So when Trump's tax reform passes the Senate this afternoon...

[jc456]

Nothing you posted even resembled the truth. The idea that the Chocolate Messiah had anything to do with our current magnificent economy is just, well, retarded.

The only reason the stock market had gains under Obama was because of the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing. I know that's a $10 phrase, so if you don't know how it worked, look it up. The employment figures under Obama were dismal. They changed the whole way they looked at the numbers, and even quit counting those who had fallen through the cracks and quit looking for work. Food stamp usage was at an all-time high, which shows how little Obama really did for black folks. The mean income for the average American family also dropped something like $4,000 during his terms.

Get a clue. I suspect that you'll be crying in your milk this evening, after the plan is passed.

Well you have one thing right, Obama had nothing to do with it just like Trump does not.

As for the rest of your parroted talking points...well damn boy I hope you did not get too much kool aid on your shirt.

First off, QE is still going on, so any gains you attribute to Trump are supported by QE as well.
Second, the job numbers under Trump are counted in the exact same way as they were under Obama. Nothing has changed.
The number of people on foodstamps peaked in 2013 and has been coming down ever since.
Here is what the mean household income has done since 1965..notice nothing has gone down.

Basically every point you made is just pure bull shit.

View attachment 163654

well actually trump does. see there has been absolutely no legislative changes that drove the market where it is. It was the deregulation of the EOs that trump canceled that drove that. and the outlook of his agenda. so, perhaps you should actually know what you're talking about once.

Not sure the guy with his head up Trump's ass should be pointing any fingers.
But since you claim to know what you are talking about, list the regulations that are gone since Trump took office and how they have impacted the market.

dude, do you know how many of them there are? too funny. yeah I'll list em for you, not. fk go read on the internet the number. Lazy fk.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nothing you posted even resembled the truth. The idea that the Chocolate Messiah had anything to do with our current magnificent economy is just, well, retarded.

The only reason the stock market had gains under Obama was because of the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing. I know that's a $10 phrase, so if you don't know how it worked, look it up. The employment figures under Obama were dismal. They changed the whole way they looked at the numbers, and even quit counting those who had fallen through the cracks and quit looking for work. Food stamp usage was at an all-time high, which shows how little Obama really did for black folks. The mean income for the average American family also dropped something like $4,000 during his terms.

Get a clue. I suspect that you'll be crying in your milk this evening, after the plan is passed.

Well you have one thing right, Obama had nothing to do with it just like Trump does not.

As for the rest of your parroted talking points...well damn boy I hope you did not get too much kool aid on your shirt.

First off, QE is still going on, so any gains you attribute to Trump are supported by QE as well.
Second, the job numbers under Trump are counted in the exact same way as they were under Obama. Nothing has changed.
The number of people on foodstamps peaked in 2013 and has been coming down ever since.
Here is what the mean household income has done since 1965..notice nothing has gone down.

Basically every point you made is just pure bull shit.

View attachment 163654

well actually trump does. see there has been absolutely no legislative changes that drove the market where it is. It was the deregulation of the EOs that trump canceled that drove that. and the outlook of his agenda. so, perhaps you should actually know what you're talking about once.

Not sure the guy with his head up Trump's ass should be pointing any fingers.
But since you claim to know what you are talking about, list the regulations that are gone since Trump took office and how they have impacted the market.

dude, do you know how many of them there are? too funny. yeah I'll list em for you, not. fk go read on the internet the number. Lazy fk.

Yes, I do know how many there are, that is why I asked you to list them as I know you would have no clue. Thanks for proving me right!

 

[jc456]

Nothing you posted even resembled the truth. The idea that the Chocolate Messiah had anything to do with our current magnificent economy is just, well, retarded.

The only reason the stock market had gains under Obama was because of the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing. I know that's a $10 phrase, so if you don't know how it worked, look it up. The employment figures under Obama were dismal. They changed the whole way they looked at the numbers, and even quit counting those who had fallen through the cracks and quit looking for work. Food stamp usage was at an all-time high, which shows how little Obama really did for black folks. The mean income for the average American family also dropped something like $4,000 during his terms.

Get a clue. I suspect that you'll be crying in your milk this evening, after the plan is passed.

Well you have one thing right, Obama had nothing to do with it just like Trump does not.

As for the rest of your parroted talking points...well damn boy I hope you did not get too much kool aid on your shirt.

