Trickle down Econ already working for AT&T, Wells Fargo and Comcast employees...Thanks Donny!

[The Derp]

How did wages decline when the median went up?

The mean and the median didn't go up. Your own chart shows a decline in both by the time Bush left office.

So yes, you should add "Doesn't know how to read a chart" to your resume.

What a fucking idiot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Capitalism is why people came to this country in the fist place; a country where work and investment pays off, a country where the sky is the limit, a country where a person can work hard, start their own business, and realize the American dream one day..

That's a fantasy and illusion. Fact is, America is one of the least economically mobile countries in the world. Meaning that it's more likely you will be able to move between classes in Holland or France than here in the US. You believe in a fantasy because fantasy thinking is all you can do.

From Seattle Times:
The shocking decline in American economic mobility
April 27, 2017
Flying under the radar is a recent study from Stanford University economist Raj Chetty and colleagues showing that the economic mobility in the United States has been nearly cut in half since 1940.

...

Meanwhile, a new Pew Research Center study found that from 1991 to 2010 the middle class shrank more in the United States than in seven Western European nations. In four, including the Netherlands and France, the middle class grew. The decline here was from 62 percent of households to 59 percent.​

It's still very much that way. People don't try to get in to this country because of the scenery, they come here to take advantage of opportunities they didn't have in their countries. In some places, if you are born poor, that's the way you will die no matter how hard you try to escape poverty. In this country, escaping poverty is much more likely than other places. That's what capitalism has done, and capitalism isn't limited to the government or the wealthy. Everybody can participate if they choose. And if you decide you want to remain poor, what other country would you rather be poor in than the United States of America?

I bolded the relevant part of these paragraphs because the data shows that it's the case here in the US too. Economic immobility in the US is as bad as it's been since the 1920's.

Pew did an economic mobility survey to examine the very claim you're alleging, and their findings were...not good:

Today there is more inter-generational social mobility in Europe than in the United States, contrary to the American myth that the United States is still the world’s No. 1 land of opportunity. The Economic Mobility Project of Pew Charitable Trusts has shown that children are far less likely to rise above the socio-economic levels of their parents in the U.S. than are those in Britain, Canada and Australia, as well as Germany, France and the Nordic nations. The American South, with the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility in the U.S., clearly skews the national statistics, creating an embarrassing and depressing version of American exceptionalism.​

Why is it that nearly everything you say is objectively wrong? How could someone be so wrong, so often?

Capitalism brought us the people who created all those big tall buildings in downtown areas. Capitalism brought us millions of jobs for working folks. Capitalism is responsible for the tax collections by our government since it's the wealthy that pays all the income tax in this country.

No, government and capitalism work in tandem. Without the infrastructure government provides, capitalism cannot thrive. Without the thriving of capitalism, government cannot fund the infrastructure necessary for capitalism to thrive. They rely on each other. It's an equal partnership. You are just a very juvenile and uneducated slovenly loon.

Correct, that's exactly what I said. If you have value, there are less people like you than those that have little value.If you stock shelves, make french fries, sweep floors, those are talentless jobs that anybody can do. It's why they pay so little.

So again, you don't seem to understand how productivity is measured. You think only in terms of service because that's probably the only experience you have when it comes to labor; service jobs. And I'm sure your experience servicing others is quite extensive, unfortunately it's not a viewpoint that makes sense when discussing a larger economy. Value is subjective, productivity is not. You seem to want to interchange value with productivity and you do that because you have no knowledge of economics or the metrics by which it's measured. If there was no minimum wage, would wages go up or down?

If you learn a trade like an electrician, a carpenter, a welder, there are less people who can do your job, and therefore, less people that your employer can find to replace you. Supply and Demand dictates that the less supply, the higher the price, so in order to replace you, he has to offer more money than his floor sweeper.If you go to college and become an engineer, a doctor, a pharmacist, there are much fewer people that can do your job, and supply and demand once again determines your wage. Now if you go to college and get educated in a field where there are no or little jobs, your pay will not be very rewarding. Too much supply and too little demand. It doesn't matter how good your grades were, how hard you studied, how much debt you accumulated, what matters is if you chose a field where you are always in demand.

Again...a very juvenile, crackerjack, bullshit understanding of economics. Supply and demand in the labor market is different than supply and demand in the consumer market. Yes, if there is demand for labor, wages go up. Unfortunately, the demand for labor is for skilled and trained labor, mostly requiring college degrees. Now, who are the people who oppose free public colleges where people can be trained to fill the demand in the labor market? You. Who are the people who oppose Pell Grants and want to limit student loans? You. So you tell people that in order to get more money, they have to get educated and trained, but you also tell them that you're not going to fund the institutions that can educate and train them, and that borrowing money to get education and training is stupid, and that college isn't necessary. So you exercise the worst kind of cognitive dissonance, and you do that for no other reason than because you're a piece of shit.

And what about the people who cannot afford education and training that you say they should get if they want more money? They are supposed to do what? Be born into a life of poverty and never rise out of it -but hey ho!- according to you, that's something that is easily achievable in America. The problem is that it's not and instead of you admitting that your belief system is wrong, you instead excuse it by placing the blame on those whom you've set a nearly impossible standard to reach; getting educated without going into debt to earn more money that would be used to pay for education, which you say they need but cannot afford.

So your argument is still that circle-jerk; you complain about the very thing you are actively perpetuating.

et me ask: do you overpay people that work for you? If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the highest one? Or if you need a lawn care company, do you choose the company that will cut your lawn for $35.00 a cut or the company that charges $50.00 a cut?Businesses are no different than you or I. We all look to get work done for the lowest price possible. Provided the quality of work is equal, you (and businesses) always choose the lowest priced labor.

