First, Biden said that the same day that Trump announced his travel ban. Biden on on the roads campaigning & likely did not know about the new ban. Trump was blaming China & dipsticks like you wewre taking it out on US citizens that were from China.
So, you think cutting the tax rate did not have any effect on revenues?
After 2 Years, Trump Tax Cuts Have Failed To Deliver On GOP's Promises
The president said it would be "rocket fuel for our economy," but the Republican tax cut passed in 2017 did not pay for itself as promised — nor did it deliver a sustained boost to growth.www.npr.org
I love how you Trump morons think that entitlements are always the answer. It is not the subsidies to corporate America or increased spending.
And you lie about travel from China. The Democrats were concertned about Trump's travel bans prior to his action on China. Trump did not ban travel from China. The US was the 8th country to deal with travel & China. He still allowed over 40,000 people in from China.
He knew how dangertous COVID was & said it was low risk and under his complete control. His actions were slow & then he mocked masks & shutdowns. Trump is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.
In the short term, every change in tax rates, will have an impact on revenue whether small or large.
But in the long term, we see that changes in the tax rates have an impact on how people act.
For example, the wealth tax in France, and the rest of Europe that attempted them, had the result that people moved out of the country, or divested.
Again, the wealthy left France by the thousands.
In short term, I'm sure that tax generated revenue for the government. But in the long term, how much tax revenue did you collect from someone who left the country? Of course the answer is zero.
Wealth tax is forcing 12,000 millionaires PER YEAR out of France
Edouard Philippe defended President Emmanuel Macrons' new tax break for the wealthiest, saying it is needed stem the increasing flow of the richest leaving France.www.dailymail.co.uk
Similarly, how much revenue would have been generated if Apple Computer had not spent hundreds of millions, and created thousands on thousands of jobs, in Ireland.... and instead had done that here in the US?
I can guarantee you.... the amount of tax revenue generated from the 35% tax, is less than the amount of tax generated had Apple invested in the US instead of Ireland.
Equally, I am absolutely confident, that the increased investment in the US, because of the lower Corporate Tax rate, will be far greater, than how much would have generated by a 35% tax rate, with all the corporations moving operations out of the country.
The problem with investment is that it's not an instant gratification situation, and it also requires that you not.... I don't know.... shut down the economy over a sniffle.
But my point is, increasing investment doesn't happen over night, or even in a year, or 4 years even.
The manufacturing plant that you see today in operation, was easily 4 years in the making. A year to come up with the product. A year to get plan out all the supply chains. A year to find a location to build, get all the permits, and so on.
If you need an example to illustrate my point.... just look at Amazon, the Seattle Head Tax, and their HQ2 project.
Seattle announced plans for a head tax in 2017. In September of 2017, Amazon announced their intention of opening an HQ2. Coincidence? I think not.
The head tax might bring in large revenue in the short term, but in the long term as companies like Amazon vacate the city, you are going to not only lose revenue from that tax, but also all the other taxes that Amazon already pays Seattle.
And these investments take time. Amazon announced the HQ2 plan in 2017, and it's now 2020, and they just started building one tower of their HQ2 campus.
So right there, you can see the economic effects and delayed investment, in one single example, within our own country. And that's one of thousands of examples.
And you lie about travel from China. The Democrats were concertned about Trump's travel bans prior to his action on China. Trump did not ban travel from China. The US was the 8th country to deal with travel & China. He still allowed over 40,000 people in from China.
Biden accuses Trump of being ‘nakedly xenophobic’ in coronavirus response
Joe Biden accused President Trump of fanning “the flames of hate” during the coronavirus pandemic. “The pandemic has unleashed familiar forces of hate, fear and xenophobia that he alway…nypost.com
The day after Trump pushed a travel ban for China, Biden said the following.
“The pandemic has unleashed familiar forces of hate, fear and xenophobia that he always flames … that have always existed in this society,” Biden said in a speech on Monday, The Hill reported. “But this president brought it with him, has brought with it a new rash of racial messages, verbal and physical attacks and other acts of hate, some subtle, some overt, against the Asian American and Pacific Islanders.”
That was a response to him shutting down travel to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
This isn't debatable. It's a fact. You are full of crap, when Trump tried to put in place reasonable measures to stop the spread of Covid, you attacked him as racist... and then when that attack didn't work, you attacked him for not doing enough, when you just got done attacking him for what he did.
You are a liar. You are garbage. Everyone who knows you should be ashamed of you. Just saying.
Sadly people like you don't care when police pull people out of their cars & murder them.
Sadly you construe something I never said. You can barely handle you own thought processes, so do not feebly attempt to put words in my mouth. By the way. Who was pulled out of a car and murdered by rioters? Nobody here in Jackson, TN. That's for sure. You should be more concerned about the number of people killed in drive by shootings or birthday parties in some neighborhoods of major cities in a typical weekend , and it always far exceeds the number of people on both sides killed by any means, during any rioting in this country, for the entire year. I do not approve of people committing violent acts to support their idea of a domestic agenda on either side. Good luck trying to sell your BS.
Two things.Way off.
Somehow, everyone missed the point I was trying to make.... or more likely I did a terrible job of making my point.
The prior poster made the claim that energy is what drives the economy. He wasn't talking about being able to get energy to drive the economy.
Any economy can get energy. All you have to do is earn money, and buy it.
He was referring to the natural supply of energy. Meaning we have coal, and oil, and other sources of energy here in the US.
My point to everyone is that, even if we had zero natural supply of energy, we would still have a booming economy, because we can buy the energy we need. We know this because.... we do that now. We buy energy from all over the world.
As long as you work and produce goods and services, you can buy any energy you need. This is why Hong Kong with zero natural energy sources, has a 1st world economy. Same with all the other countries I listed.
As for the Arab Oil Embargo..... it did nothing. Absolutely nothing. The reason we had gasoline shortages in the US, was because of price controls.
Remember what I just said before, anyone can get all the energy they need, if they are willing to pay for it?
The reverse is also true. It doesn't matter how much natural energy sources you have, if you are not willing to pay for it.
When the government put in place price controls in the 1970s, that was effectively us refusing to pay for energy. Then you act shocked we had a gasoline shortage nation wide?
You see this in Venezuela today.
Venezuela's Fuel Shortage Upends Longtime Colombian Border Gas Smuggling Trade
Motorists near Colombia's border with Venezuela used to opt for cheaper, smuggled gas from the neighboring country. Now the tables have turned.
Venezuela Gasoline Prices
Gasoline Prices in Venezuela remained unchanged at 0.02 USD/Liter in April. This page provides the latest reported value for - Venezuela Gasoline Prices - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.tradingeconomics.com
Venezuela has a nation wide gasoline shortage. Left-wingers like to try and blame US sanctions, but all you need to do is look at the government controlled prices for gasoline, and you can clearly see why they have shortages.
2¢ per liter. Translation... The government set price for gasoline in Venezuela is 7.6¢ per gallon.
Then you wonder why they don't have money to produce and refine oil in Venezuela, and why the nation with the most known oil reserves has a nation wide shortage of oil and gasoline?
You want to blame US sanctions, when they are charging 7.6¢ per gallon of gas?
So my whole point is, no economy is entirely dependent on energy, unless you make it dependent on energy. As long as you produce goods and services of value, you can buy all the energy you need, provided you are willing to pay for it.
By the way, this is yet another reason people should automatically be suspicious of any politicians that says he can lower prices on something. California tried capping electricity prices, and the result was rolling blackouts.
Venezuela, by the way, also cut electricity prices after Hugo Chavez nationalized the electric companies, and now they have routine blackouts that are nation wide.
Anyone can buy energy but the price is dictated by supply. When the US has enough potential supply to reduce the price, the economy thrives. When Arabs cut supply, the price increases and that slows economies. When governments apply superficial price controls during an energy drought, the supply runs out and you have shortages.
Simply not factually true. The Arabs didn't cut supply at all.
Further, the cause and effect relationship between oil and the economy, is the reverse. When the economy increases, the price of oil generally goes up. When the economy crashes, the price of oil general goes down.
Now what is true, is that the price of oil sold by Saudi Arabia, was a fixed price. That fixed price, meant that the inflation price of gasoline was decreasing year over year, because the Arabs were getting less money. $20 for a barrel of oil, was not worth as much in 1970s, as it was in 1960, or 1950, or 1940 even.
The Saudis made do with this, because the value of the dollar was declining very slowly.
Well, that changed when Nixion decoupled the dollar from the gold standard. This was unavoidable, and has repercussions, namely that the Saudis started floating oil sales at market price, which was a shock...... that's why they called it "The Nixon Shock".
Nixon shock - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
But the idea that the Arabs cut off supply, is a complete and total fabrication. It's not true at all, in any sense.
The reason is fairly simple. Imagine if you will, that you and another person are buying and selling goods.
Now imagine if you get angry at that person, and you decide you will not sell that person goods anymore. Does that mean you simply stop selling goods? Think about that very carefully, does that mean you simply close down, and stop selling anything, and go be homeless? Family out on the street?
No of course not. Well, to this day, most of the Saudi government is entirely built on oil revenue.
Saudi Arabia: breakdown of revenue by source 2021 | Statista
The government of Saudi Arabia estimated that 558 billion Saudi Riyal of its revenue for 2021 was generated from oil.www.statista.com
To this very day, 68% of the revenue into the Saudi government is exclusively oil exports. You shut that off, the entire nation of Saudi Arabia would end in chaos, and anarchy.
So what you are you going to? You are going to keep selling your products.
In steps me, the capitalist. I'll buy your products.
You know why I'm going to be willing to buy up all the products you sell? Because I know someone right now, who is very much in need of your products.
The guy you are no longer selling to.
I'm going to buy your products up at a discount (because your biggest buyer you are not selling to anymore), and then I'm going to sell them to that guy you won't, for a profit.
He's still going to get the products.
