Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Great! Thanks! We can even disagree with the fact that the banks were creating products designed to fail, (1) Morgan Stanley sued over alleged CDO fraud, (2) Banks That Bundled Bad Debt Also Bet Against ItThis has nothing to do with my points about what actually caused the meltdown. None of it addresses what happened in the runup to the Meltdown. NONE of it. Just the standard "it's all the regulations" stuff.You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.
View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.
You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.
So far, no one has provided comment on the facts I have provided. No one has demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of how the pieces worked together. All I'm getting is deflection and party line. That's pretty telling.
If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit - even as it was all collapsing, how AIG was selling swaps on the shit with zero reserve requirements, that the mortgage and finance industries were in complete cahoots, knowingly and gleefully creating comically shit mortgages and packaging them into CMOs and (even worse) CDOs for massive fees, that the regulators (ha), especially Greenspan, aggressively refused to regulate ANY of it, on and on - fine. No problem. But let's not pretend, then, that you have (or even want) a full grasp of what happened.
I know that Fannie & Freddie played a part. I know that Frank was clearly oblivious to what was happening, and then after the fact tried to play the victimized hero. He's a politician, that's what they do. But to ignore the rest of the story is just absolutely ridiculous. The reason for this, of course, is obvious: The GOP wants to hang the Meltdown entire on the Dems. Come on.
And by the way, yes, the net result of what was done to stop the crash was larger, more powerful, more influential banks. I'm a proponent of reviving Glass Steagall so that this is no longer the case, and so that smaller banks can survive, compete and thrive.
..
If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit
They created some, but not a lot, synthetic CMOs and CDOs.
Most CMOs and CDOs were not synthetic.
And they weren't ALSO shorting them.
When you sell a synthetic security you are, by definition, now short that security.
Unless they also went out and found a customer to take that short (like GS did with Abacus).
I'm sure you understand that the long list of specific examples I have provided played a significant role in the Meltdown.
Or it was all just the Democrats' fault, whichever.
.
that isn't it at all. All we heard was Bush Bush Bush, like the democrats were clean. We merely want everyone to know that they played as major a role in this if not more by the positions they held in Congress. Just saying. When you can't look at things through a bi-partisan glass, then people will work to get the truth out there. That's all.I never gave Bush a pass.Great! Thanks! We can even disagree with the fact that the banks were creating products designed to fail, (1) Morgan Stanley sued over alleged CDO fraud, (2) Banks That Bundled Bad Debt Also Bet Against ItThis has nothing to do with my points about what actually caused the meltdown. None of it addresses what happened in the runup to the Meltdown. NONE of it. Just the standard "it's all the regulations" stuff.You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.
View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.
You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.
So far, no one has provided comment on the facts I have provided. No one has demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of how the pieces worked together. All I'm getting is deflection and party line. That's pretty telling.
If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit - even as it was all collapsing, how AIG was selling swaps on the shit with zero reserve requirements, that the mortgage and finance industries were in complete cahoots, knowingly and gleefully creating comically shit mortgages and packaging them into CMOs and (even worse) CDOs for massive fees, that the regulators (ha), especially Greenspan, aggressively refused to regulate ANY of it, on and on - fine. No problem. But let's not pretend, then, that you have (or even want) a full grasp of what happened.
I know that Fannie & Freddie played a part. I know that Frank was clearly oblivious to what was happening, and then after the fact tried to play the victimized hero. He's a politician, that's what they do. But to ignore the rest of the story is just absolutely ridiculous. The reason for this, of course, is obvious: The GOP wants to hang the Meltdown entire on the Dems. Come on.
And by the way, yes, the net result of what was done to stop the crash was larger, more powerful, more influential banks. I'm a proponent of reviving Glass Steagall so that this is no longer the case, and so that smaller banks can survive, compete and thrive.
..
If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit
They created some, but not a lot, synthetic CMOs and CDOs.
Most CMOs and CDOs were not synthetic.
And they weren't ALSO shorting them.
When you sell a synthetic security you are, by definition, now short that security.
Unless they also went out and found a customer to take that short (like GS did with Abacus).
I'm sure you understand that the long list of specific examples I have provided played a significant role in the Meltdown.
Or it was all just the Democrats' fault, whichever.
.
How does that change facts?
