Republicans have a poor understanding of economics. They should have no place in making policy

[Toddsterpatriot]

Economists don't agree to anything of those things you claim ... those are politicians.

Now, as for the rest of this ....

"If the profits aren't re-invested in the economy where they're earned, then idle profits are taking money out of the economy. Right now, corporations are sitting on massive amounts of cash. They're not re-investing in the US economy"

Pure nonsense .... it is the movement of corporate money that has generated the movement in the stock market. They have released their money to pay off debts, internal upgrades, and create more professional production.

You fail to ask yourself about WHY they were setting on that money ... it was because of the volatility created by the Obama administration. Businesses had no idea whether there were going to be tax increases, onerous regulations, or suffocating healthcare costs. The only thing business hates more than new taxes is uncertainty. They couldn't invest a million dollars today only to find out they were going to have to sell off in order to pay repressive healthcare costs. So, they sat on it ...

But, what did they do with that money? They put it in bank accounts, safe investments, etc. And, what happens to that money? It is loaned out to borrowers .... why do you think the interest rate on houses, cars, etc., went down so significantly? Because there was more money available to be loaned out. That left you more money to spend on the economy.

The money they invested, or saved, makes them a stronger company, more resilient. Since YOUR 401(k), or your IRA, own some of those shares, it increased your net worth. And, you have the audacity to complain??

"Walmart used a chunk of their profits in 2013 to buy back shares. That did nothing to help the economy."

What does that mean? Walmart paid off debts ... money that can be used by the lenders to re-invest in the economy. That is what shares are .... YOUR 401(k) sold its shares back to the company, which, in turn, allows YOUR 401(k) to reinvest. And, if your 401(k) didn't sell back its shares, you are now the proud part owner of more valuable and stronger stock. Why in the world would you complain about that?

Study 'velocity of money' ... you most assuredly need it.

Walmart isn't re-investing in the economy. They're leeching cash out of to pass on to the Walton Family. They're destroying downtown business districts and good paying jobs, gutting the business tax base. And using taxpayer money to subsidize it all. When even Forbes is criticizing a corporation's business practices, you have to know they're beyond predatory.

When even Forbes is criticizing a corporation's business practices, you have to know they're beyond predatory.

When even Forbes publishes articles from liberal idiots, you know some articles are liberal idiocy.

 

[Spare_change]

Economists don't agree to anything of those things you claim ... those are politicians.

Now, as for the rest of this ....

"If the profits aren't re-invested in the economy where they're earned, then idle profits are taking money out of the economy. Right now, corporations are sitting on massive amounts of cash. They're not re-investing in the US economy"

Pure nonsense .... it is the movement of corporate money that has generated the movement in the stock market. They have released their money to pay off debts, internal upgrades, and create more professional production.

You fail to ask yourself about WHY they were setting on that money ... it was because of the volatility created by the Obama administration. Businesses had no idea whether there were going to be tax increases, onerous regulations, or suffocating healthcare costs. The only thing business hates more than new taxes is uncertainty. They couldn't invest a million dollars today only to find out they were going to have to sell off in order to pay repressive healthcare costs. So, they sat on it ...

But, what did they do with that money? They put it in bank accounts, safe investments, etc. And, what happens to that money? It is loaned out to borrowers .... why do you think the interest rate on houses, cars, etc., went down so significantly? Because there was more money available to be loaned out. That left you more money to spend on the economy.

The money they invested, or saved, makes them a stronger company, more resilient. Since YOUR 401(k), or your IRA, own some of those shares, it increased your net worth. And, you have the audacity to complain??

"Walmart used a chunk of their profits in 2013 to buy back shares. That did nothing to help the economy."

What does that mean? Walmart paid off debts ... money that can be used by the lenders to re-invest in the economy. That is what shares are .... YOUR 401(k) sold its shares back to the company, which, in turn, allows YOUR 401(k) to reinvest. And, if your 401(k) didn't sell back its shares, you are now the proud part owner of more valuable and stronger stock. Why in the world would you complain about that?

Study 'velocity of money' ... you most assuredly need it.

Walmart isn't re-investing in the economy. They're leeching cash out of to pass on to the Walton Family. They're destroying downtown business districts and good paying jobs, gutting the business tax base. And using taxpayer money to subsidize it all. When even Forbes is criticizing a corporation's business practices, you have to know they're beyond predatory.