This is exactly what happened during the embargo. The Arabs all still sold the oil, just not to the US. But buyers in Asia and Europe, and Africa, seeing a golden opportunity, spun right around and sold that oil to the US.
There was no cut in supply.
The cause of all shortages was due to price controls.
As for the over all price of oil causing real harm to the economy, I've seen precious little to suggest it does.
When oil Spiked to $140 a barrel in 2008, the change in airline fares to cover that cost was roughly $20. When the cost to fill up the tank was $3/gallon, compared to $2/gallon today, was about $45 a month.
That assumes people don't buy more fuel efficient cars when the price goes up, which we know they do, and thus offsets that increase in cost.
Now obviously cheaper energy will result in at least some amount of benefit to the economy. But again, Japan with half the population, and almost.... not quite but almost no natural energy sources at all.... still 3rd largest economy in the world. *shrug*.
You left out the most important thing. The Presidents prior to Nixon would crack open the Strategic Reserves (capped US Wells) and bring the prices down whenever the ME tried to go nuts with their prices. The ME would intentionally slow down pumping which would raise prices but with the Strategic Reserve making up the difference, the prices stayed constant. Nixon chose not to use that method. The "Gas Shortage" was created that way.
Um.................. fail? The name is Strategic Petroleum Reserves.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States) - Wikipedia
You are correct that Nixon did not 'crack open the strategic petroleum reserves'.... that is correct. You are absolutely 100% correct.
Because they didn't exist.
The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 after oil supplies were interrupted during the 1973–1974 oil embargo, to mitigate future supply disruptions.
Do tell how "Presidents prior to Nixon" were able to 'crack open' the petroleum reserves that did not exist until the year after Nixon left office?
Further, the SPR, has virtually no real world effect on prices. None. We use far too much oil, for the tiny amount in the SPR, to be of any market impact.
The absolute largest sale of oil ever made, was in 2017, when they sold 190 Million barrels.
The US uses 20 Million a day. That's 9 days worth of oil. That's it. It is literally and figuratively an oil drop in the bucket compared to the US yearly use, or world wide yearly use of oil, and would have zero impact on oil prices.
There was never any attempt to steady oil prices prior to Nixon, and no attempts to steady oil prices after Carter.
Nixon and Carter are the only two presidents that ever attempted anything to control or stead the price of oil, and both resulted in shortages.
The SPR was never used to try and mitigate prices. You can look up what it was used for. Never once did they mention trying to control prices. And even the ones where they sold for reasons like 'disruption to supply', was joke. For example after Hurricane Katrina, they sold 11 Million barrels of oil. That isn't even 12 hours of the US's daily oil consumption.
Like most things that government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on... the SPR is used to pay back political supporters... because I guarantee you that the people managing those oil reserves for the US government, are political supporters that are making a really good profit from just siting there on oil, and doing nothing with it....
And it's to use as a convenient political football to kick around, so that dumb people think government is protecting them.
Ever time something happens, they sell off a few million barrels, so that they can say to dumb voters "Look what we did for you!".... and people dumb enough to buy that.
Funny that we in the Military knew about the Strategic Oil Reserve before 1975 and you think it was created under a different name in 1975. The old Strategic Oil Reserve didn't buy Petroleum. I required X number of Oil Wells to be capped off to be held in reserve. The United States always did have the ability to be Oil free from the world from day one. The Oil Production would mysteriously be supplimented by a million barrrels a day whenever the ME and others would get hinky like the 1967 Israeli War where the ME refused to ship to countries that were friendly to Israel and again in 1973. That oil production didn't magically appear. The oil was there in capped wells. But the Internet seems to have left that part out. It does tall of the million barrels of oil but it doesn't tell where it came from. Well, cupcake, that's where it came from. There was a Strategic Oil Reserve before the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ever existed.
No. I don't think so. Data seems to contradict you.
First, I can't find any record anywhere of anything you are claiming.
However, in order for your claim to be true, we should be able to find evidence where the amount of imported oil declined, and was made up by your mythical capped oil wells.
We have data on how much oil was imported into the US, every single month, going back to 1920.
The Arab Oil Embargo started in 1973, and ended in 1974.
In 1972, we were importing 60K barrels a month.
In 1973, the year we were under the embargo, we imported 90K, then 120K, and year by year, the average monthly imported oil increased.
In fact, oil imports were pretty low, and fairly steady, until 1971. That's actually when the price controls on oil started, when Nixon passed the original price controls that lasted the entire 1970s.
Oil imports only started to decline, when Reagan removed the price controls in the 1980s.
And the reason is simple. When you have price controls, no one is going to invest money in the market. Specifically if you place price controls on oil, domestic oil production isn't worth investing into. And that's what happened. Low production wells were shut down. And exploration and oil well digging, virtually stopped.
Regardless, the idea that oil imports declined during the embargo, is just factually not true. In fact, imports of oil increased year over year, for as long as the price controls existed.
Two things.
One: You aren't old enough to know
Two: Just because it's not on the internet doesn't make it true or untrue.
Two things.Way off.
Somehow, everyone missed the point I was trying to make.... or more likely I did a terrible job of making my point.
The prior poster made the claim that energy is what drives the economy. He wasn't talking about being able to get energy to drive the economy.
Any economy can get energy. All you have to do is earn money, and buy it.
He was referring to the natural supply of energy. Meaning we have coal, and oil, and other sources of energy here in the US.
My point to everyone is that, even if we had zero natural supply of energy, we would still have a booming economy, because we can buy the energy we need. We know this because.... we do that now. We buy energy from all over the world.
As long as you work and produce goods and services, you can buy any energy you need. This is why Hong Kong with zero natural energy sources, has a 1st world economy. Same with all the other countries I listed.
As for the Arab Oil Embargo..... it did nothing. Absolutely nothing. The reason we had gasoline shortages in the US, was because of price controls.
Remember what I just said before, anyone can get all the energy they need, if they are willing to pay for it?
The reverse is also true. It doesn't matter how much natural energy sources you have, if you are not willing to pay for it.
When the government put in place price controls in the 1970s, that was effectively us refusing to pay for energy. Then you act shocked we had a gasoline shortage nation wide?
You see this in Venezuela today.
Venezuela's Fuel Shortage Upends Longtime Colombian Border Gas Smuggling Trade
Motorists near Colombia's border with Venezuela used to opt for cheaper, smuggled gas from the neighboring country. Now the tables have turned.
Venezuela Gasoline Prices
Gasoline Prices in Venezuela remained unchanged at 0.02 USD/Liter in April. This page provides the latest reported value for - Venezuela Gasoline Prices - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.
Venezuela has a nation wide gasoline shortage. Left-wingers like to try and blame US sanctions, but all you need to do is look at the government controlled prices for gasoline, and you can clearly see why they have shortages.
2¢ per liter. Translation... The government set price for gasoline in Venezuela is 7.6¢ per gallon.
Then you wonder why they don't have money to produce and refine oil in Venezuela, and why the nation with the most known oil reserves has a nation wide shortage of oil and gasoline?
You want to blame US sanctions, when they are charging 7.6¢ per gallon of gas?
So my whole point is, no economy is entirely dependent on energy, unless you make it dependent on energy. As long as you produce goods and services of value, you can buy all the energy you need, provided you are willing to pay for it.
By the way, this is yet another reason people should automatically be suspicious of any politicians that says he can lower prices on something. California tried capping electricity prices, and the result was rolling blackouts.
Venezuela, by the way, also cut electricity prices after Hugo Chavez nationalized the electric companies, and now they have routine blackouts that are nation wide.
Anyone can buy energy but the price is dictated by supply. When the US has enough potential supply to reduce the price, the economy thrives. When Arabs cut supply, the price increases and that slows economies. When governments apply superficial price controls during an energy drought, the supply runs out and you have shortages.
Simply not factually true. The Arabs didn't cut supply at all.
Further, the cause and effect relationship between oil and the economy, is the reverse. When the economy increases, the price of oil generally goes up. When the economy crashes, the price of oil general goes down.
Now what is true, is that the price of oil sold by Saudi Arabia, was a fixed price. That fixed price, meant that the inflation price of gasoline was decreasing year over year, because the Arabs were getting less money. $20 for a barrel of oil, was not worth as much in 1970s, as it was in 1960, or 1950, or 1940 even.
The Saudis made do with this, because the value of the dollar was declining very slowly.
Well, that changed when Nixion decoupled the dollar from the gold standard. This was unavoidable, and has repercussions, namely that the Saudis started floating oil sales at market price, which was a shock...... that's why they called it "The Nixon Shock".
Nixon shock - Wikipedia
But the idea that the Arabs cut off supply, is a complete and total fabrication. It's not true at all, in any sense.
The reason is fairly simple. Imagine if you will, that you and another person are buying and selling goods.
Now imagine if you get angry at that person, and you decide you will not sell that person goods anymore. Does that mean you simply stop selling goods? Think about that very carefully, does that mean you simply close down, and stop selling anything, and go be homeless? Family out on the street?
No of course not. Well, to this day, most of the Saudi government is entirely built on oil revenue.
Saudi Arabia: breakdown of revenue by source 2021 | Statista
The government of Saudi Arabia estimated that 558 billion Saudi Riyal of its revenue for 2021 was generated from oil.
To this very day, 68% of the revenue into the Saudi government is exclusively oil exports. You shut that off, the entire nation of Saudi Arabia would end in chaos, and anarchy.
So what you are you going to? You are going to keep selling your products.
In steps me, the capitalist. I'll buy your products.
You know why I'm going to be willing to buy up all the products you sell? Because I know someone right now, who is very much in need of your products.
The guy you are no longer selling to.
I'm going to buy your products up at a discount (because your biggest buyer you are not selling to anymore), and then I'm going to sell them to that guy you won't, for a profit.
He's still going to get the products.
This is exactly what happened during the embargo. The Arabs all still sold the oil, just not to the US. But buyers in Asia and Europe, and Africa, seeing a golden opportunity, spun right around and sold that oil to the US.