Childish. I go to the vendor who is going to do the best job, so I don't have to keep going back. Typically, the vendor that pays its workers the best is going to result in the best work. Quality over quantity; a concept you seem unfamiliar with.

Well, I'm going to end this discussion right here and now. I've about had it with your leftist commie insults and hopes of you growing up throughout the discussion seem futile. But I will leave you with this: the government and our social programs are the problem in this country--not capitalism. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times. If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

Have a good day.

 

[Faun]

Capitalism is why people came to this country in the fist place; a country where work and investment pays off, a country where the sky is the limit, a country where a person can work hard, start their own business, and realize the American dream one day..

That's a fantasy and illusion. Fact is, America is one of the least economically mobile countries in the world. Meaning that it's more likely you will be able to move between classes in Holland or France than here in the US. You believe in a fantasy because fantasy thinking is all you can do.

From Seattle Times:
The shocking decline in American economic mobility
April 27, 2017
Flying under the radar is a recent study from Stanford University economist Raj Chetty and colleagues showing that the economic mobility in the United States has been nearly cut in half since 1940.

...

Meanwhile, a new Pew Research Center study found that from 1991 to 2010 the middle class shrank more in the United States than in seven Western European nations. In four, including the Netherlands and France, the middle class grew. The decline here was from 62 percent of households to 59 percent.​

It's still very much that way. People don't try to get in to this country because of the scenery, they come here to take advantage of opportunities they didn't have in their countries. In some places, if you are born poor, that's the way you will die no matter how hard you try to escape poverty. In this country, escaping poverty is much more likely than other places. That's what capitalism has done, and capitalism isn't limited to the government or the wealthy. Everybody can participate if they choose. And if you decide you want to remain poor, what other country would you rather be poor in than the United States of America?

I bolded the relevant part of these paragraphs because the data shows that it's the case here in the US too. Economic immobility in the US is as bad as it's been since the 1920's.

Pew did an economic mobility survey to examine the very claim you're alleging, and their findings were...not good:

Today there is more inter-generational social mobility in Europe than in the United States, contrary to the American myth that the United States is still the world’s No. 1 land of opportunity. The Economic Mobility Project of Pew Charitable Trusts has shown that children are far less likely to rise above the socio-economic levels of their parents in the U.S. than are those in Britain, Canada and Australia, as well as Germany, France and the Nordic nations. The American South, with the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility in the U.S., clearly skews the national statistics, creating an embarrassing and depressing version of American exceptionalism.​

Why is it that nearly everything you say is objectively wrong? How could someone be so wrong, so often?

Capitalism brought us the people who created all those big tall buildings in downtown areas. Capitalism brought us millions of jobs for working folks. Capitalism is responsible for the tax collections by our government since it's the wealthy that pays all the income tax in this country.

No, government and capitalism work in tandem. Without the infrastructure government provides, capitalism cannot thrive. Without the thriving of capitalism, government cannot fund the infrastructure necessary for capitalism to thrive. They rely on each other. It's an equal partnership. You are just a very juvenile and uneducated slovenly loon.

Correct, that's exactly what I said. If you have value, there are less people like you than those that have little value.If you stock shelves, make french fries, sweep floors, those are talentless jobs that anybody can do. It's why they pay so little.

So again, you don't seem to understand how productivity is measured. You think only in terms of service because that's probably the only experience you have when it comes to labor; service jobs. And I'm sure your experience servicing others is quite extensive, unfortunately it's not a viewpoint that makes sense when discussing a larger economy. Value is subjective, productivity is not. You seem to want to interchange value with productivity and you do that because you have no knowledge of economics or the metrics by which it's measured. If there was no minimum wage, would wages go up or down?

If you learn a trade like an electrician, a carpenter, a welder, there are less people who can do your job, and therefore, less people that your employer can find to replace you. Supply and Demand dictates that the less supply, the higher the price, so in order to replace you, he has to offer more money than his floor sweeper.If you go to college and become an engineer, a doctor, a pharmacist, there are much fewer people that can do your job, and supply and demand once again determines your wage. Now if you go to college and get educated in a field where there are no or little jobs, your pay will not be very rewarding. Too much supply and too little demand. It doesn't matter how good your grades were, how hard you studied, how much debt you accumulated, what matters is if you chose a field where you are always in demand.

Again...a very juvenile, crackerjack, bullshit understanding of economics. Supply and demand in the labor market is different than supply and demand in the consumer market. Yes, if there is demand for labor, wages go up. Unfortunately, the demand for labor is for skilled and trained labor, mostly requiring college degrees. Now, who are the people who oppose free public colleges where people can be trained to fill the demand in the labor market? You. Who are the people who oppose Pell Grants and want to limit student loans? You. So you tell people that in order to get more money, they have to get educated and trained, but you also tell them that you're not going to fund the institutions that can educate and train them, and that borrowing money to get education and training is stupid, and that college isn't necessary. So you exercise the worst kind of cognitive dissonance, and you do that for no other reason than because you're a piece of shit.

And what about the people who cannot afford education and training that you say they should get if they want more money? They are supposed to do what? Be born into a life of poverty and never rise out of it -but hey ho!- according to you, that's something that is easily achievable in America. The problem is that it's not and instead of you admitting that your belief system is wrong, you instead excuse it by placing the blame on those whom you've set a nearly impossible standard to reach; getting educated without going into debt to earn more money that would be used to pay for education, which you say they need but cannot afford.

So your argument is still that circle-jerk; you complain about the very thing you are actively perpetuating.

et me ask: do you overpay people that work for you? If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the highest one? Or if you need a lawn care company, do you choose the company that will cut your lawn for $35.00 a cut or the company that charges $50.00 a cut?Businesses are no different than you or I. We all look to get work done for the lowest price possible. Provided the quality of work is equal, you (and businesses) always choose the lowest priced labor.

