Which is better for the economy: Infrastruction or gifts to the wealthy?

[Postmodernism Sux]

Do you buttheads understand that every break the middle class get, the wealthy do too?

When you give those making 30K to 90K a 3% discount, Trump gets that same discount for the money he makes between 30K & 75K.

I think that's fair. I would be in favor of the higher brackets getting a bigger cut.

The problem I have with that is that there are people who are making it now that will be unable to make with the loss of the deductions repealed in this tax plan. Like teachers, who now must decide between making sure their classes have the supplies they need and paying their own bills.

Tax cuts do not decrease tax revenue.

 

[Markle]

El Cheeto said he wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure.

A proven way to boost the economy by spreading money to factories & Middle Class workers while giving America improved bridges, highways, airports, water & sewer systems, electrical grid, etc. The big question was how to pay for it.

Well The Republicans & Trump just spent a trillion dollars to give money to the wealthy & profitable corporations. A proven piss poor way to boost the economy.

We know exactly what Republicans do - kiss the ass of their donors while ******* over the American people.

Let us not forget that when George W Bush took office we had a balanced budget. The CBO said we are on track to pay down the debt. Then came the series of unfunded tax cuts.

We were on a path of reducing the deficits with steady economic growth & a long string pf positive monthly job gains.

We already saw that string of job gains ended. Now the Republicans , who can't fricken learn, repeat the tax cut approach.

Yep, those Republicans just passed a bill that put us on a path to yet another conomic disaster. Thewreathy will survive just fine like they did with the Bush recession. We wuill ge fucked once again. Jobs lost, homes lost, opportunities gone for our chuldren.

For what? Those that elect Republicas are justy plasin assholes & contributors.

There are no gifts to the wealthy so what is your point?

 

[Markle]

Tax cuts do not decrease tax revenue.

You have no clue as to the difference between static economic forecast and dynamic, do you? No, Progressives always pretend they don't know dynamic economics even exist.

Are you even aware of the Laffer Curve?

Prior to the tax cut, the economy was choking on high inflation, high Interest rates, and high unemployment. All three of these economic bellwethers dropped sharply after the tax cuts. The unemployment rate, which peaked at 9.7 percent in 1982, began a steady decline, reaching 7.0 percent by 1986 and 5.3 percent when Reagan left office in January 1989.

Inflation-adjusted revenue growth dramatically improved. Over the four years prior to 1983, federal income tax revenue declined at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year, and total government income tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Between 1983 and 1986, federal income tax revenue increased by 2.7 percent annually, and total government income tax revenue increased by 3.5 percent annually.

The most controversial portion of Reagan's tax revolution was reducing the highest marginal income tax rate from 70 percent (when he took office in 1981) to 28 percent in 1988. However, Internal Revenue Service data reveal that tax collections from the wealthy, as measured by personal income taxes paid by top percentile earners, increased between 1980 and 1988--despite significantly lower tax rates (See Table 8).

The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future

 

[Markle]

This would be fine if there weren't so many deduction repealed that helped far more people.

For example, if my employer gives me a choice of relocate or lose my job, I cannot deduct the moving expenses. But if a company relocates their business overseas, they can deduct their moving expenses.

So many things screwed the people who can least afford to be screwed.

That is a lie. Why not do some basic research.

The standard deduction is being DOUBLED. Most people do not itemize their deductions for that is a major tax cut for lower and middle-income households.

Topic Number: 455 - Moving Expenses
If you moved due to a change in your job or business location, or because you started a new job or business, you may be able to deduct your reasonable moving expenses but not any expenses for meals. You can deduct your moving expenses if you meet all three of the following requirements:

• Your move closely relates to the start of work
• You meet the distance test
• You meet the time test

Move Related to Start of Work - Your move must closely relate both in time and in place to the start of work at your new location. You can consider moving expenses incurred within one year from the date you first reported to work at the new location as closely related in time to the start of work. A move generally relates closely in place if the distance from your new home to the new job location isn't more than the distance from your former home to the new job location. For exceptions to these requirements, see Publication 521, Moving Expenses.

The distance test - Your new workplace must be at least 50 miles farther from your old home than your old job location was from your old home. If you had no previous workplace, your new job location must be at least 50 miles from your old home.

The time test - If you're an employee, you must work full-time for at least 39 weeks during the first 12 months immediately following your arrival in the general area of your new job location. If you're self-employed, you must work full time for at least 39 weeks during the first 12 months and for a total of at least 78 weeks during the first 24 months immediately following your arrival in the general area of your new work location. There are exceptions to the time test in case of death, disability, and involuntary separation, among other things. See Publication 521 for these exceptions.

