Question for Ryan and supporters of the Tax Bill

[Wry Catcher]

Corporations are already awash in cash and they’re not spending it on hiring or increased wages. They won’t be hiring or giving out raises with this money either.

Corporations are already awash in cash

And they didn't build that, eh?

and they’re not spending it on hiring

After all those jobs Obama created (or saved)?

They won’t be hiring or giving out raises with this money either.

Well then we'll have to watch for the added dividend tax revenue, the added CEO income tax revenue, the added capital gains tax revenue and the added sales growth from all those rich dudes spending their dividends and raises.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan and it didn’t work under W. Third time is NOT the charm. The only thing tax cuts have achieved is the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen - all of it from the working and middle class to the wealthy.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Republicans are, by definition, insane.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan

View attachment 164294

DERP!

National Debt:

Education | Why did the national debt in the hands of the public increase from approximately $700 billion to over $2,400 billion during the 1980s?

"About one-half of the publicly held federal government debt outstanding at the end of 2000 was accumulated in the 1980s...."

Thanks, that means Obama's $9.3 trillion in debt can be ignored.

Nope, how much interest on the debt Obama inherited added to the amount incurred during his tenure?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Any "credit for job creation" will be immediately and massively complicated and abused.

What SHOULD happen with the lowered corporate taxes -- is to STRIP all those "targeted tax credits" for producing stuff that are MATURE PRODUCTS and already available on the market.

NEITHER party will touch that. Thats why we need NEW parties. GE "paid no taxes" because they got $50 for every "energy efficient" appliance they produced. NOT because of their "tax rate" or "marginal tax rate"..

With the exception of your first sentence I agree with the rest of you post, and here is why. If I understand the Republican argument, money repatriated will be used to hire and expand their business within the states.

IMO, unless there is a mandate to do so, they will use the money to for whatever they decide they want to do. And, that I will bet not to increase wages, benefits or number of employees. I suspect they will buy out competitors and line the pockets of the executive management and benefit preferred stock holders, not those who hold common stocks.

I suspect they will buy out competitors and line the pockets of the executive management and benefit preferred stock holders,

I see you don't understand how preferred stock works.

I do, those who hold preferred stock get paid first, and common stock holders only get paid what the Board of Directors decide they get, if anything

When Romney buys the company, the Board of Directors and preferred stock holders are paid off by the sale of the property and its tangible assets, common stock holders end up with a penny stock going down fast and not salable.

I do, those who hold preferred stock get paid first

Yup. And those rates are fixed. They won't get extra dividends if the company brings home $10 billion.
The common dividend might be increased.

When Romney buys the company, the Board of Directors and preferred stock holders are paid off by the sale of the property and its tangible assets, common stock holders end up with a penny stock going down fast and not salable.

Why are you bringing up liquidating a failing company in the context of successful companies bringing home trillions in stranded earnings?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations are already awash in cash

And they didn't build that, eh?

and they’re not spending it on hiring

After all those jobs Obama created (or saved)?

They won’t be hiring or giving out raises with this money either.

Well then we'll have to watch for the added dividend tax revenue, the added CEO income tax revenue, the added capital gains tax revenue and the added sales growth from all those rich dudes spending their dividends and raises.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan and it didn’t work under W. Third time is NOT the charm. The only thing tax cuts have achieved is the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen - all of it from the working and middle class to the wealthy.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Republicans are, by definition, insane.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan

View attachment 164294

DERP!

National Debt:

Education | Why did the national debt in the hands of the public increase from approximately $700 billion to over $2,400 billion during the 1980s?

"About one-half of the publicly held federal government debt outstanding at the end of 2000 was accumulated in the 1980s...."

Thanks, that means Obama's $9.3 trillion in debt can be ignored.

Nope, how much interest on the debt Obama inherited added to the amount incurred during his tenure?

Yeah, record low interest rates, TARP profits, TARP repayments of principal and Federal Reserve profits returned to the Treasury helped disguise Obama's even larger addition to the debt.

 

[S.J.]

Tax cuts do NOT create jobs. Supply side economics don’t work. They didn’t work under Reagan.

20 million jobs were created because of the Reagan tax cuts. It was the longest peace time economic expansion in history you friggin' moron.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan and it didn’t work under W. Third time is NOT the charm. The only thing tax cuts have achieved is the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen - all of it from the working and middle class to the wealthy.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Republicans are, by definition, insane.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan

View attachment 164294

DERP!

National Debt:

Education | Why did the national debt in the hands of the public increase from approximately $700 billion to over $2,400 billion during the 1980s?

"About one-half of the publicly held federal government debt outstanding at the end of 2000 was accumulated in the 1980s...."

Thanks, that means Obama's $9.3 trillion in debt can be ignored.