Childish. I go to the vendor who is going to do the best job, so I don't have to keep going back. Typically, the vendor that pays its workers the best is going to result in the best work. Quality over quantity; a concept you seem unfamiliar with.

Well, I'm going to end this discussion right here and now. I've about had it with your leftist commie insults and hopes of you growing up throughout the discussion seem futile. But I will leave you with this: the government and our social programs are the problem in this country--not capitalism. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times. If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

Have a good day.

Run, Forrest! Run!!!

Certainly is far easier than trying to defend the nonsense you post when bitch-slapped into reality.

Kudos to The Derp for masterfully destroying you to the point of utter concession.

 

[The Derp]

What's more valuable,
$1,000,000 future revenues with $500,000 profit and $325,000 after tax profit or
$1,000,000 future revenues with $500,000 profit and $395,000 after tax profit?

Sigh...you're again conflating where a corporation is headquartered with a corporation expanding into the consumer market. They are two different things that have little to nothing to do with one another. And besides, the 21% new corporate rate is still higher than the rate in these countries we're discussing. So the corporate profit tax cut was just to boost corporate profits, not expand or relocate HQ's.

It doesn't matter where a business locates their HQ's when it comes to determining whether or not to expand into a new consumer market.

Your myopic and sophist post is exactly the reason why right-wing economies always fail, underperform, and under-deliver.

There is one market, a factory in either location can meet total demand.

NO THERE ISN'T! Opening a factory in a market doesn't have anything to do with relocating corporate HQ. You're conflating Tax HQ's with Production and Operations. Because that factory is producing goods that are sold in multiple markets. Whatever the corporate profit tax is has no determination on whether or not the business expands into new consumer markets. For fuck's sake, don't you know anything? If Apple moved its HQ for tax purposes to Ireland, why does it still have Apple stores in the US (But none in Ireland)? Apple's corporate move to Ireland didn't prompt it to open a new Apple store in Buckhead, GA, did it? No. It opened the store in Buckhead because there was demand in that market for Apple products. Not because Ireland's corporate rate is lower (and still is lower) than ours.

 

[The Derp]

Well, I'm going to end this discussion right here and now. I've about had it with your leftist commie insults and hopes of you growing up throughout the discussion seem futile. But I will leave you with this: the government and our social programs are the problem in this country--not capitalism. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times. If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.Have a good day.

What an entitled, spoiled, lazy shit.

Grow the fuck up and get over yourself.

 

[The Derp]

Capitalism is why people came to this country in the fist place; a country where work and investment pays off, a country where the sky is the limit, a country where a person can work hard, start their own business, and realize the American dream one day..

That's a fantasy and illusion. Fact is, America is one of the least economically mobile countries in the world. Meaning that it's more likely you will be able to move between classes in Holland or France than here in the US. You believe in a fantasy because fantasy thinking is all you can do.

From Seattle Times:
The shocking decline in American economic mobility
April 27, 2017
Flying under the radar is a recent study from Stanford University economist Raj Chetty and colleagues showing that the economic mobility in the United States has been nearly cut in half since 1940.

...

Meanwhile, a new Pew Research Center study found that from 1991 to 2010 the middle class shrank more in the United States than in seven Western European nations. In four, including the Netherlands and France, the middle class grew. The decline here was from 62 percent of households to 59 percent.​

It's still very much that way. People don't try to get in to this country because of the scenery, they come here to take advantage of opportunities they didn't have in their countries. In some places, if you are born poor, that's the way you will die no matter how hard you try to escape poverty. In this country, escaping poverty is much more likely than other places. That's what capitalism has done, and capitalism isn't limited to the government or the wealthy. Everybody can participate if they choose. And if you decide you want to remain poor, what other country would you rather be poor in than the United States of America?

I bolded the relevant part of these paragraphs because the data shows that it's the case here in the US too. Economic immobility in the US is as bad as it's been since the 1920's.

Pew did an economic mobility survey to examine the very claim you're alleging, and their findings were...not good:

Today there is more inter-generational social mobility in Europe than in the United States, contrary to the American myth that the United States is still the world’s No. 1 land of opportunity. The Economic Mobility Project of Pew Charitable Trusts has shown that children are far less likely to rise above the socio-economic levels of their parents in the U.S. than are those in Britain, Canada and Australia, as well as Germany, France and the Nordic nations. The American South, with the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility in the U.S., clearly skews the national statistics, creating an embarrassing and depressing version of American exceptionalism.​

Why is it that nearly everything you say is objectively wrong? How could someone be so wrong, so often?

Capitalism brought us the people who created all those big tall buildings in downtown areas. Capitalism brought us millions of jobs for working folks. Capitalism is responsible for the tax collections by our government since it's the wealthy that pays all the income tax in this country.

No, government and capitalism work in tandem. Without the infrastructure government provides, capitalism cannot thrive. Without the thriving of capitalism, government cannot fund the infrastructure necessary for capitalism to thrive. They rely on each other. It's an equal partnership. You are just a very juvenile and uneducated slovenly loon.

Correct, that's exactly what I said. If you have value, there are less people like you than those that have little value.If you stock shelves, make french fries, sweep floors, those are talentless jobs that anybody can do. It's why they pay so little.

So again, you don't seem to understand how productivity is measured. You think only in terms of service because that's probably the only experience you have when it comes to labor; service jobs. And I'm sure your experience servicing others is quite extensive, unfortunately it's not a viewpoint that makes sense when discussing a larger economy. Value is subjective, productivity is not. You seem to want to interchange value with productivity and you do that because you have no knowledge of economics or the metrics by which it's measured. If there was no minimum wage, would wages go up or down?

