Trickle down Econ already working for AT&T, Wells Fargo and Comcast employees...Thanks Donny!

[Dschrute3]

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did.

It never ceases to amaze me at how utterly rightarded conservatives are. Here’s one who moronically claims trump has done more for blacks than Obama did in terms of employment.

So let’s take a look at this, shall we?

When Obama became president, unemployment of blacks aged 16 and over was 12.7% (it was 8.2% when Bush became president). Black unemployment was 7.7% when Obama left office. It’s currently at 7.3%.

According to the brain-dead right, a meager drop of 0.4 points, a decrease of 5.2%; is better for blacks than the 5.0 drop, or 39.4% decrease, under Obama.

And the fuzzy ”mathematicians” on the right are baffled why sane folks laugh at them. <smh>

Now let’s look a little deeper at these figures...

When Obama became president, white unemployment was at 7.1%. It fell to 4.3% (a 39.4% decrease) when he left and is currently at 3.6% (a 16.3% decrease).

That means under Obama, blacks did as well as whites in that the unemployment dropped by 39.4% for both blacks and whites, while under trump, whites (16.3% drop) have done more than 3 times better than blacks (5.2% drop).

So again, we laugh at the ignorant conservatives who think blacks are doing better under trump than they did under Obama.

Wow kid, you sound so butthurt deranged. The fact is, the Unemployment Rate for African Americans is the lowest in 17yrs. Sorry that makes your butt hurt so much, but it is the reality. Trump's on a roll. It is what it is.

I understand, facts and reality hurts your tiny brain.

The reality is, under Trump the African Unemployment Rate has been reduced to its lowest level in 17yrs. So i'm pretty sure it's just your misguided reliance on Democrat Fake News, that's convincing you to ignore reality. You're allowing your bitter butthurt to cloud your judgement. But hey, whatever floats your boat i guess. Take care.

What specific policies helped blacks under our current president?

The trend was lower, not higher.

Again, you're allowing your bitter butthurt to get in the way of thinking rationally. The African Unemployment Rate has been reduced pretty significantly on Trump's watch. It's a positive development. You would see that if you took a break from Democrat Fake News propaganda. Trump isn't the Boogeyman, and it isn't all Doom & Gloom.

 

[Dschrute3]

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did.

It never ceases to amaze me at how utterly rightarded conservatives are. Here’s one who moronically claims trump has done more for blacks than Obama did in terms of employment.

So let’s take a look at this, shall we?

When Obama became president, unemployment of blacks aged 16 and over was 12.7% (it was 8.2% when Bush became president). Black unemployment was 7.7% when Obama left office. It’s currently at 7.3%.

According to the brain-dead right, a meager drop of 0.4 points, a decrease of 5.2%; is better for blacks than the 5.0 drop, or 39.4% decrease, under Obama.

And the fuzzy ”mathematicians” on the right are baffled why sane folks laugh at them. <smh>

Now let’s look a little deeper at these figures...

When Obama became president, white unemployment was at 7.1%. It fell to 4.3% (a 39.4% decrease) when he left and is currently at 3.6% (a 16.3% decrease).

That means under Obama, blacks did as well as whites in that the unemployment dropped by 39.4% for both blacks and whites, while under trump, whites (16.3% drop) have done more than 3 times better than blacks (5.2% drop).

So again, we laugh at the ignorant conservatives who think blacks are doing better under trump than they did under Obama.

Wow kid, you sound so butthurt deranged. The fact is, the Unemployment Rate for African Americans is the lowest in 17yrs. Sorry that makes your butt hurt so much, but it is the reality. Trump's on a roll. It is what it is.

I understand, facts and reality hurts your tiny brain.

The reality is, under Trump the African Unemployment Rate has been reduced to its lowest level in 17yrs. So i'm pretty sure it's just your misguided reliance on Democrat Fake News, that's convincing you to ignore reality. You're allowing your bitter butthurt to cloud your judgement. But hey, whatever floats your boat i guess. Take care.