First off, QE is still going on, so any gains you attribute to Trump are supported by QE as well.
Second, the job numbers under Trump are counted in the exact same way as they were under Obama. Nothing has changed.
The number of people on foodstamps peaked in 2013 and has been coming down ever since.
Here is what the mean household income has done since 1965..notice nothing has gone down.

Basically every point you made is just pure bull shit.

View attachment 163654

well actually trump does. see there has been absolutely no legislative changes that drove the market where it is. It was the deregulation of the EOs that trump canceled that drove that. and the outlook of his agenda. so, perhaps you should actually know what you're talking about once.

Not sure the guy with his head up Trump's ass should be pointing any fingers.
But since you claim to know what you are talking about, list the regulations that are gone since Trump took office and how they have impacted the market.

dude, do you know how many of them there are? too funny. yeah I'll list em for you, not. fk go read on the internet the number. Lazy fk.

Yes, I do know how many there are, that is why I asked you to list them as I know you would have no clue. Thanks for proving me right!

too funny, you know they're there, you know he canceled them and now you feel it's my obligation to list them for you? Dude who's fking poop have you been injesting?

 

[jc456]

Of course, if the Internet Bubble had continued for another decade, the surpluses would have continued.

There was a surplus in 2001 after the dotcom bubble had already burst. You shitheads erased that surplus by 2002 and turned it into the first of three record deficits by 2003. Even with the dotcom bubble burst, the recession, and 9/11, there was still a surplus for 2001. One you dolts removed when you cut taxes.

As usual, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and are lying your fat ass off.

Yup, the unsustainable Internet Bubble burst.

The internet bubble caused by your Capital Gains Tax Cut. And here's the thing, even with the Internet Bubble burst, 9/11, and the recession, 2001 still had a surplus. You removed that surplus by 2002 when you cut taxes. And growth? LOL!

Dems should run in 2018 and 2020 on a promise to hike taxes to pay for those things.Or maybe they should run on slashing spending to pay for them?

They're not going to need to because Trump's plan is going to cause another housing collapse and all the Conservatives will be flushed out of Congress because of it...just like they were flushed out the last time they tanked the housing market. Maybe this time, it'll take.

There was a surplus in 2001 after the dotcom bubble had already burst.

Economies are like oil tankers. They turn slowly.
Unemployment takes a while to rise in a downturn, takes a while to fall in a recovery.

The internet bubble caused by your Capital Gains Tax Cut.

Clinton's great GDP and budget performance were due to the long term cap gains cut in 1997?

Your best post ever.

what's even funnier than that picture is you have fking no idea what it says. LOL

 

[The Derp]

This can't be the first time you've heard that employment is a lagging indicator......

Employment? You were maintaining economic contraction. Now you're trying to jump to a non-sequitur in order to obfuscate the fact that you were wrong. The only time Bush's economy formally "contracted" prior to 2008 was in 2001, and even with that, GDP growth was positive and we had a surplus.

You're saying it took two years after the dotcom bubble burst for the effects to be felt in the eocnomy, and that's why the 2001 surplus was turned into a deficit by 2002, and a record deficit by 2003? That boat don't float, pal!

The NBER dates the start of the recession as December 2007.

So now you're jumping all over the place in an attempt to obfuscate the debate. Your original claim was that because of the dotcom bubble that burst in 2000, that resulted in a record deficit by 2003. But you haven't made that connection between the dotcom bubble bursting and the 2003 record deficit, mostly because it's bullshit and you know it.

Clinton's economy did well because of tax hikes?
That's stupid, even for you..

Nope. It's the truth. Deal with it, zealot.

Raising the corporate rate from 34% to 35% forced businesses to invest?.

Who said that's the rate changes? Now you're just obfuscating the debate further because you're simply not informed enough on this topic to speak intelligently about it. What a disappointment.

 

[The Derp]

All this bill will do is add to the debt, with deleterious effects to the American economy.

The stench of hypocrisy is all over the pseudocons once again.

