Republicans think handing corporations money creates jobs.

[The Derp]

If you hate being "handed money", then go ahead and send me 10% of your paycheck.

Two things to this:

A) Go fuck yourself.
B) Get a policy that makes sense, and we can converse like rational people. Don't, and all you get is the shit you just posted above.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You have been paying outrageous health care for that long because of Obama Care?

Seven fucking years and you got nothing. You know why? Because you and what you believe and who you believe are alllllll full of shit.

So here we are.

And I have news for you...health care costs were outrageous long before Obamacare. In fact, when Conservatives were in control of DC the last time, health insurance premiums rose at faster rates than any other time in American history.

So thanks for being so fucking terrible at everything you do.

No it wasn't Obama turned a normal thing into a crisis

Again what?


Go to the doctor... please

All your saying to us is you can't steal other people's money


.that's it

 

[Wyatt earp]

No it wasn't

Listen comrade, yes it certainly was. The facts support me, not you. In fact, the rate of premium growth since Obamacare has been lower than the rate of premium growth prior to Obamacare.

But none of that is an excuse for the lack of a "replacement" plan from Conservatives who had seven fucking years to come up with one.

WTF were you idiots doing all that time? Wait, I already know...posturing like a bunch of peacocks. Because Obamacare was your plan, and Obama beat you to it. That's why no replacement plan, despite seven years of "repeal and replace".

Guess "repeal and replace" is just like "trickle-down economics"; right wing bullshit.

How old are you ...? It's not even been seven years..

 

[The Derp]

Clinton and Obama both had a Republican congress to deal with. You know, the people that have the purse strings.

Ah yes, the "Republican Congress" during Clinton. The same Clinton Congress that reformed welfare (only to hear those same Conservatives continue to complain about welfare today, even though they reformed it), and had a tax cut in 1998 vetoed by Clinton because it would have erased the nascent surpluses. That Congress also produced the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997 that was directly responsible for the burst of the dotcom bubble 3 years later.

As for the Conservative Congress under Obama...they produced no major legislation that was enacted into law. They voted to repeal Obamacare 60+ times (with no replacement because...you know...that's too hardddddddddd), and that's it. All they did was obstruct for political gain. They even admitted this.

It was the Conservative Congress under George W. Bush who erased a surplus with dumb tax cuts in 2001. Tax cuts those same, stupid people tied to the growth of the housing market starting in 2003. The housing market that would collapse by 2007 and be blamed on Democrats while Bush gets credit for the growth (?)

So basically, you're full of shit and you know it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Can you explain how taking their money away creates jobs?

No, no, no...your argument is that tax cuts create jobs. How? You can't say. Why? Because you have no fucking clue. How come? Because you are either too lazy or stupid to even bother.

Low corporate income tax rates do nothing for consumers.

Of course I can say how. The more money at their disposal the more they have to invest in R&D. The more they have to expand beyond their current markets. Ireland slashed their corporate tax rate to 12.5% and they experienced an economic boom, becoming a corporate haven in Europe. Singapore's rate is only 17% and they have one of the strongest economies on the planet.

See, I explained all that to you without insulting you like a little child.

Again, explain to us how taking their money away creates jobs?

 

[Political Junky]

You can't see the big picture..one you truly ignore

What big picture? Conservatives don't think big picture. That's why they had no Obamacare replacement ready to go on day one of President Orange Cheeto.

Yes, after they bitched for 7 years they had nothing.

 

[The Derp]

The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

Reagan was President from 1981-1989. So I;m not sure why you feel the need to include two years that Reagan had no part in? Oh, I know why...because that's the only way the numbers can come out in your favor. If you credit them to Reagan when they should be credited to Carter (1980) and George H. W. Bush (1990). So your period of growth covers 1980-1990, yet Reagan was President 1981-1989.

So your Russian Active Measure fails again.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Listen comrade, yes it certainly was. The facts support me, not you. In fact, the rate of premium growth since Obamacare has been lower than the rate of premium growth prior to Obamacare.

So you admit that ObamaCare has failed, seeing as how Obama himself said the average family would see a savings of $2500 a year.

 

[The Derp]

All your saying to us is you can't steal other people's money

And your Russian trollishness rears its ugly head again. It's weird how you start out semi-articulate on a thread (almost as if you're working off a script), but as we get deeper into the subject matter, that articulation declines and you end up churning out sentences that appear to have been copied-and-pasted from a Russian-to-English internet translator. But, like, a really shitty one.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Clinton and Obama both had a Republican congress to deal with. You know, the people that have the purse strings.

