Average, everyday Americans are not smart/informed enough to understand public policy

[martybegan]

Humans certainly are selfish which is why social justice must be enforced by law.

Goddammit, I fucking hate you.

The progressive mantra. "We know what's better for you than you do, so shut up and bend over"

Sounds about right actually.

 

[martybegan]

The progressive mantra. "We know what's better for you than you do, so shut up and bend over"

Sounds about right actually.

And that belief is why your party should never be in leadership again.

The problem is that you are misinterpreting what I mean by that.

Then by all means, elaborate please. It's no secret Democrats are control freaks, and your comment seems to have supported that position. We need Democrats to control people because they are incapable of controlling themselves.

When I reference “bend over” from that quote, I’m not talking about controlling your lives in a totalitarianism sense. I’m just talking about accepting American leftwing policy because it is what’s objectively better for this country.

Bullshit. If you were trying to convince people it would be one thing, instead you try to force it via government fiat, usually using the least democratic branch of the government, the courts.

 

[Doc1]

Another example:

It seems logical that people would work together as a community and share in the fruits of their labor. It makes logical sense that they would all work in harmony, having shared ownership of all property. It makes logical sense that they would all work for the greater good, never thinking of themselves.

But, that would require humans to stop being human.

Humans cannot avoid being lazy, greedy, glutenous, envious, and prideful. What will happen is a few will end up doing all the work and will be force to share with the lazy. Others will try to horde more for themselves. Some will envy others. On and on.

That logical society you butt fucking commies call UTOPIA will fall apart because such a society cannot exist. Humans cannot rid themselves of their nature.

So, yeah. Some idiots who think such a society can work should never vote.

Humans certainly are selfish which is why social justice must be enforced by law.

Another example:

It seems logical that people would work together as a community and share in the fruits of their labor. It makes logical sense that they would all work in harmony, having shared ownership of all property. It makes logical sense that they would all work for the greater good, never thinking of themselves.

But, that would require humans to stop being human.

Humans cannot avoid being lazy, greedy, glutenous, envious, and prideful. What will happen is a few will end up doing all the work and will be force to share with the lazy. Others will try to horde more for themselves. Some will envy others. On and on.

That logical society you butt fucking commies call UTOPIA will fall apart because such a society cannot exist. Humans cannot rid themselves of their nature.

So, yeah. Some idiots who think such a society can work should never vote.

Humans certainly are selfish which is why social justice must be enforced by law.

Ein volk, ein reich, ein Fuhrer?

The founding fathers, you know, created laws. Obviously following laws is nothing new.

Except that you don't believe in the Laws they created little man.

Untrue. You just don’t understand them. They were liberal afterall.

Absolutely true, you just aren't man enough to admit. You try and claim that they were "like" you? Good lord, you are about on par with Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson et all wouldn't even let you wash their underwear.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." —Thomas Jefferson

Tie down government with the Constitution so it doesn't become the legalized version of criminals.

That's what the leftists want. They want, and have largely obtained, legalized plunder.

We will get all sorts of arguments about "fair" distribution of wealth, which can never be objectively defined or executed, and ignores the higher value of some labor tasks over others (mopping a floor v. brain surgery), which is typically the problem with leftists seeking "social justice."

Leftists are not smart/informed enough to understand basic economics.

The value of one's labor must be set by market forces ONLY. When demand is lower than the supply, the value goes down. More people are willing to work for less money.

Leftists want open boarders, which increases the supply of low-skill workers, which gives employers many people from which to choose. The low-skill workers are forced to undercut their competition and take less money, which leaves them with less money to spend, which makes it more difficult to purchase goods and services, which depresses the demand for those goods and services, leading to more un-sold goods and idle service providers, when means that they are forced to lower the price, which decreases their revenue, etc. all the way through the economy until everyone has less money.

Artificially setting the price of low-skilled labor does not allow it to adjust to market conditions, which, when it is artificially high, results in more dollars chasing the same supply of goods and services, which causes prices to go up, thereby offsetting the artificially high wages, because now their money is worth less. They didn't really get a raise. Others earning more than the artificially-set minimum actually take a pay cut.

Who does it hurt the most?

THE "MIDDLE CLASS!"

If that's not enough, anyone with any savings just lost money in the form of value decrease. So, they were robbed.

