the boardroom.

 

[Billy000]

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. There is no problem with supply in today's economy. Low wages is what feeds it.

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why?

Because you're wrong.

Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business

Say that taxes are too high and they stop you from opening your shoe business in the first place.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy.

Sure there is, my shoe business is on the drawing board, not creating jobs and sales.

Low wages is what feeds it.

You can raise the minimum wage, but the employees in the store I never opened won't benefit.

You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month.

Excellent! This will encourage me to expand from 2 stores to 3. More jobs, more sales, more profits!

But taxes aren't too high. Revenue as a percentage of GDP in this country is at 16%. That's near a historic low. Both Bush and Obama made sure to cut taxes during the recessions. That of course created more national debt.

The investment class is doing better now more than ever.

Of course they would.

Lol it wouldn't matter if you opened a new store you goon. Demand was the same as it was before. If your business suffered before it would suffer even more because demand in the area remained unchanged.

But taxes aren't too high.

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Lol it wouldn't matter if you opened a new store you goon. Demand was the same as it was before.

LOL! My taxes have been cut, I can stimulate more demand with lower prices you idiot.

So you would lower your prices and open a new store? Man you would make a terrible business man

So you would lower your prices and open a new store?

You're right, if I want to increase demand I'd raise prices. LOL!

The most effective way to boost business is by stimuluating demand. More demand allows you to lower prices. The other problem with supply side is that businesses typically keep the money they saved in their tax cuts rather than invest it. If they do invest, they invest very little.

 

[Dot Com]

The Republican Party s top priority is to raise taxes on the poor. Literally. - The Week

Following their convincing victory in the 2014 elections, everyone is wondering what Republicans will do with their new majority in the Senate and House. Well, their policy agenda is becoming clear. It will be unrestrained class warfare against the poor.
This priority was made apparent over the last week during the negotiation of a colossal tax cut package. Senate Democrats and Republicans had been doing some low-key negotiations to renew a slew of tax cuts for corporations and lower- and middle-income Americans, according to reporting from Brian Faler and Rachel Bade at Politico.
Then President Obama announced his executive action on immigration. Enraged Republicans promptly took vengeance on all the goodies for the working poor (as well as for clean energy), cutting them out of the deal and proposing a raft of permanent tax cuts for corporations alone worth $440 billion over 10 years.

quelle surprise!!! Republicorp raising taxes on the very sheeple who voted for them. Would be sad if it weren't so predictable.

 

[Conservative65]

If someone has the skill level to only work a menial job, it's not a safety net. It's someone with skills subsidizing the results of someone else's lack of having any. Something isn't called a safety net when the person using it is where they are of their own doing and lack of marketability. A safety net is when a person slips not when they are where they are because it's the only place they have the ability to be.

All of this safety net garbage can be resolved if we raised the minimum wage to a level people can live off of. $15 an hour would he kept up with today's inflation. If it was raised gradually over a few years the market would have time to respond. A few thousand jobs may be lost initially, but the increase in consumer spending would inevitably create jobs. Very few people would be on food stamps and more could pay taxes. Everybody wins.

should it be $15/hour in NY city and podunk kansas?

raising the MW will cost jobs, and make everything you buy cost more. you have no grasp of basic economics.

It would cost jobs initially no doubt. However jobs would be inevitably created over time from the increase in consumer spending. The price increase would be small and would go down over time from the increase in consumer spending. It sure as hell wouldn't offset the consumer spending benefit.

Ok, think about this. if you make $400 a week and it costs you $400 a week to live are you better off it you make $500 a week and it costs you $500 a week to live?

running more money through your hands does not improve your life.

You people are so dense. The price increase would be small. It sure as hell wouldn't offset the raise in pay. That's ridiculous. The boost to consumer spending would also keep prices down. This it's hard to figure out.

I don't care how small it is. What's not hard to figure out except to a bleeding heart like you is that people don't simly get pay raises because they have a heartbeat and breath. They get them because they earn them and do something or have skills that warrant it. If that's the way it works for those of use on a higher skills level, it's the way it works fro those on a lower one. If their increases don't come as often or to a level that the rest of us get, too damn bad. When they've put in the hours I've put in educationally and on the job, their pay will reflect it.