Sadly, you are painfully retarded. Typical for conservatives. I never denied black unemployment is the lowest it’s been in 17 years, so who knows what brain disorder you have to think I ignored reality. What I did do, was point out you’re an abject imbecile for thinking Trump did more towards that than Obama.

Trump lowered black unemployment 5% while Obama lowered it 39%. Seems in the alternate universe where you dwell, 5% is greater than 39%.

That would be sort of like Obama handing you $80 ... and then trump handing you another $10 ... and then you moronically crediting trump for giving you more than Obama did because you have more money than you’ve had for years.

See now why folks here laugh at you?

Your stats are incorrect. You're probably just relying on Democrat Fake News stats. African Unemployment was actually pretty high most of Obama's tenure. But regardless, it's currently at a 17 year low. Trump's delivering. I know that makes your butt hurt badly, but it it what it is.

 

[Faun]

It never ceases to amaze me at how utterly rightarded conservatives are. Here’s one who moronically claims trump has done more for blacks than Obama did in terms of employment.

So let’s take a look at this, shall we?

When Obama became president, unemployment of blacks aged 16 and over was 12.7% (it was 8.2% when Bush became president). Black unemployment was 7.7% when Obama left office. It’s currently at 7.3%.

According to the brain-dead right, a meager drop of 0.4 points, a decrease of 5.2%; is better for blacks than the 5.0 drop, or 39.4% decrease, under Obama.

And the fuzzy ”mathematicians” on the right are baffled why sane folks laugh at them. <smh>

Now let’s look a little deeper at these figures...

When Obama became president, white unemployment was at 7.1%. It fell to 4.3% (a 39.4% decrease) when he left and is currently at 3.6% (a 16.3% decrease).

That means under Obama, blacks did as well as whites in that the unemployment dropped by 39.4% for both blacks and whites, while under trump, whites (16.3% drop) have done more than 3 times better than blacks (5.2% drop).

So again, we laugh at the ignorant conservatives who think blacks are doing better under trump than they did under Obama.

Wow kid, you sound so butthurt deranged. The fact is, the Unemployment Rate for African Americans is the lowest in 17yrs. Sorry that makes your butt hurt so much, but it is the reality. Trump's on a roll. It is what it is.

I understand, facts and reality hurts your tiny brain.

The reality is, under Trump the African Unemployment Rate has been reduced to its lowest level in 17yrs. So i'm pretty sure it's just your misguided reliance on Democrat Fake News, that's convincing you to ignore reality. You're allowing your bitter butthurt to cloud your judgement. But hey, whatever floats your boat i guess. Take care.

Sadly, you are painfully retarded. Typical for conservatives. I never denied black unemployment is the lowest it’s been in 17 years, so who knows what brain disorder you have to think I ignored reality. What I did do, was point out you’re an abject imbecile for thinking Trump did more towards that than Obama.

Trump lowered black unemployment 5% while Obama lowered it 39%. Seems in the alternate universe where you dwell, 5% is greater than 39%.

That would be sort of like Obama handing you $80 ... and then trump handing you another $10 ... and then you moronically crediting trump for giving you more than Obama did because you have more money than you’ve had for years.

See now why folks here laugh at you?

Your stats are incorrect. You're probably just relying on Democrat Fake News stats. African Unemployment was actually pretty high most of Obama's tenure. But regardless, it's currently at a 17 year low. Trump's delivering. I know that makes your butt hurt badly, but it it what it is.

LOLOL

You're such a fucking imbecile.

LOL

Fucking imbecile... why do you assume I'm relying on "Democrat Fake News" when I gave you links to my source and my source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the official employment stats?

Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression but still lowered black unemployment 39% from 12.7% to 7.7%

Trump inherited a good economy and lowered black unemployment 5% from 7.7% to 7.3%.

According to your retarded posts, that means trump did more to lower black unemployment than Obama.

Don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? It's not my butt that hurts -- it's my foot.

 

[Dschrute3]

Wow kid, you sound so butthurt deranged. The fact is, the Unemployment Rate for African Americans is the lowest in 17yrs. Sorry that makes your butt hurt so much, but it is the reality. Trump's on a roll. It is what it is.