Then, the supply of available dollars is effected. The value of each dollar is much less, so people need more of them, so the FED starts printing more.

Next thing you know, you're buying a loaf of bread with a wheel barrel full of Deutche Marks.

Leftists lack the intelligence or education to understand this concept.

That is why they should never be in power.....EVER!

 

[BrokeLoser]

Issues like economics, healthcare policy, or the complexity of congress evaluating and passing bills go way over American’s heads.

Americans tend to hold political opinions that are based on intuitive thinking rather than an informed opinion. For example, it intuitively makes sense for welfare participants to be drug tested as a condition of qualification. The actual facts make this solution stupid, however. For one thing, drug use among recipients of SNAP or TANF is statistically low and the cost of implementing this policy is very expensive. It would accomplish mostly nothing. Moreover, programs like Medicare and Medicaid are also considered “welfare”. Are we really going to test all of those people?

Another example is the bullshit myth of trickle down economics. Intuitively, it makes sense to give tax breaks to corporations because it would make logical sense for them to invest the money they save into labor. The problem with this is that corporations are already wealthier than ever before! There is no incentive for these corporations to invest the money because it’s just easier to keep it. A booming stock market also means dick as far as expecting jobs to be created or wages to be raised. Get it? It’s simple logic if you actually knew some basic facts.

My overall point is this: the downside of a democratic process is that stupid people who have no idea what they’re talking about are allowed to vote on candidates and policy. I mean shit, most Americans can’t even name all 3 branches of government!

“Average, everyday Americans are not smart/informed enough to understand public policy”

No shit?
This might be the only thing you have ever said that was completely true.
Why do you think Democrats prey on our most ignorant citizens? They’re an easy sell...right?
Give them a 1980’s flip phone and TA-DA....you own them.

 

[dblack]

Issues like economics, healthcare policy, or the complexity of congress evaluating and passing bills go way over American’s heads.

Americans tend to hold political opinions that are based on intuitive thinking rather than an informed opinion. For example, it intuitively makes sense for welfare participants to be drug tested as a condition of qualification. The actual facts make this solution stupid, however. For one thing, drug use among recipients of SNAP or TANF is statistically low and the cost of implementing this policy is very expensive. It would accomplish mostly nothing. Moreover, programs like Medicare and Medicaid are also considered “welfare”. Are we really going to test all of those people?

Another example is the bullshit myth of trickle down economics. Intuitively, it makes sense to give tax breaks to corporations because it would make logical sense for them to invest the money they save into labor. The problem with this is that corporations are already wealthier than ever before! There is no incentive for these corporations to invest the money because it’s just easier to keep it. A booming stock market also means dick as far as expecting jobs to be created or wages to be raised. Get it? It’s simple logic if you actually knew some basic facts.

My overall point is this: the downside of a democratic process is that stupid people who have no idea what they’re talking about are allowed to vote on candidates and policy. I mean shit, most Americans can’t even name all 3 branches of government!

“Average, everyday Americans are not smart/informed enough to understand public policy”

No shit?
This might be the only thing you have ever said that was completely true.
Why do you think Democrats prey on our most ignorant citizens? They’re an easy sell...right?
Give them a 1980’s flip phone and TA-DA....you own them.

True that. To a large degree, Trump show the Republicans how to beat the Democrats at their own game. And that the lowest common denominator was a good deal lower than most of us understood.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let me give you an example of a real solution to a climate change problem. As the world gets hotter, mosquitos are going to become more frequent. Mosquitos carry disease. This will cause a spike in the world over and response to such a threat may not be adequate which threatens our species. What we can do is implement policies like better surveillance of outbreaks and reducing the mosquito population through proven methods.

Cutting O2 emissions is basically too late of a solution although cutting them down would slow the pace of destructive climate change even if it is inevitable.

So, a potential malaria pandemic

What else?

Um yeah and many other types of pandemics as well.

Sea level rise is another example. It is estimated the eastern coast line will rise by a few feet above current levels in a few decades. This will make the east coast uninhabitable in its current form.

Ocean life is dying because CO2 is acidifying the oceans. This threatens our food supply.