And idiot, they are capitalists.
it was one of the main things Trump wanted, repatriation of the off shore money. That allowed funding for the buy backs. It's what he fking ran on.Sorry, but this is just dumb, not to mention misleading. "Only 43%" of workers got a bonus, better benefits? "Only"? That's nearly half. And all workers who are in the second, third, or fourth tax bracket for their top marginal rate received a sizable tax cut. I'm in the third tax bracket, and my take-home pay rose by $220 per month.
Now, as for stock buybacks. The whining about this shows how little liberals know about business. If you work for a company and you hear that your company is buying back a bunch of its own stock, you should be very happy, because it means that your company is putting itself on a much better financial footing. It is a very GOOD thing when a company is able to buy back its stock from shareholders--it gives the company more control over its own destiny and reduces the amount of profits that it has to distribute to shareholders (since the shareholders now own much less stock, or no stock, in the company).
when a billion aire goes off about universal Basic income, perhaps he shouldn't make five times his work force.How does that change facts?
And idiot, they are capitalists.
Oh, we see that comrade...
Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in Harvard Speech
How does that change facts?
And idiot, they are capitalists.
Oh, we see that comrade...
Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in Harvard Speech
well sure it is. How does one make universal income privately? explain it for me.How does that change facts?
And idiot, they are capitalists.
Oh, we see that comrade...
Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in Harvard Speech
Dummy, there is nothing about universal income that is contrary to private ownership and enterprise. Just like there is nothing incompatible between private markets and social safety nets like SS and Medicaid.
If you believe that privately owned business is the engine of healthy economy then BY DEFINITION you are not a Marxist.
that isn't it at all. All we heard was Bush Bush Bush, like the democrats were clean. We merely want everyone to know that they played as major a role in this if not more by the positions they held in Congress. Just saying. When you can't look at things through a bi-partisan glass, then people will work to get the truth out there. That's all.I never gave Bush a pass.Great! Thanks! We can even disagree with the fact that the banks were creating products designed to fail, (1) Morgan Stanley sued over alleged CDO fraud, (2) Banks That Bundled Bad Debt Also Bet Against ItThis has nothing to do with my points about what actually caused the meltdown. None of it addresses what happened in the runup to the Meltdown. NONE of it. Just the standard "it's all the regulations" stuff.You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.
View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.
You're invited to comment on my list of specifics, too.
.
So far, no one has provided comment on the facts I have provided. No one has demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of how the pieces worked together. All I'm getting is deflection and party line. That's pretty telling.
If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit - even as it was all collapsing, how AIG was selling swaps on the shit with zero reserve requirements, that the mortgage and finance industries were in complete cahoots, knowingly and gleefully creating comically shit mortgages and packaging them into CMOs and (even worse) CDOs for massive fees, that the regulators (ha), especially Greenspan, aggressively refused to regulate ANY of it, on and on - fine. No problem. But let's not pretend, then, that you have (or even want) a full grasp of what happened.
I know that Fannie & Freddie played a part. I know that Frank was clearly oblivious to what was happening, and then after the fact tried to play the victimized hero. He's a politician, that's what they do. But to ignore the rest of the story is just absolutely ridiculous. The reason for this, of course, is obvious: The GOP wants to hang the Meltdown entire on the Dems. Come on.
And by the way, yes, the net result of what was done to stop the crash was larger, more powerful, more influential banks. I'm a proponent of reviving Glass Steagall so that this is no longer the case, and so that smaller banks can survive, compete and thrive.
..
If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit
They created some, but not a lot, synthetic CMOs and CDOs.
Most CMOs and CDOs were not synthetic.
And they weren't ALSO shorting them.
When you sell a synthetic security you are, by definition, now short that security.
Unless they also went out and found a customer to take that short (like GS did with Abacus).
I'm sure you understand that the long list of specific examples I have provided played a significant role in the Meltdown.
Or it was all just the Democrats' fault, whichever.
.