I understand, facts and reality hurts your tiny brain.

The reality is, under Trump the African Unemployment Rate has been reduced to its lowest level in 17yrs. So i'm pretty sure it's just your misguided reliance on Democrat Fake News, that's convincing you to ignore reality. You're allowing your bitter butthurt to cloud your judgement. But hey, whatever floats your boat i guess. Take care.

Sadly, you are painfully retarded. Typical for conservatives. I never denied black unemployment is the lowest it’s been in 17 years, so who knows what brain disorder you have to think I ignored reality. What I did do, was point out you’re an abject imbecile for thinking Trump did more towards that than Obama.

Trump lowered black unemployment 5% while Obama lowered it 39%. Seems in the alternate universe where you dwell, 5% is greater than 39%.

That would be sort of like Obama handing you $80 ... and then trump handing you another $10 ... and then you moronically crediting trump for giving you more than Obama did because you have more money than you’ve had for years.

See now why folks here laugh at you?

Your stats are incorrect. You're probably just relying on Democrat Fake News stats. African Unemployment was actually pretty high most of Obama's tenure. But regardless, it's currently at a 17 year low. Trump's delivering. I know that makes your butt hurt badly, but it it what it is.

LOLOL

You're such a fucking imbecile.

LOL

Fucking imbecile... why do you assume I'm relying on "Democrat Fake News" when I gave you links to my source and my source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the official employment stats?

Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression but still lowered black unemployment 39% from 12.7% to 7.7%

Trump inherited a good economy and lowered black unemployment 5% from 7.7% to 7.3%.

According to your retarded posts, that means trump did more to lower black unemployment than Obama.

Don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? It's not my butt that hurts -- it's my foot.

Again, African American Unemployment remained high most of Obama's tenure. But it's now at a 17yr low. So, Trump is delivering. Time to lay off Democrat Fake News and go get yourself some Preparation H. Take care kid.

 

[Faun]

I understand, facts and reality hurts your tiny brain.

The reality is, under Trump the African Unemployment Rate has been reduced to its lowest level in 17yrs. So i'm pretty sure it's just your misguided reliance on Democrat Fake News, that's convincing you to ignore reality. You're allowing your bitter butthurt to cloud your judgement. But hey, whatever floats your boat i guess. Take care.

Sadly, you are painfully retarded. Typical for conservatives. I never denied black unemployment is the lowest it’s been in 17 years, so who knows what brain disorder you have to think I ignored reality. What I did do, was point out you’re an abject imbecile for thinking Trump did more towards that than Obama.

Trump lowered black unemployment 5% while Obama lowered it 39%. Seems in the alternate universe where you dwell, 5% is greater than 39%.

That would be sort of like Obama handing you $80 ... and then trump handing you another $10 ... and then you moronically crediting trump for giving you more than Obama did because you have more money than you’ve had for years.

See now why folks here laugh at you?

Your stats are incorrect. You're probably just relying on Democrat Fake News stats. African Unemployment was actually pretty high most of Obama's tenure. But regardless, it's currently at a 17 year low. Trump's delivering. I know that makes your butt hurt badly, but it it what it is.

LOLOL

You're such a fucking imbecile.

LOL

Fucking imbecile... why do you assume I'm relying on "Democrat Fake News" when I gave you links to my source and my source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the official employment stats?

Obama inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression but still lowered black unemployment 39% from 12.7% to 7.7%

Trump inherited a good economy and lowered black unemployment 5% from 7.7% to 7.3%.

According to your retarded posts, that means trump did more to lower black unemployment than Obama.

Don't you ever get tired of getting your ass kicked? It's not my butt that hurts -- it's my foot.

Again, African American Unemployment remained high most of Obama's tenure. But it's now at a 17yr low. So, Trump is delivering. Time to lay off Democrat Fake News and go get yourself some Preparation H. Take care kid.

LOLOL

You're terminally retarded. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is not "Democrat Fake News."