 

[martybegan]

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. There is no problem with supply in today's economy. Low wages is what feeds it.

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why?

Because you're wrong.

Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business

Say that taxes are too high and they stop you from opening your shoe business in the first place.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy.

Sure there is, my shoe business is on the drawing board, not creating jobs and sales.

Low wages is what feeds it.

You can raise the minimum wage, but the employees in the store I never opened won't benefit.

You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month.

Excellent! This will encourage me to expand from 2 stores to 3. More jobs, more sales, more profits!

But taxes aren't too high. Revenue as a percentage of GDP in this country is at 16%. That's near a historic low. Both Bush and Obama made sure to cut taxes during the recessions. That of course created more national debt.

The investment class is doing better now more than ever.

Of course they would.

Lol it wouldn't matter if you opened a new store you goon. Demand was the same as it was before. If your business suffered before it would suffer even more because demand in the area remained unchanged.

is that 16% just federal revenue or does it include states/local?

Even if it includes states/local, 16% overhead is too high, 10% is more realistic.

It doesn't include State and Local, and it ignores all the spending that is financed with debt, which is a tax on future generations.

Why should it include state and local? Either way a person or corporation is paying less in taxes overall if the federal rate is lower.

because it shows the overall burden of overhead on our entire economy.

 

[martybegan]

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why?

Because you're wrong.

Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business

Say that taxes are too high and they stop you from opening your shoe business in the first place.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy.

Sure there is, my shoe business is on the drawing board, not creating jobs and sales.

Low wages is what feeds it.

You can raise the minimum wage, but the employees in the store I never opened won't benefit.

You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month.

Excellent! This will encourage me to expand from 2 stores to 3. More jobs, more sales, more profits!

But taxes aren't too high. Revenue as a percentage of GDP in this country is at 16%. That's near a historic low. Both Bush and Obama made sure to cut taxes during the recessions. That of course created more national debt.

The investment class is doing better now more than ever.

Of course they would.

Lol it wouldn't matter if you opened a new store you goon. Demand was the same as it was before. If your business suffered before it would suffer even more because demand in the area remained unchanged.

is that 16% just federal revenue or does it include states/local?

Even if it includes states/local, 16% overhead is too high, 10% is more realistic.

Are you kidding me? In the 90s it was at 20%. Our economy was doing great then.

and then it blew up in the dotcom kerfluffle. Your point?

That had nothing to do with Dot Com. If it did, that crisis would have happened in the mid 90s.

Come on people think.

Ugh. The concept of a bubble is that there is economic prosperity that is not justified by the actual basis. The Dot. Com bubble burst in 2000. The critique is that a lot of the prosperity you are harping about was an illusion.

 

[Conservative65]

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

However the one doing the paying measures it. Since it's not your business, it's not your place to tele else what they should pay their employees. If you want to make that determination for someone, start your own business, pay what you want, and no one will tell you otherwise.

Do you know why businesses go into business?

A relationship between an employer and employee is give and take. They rely on one another. The employee deserves a wage they can live off of. Now you'll say "well the employee can work somewhere else!". Well that doesn't work if millions of people have NO CHOICE but to take a low wage job. Employees are at the mercy of the low wages. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.

Wrong, you only "deserve" what your labor is worth to your employer. The employer does not owe you a lifestyle of your choosing.

The employer deserves to offer a fair wage.

Lincoln was absolutely right that labor always precedes capital in importance.

If the employer, meaning the one paying the wage, determines a particular set of skills is worth a certain wage, who the hell do you think you are to say otherwise? If the person's skills are worth $8/hour and they get $8/hour, that's fair.

If Lincoln thinks someone with a set of skills worth a certain amount should get paid more, dig his ass up and let him pay it. Better yet, you start your own business and pay a wage I dictate you pay.

 

[Conservative65]

Congress is responsible for the General Welfare of the Nation

There are no provisions for a standing Army or Air Force in the Constitution. Only a Navy

Provide for the common defense in the Preamble pretty much covers the military.

1% of the workforce is NOT 17 million. there are not 17 million americans making minimum wage. its much closer to 3 million and 2.9 million are part time teens.

you are FOS

Are you really this retarded dude? 17 million people make LESS THAN 10.10 per hour. You do know there are numbers in between 7.25 and 10 right?

