Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[The Derp]

so do we steal from the rich or help the poor earn their own income without stealing it at liberal gunpoint from the rich?

So how do you "help the poor earn their own income" by giving tax cuts to businesses? How do you get from a lower corporate rate to an increase in worker wages, when the opposite has happened? The fundamental flaw of your core ideological belief is undermining your policy.

 

[The Derp]

I wonder where wages come from?

You do? Well, they don't come from trickle-down, that's your first hint. Wages come out of revenues, not profit. Profit = Tax * (Revenues - Expenses). Wages fall into "Expenses". So as long as your expenses are not greater than revenues, and the tax rate isn't 100%, a business will be profitable so long as there is consumer demand for the product or service that business provides. So the idea of cutting corporate income tax does not result in a shifting of funds from the profit to the expenses, and we can see that in the static wage growth for the majority of workers.

Which is why the economy after Obama raised taxes was so much better than the economy after Reagan cut them in 1983 or Bush cut them in 2003. Durr...

Obama and Bush had the same 8-year GDP growth rate of 1.76%. The difference is that Obama created 11,000,000 net private sector jobs and Bush lost 460,000 net private sector jobs. Also, Obama reduced the deficit from the $1T Bush left it, all the way down to about $400B. Only Obama and Clinton are the last two Presidents from the last 37 years to leave office with a deficit lower than the one they inherited. No Republican can make such a claim. Also, Bush's growth was bolstered by the housing market, which was what eventually crashed the economy. The same housing bubble that Conservatives like to blame on Democrats. Which puts you in quite the pickle; if the subprime bubble is the Democrats' fault, then they get the credit for the growth from that housing bubble Bush enjoyed from 2004-7. Which means you can't credit Bush with the economic growth from that time because you all say the housing bubble that produced said growth is the fault of Democrats. You don't get to take credit for the good news, and pass the bad news off on your political opponents. I mean you can do that, but doing so just makes you look childish.

Correct, I expand it, or start it, because I see the possibility of higher after tax returns.

LOL! And you're working from the assumption that consumer demand will increase because you will it to be so? Give me a freaking break. That's supply-side economic theory, which is just another way to say trickle down, which is just another way to say wealth redistribution to the top.

Why does demand have to increase before? Why can't it increase after?

So that is "supply-side economics", which is what we've been doing since 1980. Again, what you have failed to articulate is how lowering the corporate income tax rate translates to increased consumer spending. You haven't done that because you can't. Basically, what your economic policy boils down to is faith. Which is a shitty thing to base policy on.

Safer, cheaper.....durr.

Not cheaper, much more expensive. To extract coal that way requires a massive, $100M piece of equipment called a "dragline". Also, they take it off mountain tops because the mines have run dry. So the coal that could be cheaply and safely extracted has already been mined.

The market crushed fracking?

Yes, that's why since 2013, about 200 oil and natural gas companies went under with a debt load of $85,000,000,000, or 121 times Solyndra.

Why would fracking be unprofitable? Did the supply increase because of fracking? LOL!

The supply increased so much that the value of natural gas has declined to its lowest level in 20 years. Because of that, all those businesses that got into the shale game did so because of the futures for natural gas. At the time, the futures were far higher than the $2/Mcf natural gas currently goes for. To extract one Mcf of natural gas costs at least $3.50/Mcf because of the production involved. So that's a negative margin. That's why 213 oil and natural gas companies have gone under since 2013, leaving behind $85B in debt.

Yes. All that employment needed for a tiny fraction of energy production.
You're not very good at economics.

The energy production from solar has grown. Since 2005, PVC prices have dropped by more than 50% and solar installations have grown 6,000%.

Right, $12.6 billion in profits, 71,100 employees, $12 billion in dividends paid, over $218 billion in revenues.

Did you see the news this morning? Exxon had to pay a massive fine for thousands of Clean Air Act violations. This, combined with the fact that Exxon knew about climate change in the 70's, yet undertook a sustained campaign to undermine it because if action were taken, profits would decrease. So they're liars, and comparing yourself to them would make you a liar too.

I know, instead of a useful, profitable business, they actually lost money and defaulted on taxpayer loans.Good job!!!

Solyndra = $700M bankruptcy
Oil and Natural Gas since 2013: $85B in total debt from bankruptcies.