 

[The Derp]

In fact, the second derivative in the change in profits is at its highest rate at the very bottom of the market, and generally turns negative as the economy improves.

No, it doesn't. And you're going to see that it doesn't as soon as Q2 quarterly earnings come in around July. So Q1 profits come in exponentially above Q4, which is going to prompt market growth to new share prices based on those profit increases. So when the profits for Q2 don't show the same increase, the share price will decline. That's a fact.

CFOs aren't loathe to tell shareholders that the second derivative in the change in corporate profits. CFOs are loathe to tell shareholders what they are not expecting. Shareholders understand that the second derivative in the change in corporate profits is not necessarily what matters.

So then why cut taxes at all????? Your entire argument for this tax cut eats itself because you're here admitting that profit growth won't increase due to demand or consumption, and will return to the levels it was at prior to the tax cut which then negates the purpose of the tax cut which we were told would generate all this growth. Now you're saying that it's only going to generate growth in profits for one quarter, and that the growth rate will return to its 2017 levels. So your tax cut accomplished exactly nothing since it's also still above the rate at which other nations offer that corporations take advantage. Our 21% rate is still higher than Ireland, still higher than the Cayman Islands, still higher than all those place to where companies relocated their HQ's. So what did this rate cut accomplish? Nothing.

What matters is the absolute change in profits relative to expectations.

No, what matters is the change in revenues, because those pre-tax revenues are going to determine whether or not the company grows, not whether or not its profits grow. And I have both you and Toddster telling me that profit growth will simply return to what it was pre-2017...which means the tax cut didn't generate any new economic activity, which undermines its entire purpose.

Fucking morons. You've made the argument against the tax cut for me

 

[The Derp]

If you throw enough money at it, you can grow anything, anywhere.!

Coffee beans are imported because they don't grow in Chicago. I don't know why you keep fixating on this, but it's more of that a priori random parameter definition you habitually use.

Trickle down Econ already working for AT&T, Wells Fargo and Comcast employees...Thanks Donny!

Maybe you missed this (or you deliberately ignore it because you're a sophist), but days after AT&T announced these bonuses, they also announced layoffs. WHOOPSIE POOPSIE:

AT&T ANNOUNCES THOUSANDS OF LAYOFFS, FIRINGS JUST IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS
BY CARLOS BALLESTEROS ON 12/24/17 AT 3:53 PM
AT&T plans to lay off and fire more than a thousand workers starting early next year, according to local reports.

Across the Midwest, an estimated 600 workers were notified they were being laid off by the company on December 16, a week before AT&T announced it was doling out $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 of its employees in celebration of the Republican Party’s tax overhaul.​

Only the interest, idiot.

More of your inexperience showing; you pay interest on the loans -in some cases- after tax, not before. But if you have a competent accountant, you can make those interest payments tax-deductible. You pay the principal before. Paying the principal on the loan is done pre-tax.

The sky high earnings are still sky high in Q2. Because the massive tax cut, hurray!!

Yeah, but only because of the tax rate...and the growth from Q1 to Q2 is nowhere near the growth from Q4 to Q1, and the share price doesn't freeze between then. The share price will rise based on Q1's earnings growth, then come crashing back down to earth once Q2's earnings growth doesn't match it. Those share prices are going to decline. The market will turn bear. We will enter a recession.

Brokers get fewer fees after they give crappy, idiotic advice.Advice like, "Go short, because no one expects Q2 earnings growth to be less than Q1 earnings growth".

No they don't. They get the same fee. Brokers don't have to be honest or truthful with you about anything, and that's thanks to you guys removing those consumer protection rules because they were Obama's.

Dividends do, but loan repayment ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT! The principle in corporate/business loans are paid pre-tax.Principle? DURR!

Auto-correct gets the better of me. What happens when you type on an ipad.

 

[The Derp]

It is not about the rate that matters.
It is about the level that matters, particularly relative to expectations.

No, it's about the rate because that's how you measure growth.