Topic No. 455 Moving Expenses | Internal Revenue Service

 

[Markle]

Not this stupid argument again.

A company has 1 million in profits. Assume they pay the full rate.

Before tax cuts they would pay $350K

After Tax cuts they would pay $200K.

They now have $150K more due to the tax cut bill.

That is giving them $150K.

So quit playing semantics.

That company, as you know, would not pay $350,000 in taxes.

 

[Markle]

Well The Republicans & Trump just spent a trillion dollars to give money to the wealthy & profitable corporations.

When did they do that?

Tax cut bill. Increases deficit by a trillion. That is spending money.

Sure didn't matter during the past 9 years!

 

[Markle]

The CBO was using the GDP growth rate of the Obama years, tax cuts do not decrease tax revenue.

Not true.

 

[Markle]

Tax cuts do not decrease tax revenue.

Lie

 

[Political Junky]

The class envy thing really isn't working for you guys anymore. Americans want prosperity. Infrastructure improves with prosperity.

Prosperity won't improve under Trump, unless you're very rich.

 

[theHawk]

El Cheeto said he wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure.

A proven way to boost the economy by spreading money to factories & Middle Class workers while giving America improved bridges, highways, airports, water & sewer systems, electrical grid, etc. The big question was how to pay for it.

Well The Republicans & Trump just spent a trillion dollars to give money to the wealthy & profitable corporations. A proven piss poor way to boost the economy.

We know exactly what Republicans do - kiss the ass of their donors while ******* over the American people.

Let us not forget that when George W Bush took office we had a balanced budget. The CBO said we are on track to pay down the debt. Then came the series of unfunded tax cuts.

We were on a path of reducing the deficits with steady economic growth & a long string pf positive monthly job gains.

We already saw that string of job gains ended. Now the Republicans , who can't fricken learn, repeat the tax cut approach.

Yep, those Republicans just passed a bill that put us on a path to yet another conomic disaster. Thewreathy will survive just fine like they did with the Bush recession. We wuill ge fucked once again. Jobs lost, homes lost, opportunities gone for our chuldren.

For what? Those that elect Republicas are justy plasin assholes & contributors.

The balanced budget came from a fiscally conservative Republican Congress.

Did the Hussein and his Dem super majority Congress balance the budget and pay off the national debt?

 

[theHawk]

This tax plan is not about what is best for the economy or what is best for the majority of the citizens.

This is all about what is best for the politicians and the people who pay for them.

And if it works for the economy and the majority of the citizens, Dems will lose a handful of seats in the Senate and Trump will get re-elected. If not, he'll lose to the corrupt old sot or an angry Commie in 2020.

If it doesn't, hello recession & millions will suffer. You dickfucks don;t care about people suffering.

Not true. We only don’t care about regressive un-American dickfucks like you that are suffering.

 

[RealDave]

This tax plan is not about what is best for the economy or what is best for the majority of the citizens.

This is all about what is best for the politicians and the people who pay for them.

And if it works for the economy and the majority of the citizens, Dems will lose a handful of seats in the Senate and Trump will get re-elected. If not, he'll lose to the corrupt old sot or an angry Commie in 2020.

If it doesn't, hello recession & millions will suffer. You dickfucks don;t care about people suffering.

Not true. We only don’t care about regressive un-American dickfucks like you that are suffering.

See, you don;'t care about the Middle Class even though you are in it or below it. Just how easily duped are you.

 

[RealDave]

El Cheeto said he wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure.

A proven way to boost the economy by spreading money to factories & Middle Class workers while giving America improved bridges, highways, airports, water & sewer systems, electrical grid, etc. The big question was how to pay for it.

Well The Republicans & Trump just spent a trillion dollars to give money to the wealthy & profitable corporations. A proven piss poor way to boost the economy.

We know exactly what Republicans do - kiss the ass of their donors while ******* over the American people.

Let us not forget that when George W Bush took office we had a balanced budget. The CBO said we are on track to pay down the debt. Then came the series of unfunded tax cuts.

We were on a path of reducing the deficits with steady economic growth & a long string pf positive monthly job gains.

We already saw that string of job gains ended. Now the Republicans , who can't fricken learn, repeat the tax cut approach.

Yep, those Republicans just passed a bill that put us on a path to yet another conomic disaster. Thewreathy will survive just fine like they did with the Bush recession. We wuill ge fucked once again. Jobs lost, homes lost, opportunities gone for our chuldren.

For what? Those that elect Republicas are justy plasin assholes & contributors.

The balanced budget came from a fiscally conservative Republican Congress.

Did the Hussein and his Dem super majority Congress balance the budget and pay off the national debt?