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

However the one doing the paying measures it. Since it's not your business, it's not your place to tele else what they should pay their employees. If you want to make that determination for someone, start your own business, pay what you want, and no one will tell you otherwise.

Do you know why businesses go into business?

A relationship between an employer and employee is give and take. They rely on one another. The employee deserves a wage they can live off of. Now you'll say "well the employee can work somewhere else!". Well that doesn't work if millions of people have NO CHOICE but to take a low wage job. Employees are at the mercy of the low wages. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.

An employee deserves wage based on his/her skills. If that wage is equivalent to the skill level and it isn't enough, there are two options. Increase the skill level or get people like you to take them in.

If they have no choice but to take a law wage job because they have low skills, why is that the employer's fault and duty to pay them more than those skills are worth? Logical not emotional answer please.

 

[Conservative65]

When the word food stamps appears in the Consitution like the word army and navy, a.k.a the military, you'll have a point.

Congress is responsible for the General Welfare of the Nation

There are no provisions for a standing Army or Air Force in the Constitution. Only a Navy

Provide for the common defense in the Preamble pretty much covers the military.

How many times must I explain this to you? 17 million people make less than 10.10. Obviously that's a problem. Raising it to that would boost the wages for all who are below it. God think.

1% of the workforce is NOT 17 million. there are not 17 million americans making minimum wage. its much closer to 3 million and 2.9 million are part time teens.

you are FOS

Are you really this retarded dude? 17 million people make LESS THAN 10.10 per hour. You do know there are numbers in between 7.25 and 10 right?

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

If you encourage economic growth by cutting taxes and eliminating idiotic red tape and regulations, there will be more competition for those workers. Hint: legalizing 15 million low-skilled illegals will reduce the bargaining power of these workers and suppress their wages.

Isn't that what the EO just did? It placed millions who are willing to work for lower wages ahead of those who think the employer owes them something more than the skills they offer are worth.

 

[BlackSand]

Why would you prevent companies from deducting a typical business expense?

To get the government out of the board room and allow the market to control costs.

We also don't need to ignore the fact the government already uses big oil ... And its ability to supply gasoline to everyone through the end of a nozzle at any pump ... As a fricken cash-cow.

There is no easy answer.

.

To get the government out of the board room and allow the market to control costs.

Charging a business on their revenues, by disallowing deduction of expenses, is not getting the government out of the boardroom.

That is probably why I indicated there is no easy answer if you don't address both.

.

 

[Billy000]

Provide for the common defense in the Preamble pretty much covers the military.

Are you really this retarded dude? 17 million people make LESS THAN 10.10 per hour. You do know there are numbers in between 7.25 and 10 right?

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

However the one doing the paying measures it. Since it's not your business, it's not your place to tele else what they should pay their employees. If you want to make that determination for someone, start your own business, pay what you want, and no one will tell you otherwise.

Do you know why businesses go into business?

A relationship between an employer and employee is give and take. They rely on one another. The employee deserves a wage they can live off of. Now you'll say "well the employee can work somewhere else!". Well that doesn't work if millions of people have NO CHOICE but to take a low wage job. Employees are at the mercy of the low wages. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.

An employee deserves wage based on his/her skills. If that wage is equivalent to the skill level and it isn't enough, there are two options. Increase the skill level or get people like you to take them in.

If they have no choice but to take a law wage job because they have low skills, why is that the employer's fault and duty to pay them more than those skills are worth? Logical not emotional answer please.

Like I said the relationship is give and take between them. Because the employee is at the mercy of the low wage economy, they are stuck where they are. Businesses simply have an obligation to pay more. It's what's fair. That fairness is based on logic.

 

[Conservative65]

Instead of cutting corporate taxes by $440 billion, why don't Republicans dedicate that money to paying down the $18 trillion debt?

That is what they have been screaming about the last six years

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth. Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They ***** and whine to get theirs.

 

[Conservative65]

So what? If the skills required to do the job are low they are being paid equivalent to those skills, what the problem? Provide me with one non-emotional, non bleeding heart reason as to why an employer should be forced to pay a wage beyond what that wage brings to the business.

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

However the one doing the paying measures it. Since it's not your business, it's not your place to tele else what they should pay their employees. If you want to make that determination for someone, start your own business, pay what you want, and no one will tell you otherwise.