If you learn a trade like an electrician, a carpenter, a welder, there are less people who can do your job, and therefore, less people that your employer can find to replace you. Supply and Demand dictates that the less supply, the higher the price, so in order to replace you, he has to offer more money than his floor sweeper.If you go to college and become an engineer, a doctor, a pharmacist, there are much fewer people that can do your job, and supply and demand once again determines your wage. Now if you go to college and get educated in a field where there are no or little jobs, your pay will not be very rewarding. Too much supply and too little demand. It doesn't matter how good your grades were, how hard you studied, how much debt you accumulated, what matters is if you chose a field where you are always in demand.

Again...a very juvenile, crackerjack, bullshit understanding of economics. Supply and demand in the labor market is different than supply and demand in the consumer market. Yes, if there is demand for labor, wages go up. Unfortunately, the demand for labor is for skilled and trained labor, mostly requiring college degrees. Now, who are the people who oppose free public colleges where people can be trained to fill the demand in the labor market? You. Who are the people who oppose Pell Grants and want to limit student loans? You. So you tell people that in order to get more money, they have to get educated and trained, but you also tell them that you're not going to fund the institutions that can educate and train them, and that borrowing money to get education and training is stupid, and that college isn't necessary. So you exercise the worst kind of cognitive dissonance, and you do that for no other reason than because you're a piece of shit.

And what about the people who cannot afford education and training that you say they should get if they want more money? They are supposed to do what? Be born into a life of poverty and never rise out of it -but hey ho!- according to you, that's something that is easily achievable in America. The problem is that it's not and instead of you admitting that your belief system is wrong, you instead excuse it by placing the blame on those whom you've set a nearly impossible standard to reach; getting educated without going into debt to earn more money that would be used to pay for education, which you say they need but cannot afford.

So your argument is still that circle-jerk; you complain about the very thing you are actively perpetuating.

et me ask: do you overpay people that work for you? If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the highest one? Or if you need a lawn care company, do you choose the company that will cut your lawn for $35.00 a cut or the company that charges $50.00 a cut?Businesses are no different than you or I. We all look to get work done for the lowest price possible. Provided the quality of work is equal, you (and businesses) always choose the lowest priced labor.

Childish. I go to the vendor who is going to do the best job, so I don't have to keep going back. Typically, the vendor that pays its workers the best is going to result in the best work. Quality over quantity; a concept you seem unfamiliar with.

Well, I'm going to end this discussion right here and now. I've about had it with your leftist commie insults and hopes of you growing up throughout the discussion seem futile. But I will leave you with this: the government and our social programs are the problem in this country--not capitalism. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times. If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

Have a good day.

Run, Forrest! Run!!!

Certainly is far easier than trying to defend the nonsense you post when bitch-slapped into reality.

Kudos to The Derp for masterfully destroying you to the point of utter concession.

He wouldn't defend it even if he had the imaginary time because he's an entitled, lazy little crybaby.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism is why people came to this country in the fist place; a country where work and investment pays off, a country where the sky is the limit, a country where a person can work hard, start their own business, and realize the American dream one day..

That's a fantasy and illusion. Fact is, America is one of the least economically mobile countries in the world. Meaning that it's more likely you will be able to move between classes in Holland or France than here in the US. You believe in a fantasy because fantasy thinking is all you can do.

From Seattle Times:
The shocking decline in American economic mobility
April 27, 2017
Flying under the radar is a recent study from Stanford University economist Raj Chetty and colleagues showing that the economic mobility in the United States has been nearly cut in half since 1940.

...

Meanwhile, a new Pew Research Center study found that from 1991 to 2010 the middle class shrank more in the United States than in seven Western European nations. In four, including the Netherlands and France, the middle class grew. The decline here was from 62 percent of households to 59 percent.​

It's still very much that way. People don't try to get in to this country because of the scenery, they come here to take advantage of opportunities they didn't have in their countries. In some places, if you are born poor, that's the way you will die no matter how hard you try to escape poverty. In this country, escaping poverty is much more likely than other places. That's what capitalism has done, and capitalism isn't limited to the government or the wealthy. Everybody can participate if they choose. And if you decide you want to remain poor, what other country would you rather be poor in than the United States of America?

I bolded the relevant part of these paragraphs because the data shows that it's the case here in the US too. Economic immobility in the US is as bad as it's been since the 1920's.

Pew did an economic mobility survey to examine the very claim you're alleging, and their findings were...not good:

Today there is more inter-generational social mobility in Europe than in the United States, contrary to the American myth that the United States is still the world’s No. 1 land of opportunity. The Economic Mobility Project of Pew Charitable Trusts has shown that children are far less likely to rise above the socio-economic levels of their parents in the U.S. than are those in Britain, Canada and Australia, as well as Germany, France and the Nordic nations. The American South, with the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility in the U.S., clearly skews the national statistics, creating an embarrassing and depressing version of American exceptionalism.​

Why is it that nearly everything you say is objectively wrong? How could someone be so wrong, so often?

Capitalism brought us the people who created all those big tall buildings in downtown areas. Capitalism brought us millions of jobs for working folks. Capitalism is responsible for the tax collections by our government since it's the wealthy that pays all the income tax in this country.

No, government and capitalism work in tandem. Without the infrastructure government provides, capitalism cannot thrive. Without the thriving of capitalism, government cannot fund the infrastructure necessary for capitalism to thrive. They rely on each other. It's an equal partnership. You are just a very juvenile and uneducated slovenly loon.

Correct, that's exactly what I said. If you have value, there are less people like you than those that have little value.If you stock shelves, make french fries, sweep floors, those are talentless jobs that anybody can do. It's why they pay so little.