VIDEO: ABC 7 years ago, predicting NYC would be under water in 2015 because of global warming

You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

Study: Global warming will cause 180,000 more rapes by 2099

Number of hurricanes reaches 30-year low

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/j...s-way-it-was-1972-cronkite-warned-new-ice-age

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The progressive mantra. "We know what's better for you than you do, so shut up and bend over"

Sounds about right actually.

And that belief is why your party should never be in leadership again.

The problem is that you are misinterpreting what I mean by that.

Then by all means, elaborate please. It's no secret Democrats are control freaks, and your comment seems to have supported that position. We need Democrats to control people because they are incapable of controlling themselves.

When I reference “bend over” from that quote, I’m not talking about controlling your lives in a totalitarianism sense. I’m just talking about accepting American leftwing policy because it is what’s objectively better for this country.

In your opinion.

The problem is I don't agree with you.

I don't think taking wealth away from the rich will help the poor.
I don't think that disarming the public will solve our crime problems.
I don't think that promoting irresponsibility will result in more responsible people.
I don't think that putting more people on the dole will make them want to work more.
I don't think that taxing businesses will make them want to invest more or hire more people.

Those are all liberal philosophies.

 

[Norman]

Billy000 talking about himself again.

Americans are so smart that they understand that socialism doesn't work - incredible!

Billy is pissed.

 

[Billy000]

Let me give you an example of a real solution to a climate change problem. As the world gets hotter, mosquitos are going to become more frequent. Mosquitos carry disease. This will cause a spike in the world over and response to such a threat may not be adequate which threatens our species. What we can do is implement policies like better surveillance of outbreaks and reducing the mosquito population through proven methods.

Cutting O2 emissions is basically too late of a solution although cutting them down would slow the pace of destructive climate change even if it is inevitable.

So, a potential malaria pandemic

What else?

Um yeah and many other types of pandemics as well.

Sea level rise is another example. It is estimated the eastern coast line will rise by a few feet above current levels in a few decades. This will make the east coast uninhabitable in its current form.

Ocean life is dying because CO2 is acidifying the oceans. This threatens our food supply.

VIDEO: ABC 7 years ago, predicting NYC would be under water in 2015 because of global warming

You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

Study: Global warming will cause 180,000 more rapes by 2099

Number of hurricanes reaches 30-year low

And That’s the Way It Was: In 1972, Cronkite Warned of ‘New Ice Age’

How am I supposed to be swayed when you cherry pick crap like this? Yes, predictions do fail in science sometimes. It doesn’t fucking mean the entire phenomenon isn’t happening. It doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been data that’s shown global average temperatures have risen in the past several decades at an alarming rate. It doesn’t mean that we aren’t in the middle of a mass extinction event where ocean life is dying at a terrifying rate.

Of course you really look dumb posting something from 1922.

 

[Billy000]

Sounds about right actually.

And that belief is why your party should never be in leadership again.

The problem is that you are misinterpreting what I mean by that.

Then by all means, elaborate please. It's no secret Democrats are control freaks, and your comment seems to have supported that position. We need Democrats to control people because they are incapable of controlling themselves.

When I reference “bend over” from that quote, I’m not talking about controlling your lives in a totalitarianism sense. I’m just talking about accepting American leftwing policy because it is what’s objectively better for this country.

In your opinion.

The problem is I don't agree with you.

I don't think taking wealth away from the rich will help the poor.
I don't think that disarming the public will solve our crime problems.
I don't think that promoting irresponsibility will result in more responsible people.
I don't think that putting more people on the dole will make them want to work more.
I don't think that taxing businesses will make them want to invest more or hire more people.

Those are all liberal philosophies.

Lol actually they really aren’t. None of those are. When do liberals ever say they want to confiscate guns and prefer people be on welfare? NEVER.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Let me give you an example of a real solution to a climate change problem. As the world gets hotter, mosquitos are going to become more frequent. Mosquitos carry disease. This will cause a spike in the world over and response to such a threat may not be adequate which threatens our species. What we can do is implement policies like better surveillance of outbreaks and reducing the mosquito population through proven methods.

Cutting O2 emissions is basically too late of a solution although cutting them down would slow the pace of destructive climate change even if it is inevitable.

So, a potential malaria pandemic

What else?

Um yeah and many other types of pandemics as well.

Sea level rise is another example. It is estimated the eastern coast line will rise by a few feet above current levels in a few decades. This will make the east coast uninhabitable in its current form.