That is beyond ridiculous ... perhaps you can prove this? No, wait ... don't bother ... we know you can't.

But, let's be more basic ... maybe you can explain to me how buying back stock is going to 'leech money to the Walton family' ... especially when you consider that buying back stock means trading money for paper .... there is LESS money available.

You continue to make unsubstantiated claims ... and you particularly seem to have a hatred for Walmart. Let me guess .... they wouldn't hire you, right?

 

[Spare_change]

Walmart isn't re-investing in the economy. They're leeching cash out of to pass on to the Walton Family. They're destroying downtown business districts and good paying jobs, gutting the business tax base. And using taxpayer money to subsidize it all. When even Forbes is criticizing a corporation's business practices, you have to know they're beyond predatory.

You do a nice job presenting real good information to a group of willful idiots (you know who I'm thinking of). Doing that shows a level of both determination and optimism that is impressive. Happy New Year to you.

Damn shame it's nothing but lies, huh?

 

[Dragonlady]

You continue to make unsubstantiated claims ... and you particularly seem to have a hatred for Walmart. Let me guess .... they wouldn't hire you, right?

I worked for large Bay Street law firms in corporate/commercial and real estate law. The firms I worked for included former Prime Ministers of Canada, former cabinet members, as well as a former Premier of Ontario. I haven't always agreed with the politics of those I worked for, or on behalf of, but then I at least knew and understood the economic implications of the work I did.

Never have I encountered a group of economic dolts so certain of their positions and so unwilling to try to improve their knowledge as the rightwingers here.

 

[The Rabbi]

Economists don't agree to anything of those things you claim ... those are politicians.

Now, as for the rest of this ....

"If the profits aren't re-invested in the economy where they're earned, then idle profits are taking money out of the economy. Right now, corporations are sitting on massive amounts of cash. They're not re-investing in the US economy"

Pure nonsense .... it is the movement of corporate money that has generated the movement in the stock market. They have released their money to pay off debts, internal upgrades, and create more professional production.

You fail to ask yourself about WHY they were setting on that money ... it was because of the volatility created by the Obama administration. Businesses had no idea whether there were going to be tax increases, onerous regulations, or suffocating healthcare costs. The only thing business hates more than new taxes is uncertainty. They couldn't invest a million dollars today only to find out they were going to have to sell off in order to pay repressive healthcare costs. So, they sat on it ...

But, what did they do with that money? They put it in bank accounts, safe investments, etc. And, what happens to that money? It is loaned out to borrowers .... why do you think the interest rate on houses, cars, etc., went down so significantly? Because there was more money available to be loaned out. That left you more money to spend on the economy.

The money they invested, or saved, makes them a stronger company, more resilient. Since YOUR 401(k), or your IRA, own some of those shares, it increased your net worth. And, you have the audacity to complain??

"Walmart used a chunk of their profits in 2013 to buy back shares. That did nothing to help the economy."

What does that mean? Walmart paid off debts ... money that can be used by the lenders to re-invest in the economy. That is what shares are .... YOUR 401(k) sold its shares back to the company, which, in turn, allows YOUR 401(k) to reinvest. And, if your 401(k) didn't sell back its shares, you are now the proud part owner of more valuable and stronger stock. Why in the world would you complain about that?

Study 'velocity of money' ... you most assuredly need it.

Walmart isn't re-investing in the economy. They're leeching cash out of to pass on to the Walton Family. They're destroying downtown business districts and good paying jobs, gutting the business tax base. And using taxpayer money to subsidize it all. When even Forbes is criticizing a corporation's business practices, you have to know they're beyond predatory.

Let's start with this one by one:
WalMart isnt reinvesting in the economy. False. WalMart buys real estate for its operations and improves it. WalMart invests money in improving and modernizing their stores. Notice that you seldom see a WM in an isolated location bt usually there are businesses around it feeding off the traffic WM generates. So that statement is false.
They're leeching cash out to pass on to the Walton Family. False. WM is a public company. It's majority owners are shareholders, often pension plans and the like, which represent ordinary working Americans. So that is false.
They're destroying downtown business districts. False. Downtown business districts have been declining since the 1970s with the growth of suburban malls. WM put inefficient mom and pop businesses under because they offered things people wanted at prices people wanted to pay.
Gutting the business tax base. This is false. As old line businesses fail, others take their place. How many computer repair businesses, bagel shops, coffee places etc have sprung up in old districts? In municipalities that havent decided outright thievery through taxation and regulation is the rule, the old districts are revitalized.
Using taxpayer money to subsidize it. This is false. Partly in the sense that many big companies receive tax inventives from states and cities to build, partly int he sense as mentioned that WM employs people who otherwise would be unemployed.
When even Forbes criticizes. This is nonsense. Forbes is a leftist publication anyway.
WM's business model has some problems to it. They are being undercut by Dollar stores and the liek and expansion overseas has faltered.
So your post is garbage--a collection of slogans based on ignorance. If you wondered whether your potsts had been refuted, they have.