So again, you don't seem to understand how productivity is measured. You think only in terms of service because that's probably the only experience you have when it comes to labor; service jobs. And I'm sure your experience servicing others is quite extensive, unfortunately it's not a viewpoint that makes sense when discussing a larger economy. Value is subjective, productivity is not. You seem to want to interchange value with productivity and you do that because you have no knowledge of economics or the metrics by which it's measured. If there was no minimum wage, would wages go up or down?

If you learn a trade like an electrician, a carpenter, a welder, there are less people who can do your job, and therefore, less people that your employer can find to replace you. Supply and Demand dictates that the less supply, the higher the price, so in order to replace you, he has to offer more money than his floor sweeper.If you go to college and become an engineer, a doctor, a pharmacist, there are much fewer people that can do your job, and supply and demand once again determines your wage. Now if you go to college and get educated in a field where there are no or little jobs, your pay will not be very rewarding. Too much supply and too little demand. It doesn't matter how good your grades were, how hard you studied, how much debt you accumulated, what matters is if you chose a field where you are always in demand.

Again...a very juvenile, crackerjack, bullshit understanding of economics. Supply and demand in the labor market is different than supply and demand in the consumer market. Yes, if there is demand for labor, wages go up. Unfortunately, the demand for labor is for skilled and trained labor, mostly requiring college degrees. Now, who are the people who oppose free public colleges where people can be trained to fill the demand in the labor market? You. Who are the people who oppose Pell Grants and want to limit student loans? You. So you tell people that in order to get more money, they have to get educated and trained, but you also tell them that you're not going to fund the institutions that can educate and train them, and that borrowing money to get education and training is stupid, and that college isn't necessary. So you exercise the worst kind of cognitive dissonance, and you do that for no other reason than because you're a piece of shit.

And what about the people who cannot afford education and training that you say they should get if they want more money? They are supposed to do what? Be born into a life of poverty and never rise out of it -but hey ho!- according to you, that's something that is easily achievable in America. The problem is that it's not and instead of you admitting that your belief system is wrong, you instead excuse it by placing the blame on those whom you've set a nearly impossible standard to reach; getting educated without going into debt to earn more money that would be used to pay for education, which you say they need but cannot afford.

So your argument is still that circle-jerk; you complain about the very thing you are actively perpetuating.

et me ask: do you overpay people that work for you? If your transmission needs to be rebuilt and you get three estimates, do you choose the highest one? Or if you need a lawn care company, do you choose the company that will cut your lawn for $35.00 a cut or the company that charges $50.00 a cut?Businesses are no different than you or I. We all look to get work done for the lowest price possible. Provided the quality of work is equal, you (and businesses) always choose the lowest priced labor.

Childish. I go to the vendor who is going to do the best job, so I don't have to keep going back. Typically, the vendor that pays its workers the best is going to result in the best work. Quality over quantity; a concept you seem unfamiliar with.

Well, I'm going to end this discussion right here and now. I've about had it with your leftist commie insults and hopes of you growing up throughout the discussion seem futile. But I will leave you with this: the government and our social programs are the problem in this country--not capitalism. It's like Rush Limbaugh said so many times. If you pay people not to work, don't be surprised when they don't.

Have a good day.

Capitalism died in 1929, only the right wing believes it still exists.

Lousy social management is all the right wing has.

Providing for the general welfare promotes a positive multiplier effect on our economy, providing for the general warfare does not; that is why right wing tax breaks don't work.

End our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to end our income tax, right wingers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's more valuable,
$1,000,000 future revenues with $500,000 profit and $325,000 after tax profit or
$1,000,000 future revenues with $500,000 profit and $395,000 after tax profit?

Sigh...you're again conflating where a corporation is headquartered with a corporation expanding into the consumer market. They are two different things that have little to nothing to do with one another. And besides, the 21% new corporate rate is still higher than the rate in these countries we're discussing. So the corporate profit tax cut was just to boost corporate profits, not expand or relocate HQ's.

It doesn't matter where a business locates their HQ's when it comes to determining whether or not to expand into a new consumer market.

Your myopic and sophist post is exactly the reason why right-wing economies always fail, underperform, and under-deliver.

There is one market, a factory in either location can meet total demand.

NO THERE ISN'T! Opening a factory in a market doesn't have anything to do with relocating corporate HQ. You're conflating Tax HQ's with Production and Operations. Because that factory is producing goods that are sold in multiple markets. Whatever the corporate profit tax is has no determination on whether or not the business expands into new consumer markets. For fuck's sake, don't you know anything? If Apple moved its HQ for tax purposes to Ireland, why does it still have Apple stores in the US (But none in Ireland)? Apple's corporate move to Ireland didn't prompt it to open a new Apple store in Buckhead, GA, did it? No. It opened the store in Buckhead because there was demand in that market for Apple products. Not because Ireland's corporate rate is lower (and still is lower) than ours.

Sigh...you're again conflating where a corporation is headquartered with a corporation expanding into the consumer market.

Nope. Not talking about headquarters at all. Not even a little.

What's more valuable,
$1,000,000 future revenues with $500,000 profit and $325,000 after tax profit or
$1,000,000 future revenues with $500,000 profit and $395,000 after tax profit?​

 

[The Derp]

Nope. Not talking about headquarters at all. Not even a little.

That is exactly what we're talking about. It's what you've been talking about this entire time as you argue for a lower corporate profit tax. Do you...do you think that based on where production happens, that's the profit tax rate that gets paid? Why then isn't all production moved to these low-tax countries? Why is it just the corporate HQ's? And you're proving right here on this thread that the corporate profit tax doesn't have a bearing on a business expanding into consumer markets. You said yourself they expand based on demand. Demand has nothing to do with the corporate profit tax.