 

[The Derp]

You can get the S&P 500 reported GAAP earnings from the Standards & Poor's website.
In Q1/09, earnings were $6.86. Earnings in Q2/09 were $7.51. In Q3, they were $12.54. The rate of growth in earnings was 67% between Q2 and Q3 of 2009.That was the highest rate of change in profit growth during this bull market. The S&P 500 was at 919 at the end of Q3/09..

Yes, because that growth was natural from increased sales and revenues, not from a corporate tax rate cut. Y'all make the argument that cutting the corporate tax rate will somehow, magically lead to growth and you're using examples from 2009 -when the rate wasn't cut or lowered- during a bull market to prove...what?

The difference between then and now is that in 2009, there was economic growth that was being generated by increased consumer demand and consumption, in addition to the stimulus which was also passed.

In 2018, there is no increase to the economic growth generated by increased consumer demand and consumption, because cutting the corporate tax rate doesn't increase consumer demand and/or consumption. So profits grew in 2009 because the economy was growing...profits are growing in just the first quarter of 2018 because of a rate cut. In no world does that rate cut translate to increase demand and/or consumption. Which is why you're doing nothing other than priming the market for a switch from bull to bear, because you're generating increased profits through means other than increased consumption. So this corporate tax cut is a one-time stimulus to the stock market that, without a corresponding increase in consumption that translates to increased pre-tax revenues, will only lead to a market contraction shortly once the sky-high profit growth isn't matched the following quarter.

At the peak of the last two bull markets, earnings peaked within two quarters of the peak in the index. As earnings fell, so did the index price.

And when earnings don't come in at the same growth they did in Q1, then what happens to the price index? See, if revenues were growing, then you'd have an argument, but you're telling me that revenues are going to stay the same as they had in 2017, so this cut accomplished what, exactly? Nothing. The rate is still higher than it is in the Caymans or Ireland, so you didn't make us competitive with those places to where companies relocated HQ's. All you did was increase the share price, and that's going to be short-lived too when revenues don't increase by any more than they did in 2017.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you throw enough money at it, you can grow anything, anywhere.!

Coffee beans are imported because they don't grow in Chicago. I don't know why you keep fixating on this, but it's more of that a priori random parameter definition you habitually use.

Trickle down Econ already working for AT&T, Wells Fargo and Comcast employees...Thanks Donny!

Maybe you missed this (or you deliberately ignore it because you're a sophist), but days after AT&T announced these bonuses, they also announced layoffs. WHOOPSIE POOPSIE:

AT&T ANNOUNCES THOUSANDS OF LAYOFFS, FIRINGS JUST IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS
BY CARLOS BALLESTEROS ON 12/24/17 AT 3:53 PM
AT&T plans to lay off and fire more than a thousand workers starting early next year, according to local reports.

Across the Midwest, an estimated 600 workers were notified they were being laid off by the company on December 16, a week before AT&T announced it was doling out $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 of its employees in celebration of the Republican Party’s tax overhaul.​

Only the interest, idiot.

More of your inexperience showing; you pay interest on the loans -in some cases- after tax, not before. But if you have a competent accountant, you can make those interest payments tax-deductible. You pay the principal before. Paying the principal on the loan is done pre-tax.

The sky high earnings are still sky high in Q2. Because the massive tax cut, hurray!!

Yeah, but only because of the tax rate...and the growth from Q1 to Q2 is nowhere near the growth from Q4 to Q1, and the share price doesn't freeze between then. The share price will rise based on Q1's earnings growth, then come crashing back down to earth once Q2's earnings growth doesn't match it. Those share prices are going to decline. The market will turn bear. We will enter a recession.

Brokers get fewer fees after they give crappy, idiotic advice.Advice like, "Go short, because no one expects Q2 earnings growth to be less than Q1 earnings growth".

No they don't. They get the same fee. Brokers don't have to be honest or truthful with you about anything, and that's thanks to you guys removing those consumer protection rules because they were Obama's.

Dividends do, but loan repayment ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT! The principle in corporate/business loans are paid pre-tax.Principle? DURR!

Auto-correct gets the better of me. What happens when you type on an ipad.