There was no cut in supply.
The cause of all shortages was due to price controls.
As for the over all price of oil causing real harm to the economy, I've seen precious little to suggest it does.
When oil Spiked to $140 a barrel in 2008, the change in airline fares to cover that cost was roughly $20. When the cost to fill up the tank was $3/gallon, compared to $2/gallon today, was about $45 a month.
That assumes people don't buy more fuel efficient cars when the price goes up, which we know they do, and thus offsets that increase in cost.
Now obviously cheaper energy will result in at least some amount of benefit to the economy. But again, Japan with half the population, and almost.... not quite but almost no natural energy sources at all.... still 3rd largest economy in the world. *shrug*.
You left out the most important thing. The Presidents prior to Nixon would crack open the Strategic Reserves (capped US Wells) and bring the prices down whenever the ME tried to go nuts with their prices. The ME would intentionally slow down pumping which would raise prices but with the Strategic Reserve making up the difference, the prices stayed constant. Nixon chose not to use that method. The "Gas Shortage" was created that way.
Um.................. fail? The name is Strategic Petroleum Reserves.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States) - Wikipedia
You are correct that Nixon did not 'crack open the strategic petroleum reserves'.... that is correct. You are absolutely 100% correct.
Because they didn't exist.
The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 after oil supplies were interrupted during the 1973–1974 oil embargo, to mitigate future supply disruptions.
Do tell how "Presidents prior to Nixon" were able to 'crack open' the petroleum reserves that did not exist until the year after Nixon left office?
Further, the SPR, has virtually no real world effect on prices. None. We use far too much oil, for the tiny amount in the SPR, to be of any market impact.
The absolute largest sale of oil ever made, was in 2017, when they sold 190 Million barrels.
The US uses 20 Million a day. That's 9 days worth of oil. That's it. It is literally and figuratively an oil drop in the bucket compared to the US yearly use, or world wide yearly use of oil, and would have zero impact on oil prices.
There was never any attempt to steady oil prices prior to Nixon, and no attempts to steady oil prices after Carter.
Nixon and Carter are the only two presidents that ever attempted anything to control or stead the price of oil, and both resulted in shortages.
The SPR was never used to try and mitigate prices. You can look up what it was used for. Never once did they mention trying to control prices. And even the ones where they sold for reasons like 'disruption to supply', was joke. For example after Hurricane Katrina, they sold 11 Million barrels of oil. That isn't even 12 hours of the US's daily oil consumption.
Like most things that government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on... the SPR is used to pay back political supporters... because I guarantee you that the people managing those oil reserves for the US government, are political supporters that are making a really good profit from just siting there on oil, and doing nothing with it....
And it's to use as a convenient political football to kick around, so that dumb people think government is protecting them.
Ever time something happens, they sell off a few million barrels, so that they can say to dumb voters "Look what we did for you!".... and people dumb enough to buy that.
Funny that we in the Military knew about the Strategic Oil Reserve before 1975 and you think it was created under a different name in 1975. The old Strategic Oil Reserve didn't buy Petroleum. I required X number of Oil Wells to be capped off to be held in reserve. The United States always did have the ability to be Oil free from the world from day one. The Oil Production would mysteriously be supplimented by a million barrrels a day whenever the ME and others would get hinky like the 1967 Israeli War where the ME refused to ship to countries that were friendly to Israel and again in 1973. That oil production didn't magically appear. The oil was there in capped wells. But the Internet seems to have left that part out. It does tall of the million barrels of oil but it doesn't tell where it came from. Well, cupcake, that's where it came from. There was a Strategic Oil Reserve before the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ever existed.
No. I don't think so. Data seems to contradict you.
First, I can't find any record anywhere of anything you are claiming.
However, in order for your claim to be true, we should be able to find evidence where the amount of imported oil declined, and was made up by your mythical capped oil wells.
We have data on how much oil was imported into the US, every single month, going back to 1920.
The Arab Oil Embargo started in 1973, and ended in 1974.
In 1972, we were importing 60K barrels a month.
In 1973, the year we were under the embargo, we imported 90K, then 120K, and year by year, the average monthly imported oil increased.
In fact, oil imports were pretty low, and fairly steady, until 1971. That's actually when the price controls on oil started, when Nixon passed the original price controls that lasted the entire 1970s.
Oil imports only started to decline, when Reagan removed the price controls in the 1980s.
And the reason is simple. When you have price controls, no one is going to invest money in the market. Specifically if you place price controls on oil, domestic oil production isn't worth investing into. And that's what happened. Low production wells were shut down. And exploration and oil well digging, virtually stopped.
Regardless, the idea that oil imports declined during the embargo, is just factually not true. In fact, imports of oil increased year over year, for as long as the price controls existed.
Two things.
One: You aren't old enough to know
Two: Just because it's not on the internet doesn't make it true or untrue.
One: I cited government documents, what would know.
Two: Just because you have zero evidence at all anywhere to support a claim, does mean a ration person is logically going to assume it isn't true.
First, Biden said that the same day that Trump announced his travel ban. Biden on on the roads campaigning & likely did not know about the new ban. Trump was blaming China & dipsticks like you wewre taking it out on US citizens that were from China.
So, you think cutting the tax rate did not have any effect on revenues?
After 2 Years, Trump Tax Cuts Have Failed To Deliver On GOP's Promises
The president said it would be "rocket fuel for our economy," but the Republican tax cut passed in 2017 did not pay for itself as promised — nor did it deliver a sustained boost to growth.
I love how you Trump morons think that entitlements are always the answer. It is not the subsidies to corporate America or increased spending.
And you lie about travel from China. The Democrats were concertned about Trump's travel bans prior to his action on China. Trump did not ban travel from China. The US was the 8th country to deal with travel & China. He still allowed over 40,000 people in from China.
He knew how dangertous COVID was & said it was low risk and under his complete control. His actions were slow & then he mocked masks & shutdowns. Trump is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.
In the short term, every change in tax rates, will have an impact on revenue whether small or large.
But in the long term, we see that changes in the tax rates have an impact on how people act.
For example, the wealth tax in France, and the rest of Europe that attempted them, had the result that people moved out of the country, or divested.
Again, the wealthy left France by the thousands.
In short term, I'm sure that tax generated revenue for the government. But in the long term, how much tax revenue did you collect from someone who left the country? Of course the answer is zero.
Wealth tax is forcing 12,000 millionaires PER YEAR out of France
Edouard Philippe defended President Emmanuel Macrons' new tax break for the wealthiest, saying it is needed stem the increasing flow of the richest leaving France.
Similarly, how much revenue would have been generated if Apple Computer had not spent hundreds of millions, and created thousands on thousands of jobs, in Ireland.... and instead had done that here in the US?
I can guarantee you.... the amount of tax revenue generated from the 35% tax, is less than the amount of tax generated had Apple invested in the US instead of Ireland.
Equally, I am absolutely confident, that the increased investment in the US, because of the lower Corporate Tax rate, will be far greater, than how much would have generated by a 35% tax rate, with all the corporations moving operations out of the country.
The problem with investment is that it's not an instant gratification situation, and it also requires that you not.... I don't know.... shut down the economy over a sniffle.
But my point is, increasing investment doesn't happen over night, or even in a year, or 4 years even.
The manufacturing plant that you see today in operation, was easily 4 years in the making. A year to come up with the product. A year to get plan out all the supply chains. A year to find a location to build, get all the permits, and so on.
If you need an example to illustrate my point.... just look at Amazon, the Seattle Head Tax, and their HQ2 project.
Seattle announced plans for a head tax in 2017. In September of 2017, Amazon announced their intention of opening an HQ2. Coincidence? I think not.
The head tax might bring in large revenue in the short term, but in the long term as companies like Amazon vacate the city, you are going to not only lose revenue from that tax, but also all the other taxes that Amazon already pays Seattle.
And these investments take time. Amazon announced the HQ2 plan in 2017, and it's now 2020, and they just started building one tower of their HQ2 campus.
So right there, you can see the economic effects and delayed investment, in one single example, within our own country. And that's one of thousands of examples.
And you lie about travel from China. The Democrats were concertned about Trump's travel bans prior to his action on China. Trump did not ban travel from China. The US was the 8th country to deal with travel & China. He still allowed over 40,000 people in from China.
Biden accuses Trump of being ‘nakedly xenophobic’ in coronavirus response
Joe Biden accused President Trump of fanning “the flames of hate” during the coronavirus pandemic. “The pandemic has unleashed familiar forces of hate, fear and xenophobia that he alway…
The day after Trump pushed a travel ban for China, Biden said the following.
“The pandemic has unleashed familiar forces of hate, fear and xenophobia that he always flames … that have always existed in this society,” Biden said in a speech on Monday, The Hill reported. “But this president brought it with him, has brought with it a new rash of racial messages, verbal and physical attacks and other acts of hate, some subtle, some overt, against the Asian American and Pacific Islanders.”
That was a response to him shutting down travel to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
This isn't debatable. It's a fact. You are full of crap, when Trump tried to put in place reasonable measures to stop the spread of Covid, you attacked him as racist... and then when that attack didn't work, you attacked him for not doing enough, when you just got done attacking him for what he did.
You are a liar. You are garbage. Everyone who knows you should be ashamed of you. Just saying.
If you knew anything about how US corporations are taxed you would know that a US corp operating in Ireland would pay the 11% Ireland tax and owe the US the US rate minus the Ireland rate. But the Republicans said they would not have to pay the tax until they brought those profits back - so they didn't & invested more overseas.
I love it when people try to blame Democrats for problems created by Republicans. They just keep having to clean up the mess the Replicans create. FDR did it, Clinton did it, Obama did it & now Biden has to.
taxfoundation.org
taxfoundation.org
Two things.Way off.
Somehow, everyone missed the point I was trying to make.... or more likely I did a terrible job of making my point.
The prior poster made the claim that energy is what drives the economy. He wasn't talking about being able to get energy to drive the economy.