Ocean life is dying because CO2 is acidifying the oceans. This threatens our food supply.

VIDEO: ABC 7 years ago, predicting NYC would be under water in 2015 because of global warming

You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.

Study: Global warming will cause 180,000 more rapes by 2099

Number of hurricanes reaches 30-year low

And That’s the Way It Was: In 1972, Cronkite Warned of ‘New Ice Age’

How am I supposed to be swayed when you cherry pick crap like this? Yes, predictions do fail in science sometimes. It doesn’t fucking mean the entire phenomenon isn’t happening. It doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been data that’s shown global average temperatures have risen in the past several decades at an alarming rate. It doesn’t mean that we aren’t in the middle of a mass extinction event where ocean life is dying at a terrifying rate.

Of course you really look dumb posting something from 1922.

An alarming rate? What are you now smoking meth ?

 

[Wyatt earp]

And that belief is why your party should never be in leadership again.

The problem is that you are misinterpreting what I mean by that.

Then by all means, elaborate please. It's no secret Democrats are control freaks, and your comment seems to have supported that position. We need Democrats to control people because they are incapable of controlling themselves.

When I reference “bend over” from that quote, I’m not talking about controlling your lives in a totalitarianism sense. I’m just talking about accepting American leftwing policy because it is what’s objectively better for this country.

In your opinion.

The problem is I don't agree with you.

I don't think taking wealth away from the rich will help the poor.
I don't think that disarming the public will solve our crime problems.
I don't think that promoting irresponsibility will result in more responsible people.
I don't think that putting more people on the dole will make them want to work more.
I don't think that taxing businesses will make them want to invest more or hire more people.

Those are all liberal philosophies.

Lol actually they really aren’t. None of those are. When do liberals ever say they want to confiscate guns and prefer people be on welfare? NEVER.

Look at chicgo in the late 90s you stupid fuck .

 

[Lysistrata]

Thats why i wish it never changed from requiring property ownership to vote.

I don't agree with the property ownership requirement because it goes against the principle of government by consent of the governed. That said, why weren't property owners who were women allowed to vote?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Issues like economics, healthcare policy, or the complexity of congress evaluating and passing bills go way over American’s heads.

Americans tend to hold political opinions that are based on intuitive thinking rather than an informed opinion. For example, it intuitively makes sense for welfare participants to be drug tested as a condition of qualification. The actual facts make this solution stupid, however. For one thing, drug use among recipients of SNAP or TANF is statistically low and the cost of implementing this policy is very expensive. It would accomplish mostly nothing. Moreover, programs like Medicare and Medicaid are also considered “welfare”. Are we really going to test all of those people?

Another example is the bullshit myth of trickle down economics. Intuitively, it makes sense to give tax breaks to corporations because it would make logical sense for them to invest the money they save into labor. The problem with this is that corporations are already wealthier than ever before! There is no incentive for these corporations to invest the money because it’s just easier to keep it. A booming stock market also means dick as far as expecting jobs to be created or wages to be raised. Get it? It’s simple logic if you actually knew some basic facts.

My overall point is this: the downside of a democratic process is that stupid people who have no idea what they’re talking about are allowed to vote on candidates and policy. I mean shit, most Americans can’t even name all 3 branches of government!

Simple logic? Incentive for corporations to invest money is the ability to profit from that investment. If conditions are such that putting that money into rotation is likely to create more wealth, those rich corporations will spend it rather than sit on it. The macroeconomic theory that you're toying with is much less simple than you give it credit for. Arguing that an "intuitive" rather than informed opinion on these matters is an unqualified opinion, and then two paragraphs later giving a mildly informed and mostly intuitive explanation of "trickle down economics", is fuckin hilarious.

 

[Billy000]

Issues like economics, healthcare policy, or the complexity of congress evaluating and passing bills go way over American’s heads.

Americans tend to hold political opinions that are based on intuitive thinking rather than an informed opinion. For example, it intuitively makes sense for welfare participants to be drug tested as a condition of qualification. The actual facts make this solution stupid, however. For one thing, drug use among recipients of SNAP or TANF is statistically low and the cost of implementing this policy is very expensive. It would accomplish mostly nothing. Moreover, programs like Medicare and Medicaid are also considered “welfare”. Are we really going to test all of those people?