If you don't think $700M is less than $85B, then you're stupid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so do we steal from the rich or help the poor earn their own income without stealing it at liberal gunpoint from the rich?

So how do you "help the poor earn their own income" by giving tax cuts to businesses? How do you get from a lower corporate rate to an increase in worker wages, when the opposite has happened? The fundamental flaw of your core ideological belief is undermining your policy.

Oh my God it's back to kindergarten again. If businesses get tax breaks they don't have to move offshore and take their jobs with them. That way people get jobs here and that is considered a good thing

 

[The Derp]

You think jobs decreased because corps could bring back more money?

According to the Wall Street Journal, that is precisely what happened. 20,000 jobs were lost because of that "tax repatriation".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so do we steal from the rich or help the poor earn their own income without stealing it at liberal gunpoint from the rich?

So how do you "help the poor earn their own income" by giving tax cuts to businesses? How do you get from a lower corporate rate to an increase in worker wages, when the opposite has happened? The fundamental flaw of your core ideological belief is undermining your policy.

Trump is proposing to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. He is doing this to keep corporations and jobs here and to build up wages of jobs here. If if corporate taxes are high prices go up to man goes down and the number of jobs goes down. If the number of jobs doesn't go down the wages of those jobs must go down. This is called the law of supply and demand

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so do we steal from the rich or help the poor earn their own income without stealing it at liberal gunpoint from the rich?

So how do you "help the poor earn their own income" by giving tax cuts to businesses? How do you get from a lower corporate rate to an increase in worker wages, when the opposite has happened? The fundamental flaw of your core ideological belief is undermining your policy.

When the opposite happened? So in your backwards goofy liberal world the higher we raise corporate taxes the higher wages will be. 100% stupid and 100% liberal

 

[The Derp]

I know, the lie about redistributing wealth to the wealthy is more obvious when you put it like that.

Don't think you even understand what the word "lie" means. Maybe that's because you're a Russian here on these boards doing Putin's bidding. Trump's book royalties see their tax rate drop from 35% to 15%, which results in revenue drops, which results in expanded deficits, which results in cuts to services the middle class and poor rely on, which results in them spending more out of pocket, taking that demand out of the consumer economy. Meanwhile Trump sees his income increase...is there a requisite increase in demand? No. So all it does is shift the burden to the poor and middle class, while allowing Trump to skate away with more wealth.

Hence, wealth redistribution.

Keep telling yourself that.

Well, you only had 7 years to come up with an Obamacare replacement, and you couldn't. The temper is there, but the policy isn't. Why? Because there is no policy. The GOP has ceased being a party of policy and instead is a party of ideology, facts be damned. Mnuchin was out there yesterday making the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. Like we haven't heard that bullshit enough since 1980.

People hate it when they get to keep more of their money. Oh, wait, they love it! Never mind.

LOL! Tax cuts increased household debt. So people aren't keeping more of their money from tax cuts, they're spending more because the burdens have shifted onto them.

 

[The Derp]

If businesses get tax breaks they don't have to move offshore and take their jobs with them.

They're not moving offshore because of taxes, they're moving offshore because they can pay Chinese workers in one day what they pay American workers in one hour. So the only way you bring those jobs back is to force American workers to work for the same wage and in the same conditions their Chinese counterparts do. And that ain't happening.

Taxes have nothing to do with it. It's all about globalized wages.

 

[The Derp]

Trump is proposing to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. He is doing this to keep corporations and jobs here and to build up wages of jobs here.

So the corporate income tax rate has nothing to do with wages. Profits = Taxes x (Revenues - Expenses). You seem to be arguing that if you decrease "Taxes", you raise "Expenses" (which is what wages fall under). And no business ever has done such a thing, nor would they, because their goal is to maximize "Profit". Never have wages for most workers risen as corporate taxes fall. And you can see that in the static median weekly wage growth since the start of trickle-down.

 

[The Derp]

When the opposite happened? So in your backwards goofy liberal world the higher we raise corporate taxes the higher wages will be. 100% stupid and 100% liberal

Right now, the average effective corporate tax rate is about 12.4%. The average effective tax rate for individuals is about 17%. So if corporations are people, shouldn't they be taxed like people?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So if the median wage is currently $950 a week and everybody making $960 or more gets a 100% raise, what happens to the median wage? What happens to the average wage?