This bill will assuredly cause another housing crisis because it eliminates the deductions for housing that are built into home prices. If home prices drop, that triggers a housing crisis, which triggers a recession, which triggers job loss...we know because we just went through this shit 8 years ago when home prices dropped because of foreclosures. If this tax plan passes, they will drop because Conservatives removed those deductions. Maybe we need to have another housing crisis to remind Americans how shitty Conservatives are, and we can have a repeat of what happened in the 2008 election and flush the Conservatives out. Only in 2020, Democrats won't run a nice guy who pays lip service to compromise...they'll run a "nasty woman" who won't take it easy on the Conservative frauds.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This can't be the first time you've heard that employment is a lagging indicator......

Employment? You were maintaining economic contraction. Now you're trying to jump to a non-sequitur in order to obfuscate the fact that you were wrong. The only time Bush's economy formally "contracted" prior to 2008 was in 2001, and even with that, GDP growth was positive and we had a surplus.

You're saying it took two years after the dotcom bubble burst for the effects to be felt in the eocnomy, and that's why the 2001 surplus was turned into a deficit by 2002, and a record deficit by 2003? That boat don't float, pal!

The NBER dates the start of the recession as December 2007.

So now you're jumping all over the place in an attempt to obfuscate the debate. Your original claim was that because of the dotcom bubble that burst in 2000, that resulted in a record deficit by 2003. But you haven't made that connection between the dotcom bubble bursting and the 2003 record deficit, mostly because it's bullshit and you know it.

Clinton's economy did well because of tax hikes?
That's stupid, even for you..

Nope. It's the truth. Deal with it, zealot.

Raising the corporate rate from 34% to 35% forced businesses to invest?.

Who said that's the rate changes? Now you're just obfuscating the debate further because you're simply not informed enough on this topic to speak intelligently about it. What a disappointment.

Employment? You were maintaining economic contraction.

The economy contracted. The Internet Bubble burst. Employment fell.

The only time Bush's economy formally "contracted" prior to 2008 was in 2001, and even with that, GDP growth was positive and we had a surplus.

Yup. And total non-farm employment peaked at 132,751,000 in March 2001.
Employment fell steadily until August 2003 when it hit 130,178,000.
See what I mean about lagging? Not every failing Internet company immediately laid off all their employees by March 2001, even though the Nasdaq was down 64% from its peak by then.

You're saying it took two years after the dotcom bubble burst for the effects to be felt in the economy.

No. The effects were felt sooner than that.

that's why the 2001 surplus was turned into a deficit by 2002, and a record deficit by 2003?

Between January 2001 and December 2002, employment fell 2.2 million.
Does that impact revenues? How about the collapse of capital gains receipts?

Nope. It's the truth.

The idea that the Clinton economy did well because he hiked rates is one of the dumbest claims you've ever made. And thinking back on your history of idiocy....that's saying something!!!

Raising the corporate rate from 34% to 35% forced businesses to invest?​

​

Who said that's the rate changes? ​

That was the Clinton corporate tax change, moron.​

 

[The Derp]

The economy contracted. The Internet Bubble burst. Employment fell.

Briefly, yes, in 2001. But then the economy ceased contracting by November 2001. Bush would then go on to lose 800,000+ net private sector jobs by 2004. You'e saying the internet bubble burst was the cause of the three year unemployment lagging indicator and that's a load of horseshit because it wouldn't take 3 years for employment to grow after the mild 2001 recession.

Yup. And total non-farm employment peaked at 132,751,000 in March 2001.

Then went to lose 800,000 jobs by 2004. Your chart is also deliberately skewed. Bush took office January 2001, not January 2000. So your chart should start with January 2001, not January 2000. You did that on purpose to make it look like Bush created more jobs than he actually did.

From January 2001 to January 2005, Bush only created net 89,000 jobs. That's it. And that's only because the mortgage bubble had started in 2004. The same mortgage bubble you blame on Democrats, which conversely means the growth is attributed to Democrats.

Employment fell steadily until August 2003 when it hit 130,178,000.
See what I mean about lagging? Not every failing Internet company immediately laid off all their employees by March 2001, even though the Nasdaq was down 64% from its peak by then.

You're saying companies were still laying people off because of the 2001 recession by 2003? That's bullshit.

No. The effects were felt sooner than that..

So you say. But you don't explain how. We just have to take your word for it. Why?

Between January 2001 and December 2002, employment fell 2.2 million.Does that impact revenues? How about the collapse of capital gains receipts?

It doesn't impact revenues as much as cutting revenues. Besides, the Bush Tax Cuts were sold that they would pay for themselves. They didn't.