Any economy can get energy. All you have to do is earn money, and buy it.
He was referring to the natural supply of energy. Meaning we have coal, and oil, and other sources of energy here in the US.
My point to everyone is that, even if we had zero natural supply of energy, we would still have a booming economy, because we can buy the energy we need. We know this because.... we do that now. We buy energy from all over the world.
As long as you work and produce goods and services, you can buy any energy you need. This is why Hong Kong with zero natural energy sources, has a 1st world economy. Same with all the other countries I listed.
As for the Arab Oil Embargo..... it did nothing. Absolutely nothing. The reason we had gasoline shortages in the US, was because of price controls.
Remember what I just said before, anyone can get all the energy they need, if they are willing to pay for it?
The reverse is also true. It doesn't matter how much natural energy sources you have, if you are not willing to pay for it.
When the government put in place price controls in the 1970s, that was effectively us refusing to pay for energy. Then you act shocked we had a gasoline shortage nation wide?
You see this in Venezuela today.
Venezuela's Fuel Shortage Upends Longtime Colombian Border Gas Smuggling Trade
Motorists near Colombia's border with Venezuela used to opt for cheaper, smuggled gas from the neighboring country. Now the tables have turned.
Venezuela Gasoline Prices
Gasoline Prices in Venezuela remained unchanged at 0.02 USD/Liter in April. This page provides the latest reported value for - Venezuela Gasoline Prices - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.
Venezuela has a nation wide gasoline shortage. Left-wingers like to try and blame US sanctions, but all you need to do is look at the government controlled prices for gasoline, and you can clearly see why they have shortages.
2¢ per liter. Translation... The government set price for gasoline in Venezuela is 7.6¢ per gallon.
Then you wonder why they don't have money to produce and refine oil in Venezuela, and why the nation with the most known oil reserves has a nation wide shortage of oil and gasoline?
You want to blame US sanctions, when they are charging 7.6¢ per gallon of gas?
So my whole point is, no economy is entirely dependent on energy, unless you make it dependent on energy. As long as you produce goods and services of value, you can buy all the energy you need, provided you are willing to pay for it.
By the way, this is yet another reason people should automatically be suspicious of any politicians that says he can lower prices on something. California tried capping electricity prices, and the result was rolling blackouts.
Venezuela, by the way, also cut electricity prices after Hugo Chavez nationalized the electric companies, and now they have routine blackouts that are nation wide.
Anyone can buy energy but the price is dictated by supply. When the US has enough potential supply to reduce the price, the economy thrives. When Arabs cut supply, the price increases and that slows economies. When governments apply superficial price controls during an energy drought, the supply runs out and you have shortages.
Simply not factually true. The Arabs didn't cut supply at all.
Further, the cause and effect relationship between oil and the economy, is the reverse. When the economy increases, the price of oil generally goes up. When the economy crashes, the price of oil general goes down.
Now what is true, is that the price of oil sold by Saudi Arabia, was a fixed price. That fixed price, meant that the inflation price of gasoline was decreasing year over year, because the Arabs were getting less money. $20 for a barrel of oil, was not worth as much in 1970s, as it was in 1960, or 1950, or 1940 even.
The Saudis made do with this, because the value of the dollar was declining very slowly.
Well, that changed when Nixion decoupled the dollar from the gold standard. This was unavoidable, and has repercussions, namely that the Saudis started floating oil sales at market price, which was a shock...... that's why they called it "The Nixon Shock".
Nixon shock - Wikipedia
But the idea that the Arabs cut off supply, is a complete and total fabrication. It's not true at all, in any sense.
The reason is fairly simple. Imagine if you will, that you and another person are buying and selling goods.
Now imagine if you get angry at that person, and you decide you will not sell that person goods anymore. Does that mean you simply stop selling goods? Think about that very carefully, does that mean you simply close down, and stop selling anything, and go be homeless? Family out on the street?
No of course not. Well, to this day, most of the Saudi government is entirely built on oil revenue.
Saudi Arabia: breakdown of revenue by source 2021 | Statista
The government of Saudi Arabia estimated that 558 billion Saudi Riyal of its revenue for 2021 was generated from oil.
To this very day, 68% of the revenue into the Saudi government is exclusively oil exports. You shut that off, the entire nation of Saudi Arabia would end in chaos, and anarchy.
So what you are you going to? You are going to keep selling your products.
In steps me, the capitalist. I'll buy your products.
You know why I'm going to be willing to buy up all the products you sell? Because I know someone right now, who is very much in need of your products.
The guy you are no longer selling to.
I'm going to buy your products up at a discount (because your biggest buyer you are not selling to anymore), and then I'm going to sell them to that guy you won't, for a profit.
He's still going to get the products.
This is exactly what happened during the embargo. The Arabs all still sold the oil, just not to the US. But buyers in Asia and Europe, and Africa, seeing a golden opportunity, spun right around and sold that oil to the US.
There was no cut in supply.
The cause of all shortages was due to price controls.
As for the over all price of oil causing real harm to the economy, I've seen precious little to suggest it does.
When oil Spiked to $140 a barrel in 2008, the change in airline fares to cover that cost was roughly $20. When the cost to fill up the tank was $3/gallon, compared to $2/gallon today, was about $45 a month.
That assumes people don't buy more fuel efficient cars when the price goes up, which we know they do, and thus offsets that increase in cost.
Now obviously cheaper energy will result in at least some amount of benefit to the economy. But again, Japan with half the population, and almost.... not quite but almost no natural energy sources at all.... still 3rd largest economy in the world. *shrug*.
You left out the most important thing. The Presidents prior to Nixon would crack open the Strategic Reserves (capped US Wells) and bring the prices down whenever the ME tried to go nuts with their prices. The ME would intentionally slow down pumping which would raise prices but with the Strategic Reserve making up the difference, the prices stayed constant. Nixon chose not to use that method. The "Gas Shortage" was created that way.
Um.................. fail? The name is Strategic Petroleum Reserves.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States) - Wikipedia
You are correct that Nixon did not 'crack open the strategic petroleum reserves'.... that is correct. You are absolutely 100% correct.
Because they didn't exist.
The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 after oil supplies were interrupted during the 1973–1974 oil embargo, to mitigate future supply disruptions.
Do tell how "Presidents prior to Nixon" were able to 'crack open' the petroleum reserves that did not exist until the year after Nixon left office?
Further, the SPR, has virtually no real world effect on prices. None. We use far too much oil, for the tiny amount in the SPR, to be of any market impact.
The absolute largest sale of oil ever made, was in 2017, when they sold 190 Million barrels.
The US uses 20 Million a day. That's 9 days worth of oil. That's it. It is literally and figuratively an oil drop in the bucket compared to the US yearly use, or world wide yearly use of oil, and would have zero impact on oil prices.
There was never any attempt to steady oil prices prior to Nixon, and no attempts to steady oil prices after Carter.
Nixon and Carter are the only two presidents that ever attempted anything to control or stead the price of oil, and both resulted in shortages.
The SPR was never used to try and mitigate prices. You can look up what it was used for. Never once did they mention trying to control prices. And even the ones where they sold for reasons like 'disruption to supply', was joke. For example after Hurricane Katrina, they sold 11 Million barrels of oil. That isn't even 12 hours of the US's daily oil consumption.
Like most things that government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on... the SPR is used to pay back political supporters... because I guarantee you that the people managing those oil reserves for the US government, are political supporters that are making a really good profit from just siting there on oil, and doing nothing with it....
And it's to use as a convenient political football to kick around, so that dumb people think government is protecting them.
Ever time something happens, they sell off a few million barrels, so that they can say to dumb voters "Look what we did for you!".... and people dumb enough to buy that.
Funny that we in the Military knew about the Strategic Oil Reserve before 1975 and you think it was created under a different name in 1975. The old Strategic Oil Reserve didn't buy Petroleum. I required X number of Oil Wells to be capped off to be held in reserve. The United States always did have the ability to be Oil free from the world from day one. The Oil Production would mysteriously be supplimented by a million barrrels a day whenever the ME and others would get hinky like the 1967 Israeli War where the ME refused to ship to countries that were friendly to Israel and again in 1973. That oil production didn't magically appear. The oil was there in capped wells. But the Internet seems to have left that part out. It does tall of the million barrels of oil but it doesn't tell where it came from. Well, cupcake, that's where it came from. There was a Strategic Oil Reserve before the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ever existed.
No. I don't think so. Data seems to contradict you.
First, I can't find any record anywhere of anything you are claiming.
However, in order for your claim to be true, we should be able to find evidence where the amount of imported oil declined, and was made up by your mythical capped oil wells.
We have data on how much oil was imported into the US, every single month, going back to 1920.
The Arab Oil Embargo started in 1973, and ended in 1974.
In 1972, we were importing 60K barrels a month.
In 1973, the year we were under the embargo, we imported 90K, then 120K, and year by year, the average monthly imported oil increased.
In fact, oil imports were pretty low, and fairly steady, until 1971. That's actually when the price controls on oil started, when Nixon passed the original price controls that lasted the entire 1970s.
Oil imports only started to decline, when Reagan removed the price controls in the 1980s.
And the reason is simple. When you have price controls, no one is going to invest money in the market. Specifically if you place price controls on oil, domestic oil production isn't worth investing into. And that's what happened. Low production wells were shut down. And exploration and oil well digging, virtually stopped.
Regardless, the idea that oil imports declined during the embargo, is just factually not true. In fact, imports of oil increased year over year, for as long as the price controls existed.
Two things.
One: You aren't old enough to know
Two: Just because it's not on the internet doesn't make it true or untrue.
One: I cited government documents, what would know.
Two: Just because you have zero evidence at all anywhere to support a claim, does mean a ration person is logically going to assume it isn't true.
Put a little reason in your brain. In 1967 and again in 1973, the US came up with 1 million barrels of oil to break the embargo without increasing production. I guess the two Presidents both pulled those 2 million barrels of oil out their asses.