What's more valuable,

$1,000,000 future revenues with $500,000 profit and $325,000 after tax profit or
$1,000,000 future revenues with $500,000 profit and $395,000 after tax profit?​

​

For fuck's sake...the after-tax profit has no bearing on the company expanding pre-tax. Fucking Christ, do you know anything about business or are you just coming up with this shit off the top of your head?

$1,000,000 in future revenues that comes from multiple markets. So the corporate rate isn't affected by the number of markets from where the revenue comes, because these corporations are global. The revenue is affected by the number of markets. And a company is going to expand into a market regardless of the corporate tax rate so long as there is demand for the product. Because you only pay profit taxes on profits. That's why cutting the corporate rate isn't going to create any jobs...because it doesn't address the demand in the consumer market. All it does is increase after-tax profits for the corporation...which is a great short-term boost to the share price, but that boost is temporary and disappears after Year 1. Which is why we will most likely have a recession by 2019. And because your shitty tax cut plan increases the deficit, cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and SS will happen in 2019. The only reason they didn't happen in 2018, is because Trump waived PayGo rules...so your bankrupt ideology adds to the deficit, which you're ignoring now for some strange reason after screeching about it like a barnyard animal during Obama.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope. Not talking about headquarters at all. Not even a little.

That is exactly what we're talking about. It's what you've been talking about this entire time as you argue for a lower corporate profit tax. Do you...do you think that based on where production happens, that's the profit tax rate that gets paid? Why then isn't all production moved to these low-tax countries? Why is it just the corporate HQ's? And you're proving right here on this thread that the corporate profit tax doesn't have a bearing on a business expanding into consumer markets. You said yourself they expand based on demand. Demand has nothing to do with the corporate profit tax.

What's more valuable,

$1,000,000 future revenues with $500,000 profit and $325,000 after tax profit or
$1,000,000 future revenues with $500,000 profit and $395,000 after tax profit?​

For fuck's sake...the after-tax profit has no bearing on the company expanding pre-tax. Fucking Christ, do you know anything about business or are you just coming up with this shit off the top of your head?

$1,000,000 in future revenues that comes from multiple markets. So the corporate rate isn't affected by the number of markets from where the revenue comes, because these corporations are global. The revenue is affected by the number of markets. And a company is going to expand into a market regardless of the corporate tax rate so long as there is demand for the product. Because you only pay profit taxes on profits. That's why cutting the corporate rate isn't going to create any jobs...because it doesn't address the demand in the consumer market. All it does is increase after-tax profits for the corporation...which is a great short-term boost to the share price, but that boost is temporary and disappears after Year 1. Which is why we will most likely have a recession by 2019. And because your shitty tax cut plan increases the deficit, cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and SS will happen in 2019. The only reason they didn't happen in 2018, is because Trump waived PayGo rules...so your bankrupt ideology adds to the deficit, which you're ignoring now for some strange reason after screeching about it like a barnyard animal during Obama.

For fuck's sake...the after-tax profit has no bearing on the company expanding pre-tax.

Why does a company expand? What's the endgame? After-tax profit.

All it does is increase after-tax profits for the corporation...

Thanks. For admitting what we all knew. And that you were wrong.

but that boost is temporary and disappears after Year 1.

No, the increased after tax profits don't disappear after year 1.

 

[The Derp]

Why does a company expand? What's the endgame? After-tax profit.

TO MEET DEMAND. That's why a company expands. You just admitted right here that the corporate profit tax rate doesn't affect a company expanding! The corporate tax rate doesn't affect the demand that justifies expansion. You fucking idiot.

Moving corporate headquarters from Connecticut to Ireland doesn't suddenly provide the justification to expand into the Canadian market. Canadian demand justifies expansion into the Canadian market. not Ireland's corporate profit tax. Because you're going to be increasing revenues by expanding, so you increase your profit. That's independent of the profit tax.

This is, like, really basic economics.

Thanks. For admitting what we all knew. And that you were wrong.

I'm not wrong because expansion is driven first and foremost by demand. You just admitted that a company expands to increase its profits. That has what to do with the tax rate? Nothing.

No, the increased after tax profits don't disappear after year 1.

Yes, they certainly do, because now you've set a new profit margin and if that profit margin isn't met, which it won't be because we're going to be in a recession by this time next year, suddenly the stock value plummets. Why? Because businesses don't look at net revenue, they look at net revenue growth year-to-year. You're not going to be able to match that year-over-year growth in profit margins from 2018-19. Because, math.

 

[Dschrute3]

How did he do that? Tax cuts.

View attachment 168231

So ummm...that chart there shows barely a rise in the median household income, yet the mean household income rose sharply. So what does that mean? It means a few people got really rich while everyone else treads water. In fact, wages declined during Bush.

How did wages decline when the median went up?

Ah, the haters are just pissy because folks are prospering under Trump. The Democratic Party relies on folks being poor & bitter. Those folks make up a large percentage of its base. So they have no interest in seeing Americans prosper. They need em to stay poor & bitter.

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did. That one really stings Democrats. They make up every excuse in the book to not give Trump any credit. They're just pissy haters at this point. It's 'Party before Country' for em. Hopefully, Trump will continue winning. I love watchin Dem hater hissy-fits. It's a lotta fun.

 

[The Derp]

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs.

Thanks, Obama.

So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did. That one really stings Democrats. They make up every excuse in the book to not give Trump any credit. They're just pissy haters at this point. It's 'Party before Country' for em. Hopefully, Trump will continue winning. I love watchin Dem hater hissy-fits. It's a lotta fun.

Trump has created the fewest jobs since 2012.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How did he do that? Tax cuts.

View attachment 168231

So ummm...that chart there shows barely a rise in the median household income, yet the mean household income rose sharply. So what does that mean? It means a few people got really rich while everyone else treads water. In fact, wages declined during Bush.

How did wages decline when the median went up?