The idea that the Clinton economy did well because he hiked rates is one of the dumbest claims you've ever made. And thinking back on your history of idiocy....that's saying something!!!

Clinton raised taxes, which led to growth in the economy. You haven't been able to tie that growth to anything other than the tax increase. Higher taxes mean more investment to avoid paying corporate income tax. That's econ 101.

That was the Clinton corporate tax change, moron.

Long-term Capital Gains taxes went from 28% to 20%, not 35% to 34%.

 

[g5000]

Nothing you posted even resembled the truth. The idea that the Chocolate Messiah had anything to do with our current magnificent economy is just, well, retarded.

The only reason the stock market had gains under Obama was because of the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing. I know that's a $10 phrase, so if you don't know how it worked, look it up. The employment figures under Obama were dismal. They changed the whole way they looked at the numbers, and even quit counting those who had fallen through the cracks and quit looking for work. Food stamp usage was at an all-time high, which shows how little Obama really did for black folks. The mean income for the average American family also dropped something like $4,000 during his terms.

Get a clue. I suspect that you'll be crying in your milk this evening, after the plan is passed.

Well you have one thing right, Obama had nothing to do with it just like Trump does not.

As for the rest of your parroted talking points...well damn boy I hope you did not get too much kool aid on your shirt.

First off, QE is still going on, so any gains you attribute to Trump are supported by QE as well.
Second, the job numbers under Trump are counted in the exact same way as they were under Obama. Nothing has changed.
The number of people on foodstamps peaked in 2013 and has been coming down ever since.
Here is what the mean household income has done since 1965..notice nothing has gone down.

Basically every point you made is just pure bull shit.

View attachment 163654

well actually trump does. see there has been absolutely no legislative changes that drove the market where it is. It was the deregulation of the EOs that trump canceled that drove that. and the outlook of his agenda. so, perhaps you should actually know what you're talking about once.

Not sure the guy with his head up Trump's ass should be pointing any fingers.
But since you claim to know what you are talking about, list the regulations that are gone since Trump took office and how they have impacted the market.

dude, do you know how many of them there are? too funny. yeah I'll list em for you, not. fk go read on the internet the number. Lazy fk.

You made the claim. Support your bullshit with evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The economy contracted. The Internet Bubble burst. Employment fell.

Briefly, yes, in 2001. But then the economy ceased contracting by November 2001. Bush would then go on to lose 800,000+ net private sector jobs by 2004. You'e saying the internet bubble burst was the cause of the three year unemployment lagging indicator and that's a load of horseshit because it wouldn't take 3 years for employment to grow after the mild 2001 recession.

Yup. And total non-farm employment peaked at 132,751,000 in March 2001.

Then went to lose 800,000 jobs by 2004. Your chart is also deliberately skewed. Bush took office January 2001, not January 2000. So your chart should start with January 2001, not January 2000. You did that on purpose to make it look like Bush created more jobs than he actually did.

From January 2001 to January 2005, Bush only created net 89,000 jobs. That's it. And that's only because the mortgage bubble had started in 2004. The same mortgage bubble you blame on Democrats, which conversely means the growth is attributed to Democrats.

Employment fell steadily until August 2003 when it hit 130,178,000.
See what I mean about lagging? Not every failing Internet company immediately laid off all their employees by March 2001, even though the Nasdaq was down 64% from its peak by then.

You're saying companies were still laying people off because of the 2001 recession by 2003? That's bullshit.

No. The effects were felt sooner than that..

So you say. But you don't explain how. We just have to take your word for it. Why?

Between January 2001 and December 2002, employment fell 2.2 million.Does that impact revenues? How about the collapse of capital gains receipts?

It doesn't impact revenues as much as cutting revenues. Besides, the Bush Tax Cuts were sold that they would pay for themselves. They didn't.

The idea that the Clinton economy did well because he hiked rates is one of the dumbest claims you've ever made. And thinking back on your history of idiocy....that's saying something!!!

Clinton raised taxes, which led to growth in the economy. You haven't been able to tie that growth to anything other than the tax increase. Higher taxes mean more investment to avoid paying corporate income tax. That's econ 101.

That was the Clinton corporate tax change, moron.

Long-term Capital Gains taxes went from 28% to 20%, not 35% to 34%.

But then the economy ceased contracting by November 2001.

And employment continued falling. Lagging indicator.