But they haven't gotten a 100% raise. So all you're doing is spinning your wheels because the reality of what happened was something different than what you're imagining in your hypothetical scenario. Let's not deal in hypotheticals, let's deal in actual facts. And the actual facts show that the median weekly wage (majority of US workers) has not increased since the start of Voodoo economics.

You never did tell me, is everyone who points out your idiocy a Russian, or are they just a subset of those who point out your idiocy?

A) You haven't pointed out anything, so don't give yourself credit you don't deserve.
B) Until we know for sure of the full scope and scale of Russian infiltration of the American political right, we have to work from the assumption that anyone on the internet pushing the right's agenda is doing so because that agenda is really Russia's.

But they haven't gotten a 100% raise.

If they did, what happens to the median wage? What happens to the average wage?
Pretend it's a quiz question from the econ and math classes you failed.

Let's not deal in hypotheticals, let's deal in actual facts. And the actual facts show that the median weekly wage (majority of US workers) has not increased since the start of Voodoo economics.

If you understood mean and median, you'd understand the weakness of your argument.
For instance, the majority of workers don't make the median wage.

Until we know for sure of the full scope and scale of Russian infiltration of the American political right

Are Americans who honeymooned in the USSR "on the right"?

we have to work from the assumption that anyone on the internet pushing the right's agenda is doing so because that agenda is really Russia's.

I think Putin should pull his troops out of Ukraine.
Does that mean I'm not on the right? Or that I'm not Russian?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have a word I should use instead? Please share. We are talking about business taxes after all.

No, you should just clarify what you mean, that's all.

Well golly, I can buy new equipment to increase my business, can't I?
I could hire some more employees with that extra after tax profit, eh?
I can reduce my cost per unit with the increased possible production, right?

Why would you do any of that if there is no increased demand? This is the step #2 that Conservatives never seem to articulate, how cutting taxes for corporations (or the rich) leads to increased demand.

Step 1: Cut taxes
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Growth

It's like an even dumber version of the Underpants Gnomes. You don't expand a business just because, you expand a business if there is demand for what your business produces. So why would you open another store, hire more workers, or buy more equipment if there's no requisite increase for demand? Try going into a bank to get a loan to expand your business with static (or declining) revenue numbers. You won't get the loan. You'll get laughed out of the bank and have to turn to Russian financiers.

So why wasn't my revenue increasing?

Because there's no increase in consumer demand because consumers haven't seen wages rise to increase demand.

Gee willikers, I just hired more people to use my newly purchased equipment.
The equipment maker hired more as well. I also just bought a spiffy new car for
my wife.....dammit, now the automakers had to hire more people. Bastards!!!

Why would you hire anyone if there's no increased demand for your product? You would be hiring people, making equipment purchases, etc. that go to serve a demand that isn't there.

It's just supply-side, voodoo, trickle-down economics by another name. Hasn't worked in 37 years, so there's no reason to believe it will start working now.

Why would you do any of that if there is no increased demand?

Because I can do it better, cheaper and more profitably than my competitors.
Don't you know how business works?

This is the step #2 that Conservatives never seem to articulate, how cutting taxes for corporations (or the rich) leads to increased demand.

Step 1: Cut taxes
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Growth

This is the step #2 that Liberals never seem to articulate, how raising taxes for corporations (or the rich) leads to increased demand.

Step 1: Raise taxes
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Growth

You don't expand a business just because

Of course not, you expand because your after tax profit just jumped from $650,000 to $850,000.

Try going into a bank to get a loan to expand your business with static (or declining) revenue numbers.

Or try to go with a 30% boost in profit.

Because there's no increase in consumer demand because consumers haven't seen wages rise to increase demand.

It looks like you're wrong, yet again. Now think about the future increases when employers expand hiring and raise wages to take advantage of their lower corporate rate.


It's just supply-side, voodoo, trickle-down economics by another name. Hasn't worked in 37 years

Well, if you ignore economic growth in 1983 and in 2003, you start to think Obama's historically weak economic growth is the best we can do.

Holy shit! Over 9% growth in Q2 1983. How many quarters did Obama approach 9%?

Holy shit! 6.9% growth in Q# 2003. How many quarters did Obama approach 7%?