 

[The Rabbi]

Walmart isn't re-investing in the economy. They're leeching cash out of to pass on to the Walton Family. They're destroying downtown business districts and good paying jobs, gutting the business tax base. And using taxpayer money to subsidize it all. When even Forbes is criticizing a corporation's business practices, you have to know they're beyond predatory.

You do a nice job presenting real good information to a group of willful idiots (you know who I'm thinking of). Doing that shows a level of both determination and optimism that is impressive. Happy New Year to you.

It's Zeke, class A retard of USMB. Hey, Zeke. You're just pissed because WM doesnt sell Blatz

 

[The Rabbi]

You continue to make unsubstantiated claims ... and you particularly seem to have a hatred for Walmart. Let me guess .... they wouldn't hire you, right?

I worked for large Bay Street law firms in corporate/commercial and real estate law. The firms I worked for included former Prime Ministers of Canada, former cabinet members, as well as a former Premier of Ontario. I haven't always agreed with the politics of those I worked for, or on behalf of, but then I at least knew and understood the economic implications of the work I did.

Never have I encountered a group of economic dolts so certain of their positions and so unwilling to try to improve their knowledge as the rightwingers here.

You were a ******* legal secretary and that qualifies you to talk about economics?
Geddoutatown!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is what you call demand-side economics.

dear, we got from the stone age to here because Republicans supplied a million new inventions. Now even you understand supply side economics or how an economy grows.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[The Rabbi]

This is what you call demand-side economics.

dear, we got from the stone age to here because Republicans supplied a million new inventions. Now even you understand supply side economics or how an economy grows.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

Demand side economics has failed eveyr time. Roosevelt took a steep recession and turned into the longest downturn in the business cycle in US history. Japan did the same for the last 30 years. Obama has done so for the last 8 years.
The notion that government can stimulate anyhting by taking money from one set of productive people and giving it to non productive people is proven nonsense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The unemployed have no money to spend over time. Benefits gives them money.

totally stupid and liberal. Spending benefits adds to demand and taxing to pay for benefits subtracts from demand so no net gain is possible.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance.

 

[blackhawk]

I honestly can't believe this thread is still going.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I honestly can't believe this thread is still going.

why? liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism so subject of this thread is perpetual.

 

[Oldstyle]

Economists don't agree to anything of those things you claim ... those are politicians.

Now, as for the rest of this ....

"If the profits aren't re-invested in the economy where they're earned, then idle profits are taking money out of the economy. Right now, corporations are sitting on massive amounts of cash. They're not re-investing in the US economy"

Pure nonsense .... it is the movement of corporate money that has generated the movement in the stock market. They have released their money to pay off debts, internal upgrades, and create more professional production.

You fail to ask yourself about WHY they were setting on that money ... it was because of the volatility created by the Obama administration. Businesses had no idea whether there were going to be tax increases, onerous regulations, or suffocating healthcare costs. The only thing business hates more than new taxes is uncertainty. They couldn't invest a million dollars today only to find out they were going to have to sell off in order to pay repressive healthcare costs. So, they sat on it ...

But, what did they do with that money? They put it in bank accounts, safe investments, etc. And, what happens to that money? It is loaned out to borrowers .... why do you think the interest rate on houses, cars, etc., went down so significantly? Because there was more money available to be loaned out. That left you more money to spend on the economy.

The money they invested, or saved, makes them a stronger company, more resilient. Since YOUR 401(k), or your IRA, own some of those shares, it increased your net worth. And, you have the audacity to complain??

"Walmart used a chunk of their profits in 2013 to buy back shares. That did nothing to help the economy."

What does that mean? Walmart paid off debts ... money that can be used by the lenders to re-invest in the economy. That is what shares are .... YOUR 401(k) sold its shares back to the company, which, in turn, allows YOUR 401(k) to reinvest. And, if your 401(k) didn't sell back its shares, you are now the proud part owner of more valuable and stronger stock. Why in the world would you complain about that?