Bush would then go on to lose 800,000+ net private sector jobs by 2004.

Obama's economy ceased contracting by June 2009.
Obama would then go on to lose 1,100,000+ net private sector jobs by 2010.

your chart should start with January 2001, not January 2000. You did that on purpose to make it look like Bush created more jobs than he actually did.

Since I didn't use any numbers from 2000, you're mistaken.

The same mortgage bubble you blame on Democrats, which conversely means the growth is attributed to Democrats.

Democrats were to blame for expanding CRA. Bush was to blame for jumping on the low income homeowner bandwagon. Investors were to blame for chasing yield and throwing money at crappy MBS. Home buyers and investors were to blame for thinking the bubble would continue. Foreign investors were to blame for thinking Fannie/Freddie MBS were as good as Treasuries.......I could go on if you'd like.

So you say. But you don't explain how. We just have to take your word for it.

Employment fell, cap gains revenues fell, no need to take my word for it.

 

[jc456]

Nothing you posted even resembled the truth. The idea that the Chocolate Messiah had anything to do with our current magnificent economy is just, well, retarded.

The only reason the stock market had gains under Obama was because of the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing. I know that's a $10 phrase, so if you don't know how it worked, look it up. The employment figures under Obama were dismal. They changed the whole way they looked at the numbers, and even quit counting those who had fallen through the cracks and quit looking for work. Food stamp usage was at an all-time high, which shows how little Obama really did for black folks. The mean income for the average American family also dropped something like $4,000 during his terms.

Get a clue. I suspect that you'll be crying in your milk this evening, after the plan is passed.

Well you have one thing right, Obama had nothing to do with it just like Trump does not.

As for the rest of your parroted talking points...well damn boy I hope you did not get too much kool aid on your shirt.

First off, QE is still going on, so any gains you attribute to Trump are supported by QE as well.
Second, the job numbers under Trump are counted in the exact same way as they were under Obama. Nothing has changed.
The number of people on foodstamps peaked in 2013 and has been coming down ever since.
Here is what the mean household income has done since 1965..notice nothing has gone down.

Basically every point you made is just pure bull shit.

View attachment 163654

well actually trump does. see there has been absolutely no legislative changes that drove the market where it is. It was the deregulation of the EOs that trump canceled that drove that. and the outlook of his agenda. so, perhaps you should actually know what you're talking about once.

Not sure the guy with his head up Trump's ass should be pointing any fingers.
But since you claim to know what you are talking about, list the regulations that are gone since Trump took office and how they have impacted the market.

dude, do you know how many of them there are? too funny. yeah I'll list em for you, not. fk go read on the internet the number. Lazy fk.

You made the claim. Support your bullshit with evidence.

when you post some evidence that Moore molested a child. tick tock.

Just look at the EPA if you need one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The economy contracted. The Internet Bubble burst. Employment fell.

Briefly, yes, in 2001. But then the economy ceased contracting by November 2001. Bush would then go on to lose 800,000+ net private sector jobs by 2004. You'e saying the internet bubble burst was the cause of the three year unemployment lagging indicator and that's a load of horseshit because it wouldn't take 3 years for employment to grow after the mild 2001 recession.

Yup. And total non-farm employment peaked at 132,751,000 in March 2001.

Then went to lose 800,000 jobs by 2004. Your chart is also deliberately skewed. Bush took office January 2001, not January 2000. So your chart should start with January 2001, not January 2000. You did that on purpose to make it look like Bush created more jobs than he actually did.

From January 2001 to January 2005, Bush only created net 89,000 jobs. That's it. And that's only because the mortgage bubble had started in 2004. The same mortgage bubble you blame on Democrats, which conversely means the growth is attributed to Democrats.

Employment fell steadily until August 2003 when it hit 130,178,000.
See what I mean about lagging? Not every failing Internet company immediately laid off all their employees by March 2001, even though the Nasdaq was down 64% from its peak by then.

You're saying companies were still laying people off because of the 2001 recession by 2003? That's bullshit.

No. The effects were felt sooner than that..

So you say. But you don't explain how. We just have to take your word for it. Why?

Between January 2001 and December 2002, employment fell 2.2 million.Does that impact revenues? How about the collapse of capital gains receipts?

It doesn't impact revenues as much as cutting revenues. Besides, the Bush Tax Cuts were sold that they would pay for themselves. They didn't.