Maybe you missed this (or you deliberately ignore it because you're a sophist), but days after AT&T announced these bonuses, they also announced layoffs.

If any company ever announces any layoffs from this point forward, that means tax cuts don't work? LOL!

More of your inexperience showing; you pay interest on the loans -in some cases- after tax, not before. But if you have a competent accountant, you can make those interest payments tax-deductible.

Yeah, interest payments are deductible. DUH!

You pay the principal before. Paying the principal on the loan is done pre-tax.

That would mean the principal is deductible. It's not. Moron.

Yeah, but only because of the tax rate...and the growth from Q1 to Q2 is nowhere near the growth from Q4 to Q1

Nobody ever claimed it would be.

The share price will rise based on Q1's earnings growth, then come crashing back down to earth once Q2's earnings growth doesn't match it.

Keep repeating your idiotic claim.

 

[The Derp]

If any company ever announces any layoffs from this point forward, that means tax cuts don't work? LOL!

No, it means tax cuts don't create jobs. And that the decision to give bonuses to employees was a PR move intended to grease the wheels ahead of the DOJ's suit against the AT&T/Time Warner merger this March. AT&T could have given these bonuses without the rate change, since the rate change doesn't start until 2018 and isn't applicable to 2017 revenues, from where these bonuses come.

Nobody ever claimed it would be.

So then cutting the corporate income tax does nothing to increase consumer growth. So why cut it, and why cut it to a rate still above the rate in Ireland and the Caymans? If you're telling me that growth is going to be the same as it was pre-tax, then you've eliminated the only justification you had for cutting the rate in the first place. So then all cutting the rate accomplished was a boost to the share price and the addition of at least $1.5T to the deficit, not any growth or new jobs.

BTW - Trump's created the fewest jobs since 2012 and depending on December's jobs report, possibly the fewest jobs since 2010.

Keep repeating your idiotic claim.

We will be in a recession by this time next year. It's inevitable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you throw enough money at it, you can grow anything, anywhere.!

Coffee beans are imported because they don't grow in Chicago. I don't know why you keep fixating on this, but it's more of that a priori random parameter definition you habitually use.

Trickle down Econ already working for AT&T, Wells Fargo and Comcast employees...Thanks Donny!

Maybe you missed this (or you deliberately ignore it because you're a sophist), but days after AT&T announced these bonuses, they also announced layoffs. WHOOPSIE POOPSIE:

AT&T ANNOUNCES THOUSANDS OF LAYOFFS, FIRINGS JUST IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS
BY CARLOS BALLESTEROS ON 12/24/17 AT 3:53 PM
AT&T plans to lay off and fire more than a thousand workers starting early next year, according to local reports.

Across the Midwest, an estimated 600 workers were notified they were being laid off by the company on December 16, a week before AT&T announced it was doling out $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 of its employees in celebration of the Republican Party’s tax overhaul.​

Only the interest, idiot.

More of your inexperience showing; you pay interest on the loans -in some cases- after tax, not before. But if you have a competent accountant, you can make those interest payments tax-deductible. You pay the principal before. Paying the principal on the loan is done pre-tax.

The sky high earnings are still sky high in Q2. Because the massive tax cut, hurray!!

Yeah, but only because of the tax rate...and the growth from Q1 to Q2 is nowhere near the growth from Q4 to Q1, and the share price doesn't freeze between then. The share price will rise based on Q1's earnings growth, then come crashing back down to earth once Q2's earnings growth doesn't match it. Those share prices are going to decline. The market will turn bear. We will enter a recession.

Brokers get fewer fees after they give crappy, idiotic advice.Advice like, "Go short, because no one expects Q2 earnings growth to be less than Q1 earnings growth".

No they don't. They get the same fee. Brokers don't have to be honest or truthful with you about anything, and that's thanks to you guys removing those consumer protection rules because they were Obama's.

Dividends do, but loan repayment ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT! The principle in corporate/business loans are paid pre-tax.Principle? DURR!

Auto-correct gets the better of me. What happens when you type on an ipad.