Ah, the haters are just pissy because folks are prospering under Trump. The Democratic Party relies on folks being poor & bitter. Those folks make up a large percentage of its base. So they have no interest in seeing Americans prosper. They need em to stay poor & bitter.

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did. That one really stings Democrats. They make up every excuse in the book to not give Trump any credit. They're just pissy haters at this point. It's 'Party before Country' for em. Hopefully, Trump will continue winning. I love watchin Dem hater hissy-fits. It's a lotta fun.

The problem is how many blacks actually know what conservative policies do for them? I bet maybe one out of every 50. That's why they keep voting Democrat. Instead of realizing that our goal of keeping illegals out helps them, the Democrats brainwash them into believing Republicans are against foreigners because they are all racist.

The two largest bases for the Democrat party are victims and government dependents. That's why Democrats are constantly trying to make more of them. Big ears created 40 million new government dependents on food stamps and Commie Care alone. It was no accident either.

 

[The Derp]

The problem is how many blacks actually know what conservative policies do for them?.

Nothing, because Conservative policy does nothing other than create debt.

And Trump's created the fewest jobs since 2012.

I bet maybe one out of every 50. That's why they keep voting Democrat. Instead of realizing that our goal of keeping illegals out helps them, the Democrats brainwash them into believing Republicans are against foreigners because they are all racist.

Republicans and Conservatives are against immigrants and minorities. You've all made that crystal clear. What Republican or Conservative policies have helped anyone? Every time Conservative policies are enacted, the fallout has to be cleaned up by Democrats. Hoover, Bush the Dumber, Reagan...all ended their terms with economic catastrophes caused by the very policies they pushed.

And Trump's created the fewest jobs since 2012.

The two largest bases for the Democrat party are victims and government dependents. That's why Democrats are constantly trying to make more of them. Big ears created 40 million new government dependents on food stamps and Commie Care alone. It was no accident either.

Most red states are taker states that take more than they contribute.

And Trump's created the fewest jobs since 2012.

 

[Dschrute3]

How did he do that? Tax cuts.

View attachment 168231

So ummm...that chart there shows barely a rise in the median household income, yet the mean household income rose sharply. So what does that mean? It means a few people got really rich while everyone else treads water. In fact, wages declined during Bush.

How did wages decline when the median went up?

Ah, the haters are just pissy because folks are prospering under Trump. The Democratic Party relies on folks being poor & bitter. Those folks make up a large percentage of its base. So they have no interest in seeing Americans prosper. They need em to stay poor & bitter.

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did. That one really stings Democrats. They make up every excuse in the book to not give Trump any credit. They're just pissy haters at this point. It's 'Party before Country' for em. Hopefully, Trump will continue winning. I love watchin Dem hater hissy-fits. It's a lotta fun.

The problem is how many blacks actually know what conservative policies do for them? I bet maybe one out of every 50. That's why they keep voting Democrat. Instead of realizing that our goal of keeping illegals out helps them, the Democrats brainwash them into believing Republicans are against foreigners because they are all racist.

The two largest bases for the Democrat party are victims and government dependents. That's why Democrats are constantly trying to make more of them. Big ears created 40 million new government dependents on food stamps and Commie Care alone. It was no accident either.

It's all about 'Perpetual Victimhood.' Democrats need folks to be poor, ignorant, and bitter. Democrats exploit those folks expertly. The last thing they want is less 'victims.' So they see no benefit in Americans prospering. Just keep em poor, ignorant, and bitter. That's all that Party has at this point. More Americans being poor and solely dependent on Government, is exactly what they want.

I don't see why so many continue voting Democrat. I mean, just look at all the once great cities and states the Party's destroyed in this country. Do folks really want our Country resembling Democrat Hellholes like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and so on? Americans really do need to tune out the Democrat Fake News, and get real. The Democratic Party is only offering Third World misery at this point. They need to seriously think about that before casting their votes for Democrats. Their nation's survival depends on it.

 

[The Derp]

How did he do that? Tax cuts.

View attachment 168231

So ummm...that chart there shows barely a rise in the median household income, yet the mean household income rose sharply. So what does that mean? It means a few people got really rich while everyone else treads water. In fact, wages declined during Bush.

How did wages decline when the median went up?

Ah, the haters are just pissy because folks are prospering under Trump. The Democratic Party relies on folks being poor & bitter. Those folks make up a large percentage of its base. So they have no interest in seeing Americans prosper. They need em to stay poor & bitter.

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did. That one really stings Democrats. They make up every excuse in the book to not give Trump any credit. They're just pissy haters at this point. It's 'Party before Country' for em. Hopefully, Trump will continue winning. I love watchin Dem hater hissy-fits. It's a lotta fun.

The problem is how many blacks actually know what conservative policies do for them? I bet maybe one out of every 50. That's why they keep voting Democrat. Instead of realizing that our goal of keeping illegals out helps them, the Democrats brainwash them into believing Republicans are against foreigners because they are all racist.

The two largest bases for the Democrat party are victims and government dependents. That's why Democrats are constantly trying to make more of them. Big ears created 40 million new government dependents on food stamps and Commie Care alone. It was no accident either.

It's all about 'Perpetual Victimhood.' Democrats need folks to be poor, ignorant, and bitter. Democrats exploit those folks expertly. The last thing they want is less 'victims.' So they see no benefit in Americans prospering. Just keep em poor, ignorant, and bitter. That's all that Party has at this point. More Americans being poor and solely dependent on Government, is exactly what they want.

I don't see why so many continue voting Democrat. I mean, just look at all the once great cities and states the Party's destroyed in this country. Do folks really want our Country resembling Democrat Hellholes like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and so on? Americans really do need to tune out the Democrat Fake News, and get real. The Democratic Party is only offering Third World misery at this point. They need to seriously think about that before casting their votes for Democrats. Their nation's survival depends on it.