I agree. The deep state exists with any GOP president. the Democrats hate the GOP enough to fk up the country cause they hate the constitution. Have since the Civil War. Nothing has changed.It also goes even deeper, of which I believe Bush was subjected to a deliberate attempt to take him down, just as a Trump has been. Markets were played as a ways and means to an end. I do not completely fault him for that. Some played it, others created it, and many profited from it while it lasted. He tried numerous times to bring to light there was a problem, and others chose to ignore it.that isn't it at all. All we heard was Bush Bush Bush, like the democrats were clean. We merely want everyone to know that they played as major a role in this if not more by the positions they held in Congress. Just saying. When you can't look at things through a bi-partisan glass, then people will work to get the truth out there. That's all.I never gave Bush a pass.Great! Thanks! We can even disagree with the fact that the banks were creating products designed to fail, (1) Morgan Stanley sued over alleged CDO fraud, (2) Banks That Bundled Bad Debt Also Bet Against ItThis has nothing to do with my points about what actually caused the meltdown. None of it addresses what happened in the runup to the Meltdown. NONE of it. Just the standard "it's all the regulations" stuff.You claim it is your profession. Well, I have a family member that was in the professional career as well, since retired, in state and then community banking. He watched the rate of closure of small banks happen over and over, as the regulations made it next to impossible to lend and to comply with the onerous paperwork and increased costs of compliance. Small businesses suffered because the community banks had a harder time lending to them even though they had successful loans with them previously. I could go on and on. Rather than help small banks, it created bigger and bigger big banks.
View attachment 189982
They could not get lending themselves. Audits were constant and even the very slightest variation brought feds and big fines down on them.
So far, no one has provided comment on the facts I have provided. No one has demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of how the pieces worked together. All I'm getting is deflection and party line. That's pretty telling.
If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit - even as it was all collapsing, how AIG was selling swaps on the shit with zero reserve requirements, that the mortgage and finance industries were in complete cahoots, knowingly and gleefully creating comically shit mortgages and packaging them into CMOs and (even worse) CDOs for massive fees, that the regulators (ha), especially Greenspan, aggressively refused to regulate ANY of it, on and on - fine. No problem. But let's not pretend, then, that you have (or even want) a full grasp of what happened.
I know that Fannie & Freddie played a part. I know that Frank was clearly oblivious to what was happening, and then after the fact tried to play the victimized hero. He's a politician, that's what they do. But to ignore the rest of the story is just absolutely ridiculous. The reason for this, of course, is obvious: The GOP wants to hang the Meltdown entire on the Dems. Come on.
And by the way, yes, the net result of what was done to stop the crash was larger, more powerful, more influential banks. I'm a proponent of reviving Glass Steagall so that this is no longer the case, and so that smaller banks can survive, compete and thrive.
..
If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit
They created some, but not a lot, synthetic CMOs and CDOs.
Most CMOs and CDOs were not synthetic.
And they weren't ALSO shorting them.
When you sell a synthetic security you are, by definition, now short that security.
Unless they also went out and found a customer to take that short (like GS did with Abacus).
I'm sure you understand that the long list of specific examples I have provided played a significant role in the Meltdown.
Or it was all just the Democrats' fault, whichever.
.
Everybody thinks the civil war ended. Hahahahahaahaha I got news for you.I agree. The deep state exists with any GOP president. the Democrats hate the GOP enough to fk up the country cause they hate the constitution. Have since the Civil War. Nothing has changed.It also goes even deeper, of which I believe Bush was subjected to a deliberate attempt to take him down, just as a Trump has been. Markets were played as a ways and means to an end. I do not completely fault him for that. Some played it, others created it, and many profited from it while it lasted. He tried numerous times to bring to light there was a problem, and others chose to ignore it.that isn't it at all. All we heard was Bush Bush Bush, like the democrats were clean. We merely want everyone to know that they played as major a role in this if not more by the positions they held in Congress. Just saying. When you can't look at things through a bi-partisan glass, then people will work to get the truth out there. That's all.I never gave Bush a pass.Great! Thanks! We can even disagree with the fact that the banks were creating products designed to fail, (1) Morgan Stanley sued over alleged CDO fraud, (2) Banks That Bundled Bad Debt Also Bet Against ItThis has nothing to do with my points about what actually caused the meltdown. None of it addresses what happened in the runup to the Meltdown. NONE of it. Just the standard "it's all the regulations" stuff.
So far, no one has provided comment on the facts I have provided. No one has demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of how the pieces worked together. All I'm getting is deflection and party line. That's pretty telling.