Another example is the bullshit myth of trickle down economics. Intuitively, it makes sense to give tax breaks to corporations because it would make logical sense for them to invest the money they save into labor. The problem with this is that corporations are already wealthier than ever before! There is no incentive for these corporations to invest the money because it’s just easier to keep it. A booming stock market also means dick as far as expecting jobs to be created or wages to be raised. Get it? It’s simple logic if you actually knew some basic facts.

My overall point is this: the downside of a democratic process is that stupid people who have no idea what they’re talking about are allowed to vote on candidates and policy. I mean shit, most Americans can’t even name all 3 branches of government!

Simple logic? Incentive for corporations to invest money is the ability to profit from that investment. If conditions are such that putting that money into rotation is likely to create more wealth, those rich corporations will spend it rather than sit on it. The macroeconomic theory that you're toying with is much less simple than you give it credit for. Arguing that an "intuitive" rather than informed opinion on these matters is an unqualified opinion, and then two paragraphs later giving a mildly informed and mostly intuitive explanation of "trickle down economics", is fuckin hilarious.

Lol as I blatantly pointed out, conditions for investing in labor are not met. If a corporation is getting this massiv tax cut, it’s simple logic for them to just keep the money rather than invest it because their profits are already at an all time high.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Issues like economics, healthcare policy, or the complexity of congress evaluating and passing bills go way over American’s heads.

Americans tend to hold political opinions that are based on intuitive thinking rather than an informed opinion. For example, it intuitively makes sense for welfare participants to be drug tested as a condition of qualification. The actual facts make this solution stupid, however. For one thing, drug use among recipients of SNAP or TANF is statistically low and the cost of implementing this policy is very expensive. It would accomplish mostly nothing. Moreover, programs like Medicare and Medicaid are also considered “welfare”. Are we really going to test all of those people?

Another example is the bullshit myth of trickle down economics. Intuitively, it makes sense to give tax breaks to corporations because it would make logical sense for them to invest the money they save into labor. The problem with this is that corporations are already wealthier than ever before! There is no incentive for these corporations to invest the money because it’s just easier to keep it. A booming stock market also means dick as far as expecting jobs to be created or wages to be raised. Get it? It’s simple logic if you actually knew some basic facts.

My overall point is this: the downside of a democratic process is that stupid people who have no idea what they’re talking about are allowed to vote on candidates and policy. I mean shit, most Americans can’t even name all 3 branches of government!

and of course you are not one of these stupid people,right billy?....

Yep, me and most other liberals.

There are several hundred videos on youtube that prove that assertion insanely wrong.

 

[Norman]

Issues like economics, healthcare policy, or the complexity of congress evaluating and passing bills go way over American’s heads.

Americans tend to hold political opinions that are based on intuitive thinking rather than an informed opinion. For example, it intuitively makes sense for welfare participants to be drug tested as a condition of qualification. The actual facts make this solution stupid, however. For one thing, drug use among recipients of SNAP or TANF is statistically low and the cost of implementing this policy is very expensive. It would accomplish mostly nothing. Moreover, programs like Medicare and Medicaid are also considered “welfare”. Are we really going to test all of those people?

Another example is the bullshit myth of trickle down economics. Intuitively, it makes sense to give tax breaks to corporations because it would make logical sense for them to invest the money they save into labor. The problem with this is that corporations are already wealthier than ever before! There is no incentive for these corporations to invest the money because it’s just easier to keep it. A booming stock market also means dick as far as expecting jobs to be created or wages to be raised. Get it? It’s simple logic if you actually knew some basic facts.

My overall point is this: the downside of a democratic process is that stupid people who have no idea what they’re talking about are allowed to vote on candidates and policy. I mean shit, most Americans can’t even name all 3 branches of government!

and of course you are not one of these stupid people,right billy?....

Yep, me and most other liberals.

There are several hundred videos on youtube that prove that assertion insanely wrong.

As a mathematician I will have to intervene here. There are thousands and thousands, maybe even uncountable amount of videos that prove him to be completely delusional.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Issues like economics, healthcare policy, or the complexity of congress evaluating and passing bills go way over American’s heads.