Nope, how much interest on the debt Obama inherited added to the amount incurred during his tenure?

Yeah, record low interest rates, TARP profits, TARP repayments of principal and Federal Reserve profits returned to the Treasury helped disguise Obama's even larger addition to the debt.

Todd, you are way out of your league, and out of touch with reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Any "credit for job creation" will be immediately and massively complicated and abused.

What SHOULD happen with the lowered corporate taxes -- is to STRIP all those "targeted tax credits" for producing stuff that are MATURE PRODUCTS and already available on the market.

NEITHER party will touch that. Thats why we need NEW parties. GE "paid no taxes" because they got $50 for every "energy efficient" appliance they produced. NOT because of their "tax rate" or "marginal tax rate"..

With the exception of your first sentence I agree with the rest of you post, and here is why. If I understand the Republican argument, money repatriated will be used to hire and expand their business within the states.

IMO, unless there is a mandate to do so, they will use the money to for whatever they decide they want to do. And, that I will bet not to increase wages, benefits or number of employees. I suspect they will buy out competitors and line the pockets of the executive management and benefit preferred stock holders, not those who hold common stocks.

There was nothing wrong with my 1st statement either. Giving that credit in one year, means that the payroll cuts can be made the next. The corporations will roll in "temps" or count subcontractors or seasonal workers. It does NOTHING to create a healthy bump in the number of employees required.

The tax cut is not JUST about repatriation. In the case of money OFFSHORE -- it's not being "hidden" or vaulted up. It's used to fund EXPANSION of their facilities and capabilities in the countries where it was made. You -- are focused on bringing the MONEY back. What you SHOULD be focused on -- is bringing the INVESTMENT back along with jobs and manufacturing. If they can make the product in the Philippines, ship it to the USA, and not have to deal with taxes and regulations here in the States --- it will NEVER come back when they also saving 5 or 10% on taxes, along with lower compliance and energy and real estate costs.

Which really means -- there's more work to do. We've made energy RARE and EXPENSIVE. When it should be PLENTIFUL and CHEAP. We've made compliance so tough, the "big guys" have no competition. We're making labor expensive because of the abberant cost of health insurance. Just a PART of what's required is in the tax plan.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Any "credit for job creation" will be immediately and massively complicated and abused.

What SHOULD happen with the lowered corporate taxes -- is to STRIP all those "targeted tax credits" for producing stuff that are MATURE PRODUCTS and already available on the market.

NEITHER party will touch that. Thats why we need NEW parties. GE "paid no taxes" because they got $50 for every "energy efficient" appliance they produced. NOT because of their "tax rate" or "marginal tax rate"..

The GOP have been trying, and have succeeded, at lowering corporate taxes since the 1920's. They caused the Great Depression and the Bush Recession. They have no new ideas and simply stick with proven failure, claiming Jesus rode around on a dinosaur using his AK to shoot the miserable poor. lmao

The "Bush Recession" was about the govt requiring banks to write risky loans. And then helping the financial industry HIDE the bad paper and pass it around. Nothing to do with "corporate tax rates". If you lefties don't start DESIGNING the FUTURE -- instead of whining about the past -- we're all gonna be riding in dinosaurs and picking off dinner with AKs..

 

[flacaltenn]

We want this money to come back.
Adding hoops will reduce the amount returned, reduce the benefit of money that does.

Corporations are already awash in cash and they’re not spending it on hiring or increased wages. They won’t be hiring or giving out raises with this money either.

Corporations are already awash in cash

And they didn't build that, eh?

and they’re not spending it on hiring

After all those jobs Obama created (or saved)?

They won’t be hiring or giving out raises with this money either.

Well then we'll have to watch for the added dividend tax revenue, the added CEO income tax revenue, the added capital gains tax revenue and the added sales growth from all those rich dudes spending their dividends and raises.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan and it didn’t work under W. Third time is NOT the charm. The only thing tax cuts have achieved is the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen - all of it from the working and middle class to the wealthy.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Republicans are, by definition, insane.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan

View attachment 164294

DERP!

National Debt:

Education | Why did the national debt in the hands of the public increase from approximately $700 billion to over $2,400 billion during the 1980s?

"About one-half of the publicly held federal government debt outstanding at the end of 2000 was accumulated in the 1980s...."

So much bullshit. So little time. You're quoting an article from nearly 18 YEARS AGO.. AND -- your math sucks. The FIRST coupling doublings of the Nat Debt were easy. Only took a tiny effort at infrastructure or defense. But the LATEST doublings in debt -- SINCE THAT ARTICLE -- come from insane attempts to BUY YOUR WAY out of a financial crisis that the govt helped to cause. And the sound of alarm bells going off as the "Entitlements" reach the Baby Boom crisis we were warned about for over 50 years. And Washington DID FUCKING NOTHING to prepare or invest for it.

