Sen Grassley asks Janet Yellen if Middle Class Taxpayers will bear the Burden of Biden's Corporate Tax Hikes. Are you Comforted by her Answer?

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2021
13,313
10,674
2,138
Texas
Grassley makes the blindingly obvious point that taxes on corporations burden the consumers who buy from the corporations, the workers who are paid by the corporations, and Americans who scrimp and save in order to use investment vehicles to provide funds for their retirement.

Her answer:



What did she say? She trusts that Biden would never do that? Is that really her answer?

That was her first answer.

Her second answer was about how the middle class will benefit on what Biden will spend their money on.

Glad to hear that it won't be spent on giving more weapons away.
 
Last edited:
The bitch looks like a garden gnome.

OIP.BhANfIpSIp2JFGdvMHTxnwHaHa
 
Grassley makes the blindingly obvious point that taxes on corporations burden the consumers who buy from the corporations, the workers who are paid by the corporations, and Americans who scrimp and save in order to use investment vehicles to provide funds for their retirement.

Her answer:



What did she say? She trusts that Biden would never do that? Is that really her answer?

That was her first answer.

Her second answer was about how the middle class will benefit on what Biden will spend their money on.

Glad to hear that it won't be spent on giving more weapons away.

Everyone knows that when you raise taxes you increase the tax burden and it takes more money out of the economy. Raising taxes on businesses raises their overhead which they pass on to the consumer. If they can't pass it onto the consumer then they cut back on expenses, which causes a loss in jobs.

This woman is an idiot.
 
Grassley makes the blindingly obvious point that taxes on corporations burden the consumers who buy from the corporations, the workers who are paid by the corporations, and Americans who scrimp and save in order to use investment vehicles to provide funds for their retirement.

Her answer:



What did she say? She trusts that Biden would never do that? Is that really her answer?

That was her first answer.

Her second answer was about how the middle class will benefit on what Biden will spend their money on.

Glad to hear that it won't be spent on giving more weapons away.


No different than Reagan's 8 tax increases, only he shifted most of the increases down to the lower end of the pyramids and gave the top crooks and thieves a free pass, same as Obama did.
 
No different than Reagan's 8 tax increases, only he shifted most of the increases down to the lower end of the pyramids and gave the top crooks and thieves a free pass, same as Obama did.

Yet, tax increases, are consistently sold as a way to solve economic problems by soaking the rich.
 
Yet, tax increases, are consistently sold as a way to solve economic problems by soaking the rich.

The rich aren't being soaked, never have here. You want to freer markets, shut down chain stores and monopolies and enforce anti-trust laws and rein in big banks. Pretty simple stuff. Right wingers just want to snivel about minimum wage and how poor people won't work for free 16 hours a day 7 days a week. They can barely beat the nutjobs on the left in elections, if they're lucky.
 
The rich aren't being soaked, never have here. You want to freer markets, shut down chain stores and monopolies and enforce anti-trust laws and rein in big banks. Pretty simple stuff.
Those are all examples of government regulation of the market, which is the opposite of making the market more free.
Right wingers just want to snivel about minimum wage and how poor people won't work for free 16 hours a day 7 days a week. They can barely beat the nutjobs on the left in elections, if they're lucky.
I don't know who you mean, but my stance on minimum wage is that it is a bastardized construct of Marxism which teaches that the "minimum wage" is natural to the social relationship called "capital," and is the least amount of money that a company must pay to keep their workers coming in. In the U.S. "Minum Wage" is artificially set by law.

If we accept the concept of "minimum wage," and hold it as an important part of our economic system, we should be strongly opposed to allowing illegal worker who are willing to work for less than minimum wage into our country.
 
Grassley makes the blindingly obvious point that taxes on corporations burden the consumers who buy from the corporations, the workers who are paid by the corporations, and Americans who scrimp and save in order to use investment vehicles to provide funds for their retirement.

Her answer:



What did she say? She trusts that Biden would never do that? Is that really her answer?

That was her first answer.

Her second answer was about how the middle class will benefit on what Biden will spend their money on.

Glad to hear that it won't be spent on giving more weapons away.

She's not supposed to have a political opinion....
 
Those are all examples of government regulation of the market, which is the opposite of making the market more free.