Clinton + Republican Congress = Balanced budget

Bush + same basic Congress = Debt & deficits

 

[RealDave]

Not this stupid argument again.

A company has 1 million in profits. Assume they pay the full rate.

Before tax cuts they would pay $350K

After Tax cuts they would pay $200K.

They now have $150K more due to the tax cut bill.

That is giving them $150K.

So quit playing semantics.

That company, as you know, would not pay $350,000 in taxes.

OK, I get it., You were too ******* stupid to understand the "assuming they pay the full rate"?

If tax cuts don't give corps mote money, why the **** are they cutting the rate?

 

[RealDave]

Do you buttheads understand that every break the middle class get, the wealthy do too?

When you give those making 30K to 90K a 3% discount, Trump gets that same discount for the money he makes between 30K & 75K.

I think that's fair. I would be in favor of the higher brackets getting a bigger cut.

The problem I have with that is that there are people who are making it now that will be unable to make with the loss of the deductions repealed in this tax plan. Like teachers, who now must decide between making sure their classes have the supplies they need and paying their own bills.

Tax cuts do not decrease tax revenue.

ha ha ha ha ha has ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Moonglow]

Even with the tax cut I still get my free shit...Delivered....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This tax plan is not about what is best for the economy or what is best for the majority of the citizens.

This is all about what is best for the politicians and the people who pay for them.

And if it works for the economy and the majority of the citizens, Dems will lose a handful of seats in the Senate and Trump will get re-elected. If not, he'll lose to the corrupt old sot or an angry Commie in 2020.

If it doesn't, hello recession & millions will suffer. You dickfucks don;t care about people suffering.

If it makes you suffer I'm all for it.

 

[RealDave]

El Cheeto said he wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure.

A proven way to boost the economy by spreading money to factories & Middle Class workers while giving America improved bridges, highways, airports, water & sewer systems, electrical grid, etc. The big question was how to pay for it.

Well The Republicans & Trump just spent a trillion dollars to give money to the wealthy & profitable corporations. A proven piss poor way to boost the economy.

We know exactly what Republicans do - kiss the ass of their donors while ******* over the American people.

Let us not forget that when George W Bush took office we had a balanced budget. The CBO said we are on track to pay down the debt. Then came the series of unfunded tax cuts.

We were on a path of reducing the deficits with steady economic growth & a long string pf positive monthly job gains.

We already saw that string of job gains ended. Now the Republicans , who can't fricken learn, repeat the tax cut approach.

Yep, those Republicans just passed a bill that put us on a path to yet another conomic disaster. Thewreathy will survive just fine like they did with the Bush recession. We wuill ge fucked once again. Jobs lost, homes lost, opportunities gone for our chuldren.

For what? Those that elect Republicas are justy plasin assholes & contributors.

Well The Republicans & Trump just spent a trillion dollars to give money to the wealthy & profitable corporations. A proven piss poor way to boost the economy.

How much did Obama give to the poor & unprofitable corporations?
His weak recovery showed he had a piss poor way to boost the economy.

Let us not forget that when George W Bush took office we had a balanced budget.

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.
Can you see when it started deflating?

View attachment 164079

We had a balanced budget. Period. What changed? Tax cut after tax cut at a time of war. All unfunded. You can pull out excuse after excuse but the actions taken by Republicans drove us down the path towards recession.

Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that putting money in the hands of people that will spend it. That is what Obama did with the stimulus bill. A bill that was 38% tax breaks & tax cuts. Directed at working Americans.

What money was given to unprofitable corporations?

But hey, you think we should only give money to corporations that don't need it and pile it on to those thast donlt? Really? And you claim to know economics?

We had a balanced budget. Period. What changed?

The Internet Bubble popped.
It was in all the papers.

You can pull out excuse after excuse but the actions taken by Republicans drove us down the path towards recession.

The recession started in March 2001. What did they do to cause that?

View attachment 164082

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that putting money in the hands of people that will spend it.

Or in the hands of people that will use it to start/expand business.

What money was given to unprofitable corporations?

There were a bunch of unprofitable "green energy" companies that got money/loan guarantees.​

So these corporations already holding lies of money will now expand? Expansion is tax deductible. Those companies not being able to afford it aren't paying the top corporate rate. Giving money to companies already holding pile of money will do sghit accept run us further in debt.

There was money set aside in the ACA to provide loan guarantees to green companies with promising ideas but short on funding. They were risky. But the idea was to give them a chance because of the potential rewards of reducing emissions which is good for the country. But hey, you righties hate your children & don't believe in global warming.

So these corporations already holding lies of money will now expand?