You can’t honestly numerically compare economies fifty years apart.Two things.Way off.
Somehow, everyone missed the point I was trying to make.... or more likely I did a terrible job of making my point.
The prior poster made the claim that energy is what drives the economy. He wasn't talking about being able to get energy to drive the economy.
Any economy can get energy. All you have to do is earn money, and buy it.
He was referring to the natural supply of energy. Meaning we have coal, and oil, and other sources of energy here in the US.
My point to everyone is that, even if we had zero natural supply of energy, we would still have a booming economy, because we can buy the energy we need. We know this because.... we do that now. We buy energy from all over the world.
As long as you work and produce goods and services, you can buy any energy you need. This is why Hong Kong with zero natural energy sources, has a 1st world economy. Same with all the other countries I listed.
As for the Arab Oil Embargo..... it did nothing. Absolutely nothing. The reason we had gasoline shortages in the US, was because of price controls.
Remember what I just said before, anyone can get all the energy they need, if they are willing to pay for it?
The reverse is also true. It doesn't matter how much natural energy sources you have, if you are not willing to pay for it.
When the government put in place price controls in the 1970s, that was effectively us refusing to pay for energy. Then you act shocked we had a gasoline shortage nation wide?
You see this in Venezuela today.
Venezuela's Fuel Shortage Upends Longtime Colombian Border Gas Smuggling Trade
Motorists near Colombia's border with Venezuela used to opt for cheaper, smuggled gas from the neighboring country. Now the tables have turned.
Venezuela Gasoline Prices
Gasoline Prices in Venezuela remained unchanged at 0.02 USD/Liter in April. This page provides the latest reported value for - Venezuela Gasoline Prices - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.
Venezuela has a nation wide gasoline shortage. Left-wingers like to try and blame US sanctions, but all you need to do is look at the government controlled prices for gasoline, and you can clearly see why they have shortages.
2¢ per liter. Translation... The government set price for gasoline in Venezuela is 7.6¢ per gallon.
Then you wonder why they don't have money to produce and refine oil in Venezuela, and why the nation with the most known oil reserves has a nation wide shortage of oil and gasoline?
You want to blame US sanctions, when they are charging 7.6¢ per gallon of gas?
So my whole point is, no economy is entirely dependent on energy, unless you make it dependent on energy. As long as you produce goods and services of value, you can buy all the energy you need, provided you are willing to pay for it.
By the way, this is yet another reason people should automatically be suspicious of any politicians that says he can lower prices on something. California tried capping electricity prices, and the result was rolling blackouts.
Venezuela, by the way, also cut electricity prices after Hugo Chavez nationalized the electric companies, and now they have routine blackouts that are nation wide.
Anyone can buy energy but the price is dictated by supply. When the US has enough potential supply to reduce the price, the economy thrives. When Arabs cut supply, the price increases and that slows economies. When governments apply superficial price controls during an energy drought, the supply runs out and you have shortages.
Simply not factually true. The Arabs didn't cut supply at all.
Further, the cause and effect relationship between oil and the economy, is the reverse. When the economy increases, the price of oil generally goes up. When the economy crashes, the price of oil general goes down.
Now what is true, is that the price of oil sold by Saudi Arabia, was a fixed price. That fixed price, meant that the inflation price of gasoline was decreasing year over year, because the Arabs were getting less money. $20 for a barrel of oil, was not worth as much in 1970s, as it was in 1960, or 1950, or 1940 even.
The Saudis made do with this, because the value of the dollar was declining very slowly.
Well, that changed when Nixion decoupled the dollar from the gold standard. This was unavoidable, and has repercussions, namely that the Saudis started floating oil sales at market price, which was a shock...... that's why they called it "The Nixon Shock".
Nixon shock - Wikipedia
But the idea that the Arabs cut off supply, is a complete and total fabrication. It's not true at all, in any sense.
The reason is fairly simple. Imagine if you will, that you and another person are buying and selling goods.
Now imagine if you get angry at that person, and you decide you will not sell that person goods anymore. Does that mean you simply stop selling goods? Think about that very carefully, does that mean you simply close down, and stop selling anything, and go be homeless? Family out on the street?
No of course not. Well, to this day, most of the Saudi government is entirely built on oil revenue.
Saudi Arabia: breakdown of revenue by source 2021 | Statista
The government of Saudi Arabia estimated that 558 billion Saudi Riyal of its revenue for 2021 was generated from oil.
To this very day, 68% of the revenue into the Saudi government is exclusively oil exports. You shut that off, the entire nation of Saudi Arabia would end in chaos, and anarchy.
So what you are you going to? You are going to keep selling your products.
In steps me, the capitalist. I'll buy your products.
You know why I'm going to be willing to buy up all the products you sell? Because I know someone right now, who is very much in need of your products.
The guy you are no longer selling to.
I'm going to buy your products up at a discount (because your biggest buyer you are not selling to anymore), and then I'm going to sell them to that guy you won't, for a profit.
He's still going to get the products.
This is exactly what happened during the embargo. The Arabs all still sold the oil, just not to the US. But buyers in Asia and Europe, and Africa, seeing a golden opportunity, spun right around and sold that oil to the US.
There was no cut in supply.
The cause of all shortages was due to price controls.
As for the over all price of oil causing real harm to the economy, I've seen precious little to suggest it does.
When oil Spiked to $140 a barrel in 2008, the change in airline fares to cover that cost was roughly $20. When the cost to fill up the tank was $3/gallon, compared to $2/gallon today, was about $45 a month.
That assumes people don't buy more fuel efficient cars when the price goes up, which we know they do, and thus offsets that increase in cost.
Now obviously cheaper energy will result in at least some amount of benefit to the economy. But again, Japan with half the population, and almost.... not quite but almost no natural energy sources at all.... still 3rd largest economy in the world. *shrug*.
You left out the most important thing. The Presidents prior to Nixon would crack open the Strategic Reserves (capped US Wells) and bring the prices down whenever the ME tried to go nuts with their prices. The ME would intentionally slow down pumping which would raise prices but with the Strategic Reserve making up the difference, the prices stayed constant. Nixon chose not to use that method. The "Gas Shortage" was created that way.
Um.................. fail? The name is Strategic Petroleum Reserves.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States) - Wikipedia
You are correct that Nixon did not 'crack open the strategic petroleum reserves'.... that is correct. You are absolutely 100% correct.
Because they didn't exist.
The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 after oil supplies were interrupted during the 1973–1974 oil embargo, to mitigate future supply disruptions.
Do tell how "Presidents prior to Nixon" were able to 'crack open' the petroleum reserves that did not exist until the year after Nixon left office?
Further, the SPR, has virtually no real world effect on prices. None. We use far too much oil, for the tiny amount in the SPR, to be of any market impact.
The absolute largest sale of oil ever made, was in 2017, when they sold 190 Million barrels.
The US uses 20 Million a day. That's 9 days worth of oil. That's it. It is literally and figuratively an oil drop in the bucket compared to the US yearly use, or world wide yearly use of oil, and would have zero impact on oil prices.
There was never any attempt to steady oil prices prior to Nixon, and no attempts to steady oil prices after Carter.
Nixon and Carter are the only two presidents that ever attempted anything to control or stead the price of oil, and both resulted in shortages.
The SPR was never used to try and mitigate prices. You can look up what it was used for. Never once did they mention trying to control prices. And even the ones where they sold for reasons like 'disruption to supply', was joke. For example after Hurricane Katrina, they sold 11 Million barrels of oil. That isn't even 12 hours of the US's daily oil consumption.
Like most things that government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on... the SPR is used to pay back political supporters... because I guarantee you that the people managing those oil reserves for the US government, are political supporters that are making a really good profit from just siting there on oil, and doing nothing with it....
And it's to use as a convenient political football to kick around, so that dumb people think government is protecting them.
Ever time something happens, they sell off a few million barrels, so that they can say to dumb voters "Look what we did for you!".... and people dumb enough to buy that.
Funny that we in the Military knew about the Strategic Oil Reserve before 1975 and you think it was created under a different name in 1975. The old Strategic Oil Reserve didn't buy Petroleum. I required X number of Oil Wells to be capped off to be held in reserve. The United States always did have the ability to be Oil free from the world from day one. The Oil Production would mysteriously be supplimented by a million barrrels a day whenever the ME and others would get hinky like the 1967 Israeli War where the ME refused to ship to countries that were friendly to Israel and again in 1973. That oil production didn't magically appear. The oil was there in capped wells. But the Internet seems to have left that part out. It does tall of the million barrels of oil but it doesn't tell where it came from. Well, cupcake, that's where it came from. There was a Strategic Oil Reserve before the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ever existed.
No. I don't think so. Data seems to contradict you.
First, I can't find any record anywhere of anything you are claiming.
However, in order for your claim to be true, we should be able to find evidence where the amount of imported oil declined, and was made up by your mythical capped oil wells.
We have data on how much oil was imported into the US, every single month, going back to 1920.
The Arab Oil Embargo started in 1973, and ended in 1974.
In 1972, we were importing 60K barrels a month.
In 1973, the year we were under the embargo, we imported 90K, then 120K, and year by year, the average monthly imported oil increased.
In fact, oil imports were pretty low, and fairly steady, until 1971. That's actually when the price controls on oil started, when Nixon passed the original price controls that lasted the entire 1970s.
Oil imports only started to decline, when Reagan removed the price controls in the 1980s.
And the reason is simple. When you have price controls, no one is going to invest money in the market. Specifically if you place price controls on oil, domestic oil production isn't worth investing into. And that's what happened. Low production wells were shut down. And exploration and oil well digging, virtually stopped.
Regardless, the idea that oil imports declined during the embargo, is just factually not true. In fact, imports of oil increased year over year, for as long as the price controls existed.
Two things.
One: You aren't old enough to know
Two: Just because it's not on the internet doesn't make it true or untrue.
One: I cited government documents, what would know.