Obama hikes investment taxes in Jan 2013. Raised the top rate in 2013.
Obamacare mandate hit Jan 2014. Where is his big increase in GDP?
Pretty weak, eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He doesn't say rich guys like him have to pay more taxes? You're lying. Or stupid.

"More" in the context of what? The burden? Well that's only the case because of all the tax cuts that reduced the tax burden on the middle and lower class. Was there a compensatory increase in wages as a result of that tax cut? Nope. How about consumer spending? Nope, only in terms of debt and credit. Were the workers saving more? Nope. Were they going into debt? Yes.

The top tax rate on the wealthy has been cut nearly in half; from 70% to 39.5%. So while the wealthy may pay a bigger share, they also pay nearly half as much as they used to.

Yes, I'm familiar with his lie.

How is it a lie? You cannot "believe" this, you can only accept it.

While he minimizes his payments to the taxman.

Because of the current tax structure put in place by Conservatives. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about. You're the ones who changed the tax code to result in this situation, and now you're complaining about the situation your policy caused? There's only one word for that; masturbation.

I understand, showing you his lie is upsetting to you.

Do you understand? His secretary gets a salary, he does not. Hence, why you have to compare their effective rates, and not their marginal rates.

So while the wealthy may pay a bigger share,

That's so weird, we cut everyone's rates and the rich pay a bigger share.

Because of the current tax structure put in place by Conservatives.

If he sold his shares, under the current structure, he'd pay about $12 billion.
He prefers to give the US Treasury ZERO.

His secretary gets a salary,

How much?

Hence, why you have to compare their effective rates

He pays a higher rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wonder where wages come from?

You do? Well, they don't come from trickle-down, that's your first hint. Wages come out of revenues, not profit. Profit = Tax * (Revenues - Expenses). Wages fall into "Expenses". So as long as your expenses are not greater than revenues, and the tax rate isn't 100%, a business will be profitable so long as there is consumer demand for the product or service that business provides. So the idea of cutting corporate income tax does not result in a shifting of funds from the profit to the expenses, and we can see that in the static wage growth for the majority of workers.

Which is why the economy after Obama raised taxes was so much better than the economy after Reagan cut them in 1983 or Bush cut them in 2003. Durr...

Obama and Bush had the same 8-year GDP growth rate of 1.76%. The difference is that Obama created 11,000,000 net private sector jobs and Bush lost 460,000 net private sector jobs. Also, Obama reduced the deficit from the $1T Bush left it, all the way down to about $400B. Only Obama and Clinton are the last two Presidents from the last 37 years to leave office with a deficit lower than the one they inherited. No Republican can make such a claim. Also, Bush's growth was bolstered by the housing market, which was what eventually crashed the economy. The same housing bubble that Conservatives like to blame on Democrats. Which puts you in quite the pickle; if the subprime bubble is the Democrats' fault, then they get the credit for the growth from that housing bubble Bush enjoyed from 2004-7. Which means you can't credit Bush with the economic growth from that time because you all say the housing bubble that produced said growth is the fault of Democrats. You don't get to take credit for the good news, and pass the bad news off on your political opponents. I mean you can do that, but doing so just makes you look childish.

Correct, I expand it, or start it, because I see the possibility of higher after tax returns.

LOL! And you're working from the assumption that consumer demand will increase because you will it to be so? Give me a freaking break. That's supply-side economic theory, which is just another way to say trickle down, which is just another way to say wealth redistribution to the top.

Why does demand have to increase before? Why can't it increase after?

So that is "supply-side economics", which is what we've been doing since 1980. Again, what you have failed to articulate is how lowering the corporate income tax rate translates to increased consumer spending. You haven't done that because you can't. Basically, what your economic policy boils down to is faith. Which is a shitty thing to base policy on.

Safer, cheaper.....durr.

Not cheaper, much more expensive. To extract coal that way requires a massive, $100M piece of equipment called a "dragline". Also, they take it off mountain tops because the mines have run dry. So the coal that could be cheaply and safely extracted has already been mined.

The market crushed fracking?

Yes, that's why since 2013, about 200 oil and natural gas companies went under with a debt load of $85,000,000,000, or 121 times Solyndra.