Funny thing in math about quoting "halves" or doubling. Each time it doubles the amount spent is TWICE AS LARGE as the previous "doubling". It's logarithmic. You know what a logarithmic function looks like???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan

View attachment 164294

DERP!

National Debt:

Education | Why did the national debt in the hands of the public increase from approximately $700 billion to over $2,400 billion during the 1980s?

"About one-half of the publicly held federal government debt outstanding at the end of 2000 was accumulated in the 1980s...."

Thanks, that means Obama's $9.3 trillion in debt can be ignored.

Nope, how much interest on the debt Obama inherited added to the amount incurred during his tenure?

Yeah, record low interest rates, TARP profits, TARP repayments of principal and Federal Reserve profits returned to the Treasury helped disguise Obama's even larger addition to the debt.

Todd, you are way out of your league, and out of touch with reality.

Poor powerless Obama. Didn't do anything.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The fake tax cut provide their masters with a fake tax cut as they're already mostly paying less then this in offshored accounts. The real meat of this bill is the ass fucking of the poor, middle class and it allows the republican party to do what they will do next...

Next as in go after anything that helps the poor or middle class and all social protection in the work place.

they're already mostly paying less then this in offshored accounts

I wonder if that's the reason the money is offshore?

I wonder why people don't understand true capitalism. A capitalist reinvests in their businesses and pay higher wages so the majority can afford to buy their products making these rich folks more profitable. Hiding your funds in foreign accounts where you earn interest without paying taxes, reinvesting or increasing your consumer base is not capitalism...It's hoarding which is a mental disorder.

Capitalism is flawed because it cannot provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.

Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any economic system in history.

And your point is ...?

Answer this, why are so many people left behind and exploited by capitalism?

 

[The Derp]

Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any economic system in history.

No, socialism did that. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid lifted people out of poverty. Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class, which is why Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid exist.

 

[The Derp]

20 million jobs were created because of the Reagan tax cuts. It was the longest peace time economic expansion in history you friggin' moron.

Reagan did not create 20,000,000 jobs. He created less than 15,000,000, which was only 3,000,000 more than Obama created.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Series Id: CES0500000001
Series Title: All employees, thousands, total private, seasonally adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private

Reagan
January 1981: 74,677,000
January 1989: 89,394,000
Difference: +14,741,000

Clinton
January 1993: 90,903,000
January 2001: 111,871,000
Difference: +20,968,000

Bush the Dumber
January 2001: 111,871,000
January 2009: 111,474,000
Difference: -397,000

Obama
January 2009: 111,474,000
January 2017: 123,230,000
Difference: +11,756,000

 

[RealDave]

By rewarding bad behavior.

Earning money is bad behavior? Is interest theft?

Ask the fellows at Enron.

Corporations abused the tax law and that hurt America & you love them for it.

And the banker & mortgage sellers & Mortgage backed securities dealers did no bad making money that nearly caused a financial meltdown, According to you, that was great.

You;re a fucking moron.

Ask the fellows at Enron.

Every corporation with foreign earnings is Enron?
Were you born brain damaged, or was it a more recent occurrence?

Corporations abused the tax law

Which ones abused which law? How?

According to you, that was great.

That's a great straw man you've built there. And it's renewable!!!!

You said corporations earning money can't be bad.

You keep defending this bad behavior so you musty thonk it is great.

You said corporations earning money can't be bad.

No, I said, "Bringing a couple of trillion dollars back to our shores sounds like a good idea to me"

Question for Ryan and supporters of the Tax Bill

Moron.

No, you didn't.
You said something like " So making money is bad"

 

[RealDave]

Corporations are already awash in cash and they’re not spending it on hiring or increased wages. They won’t be hiring or giving out raises with this money either.

Corporations are already awash in cash

And they didn't build that, eh?

and they’re not spending it on hiring

After all those jobs Obama created (or saved)?

They won’t be hiring or giving out raises with this money either.

Well then we'll have to watch for the added dividend tax revenue, the added CEO income tax revenue, the added capital gains tax revenue and the added sales growth from all those rich dudes spending their dividends and raises.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan and it didn’t work under W. Third time is NOT the charm. The only thing tax cuts have achieved is the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen - all of it from the working and middle class to the wealthy.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Republicans are, by definition, insane.

Trickle down didn’t work under Reagan

View attachment 164294

DERP!

National Debt:

Education | Why did the national debt in the hands of the public increase from approximately $700 billion to over $2,400 billion during the 1980s?

"About one-half of the publicly held federal government debt outstanding at the end of 2000 was accumulated in the 1980s...."

Thanks, that means Obama's $9.3 trillion in debt can be ignored.