Two: Just because you have zero evidence at all anywhere to support a claim, does mean a ration person is logically going to assume it isn't true.
Put a little reason in your brain. In 1967 and again in 1973, the US came up with 1 million barrels of oil to break the embargo without increasing production. I guess the two Presidents both pulled those 2 million barrels of oil out their asses.
You contradict yourself. If you are saying that they got this oil from capped oil wells.... then that would be production.
The only way it would not be "production" is if the oil was in a storage facility.... like say the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Pumping oil out of a reservoir is way easier, and faster, than pumping it from a well.
A capped well would take months to pump oil from, like any other oil well. Unless you think the magical capped wells you believe in, were super easy fast pumping wells for some unknown reason.
Further " 1 million barrels of oil to break the embargo without increasing production." is impossible.
Again... we were using 18 Million barrels of oil *PER DAY* in the 1970s. 1 million barrels of oil, wouldn't even be noticed on the market. It certainly wouldn't "break the embargo". Two hours worth of oil, isn't going to supply the entire nation, and break an embargo.
They didn't break the embargo, because there was no need to break the embargo, because we were buying more oil during the embargo than before it.
I guess the two Presidents both pulled those 2 million barrels of oil out their asses.
Again, 2 million barrels of oil, when we were using 18 million barrels a day, is not going to break an embargo.
Honestly, it wouldn't even be noticed on the market.
First, Biden said that the same day that Trump announced his travel ban. Biden on on the roads campaigning & likely did not know about the new ban. Trump was blaming China & dipsticks like you wewre taking it out on US citizens that were from China.
So, you think cutting the tax rate did not have any effect on revenues?
After 2 Years, Trump Tax Cuts Have Failed To Deliver On GOP's Promises
The president said it would be "rocket fuel for our economy," but the Republican tax cut passed in 2017 did not pay for itself as promised — nor did it deliver a sustained boost to growth.
I love how you Trump morons think that entitlements are always the answer. It is not the subsidies to corporate America or increased spending.
And you lie about travel from China. The Democrats were concertned about Trump's travel bans prior to his action on China. Trump did not ban travel from China. The US was the 8th country to deal with travel & China. He still allowed over 40,000 people in from China.
He knew how dangertous COVID was & said it was low risk and under his complete control. His actions were slow & then he mocked masks & shutdowns. Trump is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.
In the short term, every change in tax rates, will have an impact on revenue whether small or large.
But in the long term, we see that changes in the tax rates have an impact on how people act.
For example, the wealth tax in France, and the rest of Europe that attempted them, had the result that people moved out of the country, or divested.
Again, the wealthy left France by the thousands.
In short term, I'm sure that tax generated revenue for the government. But in the long term, how much tax revenue did you collect from someone who left the country? Of course the answer is zero.
Wealth tax is forcing 12,000 millionaires PER YEAR out of France
Edouard Philippe defended President Emmanuel Macrons' new tax break for the wealthiest, saying it is needed stem the increasing flow of the richest leaving France.
Similarly, how much revenue would have been generated if Apple Computer had not spent hundreds of millions, and created thousands on thousands of jobs, in Ireland.... and instead had done that here in the US?
I can guarantee you.... the amount of tax revenue generated from the 35% tax, is less than the amount of tax generated had Apple invested in the US instead of Ireland.
Equally, I am absolutely confident, that the increased investment in the US, because of the lower Corporate Tax rate, will be far greater, than how much would have generated by a 35% tax rate, with all the corporations moving operations out of the country.
The problem with investment is that it's not an instant gratification situation, and it also requires that you not.... I don't know.... shut down the economy over a sniffle.
But my point is, increasing investment doesn't happen over night, or even in a year, or 4 years even.
The manufacturing plant that you see today in operation, was easily 4 years in the making. A year to come up with the product. A year to get plan out all the supply chains. A year to find a location to build, get all the permits, and so on.
If you need an example to illustrate my point.... just look at Amazon, the Seattle Head Tax, and their HQ2 project.
Seattle announced plans for a head tax in 2017. In September of 2017, Amazon announced their intention of opening an HQ2. Coincidence? I think not.
The head tax might bring in large revenue in the short term, but in the long term as companies like Amazon vacate the city, you are going to not only lose revenue from that tax, but also all the other taxes that Amazon already pays Seattle.
And these investments take time. Amazon announced the HQ2 plan in 2017, and it's now 2020, and they just started building one tower of their HQ2 campus.
So right there, you can see the economic effects and delayed investment, in one single example, within our own country. And that's one of thousands of examples.
And you lie about travel from China. The Democrats were concertned about Trump's travel bans prior to his action on China. Trump did not ban travel from China. The US was the 8th country to deal with travel & China. He still allowed over 40,000 people in from China.
Biden accuses Trump of being ‘nakedly xenophobic’ in coronavirus response
Joe Biden accused President Trump of fanning “the flames of hate” during the coronavirus pandemic. “The pandemic has unleashed familiar forces of hate, fear and xenophobia that he alway…
The day after Trump pushed a travel ban for China, Biden said the following.
“The pandemic has unleashed familiar forces of hate, fear and xenophobia that he always flames … that have always existed in this society,” Biden said in a speech on Monday, The Hill reported. “But this president brought it with him, has brought with it a new rash of racial messages, verbal and physical attacks and other acts of hate, some subtle, some overt, against the Asian American and Pacific Islanders.”
That was a response to him shutting down travel to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
This isn't debatable. It's a fact. You are full of crap, when Trump tried to put in place reasonable measures to stop the spread of Covid, you attacked him as racist... and then when that attack didn't work, you attacked him for not doing enough, when you just got done attacking him for what he did.
You are a liar. You are garbage. Everyone who knows you should be ashamed of you. Just saying.
If you knew anything about how US corporations are taxed you would know that a US corp operating in Ireland would pay the 11% Ireland tax and owe the US the US rate minus the Ireland rate. But the Republicans said they would not have to pay the tax until they brought those profits back - so they didn't & invested more overseas.
I love it when people try to blame Democrats for problems created by Republicans. They just keep having to clean up the mess the Replicans create. FDR did it, Clinton did it, Obama did it & now Biden has to.
Biden responded to the new restrictions that Trump put in place, the day after he did it.
Not the day of.... the day after.
And it would be ridiculous to claim the post by Biden was not about the travel restrictions, when Trump had not done anything else at that time, worth responding to.
If you knew anything about how US corporations are taxed you would know that a US corp operating in Ireland would pay the 11% Ireland tax and owe the US the US rate minus the Ireland rate.
Yes, I know all about that. Thanks.
But the Republicans said they would not have to pay the tax until they brought those profits back - so they didn't & invested more overseas.
You realize that most countries do not have have a tax on foreign profits at all?
This is the strange thing about the American left-wing, that is so counter to how the world sees it.
View attachment 415467
Worldwide Taxation is Very Rare
This week the President released his fiscal year 2016 budget. One of the major changes to the taxA tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and activities...
In 1891, there were 33 some countries that had world wide taxes. Meaning, that all profits earned anywhere, were taxed at the Domestic rate. So if a French company, made $10 Million in Japan or Canada, it was taxed at the same tax rate as all profits, whether they were repatriated or not.
Today, only 6 countries still have this system. And the reason why, is very simple.
The best thing a company can do for their country, is earn money in another country, and bring those profits back to their country.
This is why, (last I looked it up), Japan has ZERO taxes on company profits made outside Japan. They understand that bringing that money back to Japan, is a major benefit for Japan.
And this is also why, most countries lowered the corporate tax rate, because they wanted people to invest in their country, not keep investing profits elsewhere.
View attachment 415471Evaluating the Changed Incentives for Repatriating Foreign Earnings
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act removed a major barrier to repatriation, or the process by which companies bring overseas earnings back to the United States.
This is why after the corporate tax rate declined under Trump, companies moved $100s of billions of dollars, back to America, that was earned elsewhere.
Again.... this is good for America. This is why other countries have done this a long time ago.
I love it when people try to blame Democrats for problems created by Republicans.
Really? Because Republicans would have lowered the tax rate years ago, like the rest of Europe did. It was Democrats that want to tax us into oblivion.
FDR did it, Clinton did it, Obama did it & now Biden has to.
FDR, Clinton, Obama all caused problems. Not fixed them. Biden has been in government since the before the light bulb existed.
I'm always amused by people who claim Biden has to fix all the problems.... when Biden has been in congress for decades. If people in government created these problem you claim that Biden has to fix... and he's been in office since the 1970s.... wouldn't that mean he created these problems you think he needs to fix?
What has he been doing all this time, if there are all these problems?
There is a finite supply of oil.You can’t honestly numerically compare economies fifty years apart.Two things.Way off.
Somehow, everyone missed the point I was trying to make.... or more likely I did a terrible job of making my point.
The prior poster made the claim that energy is what drives the economy. He wasn't talking about being able to get energy to drive the economy.
Any economy can get energy. All you have to do is earn money, and buy it.
He was referring to the natural supply of energy. Meaning we have coal, and oil, and other sources of energy here in the US.
My point to everyone is that, even if we had zero natural supply of energy, we would still have a booming economy, because we can buy the energy we need. We know this because.... we do that now. We buy energy from all over the world.
As long as you work and produce goods and services, you can buy any energy you need. This is why Hong Kong with zero natural energy sources, has a 1st world economy. Same with all the other countries I listed.
As for the Arab Oil Embargo..... it did nothing. Absolutely nothing. The reason we had gasoline shortages in the US, was because of price controls.
Remember what I just said before, anyone can get all the energy they need, if they are willing to pay for it?
The reverse is also true. It doesn't matter how much natural energy sources you have, if you are not willing to pay for it.
When the government put in place price controls in the 1970s, that was effectively us refusing to pay for energy. Then you act shocked we had a gasoline shortage nation wide?
You see this in Venezuela today.