Why would fracking be unprofitable? Did the supply increase because of fracking? LOL!

The supply increased so much that the value of natural gas has declined to its lowest level in 20 years. Because of that, all those businesses that got into the shale game did so because of the futures for natural gas. At the time, the futures were far higher than the $2/Mcf natural gas currently goes for. To extract one Mcf of natural gas costs at least $3.50/Mcf because of the production involved. So that's a negative margin. That's why 213 oil and natural gas companies have gone under since 2013, leaving behind $85B in debt.

Yes. All that employment needed for a tiny fraction of energy production.
You're not very good at economics.

The energy production from solar has grown. Since 2005, PVC prices have dropped by more than 50% and solar installations have grown 6,000%.

Right, $12.6 billion in profits, 71,100 employees, $12 billion in dividends paid, over $218 billion in revenues.

Did you see the news this morning? Exxon had to pay a massive fine for thousands of Clean Air Act violations. This, combined with the fact that Exxon knew about climate change in the 70's, yet undertook a sustained campaign to undermine it because if action were taken, profits would decrease. So they're liars, and comparing yourself to them would make you a liar too.

I know, instead of a useful, profitable business, they actually lost money and defaulted on taxpayer loans.Good job!!!

Solyndra = $700M bankruptcy
Oil and Natural Gas since 2013: $85B in total debt from bankruptcies.

If you don't think $700M is less than $85B, then you're stupid.

Obama and Bush had the same 8-year GDP growth rate of 1.76%. The difference is that Obama created 11,000,000 net private sector jobs and Bush lost 460,000 net private sector jobs.

Obama had 11,000,000 net jobs and his economy sucked as bad as Bush's?
Wow, Obama sucked more than I thought.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You think jobs decreased because corps could bring back more money?

According to the Wall Street Journal, that is precisely what happened. 20,000 jobs were lost because of that "tax repatriation".

You'll have to post the evidence that they cut jobs because they brought back money.

 

[The Derp]

If they did

But they didn't. So I don't even know why you are insisting on having a debate about hypotheticals and such. Seems like all you can do is continually fall backward on your theory, over and over, while ignoring the real world results of your failed policy ideas and beliefs. Grow up.

If you understood mean and median, you'd understand the weakness of your argument. For instance, the majority of workers don't make the median wage.

Right, the majority of workers make less. Which is the point.

Are Americans who honeymooned in the USSR "on the right"?

Nope. Just the ones who have Russian hookers pee on them.

think Putin should pull his troops out of Ukraine.
Does that mean I'm not on the right? Or that I'm not Russian?

Do you, though? It's easy for you to say that on the message board, but when Obama proposed sanctions on Russia for invading the Ukraine, the right-wing opposed them and Trump's own campaign folks (Manafort, Page) lobbied against them.

So you say you oppose Putin, yet you oppose the measures meant to punish him, while complaining about him. Which, again, would make your argument masturbatory.

 

[The Derp]

Because I can do it better, cheaper and more profitably than my competitors.

So then why do you need a tax cut to do that? If you're saying you can do it better and cheaper, why do you need more money? That is cognitive dissonance, dude. You are saying you can do it better and cheaper, but only if it's not cheaper, because you need more funds to do it. You see how stupidly masturbatory your arguments are? It's like the intellectual equivalent of a monkey playing with itself in the corner of its pen at the zoo. You chase your own dumb tail and stand on flawed ideology because you either are being forced to do so, or because you're too much of an egotist to admit otherwise. Which I get...if I was faced with having to reconcile the flawed core of my belief system, I'd get whiny, shrill, and defensive too. Maybe also pretend to be obtuse. Get over yourself.

Of course not, you expand because your after tax profit just jumped from $650,000 to $850,000.

No, you expand if your revenues increase, not your profits. You can increase your profits without increasing your revenues. You do that by lowering your expenses which means less jobs, not more. But the increase in profits do not translate to increase consumer demand. That is satisfied by wages, not after-tax profit for corporate non-persons.

Or try to go with a 30% boost in profit.

As I said above, you can certainly boost your profits without boosting revenues. But the bank is going to see through those tricks pretty quickly when they evaluate your books and find that you haven't increased revenues (aka demand) for the product or service you produce, you've just reduced your expenses. But if reducing your expenses doesn't increase revenues, then you're not accomplishing anything other than wealth redistribution to the top. You condescend to me about business, yet it appears you know less than nothing about business, if that's even possible.