Donald Trump has created the fewest jobs since 2012.

 

[Dschrute3]

So ummm...that chart there shows barely a rise in the median household income, yet the mean household income rose sharply. So what does that mean? It means a few people got really rich while everyone else treads water. In fact, wages declined during Bush.

How did wages decline when the median went up?

Ah, the haters are just pissy because folks are prospering under Trump. The Democratic Party relies on folks being poor & bitter. Those folks make up a large percentage of its base. So they have no interest in seeing Americans prosper. They need em to stay poor & bitter.

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did. That one really stings Democrats. They make up every excuse in the book to not give Trump any credit. They're just pissy haters at this point. It's 'Party before Country' for em. Hopefully, Trump will continue winning. I love watchin Dem hater hissy-fits. It's a lotta fun.

The problem is how many blacks actually know what conservative policies do for them? I bet maybe one out of every 50. That's why they keep voting Democrat. Instead of realizing that our goal of keeping illegals out helps them, the Democrats brainwash them into believing Republicans are against foreigners because they are all racist.

The two largest bases for the Democrat party are victims and government dependents. That's why Democrats are constantly trying to make more of them. Big ears created 40 million new government dependents on food stamps and Commie Care alone. It was no accident either.

It's all about 'Perpetual Victimhood.' Democrats need folks to be poor, ignorant, and bitter. Democrats exploit those folks expertly. The last thing they want is less 'victims.' So they see no benefit in Americans prospering. Just keep em poor, ignorant, and bitter. That's all that Party has at this point. More Americans being poor and solely dependent on Government, is exactly what they want.

I don't see why so many continue voting Democrat. I mean, just look at all the once great cities and states the Party's destroyed in this country. Do folks really want our Country resembling Democrat Hellholes like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and so on? Americans really do need to tune out the Democrat Fake News, and get real. The Democratic Party is only offering Third World misery at this point. They need to seriously think about that before casting their votes for Democrats. Their nation's survival depends on it.

Donald Trump has created the fewest jobs since 2012.

Lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. It's also a 17yr low for African American Unemployment. I'd say he's doing pretty good. I know that pisses y'all haters off, but it is happening. And stay tuned, cause there's much more Trump winning coming in 2018. Sorry bout that kid.

 

[The Derp]

Lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs.

Thanks, Obama.

Donald Drumpf has created the fewest jobs since 2012.

It's also a 17yr low for African American Unemployment.

Thanks, Obama.

Donald Drumpf has created the fewest jobs since 2012.

I'd say he's doing pretty good.

Donald Drumpf has created the fewest jobs since 2012, and Obama grew the market by more than Trump has in the same period of time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How did he do that? Tax cuts.

View attachment 168231

So ummm...that chart there shows barely a rise in the median household income, yet the mean household income rose sharply. So what does that mean? It means a few people got really rich while everyone else treads water. In fact, wages declined during Bush.

How did wages decline when the median went up?

Ah, the haters are just pissy because folks are prospering under Trump. The Democratic Party relies on folks being poor & bitter. Those folks make up a large percentage of its base. So they have no interest in seeing Americans prosper. They need em to stay poor & bitter.

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did. That one really stings Democrats. They make up every excuse in the book to not give Trump any credit. They're just pissy haters at this point. It's 'Party before Country' for em. Hopefully, Trump will continue winning. I love watchin Dem hater hissy-fits. It's a lotta fun.

The problem is how many blacks actually know what conservative policies do for them? I bet maybe one out of every 50. That's why they keep voting Democrat. Instead of realizing that our goal of keeping illegals out helps them, the Democrats brainwash them into believing Republicans are against foreigners because they are all racist.

The two largest bases for the Democrat party are victims and government dependents. That's why Democrats are constantly trying to make more of them. Big ears created 40 million new government dependents on food stamps and Commie Care alone. It was no accident either.

It's all about 'Perpetual Victimhood.' Democrats need folks to be poor, ignorant, and bitter. Democrats exploit those folks expertly. The last thing they want is less 'victims.' So they see no benefit in Americans prospering. Just keep em poor, ignorant, and bitter. That's all that Party has at this point. More Americans being poor and solely dependent on Government, is exactly what they want.

I don't see why so many continue voting Democrat. I mean, just look at all the once great cities and states the Party's destroyed in this country. Do folks really want our Country resembling Democrat Hellholes like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and so on? Americans really do need to tune out the Democrat Fake News, and get real. The Democratic Party is only offering Third World misery at this point. They need to seriously think about that before casting their votes for Democrats. Their nation's survival depends on it.

You're preaching to the choir. Cleveland is one of those hell holes.

We recently had our mayoral election, and the Demmy dopes voted in the same creep again.

Mayor Frank Jackson hired an ex-councilwoman who just got out of prison for fraud. He said she deserved a second chance (wink-wink). Afterwards, he pushed through a bill that set aside over a million dollars for a new dirt bike park. Why a dirt bike park? Because his grandson got busted by the cops a couple of times for riding his dirt bike on the street.

Speaking of his grandson, about a year ago he got busted with pot, a scale, a good sum of cash, and carrying an illegal firearm. He said he was concerned about doing time and losing his job at the city water department. Gee, I wonder how he got that job?

Just before the election, the Mayor's great grandson got busted with an illegal gun as well. His grandson is 14 years old. When asked for comment, the Mayor stated his family is in need of protection just like any other Cleveland family. Do you believe that?

But the Mayor just didn't get reelected unchallenged. His opponent is a councilman who got busted for DUI three times. There were six people running in the primaries, and those two were the ones these dummy Dems picked.

Do you want to see this widespread all over the country? I certainly don't.