Americans tend to hold political opinions that are based on intuitive thinking rather than an informed opinion. For example, it intuitively makes sense for welfare participants to be drug tested as a condition of qualification. The actual facts make this solution stupid, however. For one thing, drug use among recipients of SNAP or TANF is statistically low and the cost of implementing this policy is very expensive. It would accomplish mostly nothing. Moreover, programs like Medicare and Medicaid are also considered “welfare”. Are we really going to test all of those people?

Another example is the bullshit myth of trickle down economics. Intuitively, it makes sense to give tax breaks to corporations because it would make logical sense for them to invest the money they save into labor. The problem with this is that corporations are already wealthier than ever before! There is no incentive for these corporations to invest the money because it’s just easier to keep it. A booming stock market also means dick as far as expecting jobs to be created or wages to be raised. Get it? It’s simple logic if you actually knew some basic facts.

My overall point is this: the downside of a democratic process is that stupid people who have no idea what they’re talking about are allowed to vote on candidates and policy. I mean shit, most Americans can’t even name all 3 branches of government!

Simple logic? Incentive for corporations to invest money is the ability to profit from that investment. If conditions are such that putting that money into rotation is likely to create more wealth, those rich corporations will spend it rather than sit on it. The macroeconomic theory that you're toying with is much less simple than you give it credit for. Arguing that an "intuitive" rather than informed opinion on these matters is an unqualified opinion, and then two paragraphs later giving a mildly informed and mostly intuitive explanation of "trickle down economics", is fuckin hilarious.

Lol as I blatantly pointed out, conditions for investing in labor are not met. If a corporation is getting this massiv tax cut, it’s simple logic for them to just keep the money rather than invest it because their profits are already at an all time high.

Now think about what you just wrote.

Corporations will just sit on their money like government does.

Tell us, what good would it do for a corporation to not invest and sit on money? Money doesn't gain anything under a mattress; something our government hasn't figured out yet.

Corporations became corporations because of investments. They attract other investors by showing a strong growth.

Some businesses are sharing their new money with their employees. It's not something they have to do, but want to do and Trump gave them that ability.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Issues like economics, healthcare policy, or the complexity of congress evaluating and passing bills go way over American’s heads.

Americans tend to hold political opinions that are based on intuitive thinking rather than an informed opinion. For example, it intuitively makes sense for welfare participants to be drug tested as a condition of qualification. The actual facts make this solution stupid, however. For one thing, drug use among recipients of SNAP or TANF is statistically low and the cost of implementing this policy is very expensive. It would accomplish mostly nothing. Moreover, programs like Medicare and Medicaid are also considered “welfare”. Are we really going to test all of those people?

Another example is the bullshit myth of trickle down economics. Intuitively, it makes sense to give tax breaks to corporations because it would make logical sense for them to invest the money they save into labor. The problem with this is that corporations are already wealthier than ever before! There is no incentive for these corporations to invest the money because it’s just easier to keep it. A booming stock market also means dick as far as expecting jobs to be created or wages to be raised. Get it? It’s simple logic if you actually knew some basic facts.

My overall point is this: the downside of a democratic process is that stupid people who have no idea what they’re talking about are allowed to vote on candidates and policy. I mean shit, most Americans can’t even name all 3 branches of government!

Simple logic? Incentive for corporations to invest money is the ability to profit from that investment. If conditions are such that putting that money into rotation is likely to create more wealth, those rich corporations will spend it rather than sit on it. The macroeconomic theory that you're toying with is much less simple than you give it credit for. Arguing that an "intuitive" rather than informed opinion on these matters is an unqualified opinion, and then two paragraphs later giving a mildly informed and mostly intuitive explanation of "trickle down economics", is fuckin hilarious.

Lol as I blatantly pointed out, conditions for investing in labor are not met. If a corporation is getting this massiv tax cut, it’s simple logic for them to just keep the money rather than invest it because their profits are already at an all time high.

Several questions. . .

Which corporations and businesses are we talking about, in terms of all time high profits? What percentage of the nation's employment do they provide?

If a corporation's profits are at an all time high, do they stop concerning themselves with increasing profitability? Do they stop expanding?

Corporate taxes are part of the total cost of doing business in any given country. If it becomes significantly cheaper to do business in the US, how does that not encourage businesses to relocate production to the US?

What are the "conditions for investing in labor", and how is it that profits being at an all time high discourages such an investment?

Sorry, but it looks an awful lot like you're being exactly the horse-sense voter that you're criticizing.