It looks like you're wrong, yet again. Now think about the future increases when employers expand hiring and raise wages to take advantage of their lower corporate rate.

Ummm...so that first chart is all employees, not the middle and lower classes by themselves. Nor does the chart specify just hourly workers. Instead, the chart says it's the average hourly *earnings*, which is different from the average hourly *wage*. Of course the chart shows what it's showing because it's skewed at the top thanks to the massive increases in CEO-to-salaried worker pay. Remove those who derive their income from non-salaried means (deferred income, pass-thrus, royalties, etc.), and what you get is the weekly median wage static growth.

Well, if you ignore economic growth in 1983 and in 2003, you start to think Obama's historically weak economic growth is the best we can do.

So what happened in 1983? Two very important things; The Fed lowered its interest rate which increased borrowing capacity, and Congress increased spending by $32B. Did you see my household debt chart? What happened to average household debt in 1983? Why it shoots upward. How could that be the case? Lower interest rates made it easier for people to borrow, thus going into debt. For 2003, the growth is attributed 100% to the start of the housing bubble. The same housing bubble you blame on Democrats, yet credit Bush for the growth. So you're trying to have it both ways. You want to blame Democrats for the economic collapse that resulted from the housing bubble which was the thing keeping the economy growing. 2003 was when subprime mortgages started being issued en masse. 2004's growth reflects that. There's also this from Fox News, from Bush on the campaign trail in early 2004:

Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.

So right there, you have Bush saying his tax cuts were the reason for the strong housing market. The same housing market that would fall apart just three years later, that you blame on Democrats.

It looks like you're wrong, yet again. Now think about the future increases when employers expand hiring and raise wages to take advantage of their lower corporate rate.

No business will expand if there is no demand. By increasing after-tax profits for corporations, you do nothing to increase consumer demand. If anything, you hamstring it because the funds used to pay for the tax cuts come out of health care and education, forcing those in the middle and lower class to go into debt and spend money out of pocket on things they would (and should) otherwise be spending in the consumer market. That's why health care is nearly 20% of our economy...for specifically that reason.

 

[The Derp]

That's so weird, we cut everyone's rates and the rich pay a bigger share.

Yes, because you reduced the tax liability for 50% of workers to $0 because you maintain tax cuts puts more money in the hands of people, whom you theorize will spend it in the consumer economy. Only they don't. They use it to pay for services that cost more now because the funds used to pay for them have been cut thanks to the revenue cuts, thanks to the tax cuts. You know this, of course. Everyone knows this. You are choosing to be obtuse for some reason. I think that reason is purely ego-centric. Yes, I do think you are that petty a person.

If he sold his shares, under the current structure, he'd pay about $12 billion.
He prefers to give the US Treasury ZERO.

You don't know what he fucken' prefers because you don't even understand what it is we are talking about. That's why your posts have since become less articulate. You're getting to the end of your script, and lack the mental capacity to build a case beyond that which you have been told to make.

He pays a higher rate.

No he doesn't. Most of his income is not taxed as salaries are. Most (if not all) of his income comes via pass-thrus and other gimmicks. I don't think Buffet even has a salary.

 

[The Derp]

Obama had 11,000,000 net jobs and his economy sucked as bad as Bush's?
Wow, Obama sucked more than I thought.

Well, Obama inherited a crumbling economy and recession in the wake of the housing market collapse. Then Conservatives spent the next 8 years forfeiting their duties to govern in order to obstruct and block any recovery efforts so they could get short-term political gain. Which is precisely what happened. So here we are, in 2017, 7 years after Obamacare was signed into law and Conservatives still have no replacement plan. They have no plan to "grow" the economy. They have no plans at all. Confirming that which we all knew; that Conservatism is a zombie ideology.

 

[The Derp]

You'll have to post the evidence that they cut jobs because they brought back money.

Did you open the link, boy wonder? Here's the first paragraph:

WASHINGTON -- The 15 companies that benefited the most from a 2004 tax break for the return of their overseas profits cut more than 20,000 net jobs and decreased the pace of their research spending.

Here's another great link, further underscoring the poor results of tax repatriation.