Do you know why businesses go into business?

A relationship between an employer and employee is give and take. They rely on one another. The employee deserves a wage they can live off of. Now you'll say "well the employee can work somewhere else!". Well that doesn't work if millions of people have NO CHOICE but to take a low wage job. Employees are at the mercy of the low wages. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.

An employee deserves wage based on his/her skills. If that wage is equivalent to the skill level and it isn't enough, there are two options. Increase the skill level or get people like you to take them in.

If they have no choice but to take a law wage job because they have low skills, why is that the employer's fault and duty to pay them more than those skills are worth? Logical not emotional answer please.

Like I said the relationship is give and take between them. Because the employee is at the mercy of the low wage economy, they are stuck where they are. Businesses simply have an obligation to pay more. It's what's fair. That fairness is based on logic.

They aren't stuck if they offer skills someone considers valuable. If they have little to no skills, they are stuck but it has nothing to do with their employer.

What obligation? Businesses should pay what the business deems is fair for the skills of that job. Arguing from a fairness standpoint is emotional not logical unless you define logic as you thinking you can determine how much some business you don't own should pay or are willing to say paying someone above the skills for the job is logical. If you do, you should look up the word logic.

I challenge you to start a business and let me dictate the wages you pay. That's what you're doing for someone else's business. Interested?

 

[Billy000]

Instead of cutting corporate taxes by $440 billion, why don't Republicans dedicate that money to paying down the $18 trillion debt?

That is what they have been screaming about the last six years

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth. Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They ***** and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

 

[Billy000]

How exactly do you measure this wage issue? Businesses pay the bare minimum because they can get away with it. It's how they maximize profit.

However the one doing the paying measures it. Since it's not your business, it's not your place to tele else what they should pay their employees. If you want to make that determination for someone, start your own business, pay what you want, and no one will tell you otherwise.

Do you know why businesses go into business?

A relationship between an employer and employee is give and take. They rely on one another. The employee deserves a wage they can live off of. Now you'll say "well the employee can work somewhere else!". Well that doesn't work if millions of people have NO CHOICE but to take a low wage job. Employees are at the mercy of the low wages. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.

An employee deserves wage based on his/her skills. If that wage is equivalent to the skill level and it isn't enough, there are two options. Increase the skill level or get people like you to take them in.

If they have no choice but to take a law wage job because they have low skills, why is that the employer's fault and duty to pay them more than those skills are worth? Logical not emotional answer please.

Like I said the relationship is give and take between them. Because the employee is at the mercy of the low wage economy, they are stuck where they are. Businesses simply have an obligation to pay more. It's what's fair. That fairness is based on logic.

They aren't stuck if they offer skills someone considers valuable. If they have little to no skills, they are stuck but it has nothing to do with their employer.

What obligation? Businesses should pay what the business deems is fair for the skills of that job. Arguing from a fairness standpoint is emotional not logical unless you define logic as you thinking you can determine how much some business you don't own should pay or are willing to say paying someone above the skills for the job is logical. If you do, you should look up the word logic.

I challenge you to start a business and let me dictate the wages you pay. That's what you're doing for someone else's business. Interested?

The pay a business pays is hardly "what it deems fair" nowadays. They pay as low as they can get away with.

One of the main reasons why electricians are paid so well is because they are in a very profitable business. If the business is less profitable, they pay as low as they can get away with. That is the reality of today's economy of low economic demand.

 

[Conservative65]

Instead of cutting corporate taxes by $440 billion, why don't Republicans dedicate that money to paying down the $18 trillion debt?

That is what they have been screaming about the last six years

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth. Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They ***** and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has the opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. I've shown you that those without a high school diploma account for about 1/3 of those in poverty. Where are the other two thirds? Since poverty is set at an income amount based on number of people, how many of that 2/3 is just enough above the level to not be considered in poverty but so close that the thousand dollars more they have doens't make difference?

They have people like you that can pay for their training since you claim to be so compassionate. How many of those you say can't afford new skills have you funded personally? I need a specific number but I'm betting zero.

 

[Billy000]

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth. Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Yes and what has been proven over and over is that tax cuts for corporations do very little to stimulate job growth.

What tax cuts for corporations? Rates are 35%. Highest in the world.