Well, they are holding a lot of money overseas at the moment.
Why are they doing that?
Are they more likely to expand when they can keep 80% of the new earnings, or when they can keep 65%?

Expansion is tax deductible.

Does potential expansion stop when regulatory attacks are ongoing and expected to increase in the future?

Those companies not being able to afford it aren't paying the top corporate rate.

Does immediate, full expensing make business investment more affordable?

They were risky. But the idea was to give them a chance because of the potential rewards of reducing emissions which is good for the country.

We could reduce emissions much more efficiently and actually add useful amounts of reliable energy by expanding our nuclear reactors. Why are greens more afraid of nuclear than of CO2?
Is it because they hate their children?

Corps are hording money in the US as well as overseas.

They keep the money overseas because of a tax break given to them earlier. End that break & it will come back.

But hey, your orange buddy will give them a huge tax cut to bring it back and give them incentives to invest overseas.

Will corps moe likely to expand when they get a 35% break or a20% break. At the end of every year, bean counters look & see how much they should spend to avoid a 35% tax. Now they will be less likely to do so if they just get a 20% break.

Nuclear energy is the most subsidized for of power generation. You have no clue what do do with the waste. Wait until these plants need to be torn down. See the costs then. Leyts ask Japan about the wonders of nucklear power. Heck, that radiation drigfeted across the US.

The sun rains down enough energy during the noon time hour to power the entire planet for a year. But hey, lets not ******* use it, right? Lets create a poison that can not be destroyed & place it all across the US where an earthquake or terrorist could release it killing thousands,.

 

[RealDave]

I wonder how many of these small town coal mining, OPID using moron's are gonna love the billions Trump is giving to them in tax breaks, because we all know they're all secretly millionaires and just don't know it.

The middle class are getting a tax cut too moron.

So you are happy yopu might get a few hundred dollars while we borrow a trillion to hive the Trump's tens of millions of dollars.

Do you think a man that imports the shit he sells & imports labor for his resorts is going to expand & create jobs? If o,. tyou are truly dumber than shit.

 

[RealDave]

No, the actions of the Dems did that-



Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

• April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity." (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

• May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

• February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.
  
  
• September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
  
  
• September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)
  
  
• October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)
  
  
• November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

2004

• February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
  
  
• February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
  
  
• April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)
  
  
• June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

• April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
  
  
• July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

• August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)
  
  
• August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)
  
  
• December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008

• February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
  
  
• March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
  
  
• April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
  
  
• May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
  • "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
    
    
  • "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
    
    
  • "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
• June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
  
  
• July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
  
  
• September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Doddquestions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/08)

El Cheeto said he wants to spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure.

A proven way to boost the economy by spreading money to factories & Middle Class workers while giving America improved bridges, highways, airports, water & sewer systems, electrical grid, etc. The big question was how to pay for it.

Well The Republicans & Trump just spent a trillion dollars to give money to the wealthy & profitable corporations. A proven piss poor way to boost the economy.

We know exactly what Republicans do - kiss the ass of their donors while ******* over the American people.

Let us not forget that when George W Bush took office we had a balanced budget. The CBO said we are on track to pay down the debt. Then came the series of unfunded tax cuts.

We were on a path of reducing the deficits with steady economic growth & a long string pf positive monthly job gains.

We already saw that string of job gains ended. Now the Republicans , who can't fricken learn, repeat the tax cut approach.

Yep, those Republicans just passed a bill that put us on a path to yet another conomic disaster. Thewreathy will survive just fine like they did with the Bush recession. We wuill ge fucked once again. Jobs lost, homes lost, opportunities gone for our chuldren.

For what? Those that elect Republicas are justy plasin assholes & contributors.

Well The Republicans & Trump just spent a trillion dollars to give money to the wealthy & profitable corporations. A proven piss poor way to boost the economy.

How much did Obama give to the poor & unprofitable corporations?
His weak recovery showed he had a piss poor way to boost the economy.

Let us not forget that when George W Bush took office we had a balanced budget.

Yeah, the Internet Bubble was cool.
Can you see when it started deflating?

View attachment 164079

We had a balanced budget. Period. What changed? Tax cut after tax cut at a time of war. All unfunded. You can pull out excuse after excuse but the actions taken by Republicans drove us down the path towards recession.

Everyone who knows anything about economics knows that putting money in the hands of people that will spend it. That is what Obama did with the stimulus bill. A bill that was 38% tax breaks & tax cuts. Directed at working Americans.

What money was given to unprofitable corporations?

But hey, you think we should only give money to corporations that don't need it and pile it on to those thast donlt? Really? And you claim to know economics?

.......