If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit - even as it was all collapsing, how AIG was selling swaps on the shit with zero reserve requirements, that the mortgage and finance industries were in complete cahoots, knowingly and gleefully creating comically shit mortgages and packaging them into CMOs and (even worse) CDOs for massive fees, that the regulators (ha), especially Greenspan, aggressively refused to regulate ANY of it, on and on - fine. No problem. But let's not pretend, then, that you have (or even want) a full grasp of what happened.
I know that Fannie & Freddie played a part. I know that Frank was clearly oblivious to what was happening, and then after the fact tried to play the victimized hero. He's a politician, that's what they do. But to ignore the rest of the story is just absolutely ridiculous. The reason for this, of course, is obvious: The GOP wants to hang the Meltdown entire on the Dems. Come on.
And by the way, yes, the net result of what was done to stop the crash was larger, more powerful, more influential banks. I'm a proponent of reviving Glass Steagall so that this is no longer the case, and so that smaller banks can survive, compete and thrive.
..
If you folks don't know how CMOs and CDOs were constructed - out of thin air, with no regulations - how these shitbag "securities" (ha) were magically given Treasury-level ratings by Standard & Poors et al, how the very banks that were selling them were also shorting them knowing they were shit
They created some, but not a lot, synthetic CMOs and CDOs.
Most CMOs and CDOs were not synthetic.
And they weren't ALSO shorting them.
When you sell a synthetic security you are, by definition, now short that security.
Unless they also went out and found a customer to take that short (like GS did with Abacus).
I'm sure you understand that the long list of specific examples I have provided played a significant role in the Meltdown.
Or it was all just the Democrats' fault, whichever.
.
Job and Wage Gains Deliver a Promising Start for the Year
The headline is a total lie. Most people are getting higher paychecks. because their taxes have been cut.TRUMP’S TAX CUTS DIDN’T BENEFIT U.S. WORKERS, MADE RICH COMPANIES RICHER, ANALYSIS FINDS
Trump and Republican leadership have long touted their tax cuts as a massive boon to America’s working class, if not through direct tax reductions or refunds, then through the trickle-down effect of bonuses and wage increases from their employers who receive massive corporate cuts. “Tax reform is working,” Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said in January, mentioning Apple’s decision to reward a bonus of $2,500 in stock grants to some Apple employees. “Workers are coming home and telling their families they got a bonus, or they got a raise or they got better benefits.”
But a new analysis of all Fortune 500 companies found only 4.3 percent of workers will receive a one-time bonus or wage increase tied to the business tax cuts, while businesses received nine times more in cuts than what they passed on to their workers, according to Americans for Tax Fairness, a political advocacy group devoted to tax reform. The analysis also found that companies spent 37 times as much on stock buybacks than they did on bonuses and increased wages for workers.
“There are too many disingenuous claims that the Trump and Republican tax cuts for corporations will trickle down to the middle class,” said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. “President Trump and Republicans gave huge tax cuts to big drug companies, big oil and other corporations, but corporations are giving back little—if anything—to working families,” said Clemente. “In fact, this [analysis shows] that 433 corporations out of the Fortune 500 have announced no plans to share their tax cuts with employees.”
The newest projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the Republican tax plan led to, in part, a 2018 deficit $242 billion higher than previously estimated.
Roughly 36 percent of Americans approve of the Republican tax cuts, according to a March Quinnipiac University Poll and a CNBC poll found that 52 percent of working adults said they had not seen a change to their paychecks since the cuts were passed.
In January, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said 90 percent of all working adults would see increases in their paychecks because of the cuts.
Job and Wage Gains Deliver a Promising Start for the Year
Unemployment: Record-low joblessness for African-Americans and recent vets
you left off quite a few. here's some to start you back to the entire picture.
Appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. I said it so it must be true, just trust me. Documentation? Don't be silly!Desperate propaganda.
The blue wave must be nothing more than a ripple from a falling leaf.
Those companies are not going to hire anyone unless there is an increased demand for their product or service. That only happens when working/ middle class people have more disposable income. Trickle down / supply-side economics has been discredited. Only fools and liars push it.see that's where we differ, I am for the rich company providing a paying job helping those in need and feeling good about their life being productive, and earning a living. you wish to keep them dependent on you. aren't you sweet.In their world, if you don’t agree with them, you’re a “welfare queen”.but I can bet those bitching in this post about not having stocks, are actually those who don't have stock
Another 4th grade "retort"........No wonder trump honestly stated that he loves the poorly educated who voted for his sorry, fat ass.