Venezuela's Fuel Shortage Upends Longtime Colombian Border Gas Smuggling Trade
Motorists near Colombia's border with Venezuela used to opt for cheaper, smuggled gas from the neighboring country. Now the tables have turned.
Venezuela Gasoline Prices
Gasoline Prices in Venezuela remained unchanged at 0.02 USD/Liter in April. This page provides the latest reported value for - Venezuela Gasoline Prices - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.
Venezuela has a nation wide gasoline shortage. Left-wingers like to try and blame US sanctions, but all you need to do is look at the government controlled prices for gasoline, and you can clearly see why they have shortages.
2¢ per liter. Translation... The government set price for gasoline in Venezuela is 7.6¢ per gallon.
Then you wonder why they don't have money to produce and refine oil in Venezuela, and why the nation with the most known oil reserves has a nation wide shortage of oil and gasoline?
You want to blame US sanctions, when they are charging 7.6¢ per gallon of gas?
So my whole point is, no economy is entirely dependent on energy, unless you make it dependent on energy. As long as you produce goods and services of value, you can buy all the energy you need, provided you are willing to pay for it.
By the way, this is yet another reason people should automatically be suspicious of any politicians that says he can lower prices on something. California tried capping electricity prices, and the result was rolling blackouts.
Venezuela, by the way, also cut electricity prices after Hugo Chavez nationalized the electric companies, and now they have routine blackouts that are nation wide.
Anyone can buy energy but the price is dictated by supply. When the US has enough potential supply to reduce the price, the economy thrives. When Arabs cut supply, the price increases and that slows economies. When governments apply superficial price controls during an energy drought, the supply runs out and you have shortages.
Simply not factually true. The Arabs didn't cut supply at all.
Further, the cause and effect relationship between oil and the economy, is the reverse. When the economy increases, the price of oil generally goes up. When the economy crashes, the price of oil general goes down.
Now what is true, is that the price of oil sold by Saudi Arabia, was a fixed price. That fixed price, meant that the inflation price of gasoline was decreasing year over year, because the Arabs were getting less money. $20 for a barrel of oil, was not worth as much in 1970s, as it was in 1960, or 1950, or 1940 even.
The Saudis made do with this, because the value of the dollar was declining very slowly.
Well, that changed when Nixion decoupled the dollar from the gold standard. This was unavoidable, and has repercussions, namely that the Saudis started floating oil sales at market price, which was a shock...... that's why they called it "The Nixon Shock".
Nixon shock - Wikipedia
But the idea that the Arabs cut off supply, is a complete and total fabrication. It's not true at all, in any sense.
The reason is fairly simple. Imagine if you will, that you and another person are buying and selling goods.
Now imagine if you get angry at that person, and you decide you will not sell that person goods anymore. Does that mean you simply stop selling goods? Think about that very carefully, does that mean you simply close down, and stop selling anything, and go be homeless? Family out on the street?
No of course not. Well, to this day, most of the Saudi government is entirely built on oil revenue.
Saudi Arabia: breakdown of revenue by source 2021 | Statista
The government of Saudi Arabia estimated that 558 billion Saudi Riyal of its revenue for 2021 was generated from oil.
To this very day, 68% of the revenue into the Saudi government is exclusively oil exports. You shut that off, the entire nation of Saudi Arabia would end in chaos, and anarchy.
So what you are you going to? You are going to keep selling your products.
In steps me, the capitalist. I'll buy your products.
You know why I'm going to be willing to buy up all the products you sell? Because I know someone right now, who is very much in need of your products.
The guy you are no longer selling to.
I'm going to buy your products up at a discount (because your biggest buyer you are not selling to anymore), and then I'm going to sell them to that guy you won't, for a profit.
He's still going to get the products.
This is exactly what happened during the embargo. The Arabs all still sold the oil, just not to the US. But buyers in Asia and Europe, and Africa, seeing a golden opportunity, spun right around and sold that oil to the US.
There was no cut in supply.
The cause of all shortages was due to price controls.
As for the over all price of oil causing real harm to the economy, I've seen precious little to suggest it does.
When oil Spiked to $140 a barrel in 2008, the change in airline fares to cover that cost was roughly $20. When the cost to fill up the tank was $3/gallon, compared to $2/gallon today, was about $45 a month.
That assumes people don't buy more fuel efficient cars when the price goes up, which we know they do, and thus offsets that increase in cost.
Now obviously cheaper energy will result in at least some amount of benefit to the economy. But again, Japan with half the population, and almost.... not quite but almost no natural energy sources at all.... still 3rd largest economy in the world. *shrug*.
You left out the most important thing. The Presidents prior to Nixon would crack open the Strategic Reserves (capped US Wells) and bring the prices down whenever the ME tried to go nuts with their prices. The ME would intentionally slow down pumping which would raise prices but with the Strategic Reserve making up the difference, the prices stayed constant. Nixon chose not to use that method. The "Gas Shortage" was created that way.
Um.................. fail? The name is Strategic Petroleum Reserves.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States) - Wikipedia
You are correct that Nixon did not 'crack open the strategic petroleum reserves'.... that is correct. You are absolutely 100% correct.
Because they didn't exist.
The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 after oil supplies were interrupted during the 1973–1974 oil embargo, to mitigate future supply disruptions.
Do tell how "Presidents prior to Nixon" were able to 'crack open' the petroleum reserves that did not exist until the year after Nixon left office?
Further, the SPR, has virtually no real world effect on prices. None. We use far too much oil, for the tiny amount in the SPR, to be of any market impact.
The absolute largest sale of oil ever made, was in 2017, when they sold 190 Million barrels.
The US uses 20 Million a day. That's 9 days worth of oil. That's it. It is literally and figuratively an oil drop in the bucket compared to the US yearly use, or world wide yearly use of oil, and would have zero impact on oil prices.
There was never any attempt to steady oil prices prior to Nixon, and no attempts to steady oil prices after Carter.
Nixon and Carter are the only two presidents that ever attempted anything to control or stead the price of oil, and both resulted in shortages.
The SPR was never used to try and mitigate prices. You can look up what it was used for. Never once did they mention trying to control prices. And even the ones where they sold for reasons like 'disruption to supply', was joke. For example after Hurricane Katrina, they sold 11 Million barrels of oil. That isn't even 12 hours of the US's daily oil consumption.
Like most things that government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars on... the SPR is used to pay back political supporters... because I guarantee you that the people managing those oil reserves for the US government, are political supporters that are making a really good profit from just siting there on oil, and doing nothing with it....
And it's to use as a convenient political football to kick around, so that dumb people think government is protecting them.
Ever time something happens, they sell off a few million barrels, so that they can say to dumb voters "Look what we did for you!".... and people dumb enough to buy that.
Funny that we in the Military knew about the Strategic Oil Reserve before 1975 and you think it was created under a different name in 1975. The old Strategic Oil Reserve didn't buy Petroleum. I required X number of Oil Wells to be capped off to be held in reserve. The United States always did have the ability to be Oil free from the world from day one. The Oil Production would mysteriously be supplimented by a million barrrels a day whenever the ME and others would get hinky like the 1967 Israeli War where the ME refused to ship to countries that were friendly to Israel and again in 1973. That oil production didn't magically appear. The oil was there in capped wells. But the Internet seems to have left that part out. It does tall of the million barrels of oil but it doesn't tell where it came from. Well, cupcake, that's where it came from. There was a Strategic Oil Reserve before the Strategic Petroleum Reserve ever existed.
No. I don't think so. Data seems to contradict you.
First, I can't find any record anywhere of anything you are claiming.
However, in order for your claim to be true, we should be able to find evidence where the amount of imported oil declined, and was made up by your mythical capped oil wells.
We have data on how much oil was imported into the US, every single month, going back to 1920.
The Arab Oil Embargo started in 1973, and ended in 1974.
In 1972, we were importing 60K barrels a month.
In 1973, the year we were under the embargo, we imported 90K, then 120K, and year by year, the average monthly imported oil increased.
In fact, oil imports were pretty low, and fairly steady, until 1971. That's actually when the price controls on oil started, when Nixon passed the original price controls that lasted the entire 1970s.
Oil imports only started to decline, when Reagan removed the price controls in the 1980s.
And the reason is simple. When you have price controls, no one is going to invest money in the market. Specifically if you place price controls on oil, domestic oil production isn't worth investing into. And that's what happened. Low production wells were shut down. And exploration and oil well digging, virtually stopped.
Regardless, the idea that oil imports declined during the embargo, is just factually not true. In fact, imports of oil increased year over year, for as long as the price controls existed.
Two things.
One: You aren't old enough to know
Two: Just because it's not on the internet doesn't make it true or untrue.
One: I cited government documents, what would know.
Two: Just because you have zero evidence at all anywhere to support a claim, does mean a ration person is logically going to assume it isn't true.
Put a little reason in your brain. In 1967 and again in 1973, the US came up with 1 million barrels of oil to break the embargo without increasing production. I guess the two Presidents both pulled those 2 million barrels of oil out their asses.
You contradict yourself. If you are saying that they got this oil from capped oil wells.... then that would be production.
The only way it would not be "production" is if the oil was in a storage facility.... like say the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Pumping oil out of a reservoir is way easier, and faster, than pumping it from a well.
A capped well would take months to pump oil from, like any other oil well. Unless you think the magical capped wells you believe in, were super easy fast pumping wells for some unknown reason.
Further " 1 million barrels of oil to break the embargo without increasing production." is impossible.
Again... we were using 18 Million barrels of oil *PER DAY* in the 1970s. 1 million barrels of oil, wouldn't even be noticed on the market. It certainly wouldn't "break the embargo". Two hours worth of oil, isn't going to supply the entire nation, and break an embargo.
They didn't break the embargo, because there was no need to break the embargo, because we were buying more oil during the embargo than before it.
I guess the two Presidents both pulled those 2 million barrels of oil out their asses.
Again, 2 million barrels of oil, when we were using 18 million barrels a day, is not going to break an embargo.
