Republicans think handing corporations money creates jobs.

[airplanemechanic]

Despite two recessions, one not even being his fault, he created 2.1 million jobs under his presidency.

He also had Katrina, which cost 200 BILLION dollars in damages.

 

[The Derp]

And you speak of facts. Well, PROVE the surplus existed.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary, Tax Policy Center, In Constant (FY 2009) dollars, in billions, from February 14th, 2017:

In Current Dollars, Surplus or Deficit:

1998: $69.3
1999: $125.6
2000: $236.2
2001 (Bush Tax Cuts Passed): $128.2
2002: -$157.8
2003 (Bush Tax Cuts Accelerated): -$377.6 (Record deficit)
2004 (Start of Housing Bubble): -$412.7 (Record deficit)
2005: -$318.3
2006: -$248.2
2007 (Housing Bubble Pops): -$160.7
2008 (Economic collapse): -$458.6 (Record deficit)
2009 (Bush's final budget year): -$1,412.7 (All-time high record deficit)

 

[Wyatt earp]

How many Personal bankruptcies, does Mr. Trump have?

Don't know. None? But Trump wasn't elected because of his personal finances, he was elected in part because of his staggering "business successes". That a "successful" businessman would be good at running the country...apparently because we have amnesia from the last two times we've had an MBA sit in the Oval Office (Hoover, Bush the Dumber).

Wtf?

Trump was elected to destroy the left.



And one hell of a job...
.

 

[The Derp]

Despite two recessions, one not even being his fault, he created 2.1 million jobs under his presidency.

Who? Bush? No, he lost 460,000 net private sector jobs. You are counting government jobs in your total.

 

[The Derp]

He also had Katrina, which cost 200 BILLION dollars in damages.

Yeah, because his response to it was terrible. So it ended up costing more than it probably should have.

 

[airplanemechanic]

And you speak of facts. Well, PROVE the surplus existed.

Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary, Tax Policy Center, In Constant (FY 2009) dollars, in billions, from February 14th, 2017:

In Current Dollars, Surplus or Deficit:

1998: $69.3
1999: $125.6
2000: $236.2
2001 (Bush Tax Cuts Passed): $128.2
2002: -$157.8
2003 (Bush Tax Cuts Accelerated): -$377.6 (Record deficit)
2004 (Start of Housing Bubble): -$412.7 (Record deficit)
2005: -$318.3
2006: -$248.2
2007 (Housing Bubble Pops): -$160.7
2008 (Economic collapse): -$458.6 (Record deficit)
2009 (Bush's final budget year): -$1,412.7 (All-time high record deficit)

Those numbers are fake. How did the deficit go up every year if we had a surplus? Your numbers show positive in 98, 99 and 00, yet the debt went up each and everyone of those years.

Fake numbers are just that, fake numbers.

Deficit each year is the last number, debt is the first number.

FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

 

[Wyatt earp]

We will probably never see it again..


But the trumpster is finally trolling the left..



.

 

[hortysir]

I have news for the ultimate business man of all time, El Dumpster. Handing corporations money through tax cuts do not create jobs. Corporations hire people when they have a need.

If you want to create jobs, increase the demand for the products corporations supply. You do that by cutting taxes for the the middle & lower class people. They will spend that money & thereby increase demand.

If you want to bring those overseas corporate profits, end the tax break that said those profits aren't taxed until they bring them home.

Then, consider how much money Trump will profit from this tax break. Conflict of interest.

This tax break will not help struggling companies that make no or little profit.

It will actually reduce some investments. Corporatioins buying equipment, etc get a tax write off worth 35% & now that write off is only worth 15%.

'Trump is only helping himself.

^emphasis added

Who says we can't do BOTH?

 

[The Derp]

Those numbers are fake.

No, you are just choosing not to accept them to your own detriment.

How did the deficit go up every year if we had a surplus?

Because you don't automatically apply surpluses to the debt. And Clinton did pay down the debt, depending on what your calendar is. Also, Bush famously said that we had to pass the tax cuts because "surpluses mean we're being overtaxed". So that's an interesting contradiction; you oppose debt, but the only way to pay down debt is to run a surplus, but surpluses mean you're "overtaxed".

So you see how that's masturbatory, right?

Your numbers show positive in 98, 99 and 00, yet the debt went up each and everyone of those years.

Again, it depends on how your calendar is. December-December 1999-2000 showed a debt reduction. September-September 1999-2000 showed a debt increase. The government doesn't collect revenues all at once. So that's why sometimes debt is paid down, and why sometimes it isn't.

 

[The Derp]

Who says we can't do BOTH?

Those who screech about the deficit...unless you're saying the deficit screeching is just posturing.

 

[PredFan]

Again, you are dead wrong and your ignorance is illustrated by your example. Drug companies ARE doing R&D all the time. I work in the medical field and see this first hand.It isn't only drug companies.