Study 'velocity of money' ... you most assuredly need it.

Walmart isn't re-investing in the economy. They're leeching cash out of to pass on to the Walton Family. They're destroying downtown business districts and good paying jobs, gutting the business tax base. And using taxpayer money to subsidize it all. When even Forbes is criticizing a corporation's business practices, you have to know they're beyond predatory.

It's an interesting concept when you view the taking of profits by the owners of a company as "leeching cash". While it's true that the Walton Family owns a majority share of Walmart...many other Americans also own stock in the company and partake in that profit as well.

I also noticed that you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's. Don't tell me that they didn't cover that in your Political Science classes comprehensive primer on economics!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Walmart isn't re-investing in the economy. They're leeching cash out of to pass on to the Walton Family.

Just the savings from the grocery dept at Walmart saves Americans $34 billion dollars a year which they can then spend or invest somewhere else creating jobs and new businesses. Thats just one dept in one year.

Chapter 8 WalMart Effect


See why we say the liberal will slow.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

 

[The Rabbi]

you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

If you want to really stick it to the rich, put in lower capital gains taxes. They will end up paying far more with lower rates than they did with higher rates.

 

[Dragonlady]

you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

There is a difference between cutting taxes from a 90% rate, and cutting taxes as Reagan and Bush did. Both tax cuts cost jobs, increased poverty and resulted in the transfer of wealth to the rich.

It wasn't Bush Jr.'s tax cut which increased federal revenues - it was his proflifigate spending. Both Reagan and Bush Jr. spent like drunken sailors after cutting taxes. With the government pouring that much money into the economy, huge amounts of it came back as taxes. Bush Jr. spent more than any other President who came before him. You'd have to be a perfect idiot not to figure that one out. Con

Eddie, Babycakes! Conservatives lie to one another all of the time about the effect of their economic policies, because the numbers just tell the truth. Only a conservsative is dumb enough to believe your horseshit. If Fox or Rush, or Hannity tell them stuff, they accept it without question. Liberals question everything, doubt everything, and always ask for proof.

Show me the numbers Eddie, and prove that it came from the tax cuts and not from the spending.

 

[Spare_change]

You continue to make unsubstantiated claims ... and you particularly seem to have a hatred for Walmart. Let me guess .... they wouldn't hire you, right?

I worked for large Bay Street law firms in corporate/commercial and real estate law. The firms I worked for included former Prime Ministers of Canada, former cabinet members, as well as a former Premier of Ontario. I haven't always agreed with the politics of those I worked for, or on behalf of, but then I at least knew and understood the economic implications of the work I did.

Never have I encountered a group of economic dolts so certain of their positions and so unwilling to try to improve their knowledge as the rightwingers here.

Sorry ---- your ignorance belies your claims.

 

[Oldstyle]

you don't seem to want to discuss JFK's advocating for tax cuts when HE wanted to stimulate the US economy back in the 60's.

J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts increased revenue by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003 Bush tax cuts through 2006

There is a difference between cutting taxes from a 90% rate, and cutting taxes as Reagan and Bush did. Both tax cuts cost jobs, increased poverty and resulted in the transfer of wealth to the rich.

It wasn't Bush Jr.'s tax cut which increased federal revenues - it was his proflifigate spending. Both Reagan and Bush Jr. spent like drunken sailors after cutting taxes. With the government pouring that much money into the economy, huge amounts of it came back as taxes. Bush Jr. spent more than any other President who came before him. You'd have to be a perfect idiot not to figure that one out. Con

Eddie, Babycakes! Conservatives lie to one another all of the time about the effect of their economic policies, because the numbers just tell the truth. Only a conservsative is dumb enough to believe your horseshit. If Fox or Rush, or Hannity tell them stuff, they accept it without question. Liberals question everything, doubt everything, and always ask for proof.

Show me the numbers Eddie, and prove that it came from the tax cuts and not from the spending.

So was JFK a "perfect idiot" for advocating tax cuts? You keep dodging the question, Dragonlady! Don't you think that's telling?

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'd LOVE to hear how it is that tax cuts "...cost jobs, increased poverty and resulted in the transfer of wealth to the rich."! Do you not grasp the concept that tax cuts allow the public to spend money instead of the government spending it? How exactly is it that allowing more wealth to stay in the hands of the public increases poverty?