Honestly, it wouldn't even be noticed on the market.
The wake-up of the Arab oil embargo was about the presumed finite amount of global oil. Besides the impact that had on the economy at large, the effort for oil conservation led to draconian measures similar to those undertaken more recently in the name of the AGW scam.
55 mph maximum speed limit; 68 degrees in winter and 74 in summer for building and home climate; disallowing Christmas lights; daylight saving time applied in January, etc.
And democrats these days want to create those fossil fuel limitations superficially and intentionally.
There goes the economy — again. Just like with Obama — only worse.
First, Biden said that the same day that Trump announced his travel ban. Biden on on the roads campaigning & likely did not know about the new ban. Trump was blaming China & dipsticks like you wewre taking it out on US citizens that were from China.
So, you think cutting the tax rate did not have any effect on revenues?
After 2 Years, Trump Tax Cuts Have Failed To Deliver On GOP's Promises
The president said it would be "rocket fuel for our economy," but the Republican tax cut passed in 2017 did not pay for itself as promised — nor did it deliver a sustained boost to growth.
I love how you Trump morons think that entitlements are always the answer. It is not the subsidies to corporate America or increased spending.
And you lie about travel from China. The Democrats were concertned about Trump's travel bans prior to his action on China. Trump did not ban travel from China. The US was the 8th country to deal with travel & China. He still allowed over 40,000 people in from China.
He knew how dangertous COVID was & said it was low risk and under his complete control. His actions were slow & then he mocked masks & shutdowns. Trump is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.
In the short term, every change in tax rates, will have an impact on revenue whether small or large.
But in the long term, we see that changes in the tax rates have an impact on how people act.
For example, the wealth tax in France, and the rest of Europe that attempted them, had the result that people moved out of the country, or divested.
Again, the wealthy left France by the thousands.
In short term, I'm sure that tax generated revenue for the government. But in the long term, how much tax revenue did you collect from someone who left the country? Of course the answer is zero.
Wealth tax is forcing 12,000 millionaires PER YEAR out of France
Edouard Philippe defended President Emmanuel Macrons' new tax break for the wealthiest, saying it is needed stem the increasing flow of the richest leaving France.
Similarly, how much revenue would have been generated if Apple Computer had not spent hundreds of millions, and created thousands on thousands of jobs, in Ireland.... and instead had done that here in the US?
I can guarantee you.... the amount of tax revenue generated from the 35% tax, is less than the amount of tax generated had Apple invested in the US instead of Ireland.
Equally, I am absolutely confident, that the increased investment in the US, because of the lower Corporate Tax rate, will be far greater, than how much would have generated by a 35% tax rate, with all the corporations moving operations out of the country.
The problem with investment is that it's not an instant gratification situation, and it also requires that you not.... I don't know.... shut down the economy over a sniffle.
But my point is, increasing investment doesn't happen over night, or even in a year, or 4 years even.
The manufacturing plant that you see today in operation, was easily 4 years in the making. A year to come up with the product. A year to get plan out all the supply chains. A year to find a location to build, get all the permits, and so on.
If you need an example to illustrate my point.... just look at Amazon, the Seattle Head Tax, and their HQ2 project.
Seattle announced plans for a head tax in 2017. In September of 2017, Amazon announced their intention of opening an HQ2. Coincidence? I think not.
The head tax might bring in large revenue in the short term, but in the long term as companies like Amazon vacate the city, you are going to not only lose revenue from that tax, but also all the other taxes that Amazon already pays Seattle.
And these investments take time. Amazon announced the HQ2 plan in 2017, and it's now 2020, and they just started building one tower of their HQ2 campus.
So right there, you can see the economic effects and delayed investment, in one single example, within our own country. And that's one of thousands of examples.
And you lie about travel from China. The Democrats were concertned about Trump's travel bans prior to his action on China. Trump did not ban travel from China. The US was the 8th country to deal with travel & China. He still allowed over 40,000 people in from China.
Biden accuses Trump of being ‘nakedly xenophobic’ in coronavirus response
Joe Biden accused President Trump of fanning “the flames of hate” during the coronavirus pandemic. “The pandemic has unleashed familiar forces of hate, fear and xenophobia that he alway…
The day after Trump pushed a travel ban for China, Biden said the following.
“The pandemic has unleashed familiar forces of hate, fear and xenophobia that he always flames … that have always existed in this society,” Biden said in a speech on Monday, The Hill reported. “But this president brought it with him, has brought with it a new rash of racial messages, verbal and physical attacks and other acts of hate, some subtle, some overt, against the Asian American and Pacific Islanders.”
That was a response to him shutting down travel to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
This isn't debatable. It's a fact. You are full of crap, when Trump tried to put in place reasonable measures to stop the spread of Covid, you attacked him as racist... and then when that attack didn't work, you attacked him for not doing enough, when you just got done attacking him for what he did.
You are a liar. You are garbage. Everyone who knows you should be ashamed of you. Just saying.
If you knew anything about how US corporations are taxed you would know that a US corp operating in Ireland would pay the 11% Ireland tax and owe the US the US rate minus the Ireland rate. But the Republicans said they would not have to pay the tax until they brought those profits back - so they didn't & invested more overseas.
I love it when people try to blame Democrats for problems created by Republicans. They just keep having to clean up the mess the Replicans create. FDR did it, Clinton did it, Obama did it & now Biden has to.
Biden responded to the new restrictions that Trump put in place, the day after he did it.
Not the day of.... the day after.
And it would be ridiculous to claim the post by Biden was not about the travel restrictions, when Trump had not done anything else at that time, worth responding to.
If you knew anything about how US corporations are taxed you would know that a US corp operating in Ireland would pay the 11% Ireland tax and owe the US the US rate minus the Ireland rate.
Yes, I know all about that. Thanks.
But the Republicans said they would not have to pay the tax until they brought those profits back - so they didn't & invested more overseas.
You realize that most countries do not have have a tax on foreign profits at all?
This is the strange thing about the American left-wing, that is so counter to how the world sees it.
View attachment 415467
Worldwide Taxation is Very Rare
This week the President released his fiscal year 2016 budget. One of the major changes to the taxA tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and activities...
In 1891, there were 33 some countries that had world wide taxes. Meaning, that all profits earned anywhere, were taxed at the Domestic rate. So if a French company, made $10 Million in Japan or Canada, it was taxed at the same tax rate as all profits, whether they were repatriated or not.
Today, only 6 countries still have this system. And the reason why, is very simple.
The best thing a company can do for their country, is earn money in another country, and bring those profits back to their country.
This is why, (last I looked it up), Japan has ZERO taxes on company profits made outside Japan. They understand that bringing that money back to Japan, is a major benefit for Japan.
And this is also why, most countries lowered the corporate tax rate, because they wanted people to invest in their country, not keep investing profits elsewhere.
View attachment 415471Evaluating the Changed Incentives for Repatriating Foreign Earnings
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act removed a major barrier to repatriation, or the process by which companies bring overseas earnings back to the United States.
This is why after the corporate tax rate declined under Trump, companies moved $100s of billions of dollars, back to America, that was earned elsewhere.
Again.... this is good for America. This is why other countries have done this a long time ago.
I love it when people try to blame Democrats for problems created by Republicans.
Really? Because Republicans would have lowered the tax rate years ago, like the rest of Europe did. It was Democrats that want to tax us into oblivion.
FDR did it, Clinton did it, Obama did it & now Biden has to.
FDR, Clinton, Obama all caused problems. Not fixed them. Biden has been in government since the before the light bulb existed.
I'm always amused by people who claim Biden has to fix all the problems.... when Biden has been in congress for decades. If people in government created these problem you claim that Biden has to fix... and he's been in office since the 1970s.... wouldn't that mean he created these problems you think he needs to fix?
What has he been doing all this time, if there are all these problems?
www.politifact.com
Innocent people being beat is why we had the protests.
Video shows Norwood police officer beat man with baton, officer sued for excessive force
Eddie Matthew tries to record every interaction he has with police. As a police officer hit him with a baton in September, he prayed someone was recording.www.cincinnati.com
When are you going to demand it stop?
So how many people have been pulled out of cars & beaten? You argue against your own argument.
Innocent people being beat is why we had the protests.
Video shows Norwood police officer beat man with baton, officer sued for excessive force
Eddie Matthew tries to record every interaction he has with police. As a police officer hit him with a baton in September, he prayed someone was recording.www.cincinnati.com
When are you going to demand it stop?
You are inferring that innocent people get beaten by law enforcement frequently and therefore justification for masses of thugs to randomly pull people from their cars and beat them? That is a sick mindset. I’ll bet your line of thinking on this would be adjusted if it were yourself or someone you cared about that was randomly pulled from their car and beaten by a mass of thugs.
Innocent people being beat is why we had the protests.
Video shows Norwood police officer beat man with baton, officer sued for excessive force
Eddie Matthew tries to record every interaction he has with police. As a police officer hit him with a baton in September, he prayed someone was recording.www.cincinnati.com
When are you going to demand it stop?
You are inferring that innocent people get beaten by law enforcement frequently and therefore justification for masses of thugs to randomly pull people from their cars and beat them? That is a sick mindset. I’ll bet your line of thinking on this would be adjusted if it were yourself or someone you cared about that was randomly pulled from their car and beaten by a mass of thugs.
Innocent people being beat is why we had the protests.
Video shows Norwood police officer beat man with baton, officer sued for excessive force
Eddie Matthew tries to record every interaction he has with police. As a police officer hit him with a baton in September, he prayed someone was recording.www.cincinnati.com
When are you going to demand it stop?
You are inferring that innocent people get beaten by law enforcement frequently and therefore justification for masses of thugs to randomly pull people from their cars and beat them? That is a sick mindset. I’ll bet your line of thinking on this would be adjusted if it were yourself or someone you cared about that was randomly pulled from their car and beaten by a mass of thugs.
the fool dot com. figured you'd be reading this.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.www.fool.com