Ah yes, the "Republican Congress" during Clinton. The same Clinton Congress that reformed welfare (only to hear those same Conservatives continue to complain about welfare today, even though they reformed it), and had a tax cut in 1998 vetoed by Clinton because it would have erased the nascent surpluses. That Congress also produced the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997 that was directly responsible for the burst of the dotcom bubble 3 years later.

As for the Conservative Congress under Obama...they produced no major legislation that was enacted into law. They voted to repeal Obamacare 60+ times (with no replacement because...you know...that's too hardddddddddd), and that's it. All they did was obstruct for political gain. They even admitted this.

It was the Conservative Congress under George W. Bush who erased a surplus with dumb tax cuts in 2001. Tax cuts those same, stupid people tied to the growth of the housing market starting in 2003. The housing market that would collapse by 2007 and be blamed on Democrats while Bush gets credit for the growth (?)

So basically, you're full of shit and you know it.

Again you economic and history boob

 

[The Derp]

How old are you ...? It's not even been seven years..

Boris, look. Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. It is now April 2017. More than 7 years have passed since the law was signed, and in those 7 years Conservatives haven't come up with a single replacement plan, even though they voted to repeal Obamacare 60+ times. So all that means is that Conservatives are full of shit. And if they're full of shit on this subject, it's highly likely they're full of shit on most everything else.

 

[The Derp]

The more money at their disposal the more they have to invest in R&D.

If there is no demand, why would a business invest anything? You understand that, right? The difference between revenue and profit? You can increase your profit while not increasing your revenue. That doesn't mean your company is more successful. It just means it's more profitable, and that you've cut expenses. If revenues remain stagnant because of a lack of consumer demand, why would any business expand, tax cut or not?

I do hate having to educate right-wing goofballs on the fundamentals of a consumer economy, but here we are:

Profit = Tax Rate x (Revenue - Expenses).

In no case would Profit be < $0 unless the tax rate was 100% or expenses > revenues.

So if you cut the tax rate, you're increasing your profit, but you're not increasing your revenues. And if your revenues don't increase, then that means there's no demand to fill, and as such, no need to expand or "invest".

What you all have failed to do is explain how a cut to corporate income tax translates to increased consumer demand. I'll save you the time: IT DOESN'T.

 

[The Derp]

Yes, after they bitched for 7 years they had nothing.

Exactly. They are full of shit, and they know it. Anyone left still arguing on their behalf does so either because they're stupid, or they're following orders.

 

[The Derp]

So you admit that ObamaCare has failed, seeing as how Obama himself said the average family would see a savings of $2500 a year.

Ummm, they do save an average of $2,500 a year. In fact, one of your fellow barnyard animals, Julie Boonstra, tried to make the claim that Obamacare failed her. So convinced she was of this that she starred in several Koch-produced ads attacking Obamacare. Those ads claimed her costs increased because of Obamacare. Well guess what? Like all Conservatives, she was full of shit. Not only did Obamacare no increase her costs, but she actually ended up saving...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...$2,500 thanks to the Obamacare subsidies. When confronted with these facts, she literally said "I choose not to believe them".

So that's where we are at with the pondscum; they simply cannot accept facts that shatter the carefully constructed fake world in which they live.

Obamacare did exactly what it was supposed to do; expose for-profit health insurance for the fucking rip-off it is.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Lowering the corporate tax rate may reduce expansion in some cases as it would lower the incentive to invest instead of pay taxes.

Also, businesses don't expand because their income tax rate is reduced. Businesses only expand when their revenues grow, because that is how demand for their product or service is measured. A company can increase its profits, but not see its revenues increase. They accomplish this by cutting expenses, namely labor and/or benefits, for the benefit of increasing the profit for the owner and/or majority shareholders/Board of Directors.

The equation is:

Profit = Tax Rate x (Revenue - Expenses)

In no case would Profit < 0 unless the Tax Rate was 100% or Expenses > Revenues.

Cutting the Tax Rate does not increase the Revenues. This distinction needs to be made because Conservatives are deliberately trying to muddy the waters because their economic policy sucks balls.

They don't understand that demand is what drives an economy. When you buy a song the artist makes maybe $1.50 per song, minus expenses as you note. Only if the demand is great does the artist make a lot of money. Aerosmith released a new album a couple years ago, no demand and they only sold maybe 10,000 albums. When their music was in demand they sold millions. No demand, no sales.