I’m a honest, hardworking American tax payer who has never been on welfare; but I support helping those in need over giving more money to already rich companies.
These bootlickers just continue licking even as their Dear Leader walks right over them
Yep. Someone keeping their money is, wait for it.... keeping their own money! Fk, how stupid are you?Are you seriously going to challenge an exact definition of subsidy? Are you a fool, ignorant, or just plain stupid?
So you agree that tax breaks are subsidies.
OK so LET's do away with ALL Deductions...i.e. tax breaks now here are the top 13!
Oh by the way the Federal government calls them "Tax Expenditures"... meaning ALL INCOME belongs to the government and these are the "expenditures" that are allowed
to be deducted from the income... i.e. "EXPENDITURES"!
What are the largest tax expenditures?
So let's do away with #1... i.e. Employers can deduct medical premiums.$235 Billion!
And how about # 5 and # 6... $140 billion spent on employee pension plans.
Hey here's another one let's do away with... # 7 Mortgage interest deduction.. $68 billion...
All right while we're at it... # 10 Child credit expenditures @ $54 billion.
Mind you these are all TAX breaks given to Americans when figuring out their taxes. almost a $.5 Trillion tax breaks to most Americans.
View attachment 189870
Or we can benefit all;
-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2018 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2018 price structure.
-Remove the FICA limit.
-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
-Make inversion illegal.
My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.
My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.
My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.
My plan would end all welfare.
My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.
My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.
Or we can benefit all;
Your faulty math doesn't benefit all.
Most of your "ideas" are unconstitutional.
Yep you are definitely a Commie.Yep. Someone keeping their money is, wait for it.... keeping their own money! Fk, how stupid are you?Are you seriously going to challenge an exact definition of subsidy? Are you a fool, ignorant, or just plain stupid?
So you agree that tax breaks are subsidies.
OK so LET's do away with ALL Deductions...i.e. tax breaks now here are the top 13!
Oh by the way the Federal government calls them "Tax Expenditures"... meaning ALL INCOME belongs to the government and these are the "expenditures" that are allowed
to be deducted from the income... i.e. "EXPENDITURES"!
What are the largest tax expenditures?
So let's do away with #1... i.e. Employers can deduct medical premiums.$235 Billion!
And how about # 5 and # 6... $140 billion spent on employee pension plans.
Hey here's another one let's do away with... # 7 Mortgage interest deduction.. $68 billion...
All right while we're at it... # 10 Child credit expenditures @ $54 billion.
Mind you these are all TAX breaks given to Americans when figuring out their taxes. almost a $.5 Trillion tax breaks to most Americans.
View attachment 189870
Or we can benefit all;
-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2018 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2018 price structure.
-Remove the FICA limit.
-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
-Make inversion illegal.
My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.
My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.
My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.
My plan would end all welfare.
My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.
My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.
Are you willing to pay $100 for a happy meal?Yep. Someone keeping their money is, wait for it.... keeping their own money! Fk, how stupid are you?Are you seriously going to challenge an exact definition of subsidy? Are you a fool, ignorant, or just plain stupid?
So you agree that tax breaks are subsidies.
OK so LET's do away with ALL Deductions...i.e. tax breaks now here are the top 13!
Oh by the way the Federal government calls them "Tax Expenditures"... meaning ALL INCOME belongs to the government and these are the "expenditures" that are allowed
to be deducted from the income... i.e. "EXPENDITURES"!
What are the largest tax expenditures?
So let's do away with #1... i.e. Employers can deduct medical premiums.$235 Billion!
And how about # 5 and # 6... $140 billion spent on employee pension plans.
Hey here's another one let's do away with... # 7 Mortgage interest deduction.. $68 billion...
All right while we're at it... # 10 Child credit expenditures @ $54 billion.
Mind you these are all TAX breaks given to Americans when figuring out their taxes. almost a $.5 Trillion tax breaks to most Americans.
View attachment 189870
Or we can benefit all;
-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.
-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2018 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.
-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.
-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.
-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2018 price structure.
-Remove the FICA limit.
-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.
-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.
-Make inversion illegal.
My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.
My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.
My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.
My plan would end all welfare.
My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.
My plan would hold prices for 10 years, thus eliminating inflation.