Yet another asswipe blaming Obama for the effects of the worst recession in 80 years, two quagmire wars, unfunded expansion to medicare, housing collapse all in motion when Obama took office.

 

[RealDave]

Why have the republicans given corporations a tax cut, and not a tax credit for profits stored overseas?

The Republican's claim this repatriated money will be used to provide jobs, but there is no guarantee it will be used to do so.

Any "credit for job creation" will be immediately and massively complicated and abused.

What SHOULD happen with the lowered corporate taxes -- is to STRIP all those "targeted tax credits" for producing stuff that are MATURE PRODUCTS and already available on the market.

NEITHER party will touch that. Thats why we need NEW parties. GE "paid no taxes" because they got $50 for every "energy efficient" appliance they produced. NOT because of their "tax rate" or "marginal tax rate"..

The GOP have been trying, and have succeeded, at lowering corporate taxes since the 1920's. They caused the Great Depression and the Bush Recession. They have no new ideas and simply stick with proven failure, claiming Jesus rode around on a dinosaur using his AK to shoot the miserable poor. lmao

The "Bush Recession" was about the govt requiring banks to write risky loans. And then helping the financial industry HIDE the bad paper and pass it around. Nothing to do with "corporate tax rates". If you lefties don't start DESIGNING the FUTURE -- instead of whining about the past -- we're all gonna be riding in dinosaurs and picking off dinner with AKs..

Lying asshole POS. Were you born this fucking stupid or did it take you a while?

No bank was forced to make any risky loan.

 

[RealDave]

National Debt:

Education | Why did the national debt in the hands of the public increase from approximately $700 billion to over $2,400 billion during the 1980s?

"About one-half of the publicly held federal government debt outstanding at the end of 2000 was accumulated in the 1980s...."

Thanks, that means Obama's $9.3 trillion in debt can be ignored.

Nope, how much interest on the debt Obama inherited added to the amount incurred during his tenure?

Yeah, record low interest rates, TARP profits, TARP repayments of principal and Federal Reserve profits returned to the Treasury helped disguise Obama's even larger addition to the debt.

Todd, you are way out of your league, and out of touch with reality.

Poor powerless Obama. Didn't do anything.

Christ, now you are blaming Obama for not stopping the Republiucan creates mess. How about you grow a pair & blame the Republican party that created that mess.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any economic system in history.

No, socialism did that. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid lifted people out of poverty. Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class, which is why Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid exist.

Without capitalism you can't afford those safety nets. Unchecked those social programs will ruin a country. Greece ring a bell ?

 

[The Derp]

Without capitalism you can't afford those safety nets. Unchecked those social programs will ruin a country. Greece ring a bell ?

And without those safety nets, capitalism couldn't provide an adequate standard of living to the workers.

So capitalism relies on socialism and vice versa.

 

[S.J.]

20 million jobs were created because of the Reagan tax cuts. It was the longest peace time economic expansion in history you friggin' moron.

Reagan did not create 20,000,000 jobs. He created less than 15,000,000, which was only 3,000,000 more than Obama created.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Series Id: CES0500000001
Series Title: All employees, thousands, total private, seasonally adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private

Reagan
January 1981: 74,677,000
January 1989: 89,394,000
Difference: +14,741,000

Clinton
January 1993: 90,903,000
January 2001: 111,871,000
Difference: +20,968,000

Bush the Dumber
January 2001: 111,871,000
January 2009: 111,474,000
Difference: -397,000

Obama
January 2009: 111,474,000
January 2017: 123,230,000
Difference: +11,756,000

Let's take a closer look, shall we?
Sorry, Obama Fans: Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth

 

[sedwin]

20 million jobs were created because of the Reagan tax cuts. It was the longest peace time economic expansion in history you friggin' moron.

Reagan did not create 20,000,000 jobs. He created less than 15,000,000, which was only 3,000,000 more than Obama created.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Series Id: CES0500000001
Series Title: All employees, thousands, total private, seasonally adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private

Reagan
January 1981: 74,677,000
January 1989: 89,394,000
Difference: +14,741,000

Clinton
January 1993: 90,903,000
January 2001: 111,871,000
Difference: +20,968,000

Bush the Dumber
January 2001: 111,871,000
January 2009: 111,474,000
Difference: -397,000

Obama
January 2009: 111,474,000
January 2017: 123,230,000
Difference: +11,756,000

Let's take a closer look, shall we?
Sorry, Obama Fans: Reagan Did Better on Jobs and Growth

And Clinton did better on jobs than Reagan. But to be clear Reagan cut taxes for the rich in '81 and blew up the deficit. As a result he then raised taxes in '82 and '84 which together amounted in the highest peace time tax raise in our history.