Rubbish; those are regulations that keep markets freer.
I don't know who you mean, but my stance on minimum wage is that it is a bastardized construct of Marxism which teaches that the "minimum wage" is natural to the social relationship called "capital," and is the least amount of money that a company must pay to keep their workers coming in. In the U.S. "Minum Wage" is artificially set by law.

lol rubbish. It's merely a balance between the govt. minimizing business losses via 'limited liability'. If you're going to protect business owners by limiting their business losses then you can also protect workers with a wage floor. It isn't 'artificially set' except when corporations buy themselves some pols to keep it from being adjusted for real inflation.

You want no floors for wages, then demand no floors for business owners' losses. and that includes stockholders. Otherwise you're just a hypocrite and a fraud. No 'corporate personhood' scams, no limited liability except for those corporations originally intended to benefit from that safety net. Also no committing fraud against workers when trying to sucker them to move to where ever you need them.

For instance every stockholder in Enron should have been held liable for both criminal fines and debts according to their share of the company and not allowed to hide behind bankruptcy frauds protecting their assets from seizure for payment.
 
Last edited:
Rubbish; those are regulations that keep markets freer.


lol rubbish. It's merely a balance between the govt. minimizing business losses via 'limited liability'. If you're going to protect business owners by limiting their business losses then you can also protect workers with a wage floor. It isn't 'artificially set' except when corporations buy themselves some pols to keep it from being adjusted for real inflation.
You have a point if that is a trade-off. But of course, the minimum wage does not just apply to corporation so we know that it is not.

For what is worth? I am one of the few people that opposes the existence of corporations. Well, not the existence of corporation, but the current model in which the owners of the corporations have no liability. If a corporation commits an egregious wrong, and it’s rightfully sued, it should not be able to get out of it by saying oh, the corporation has no more money. If it says that, then the owners of the corporation, i.e. the stockholders should be responsibility. They elect the board who selects the CEO and other executives so they are just as much at fault.

On a philosophical level, I can agree that if we allow corporations, essentially unlimited license to screw over ordinary people and never get sued for it, then it makes sense to do something for the “little people “.

My argument would be that minimum wage, and other regulations is not good for them either.
You want no floors for wages, then demand no floors for business owners' losses. and that includes stockholders.
I’m not sure what you mean by no floors for losses? The natural floor for losses is everything you have.
Otherwise you're just a hypocrite and a fraud. No 'corporate personhood' scams, no limited liability except for those corporations originally intended to benefit from that safety net. Also no committing fraud against workers when trying to sucker them to move to where ever you need them.
Not sure what you mean, I might agree with it if I did
For instance every stockholder in Enron should have been held liable for both criminal fines and debts according to their share of the company and not allowed to hide behind bankruptcy frauds protecting their assets from seizure for payment.
Yes, I agree. I made the same point about a corporation that had a huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Another poster said it’s not fair to hold mom and Pop responsible because they own chairs in that corporation. My response was “mom and Pop have no business drilling in the golf. They obviously don’t know what they’re doing so they should get out of that business.”
 
Grassley makes the blindingly obvious point that taxes on corporations burden the consumers who buy from the corporations, the workers who are paid by the corporations, and Americans who scrimp and save in order to use investment vehicles to provide funds for their retirement.

Her answer:



What did she say? She trusts that Biden would never do that? Is that really her answer?

That was her first answer.

Her second answer was about how the middle class will benefit on what Biden will spend their money on.

Glad to hear that it won't be spent on giving more weapons away.

No. Yellen is part of Bidens DEI staff.
 
Can you imagine if congressmen and women as well as executive officers had to be audited every year?...
 
Grassley makes the blindingly obvious point that taxes on corporations burden the consumers who buy from the corporations, the workers who are paid by the corporations, and Americans who scrimp and save in order to use investment vehicles to provide funds for their retirement.

Her answer:



What did she say? She trusts that Biden would never do that? Is that really her answer?

That was her first answer.

Her second answer was about how the middle class will benefit on what Biden will spend their money on.

Glad to hear that it won't be spent on giving more weapons away.

Yes yes, be a corporate running dog lol. There's no hope....worst voters anywhere
 
Grassley makes the blindingly obvious point that taxes on corporations burden the consumers who buy from the corporations, the workers who are paid by the corporations, and Americans who scrimp and save in order to use investment vehicles to provide funds for their retirement.

Her answer:



What did she say? She trusts that Biden would never do that? Is that really her answer?

That was her first answer.

Her second answer was about how the middle class will benefit on what Biden will spend their money on.

Glad to hear that it won't be spent on giving more weapons away.


Grassley should retire now.

Point is stupid. If one lowers corporate taxes who replaces the lost revenue. Why it's everyone the republic party wants to pay, lower- and middle-income people.
 

Forum List

Back
Top