The largest source of funding for medical research is the NIH. Drug companies do R&D, but they spend far, far more on marketing and advertising. Furthermore, the R&D drug companies do isn't to cure diseases, but to treat symptoms. Why would a drug company cure a disease when they can make a fortune treating the symptoms? Why do you think there's not been a cure for cancer or diabetes? Because drug companies make too much money treating those symptoms. So it's not in their interest to cure the condition because then they won't have customers. Such is the pitfalls of for-profit medicine.

So they spend more on advertising? That doesn't mean anything at all. They do research, they do it all the time. I know why there hasn't been a cure for diabetes and cancer and you are dumber than I thought if you think it's because of the drug companies.

I'm trying to educate you, but I cannot force you to learn. Your resistance to facts and common sense is boring me.

 

[The Derp]

FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

I linked my numbers from the Tax Policy Center...from where are you pulling these?

 

[hortysir]

Who says we can't do BOTH?

Those who screech about the deficit...unless you're saying the deficit screeching is just posturing.

Deficit can be a non-issue.
All we gotta do is cut spending by more than we cut revenue

 

[The Derp]

So they spend more on advertising? That doesn't mean anything at all.

Ye,s it means that they are more concerned with profits and market share than they are curing disease. These are for-profit businesses, they're not going to undermine their own self-interests. The money is to be made in treating the symptoms, not curing the disease.

They do research, they do it all the time.

Ah, but what is it they are "researching"? A cure? No...because cures aren't profitable. Symptom treatment? Bingo! That's where the money is. Why produce a cure when you can have a customer for life by treating the symptoms? It's a business.

I know why there hasn't been a cure for diabetes and cancer and you are dumber than I thought if you think it's because of the drug companies.

It's entirely because of the drug companies. Why would they put themselves out of business producing cures, thus negating the need for the product they produce?????

You can only cure someone once. But you can treat them for the rest of their lives.

I'm trying to educate you, but I cannot force you to learn. Your resistance to facts and common sense is boring me.

Common sense!? Common sense dictates that a for-profit company has a vested interest in maintaining their customer base. If they cure the disease, how much money will that patient spend on their drugs? Nothing.

 

[The Derp]

Deficit can be a non-issue.All we gotta do is cut spending by more than we cut revenue

But but but, we were sold the promise that tax cuts would create all this growth, we'd be awash in revenues which would negate the need to cut spending. If you're now saying that tax cuts do not produce more revenues and that we have to slash spending in order to balance the budget, then what is the economic benefit to cutting taxes in the first place????

 

[PredFan]

So they spend more on advertising? That doesn't mean anything at all.

Ye,s it means that they are more concerned with profits and market share than they are curing disease. These are for-profit businesses, they're not going to undermine their own self-interests. The money is to be made in treating the symptoms, not curing the disease.

They do research, they do it all the time.

Ah, but what is it they are "researching"? A cure? No...because cures aren't profitable. Symptom treatment? Bingo! That's where the money is. Why produce a cure when you can have a customer for life by treating the symptoms? It's a business.

I know why there hasn't been a cure for diabetes and cancer and you are dumber than I thought if you think it's because of the drug companies.

It's entirely because of the drug companies. Why would they put themselves out of business producing cures, thus negating the need for the product they produce?????

You can only cure someone once. But you can treat them for the rest of their lives.

I'm trying to educate you, but I cannot force you to learn. Your resistance to facts and common sense is boring me.

Common sense!? Common sense dictates that a for-profit company has a vested interest in maintaining their customer base. If they cure the disease, how much money will that patient spend on their drugs? Nothing.

Dude, you aren't smart enough to be in a discussion. Dismissed.

 

[The Derp]

Dude, you aren't smart enough to be in a discussion. Dismissed.

Dunning-Kruger alert!

 

[Papageorgio]

If you can't deal with what she said directly, then you got nothing. Thanks!

Don't really care what someone else said, snowflake. I'm providing much needed clarity.

What she said is what I directly responded to dumb ass, you provided no clarity as you never responded to what she posted, you are just dribbling spew, you bring in Walmart which had nothing to do with she or I posted.

The accusation is that minimum wages were cut. I want to know where and when in this country they were cut. I am not concerned about your third world country, that isn't the issue in this thread.

When the minimum wage does not rise for inflation, it is, in effect, a pay cut. And the minimum wage has not risen according to inflation since the 1960's.

It is not a cut in pay in effect or otherwise and no one cuts the pay. It may buy you less but that isn't a pay cut. You are playing semantics and it is a dishonest approach given they way she put forth the statement that you failed to quote for very obvious reasons.

Each dollar is worth less as inflation occurs.

That said, I know Republicans would love to lower the minimum wage. Otherwise, they would make it keep up with inflation.

When have the Republicans passed a lower minimum wage bill? You are speculating.

 

[hortysir]

Dude, you aren't smart enough to be in a discussion. Dismissed.

Dunning-Kruger alert!

SO tired of that term.....
Read:
Dunning-Kruger and other bogus memes

 

[The Derp]

What she said is what I directly responded to dumb ass, you provided no clarity as you never responded to what she posted, you are just dribbling spew, you bring in Walmart which had nothing to do with she or I posted.

You cannot talk about the minimum wage and not talk about WalMart.