The idea that the Clinton economy did well because he hiked rates is one of the dumbest claims you've ever made. And thinking back on your history of idiocy....that's saying something!!!

Clinton raised taxes, which led to growth in the economy. You haven't been able to tie that growth to anything other than the tax increase. Higher taxes mean more investment to avoid paying corporate income tax. That's econ 101.

That was the Clinton corporate tax change, moron.

Long-term Capital Gains taxes went from 28% to 20%, not 35% to 34%.

Clinton raised taxes, which led to growth in the economy.

Hilarious!! How? Walk through the logic......

You haven't been able to tie that growth to anything other than the tax increase.

Internet Bubble.

Higher taxes mean more investment to avoid paying corporate income tax.

Right, because when someone looks to start a new business or expand an existing business, they always look for the highest tax jurisdiction to invest in to "avoid paying corporate income tax". DURR!

Long-term Capital Gains taxes went from 28% to 20%, not 35% to 34%.

Corporate taxes went up to 35%.

 

[sedwin]

...will the Democrat Party forever be remembered as the party who refused to give working-class Americans a break?

I think so. Their opposition to the greatest thing working-class America needs, will forever be worn around the necks of those who were against it.

Like a dead, putrid albatross.

Bwahahaaaa! Indeed. Republican's feel the Hobbits and Dwarves shouldn't have attacked Smaug for his giant pile of stolen gold he used to sleep on....they should have lowered his taxes, instead. They do not believe Robin Hood should have taken back Prince John's giant pile of gold he hoarded in his treasure room...they should have lowered his taxes, instead. Truly, the Republican's support every single antagonist in moral history and hate every single protagonist. Greed and injustice are now, and always has been, the motto of the conservative, criminal, elite.

 

[The Derp]

Hilarious!! How? Walk through the logic......

Raising taxes increases investment because income is taxed, not reinvestment into the company. So in order to avoid a tax burden, the company expands to meet increased demand, that led to increased revenues and profits in the first place. A higher corporate tax rate (and individual rate) forces those people to avoid taxes by reinvestment. Which is what happened through the 90's.

Internet Bubble.

Which didn't start for how many years? Clinton's economy was growing beginning in 1993. The internet "bubble" didn't appear as we know it until Capital Gains taxes were cut in 1997. So there's four years of growth you're not accounting for because doing so ruins the false narrative you're pushing.

1993: 2.7% growth
1994: 4.0% growth
1995: 2.7% growth
1996: 3.8% growth

This comes after:

1992: 3.6%
1991: -0.1%
1990: 1.9%
1989: 3.7%

So no, the internet bubble that started in 1997 wasn't what caused growth when growth was already averaging more than the 4 years preceding the tax hike.

Right, because when someone looks to start a new business or expand an existing business, they always look for the highest tax jurisdiction to invest in to "avoid paying corporate income tax". DURR!

No, and this is the fundamental problem with everything you believe. Businesses don't grow or contract based on the tax rate, they grow and contract based on demand. Demand isn't increased by giving corporations and the rich a tax break, as has been proven time and time again, most recently in the last 15 years nationally (Bush Tax Cuts) and locally (Brownback Tax Cuts). Demand comes from higher wages. A tax cut doesn't increase wages, it just increases after-tax income and it barely does so for most consumers, particularly in this shit tax plan you're supporting.

Corporate taxes went up to 35%.

So business taxes went up and holy cow, Clinton's economy hummed along! So thanks for proving that raising corporate taxes doesn't harm economic growth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...will the Democrat Party forever be remembered as the party who refused to give working-class Americans a break?

I think so. Their opposition to the greatest thing working-class America needs, will forever be worn around the necks of those who were against it.

Like a dead, putrid albatross.

Bwahahaaaa! Indeed. Republican's feel the Hobbits and Dwarves shouldn't have attacked Smaug for his giant pile of stolen gold he used to sleep on....they should have lowered his taxes, instead. They do not believe Robin Hood should have taken back Prince John's giant pile of gold he hoarded in his treasure room...they should have lowered his taxes, instead. Truly, the Republican's support every single antagonist in moral history and hate every single protagonist. Greed and injustice are now, and always has been, the motto of the conservative, criminal, elite.