Supply side economics is one of the biggest political lie of all time.

Of course it is, everyone knows that raising taxes creates jobs and growth.
If we don't have enough of either, it just means our taxes aren't high enough. LOL!

Cutting taxes does jack shit for creating jobs. Why? Because stimulating supply means jack shit if you don't stimulate demand. Seriously think about it. Say you have a shoe business that has a steady supply each month. You sell a total of 200 pairs in your store each month. You receive a tax cut which allows you to sell 300 in your store instead of 200 per month. The demand hasn't changed. You would still sell 300 shoes at the same rate as before. Meaning at the end of the month you would have 100 shoes leftover. That 100 would only carry over to the next month.

There is no problem with supply in today's economy. What we lack is the demand to meet it. Low wages is what feeds it.

I created my demand by furthering my education, advancing where I work, and improving my skills. You want demand increased for some by simply handing them more money for nothing. I have yet to hear one of them say what they would be willing to do if they got what amounted to a 40% raise (from $7.25 to $10.10/hour). Last time I got that kind of raise I actually had to have earned it and do more as a result of it. They ***** and whine to get theirs.

Tell me how exactly did you increase your skills? On the job training? I'm sure that was nice back then when hiring was plentiful and you were hired at entry level.

Aside from that, how can poor people learn new skills? They are too poor to get the education for new skills. They are stuck where they are.

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has the opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. I've shown you that those without a high school diploma account for about 1/3 of those in poverty. Where are the other two thirds? Since poverty is set at an income amount based on number of people, how many of that 2/3 is just enough above the level to not be considered in poverty but so close that the thousand dollars more they have doens't make difference?

They have people like you that can pay for their training since you claim to be so compassionate. How many of those you say can't afford new skills have you funded personally? I need a specific number but I'm betting zero.

Hey no doubt not having a diploma limits you, but given that 2/3 of poor people do have diplomas it doesn't say much having one nowadays huh?

 

[Conservative65]

However the one doing the paying measures it. Since it's not your business, it's not your place to tele else what they should pay their employees. If you want to make that determination for someone, start your own business, pay what you want, and no one will tell you otherwise.

Do you know why businesses go into business?

A relationship between an employer and employee is give and take. They rely on one another. The employee deserves a wage they can live off of. Now you'll say "well the employee can work somewhere else!". Well that doesn't work if millions of people have NO CHOICE but to take a low wage job. Employees are at the mercy of the low wages. You can deny that all you want but it's still true.

An employee deserves wage based on his/her skills. If that wage is equivalent to the skill level and it isn't enough, there are two options. Increase the skill level or get people like you to take them in.

If they have no choice but to take a law wage job because they have low skills, why is that the employer's fault and duty to pay them more than those skills are worth? Logical not emotional answer please.

Like I said the relationship is give and take between them. Because the employee is at the mercy of the low wage economy, they are stuck where they are. Businesses simply have an obligation to pay more. It's what's fair. That fairness is based on logic.

They aren't stuck if they offer skills someone considers valuable. If they have little to no skills, they are stuck but it has nothing to do with their employer.

What obligation? Businesses should pay what the business deems is fair for the skills of that job. Arguing from a fairness standpoint is emotional not logical unless you define logic as you thinking you can determine how much some business you don't own should pay or are willing to say paying someone above the skills for the job is logical. If you do, you should look up the word logic.

I challenge you to start a business and let me dictate the wages you pay. That's what you're doing for someone else's business. Interested?

The pay a business pays is hardly "what it deems fair" nowadays. They pay as low as they can get away with.

One of the main reasons why electricians are paid so well is because they are in a very profitable business. If the business is less profitable, they pay as low as they can get away with. That is the reality of today's economy of low economic demand.

Since it's not your business, it's not your place to determine what is and isn't fair. That's the problem with you pro government Liberals. You think something is your place when all you need to do is stay out of it. You don't have to like what some one else pays just understand that you need to butt out. Your kind wants the government out of people's personal choices until those choices don't suit you. That's when you think it's OK to make an exception and butt in. I've provided you with that exception in the form of a challenge. You don't seem interested in accepting it but you do seem interested in continuing to think what a business that isn't yours should do when what you need to do is mind your own ******* business.