You give a tax break to the poor and middle class though and you DO drive up demand for products because these people spend money which drives the economy.

 

[The Derp]

Again you economic and history boob

I broke the Russian troll for sure.

 

[The Derp]

give a tax break to the poor and middle class though and you DO drive up demand for products because these people spend money which drives the economy.

Or, you can just raise everyone's wages so we don't have to deal with the budget issues that come from cutting taxes.

But your larger point is correct.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Reagan nearly doubled the federal income.

No, he didn't.

From the Tax Policy Center:

Receipts (in billions, 2009 Current dollars)
1981: $599.3
1988: $909.2

$991.1 - $599.3 = $309.9

$309.9/$599.3 = 52% growth, not 100% growth. Not even "nearly" 100% growth.

By contrast, Clinton took office in 1993, raised taxes, and federal revenues went from $1,154.3 up to $2,025 by 2000.

$2,025 - $1,154 = $871

$871/$1,154 = 75%

By contrast, Obama took office in 2009, let some tax cuts expire, and federal revenues went from $2,105 in 2009 to $3,335 through 2016.

$3,335 - $2,105 = $1,230

$1,230/$2,105 = 58%

So Clinton and Obama both grew federal revenues more than Reagan.

Your claim is factually incorrect. And because your argument hinges on this claim, the whole fucking thing unravels once the stray thread is pulled.

You trying to hurt their heads with math!? WTH man!

Like drumpf they prefer pictures. Math and reading is WORK.

 

[JQPublic1]

I have news for the ultimate business man of all time, El Dumpster. Handing corporations money through tax cuts do not create jobs. Corporations hire people when they have a need.

If you want to create jobs, increase the demand for the products corporations supply. You do that by cutting taxes for the the middle & lower class people. They will spend that money & thereby increase demand.

If you want to bring those overseas corporate profits, end the tax break that said those profits aren't taxed until they bring them home.

Then, consider how much money Trump will profit from this tax break. Conflict of interest.

This tax break will not help struggling companies that make no or little profit.

It will actually reduce some investments. Corporatioins buying equipment, etc get a tax write off worth 35% & now that write off is only worth 15%.

'Trump is only helping himself.

Why is allowing people who EARN money to keep it, considered handing people money? What of my money is considered your money?

View attachment 123411 View attachment 123412

Your money? You do not even own your body. If you commit a crime it belongs to the justice system. When you die you aren't dead until the state says so. After that, anything you thought you owned, including your puny dick, is put in the ground to rot or dispursed to your loving family.

Now hear this: You also own part of the national debt, fule. And if you think you own your tax dollars after you send that check to the IRS,"chuckle" heh heh heh, try not sending it next year. You tell 'em that its YOUR money
and you ain't paying. Can ya do that for me?
Promise?

 

[Indeependent]

Lowering the corporate tax rate may reduce expansion in some cases as it would lower the incentive to invest instead of pay taxes.

Also, businesses don't expand because their income tax rate is reduced. Businesses only expand when their revenues grow, because that is how demand for their product or service is measured. A company can increase its profits, but not see its revenues increase. They accomplish this by cutting expenses, namely labor and/or benefits, for the benefit of increasing the profit for the owner and/or majority shareholders/Board of Directors.

The equation is:

Profit = Tax Rate x (Revenue - Expenses)

In no case would Profit < 0 unless the Tax Rate was 100% or Expenses > Revenues.

Cutting the Tax Rate does not increase the Revenues. This distinction needs to be made because Conservatives are deliberately trying to muddy the waters because their economic policy sucks balls.

They don't understand that demand is what drives an economy. When you buy a song the artist makes maybe $1.50 per song, minus expenses as you note. Only if the demand is great does the artist make a lot of money. Aerosmith released a new album a couple years ago, no demand and they only sold maybe 10,000 albums. When their music was in demand they sold millions. No demand, no sales.

You give a tax break to the poor and middle class though and you DO drive up demand for products because these people spend money which drives the economy.

The question is, the demand for what?
The poor on Long Island own houses, large screen TVs and Smart Phones.
Not everyone has air conditioning and 99 cent stores are popping up everywhere.
What exactly do the poor want?

Granted, this spectrum of the poor may not fair so well in certain Red States, but what do the poor want?