Republican's feel the Hobbits and Dwarves shouldn't have attacked Smaug for his giant pile of stolen gold he used to sleep on....they should have lowered his taxes, instead.

Corporations stole their profits? Tell me more, comrade.

They do not believe Robin Hood should have taken back Prince John's giant pile of gold he hoarded in his treasure room...they should have lowered his taxes, instead.

Ummmm...Robin Hood robbed the tax collector and gave money back to tay payers. Idjit!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hilarious!! How? Walk through the logic......

Raising taxes increases investment because income is taxed, not reinvestment into the company. So in order to avoid a tax burden, the company expands to meet increased demand, that led to increased revenues and profits in the first place. A higher corporate tax rate (and individual rate) forces those people to avoid taxes by reinvestment. Which is what happened through the 90's.

Internet Bubble.

Which didn't start for how many years? Clinton's economy was growing beginning in 1993. The internet "bubble" didn't appear as we know it until Capital Gains taxes were cut in 1997. So there's four years of growth you're not accounting for because doing so ruins the false narrative you're pushing.

1993: 2.7% growth
1994: 4.0% growth
1995: 2.7% growth
1996: 3.8% growth

This comes after:

1992: 3.6%
1991: -0.1%
1990: 1.9%
1989: 3.7%

So no, the internet bubble that started in 1997 wasn't what caused growth when growth was already averaging more than the 4 years preceding the tax hike.

Right, because when someone looks to start a new business or expand an existing business, they always look for the highest tax jurisdiction to invest in to "avoid paying corporate income tax". DURR!

No, and this is the fundamental problem with everything you believe. Businesses don't grow or contract based on the tax rate, they grow and contract based on demand. Demand isn't increased by giving corporations and the rich a tax break, as has been proven time and time again, most recently in the last 15 years nationally (Bush Tax Cuts) and locally (Brownback Tax Cuts). Demand comes from higher wages. A tax cut doesn't increase wages, it just increases after-tax income and it barely does so for most consumers, particularly in this shit tax plan you're supporting.

Corporate taxes went up to 35%.

So business taxes went up and holy cow, Clinton's economy hummed along! So thanks for proving that raising corporate taxes doesn't harm economic growth.

Raising taxes increases investment because income is taxed,

That's why Ireland did worse after they lowered their corporate tax rate.

Businesses don't grow or contract based on the tax rate, they grow and contract based on demand.

When a business sees increased demand, they run to the highest tax rate environment to invest in. DURR!

 

[The Derp]

That's why Ireland did worse after they lowered their corporate tax rate.

Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than ours and was throughout Obama's term. So they did worse than we did.

When a business sees increased demand, they run to the highest tax rate environment to invest in. DURR!

If a business doesn't expand to meet demand, then the business will end up failing because its competitors will.

 

[toobfreak]

...will the Democrat Party forever be remembered as the party who refused to give working-class Americans a break?

I think so. Their opposition to the greatest thing working-class America needs, will forever be worn around the necks of those who were against it.

Like a dead, putrid albatross.

What break ?

The tax plan is a shell game . Throw some crumbs at the working class while big biz and the rich have a feast.

It’s a bad deal . Shame on the gop for passing this scam .

Agreed. We are so much better off to stick with the DNC Plan, to keep ourselves the highest taxed country in the industrial world. The very idea of throwing crumbs to the middle class who only pays crumbs in the first place while the rich have a feast on getting back a small portion of the massive lion's share of taxes they pay to run the country so that they can invest more here, hire more, and boost the economy to raise everyone's standard of living.

 

[toobfreak]

Raising taxes increases investment because income is taxed,

I had to live to see someone with the itinerant temerity to claim that taking more money out of the economy from business owners leaves them somehow with more money left over to invest in other things to be more greatly taxed as well. Therefore, if we tax business at 100%, then they will have unlimited capital in order to invest!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's why Ireland did worse after they lowered their corporate tax rate.

Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than ours and was throughout Obama's term. So they did worse than we did.

When a business sees increased demand, they run to the highest tax rate environment to invest in. DURR!

If a business doesn't expand to meet demand, then the business will end up failing because its competitors will.

Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than ours and was throughout Obama's term.

Sounds awful!
How does it compare to the time before they cut the corporate rate?

If a business doesn't expand to meet demand, then the business will end up failing because its competitors will.

And where do they expand? A high tax jurisdiction or a low tax jurisdiction?