Brokers get fewer fees after they give crappy, idiotic advice. Advice like, "Go short, because no one expects Q2 earnings growth to be less than Q1 earnings growth".

No they don't. They get the same fee. Brokers don't have to be honest or truthful with you about anything

If my broker gave me idiotic advice like, "Go short, because no one expects Q2 profit growth percentage is going to be much less than Q1 profit growth percentage", that crappy, idiotic advice will get him much fewer fees from me.

The share price will rise based on Q1's earnings growth, then come crashing back down to earth once Q2's earnings growth doesn't match it. Those share prices are going to decline. The market will turn bear. We will enter a recession.​

A company that had $5 per share earnings every quarter last year will have $6 per share earnings every quarter this year, simply because of the tax cut. Those shares will be more in demand this year than last year.
That's not going to cause a bear market. Is sure isn't going to cause a recession.​

 

[deanrd]

Remember Carrier? Republicans still believe that was a "great deal".

 

[The Derp]

If my broker gave me idiotic advice like, "Go short, because no one expects Q2 profit growth percentage is going to be much less than Q1 profit growth percentage", that crappy, idiotic advice will get him much fewer fees from me.

So you say, but you can just go to another broker who will tell you the exact same thing. Brokers are not obligated to provide you with any good advice. That's thanks to recent deregulation from you guys. So your broker is most likely telling you what you want to hear, even if what you want to hear isn't good for you. Boy, that sure sounds familiar....

A company that had $5 per share earnings every quarter last year will have $6 per share earnings every quarter this year, simply because of the tax cut.

Right, because of the cut...not because of increased revenues or growth. So all you're doing is increasing the after-tax profit, but you're failing to address the real issue; which is demand that increases pre-tax revenue growth. You seem to be telling me that the pre-tax revenue growth will simply return to 2017 levels which would undermine the single key argument you made for these tax cuts; that they will lead to growth and jobs.

Now you're telling me that it's not going to do that, and it's only going to temporarily boost the share price and that you're making a company more profitable by adjusting the rate, but you're saying that long-term the company won't grow. So to make up for the low rate of pre-tax revenue growth, you are cutting the tax rate which boosts after-tax income. But it doesn't boost pre-tax revenues, which means it doesn't generate growth.

And since it doesn't generate growth, what was the need for the cuts???

• You didn't make our corporate tax rate any more competitive to that of Ireland or the Cayman's, which are lower STILL
• You didn't increase consumer demand and sales revenues
• You temporarily boosted a share price but you haven't done anything to protect and encourage growth, since you're saying the rate of growth will be the same as it was prior to 2018.
• If you're not showing improvements to growth over 2017, then you're not going to maintain those high share prices either.

Those shares will be more in demand this year than last year.

They will through Q1 and Q2, but not through Q3. The bear market is going to hit us like a ton of bricks. By this time next year, it's more likely than not that we will be in a recession...one caused entirely by your shitty tax cuts and bonehead fiscal policy, and you'll have no one to blame.

Not to mention that starting 1/1/19, there will be automatic PayGo cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which is going to result in less benefits and more out-of-pocket spending by consumers outside the consumer economy. So the money that otherwise would be spent buying things will instead be used to cover the drop in benefits that came from the PayGo cuts your tax plan caused because it adds trillions to the deficit.

And then on top of that, because you raised the lowest bracket's rate and chained the brackets to CPI, millions are going to get pushed into higher brackets simply because of inflation, which is also going to be much higher because the Fed is going to have to raise interest rates. So the cut expires in 2025 and by 2027, 80-90 million people will be paying more in taxes than they do today, and premiums will increase at least an additional 10% thanks to removing the mandate, and benefits will be cut. So I sure hope you like wiping your old parents' dirty asses, because that's what you're gonna have to do thanks to the Medicaid cuts your stupid tax bill causes. Medicaid pays about 60% of the total nursing home/convalescent home bills. You cut Medicaid more, you force children to spend out of pockets to provide care for their parents.

That's not going to cause a bear market. Is sure isn't going to cause a recession.

Well, given that Conservatives were totally convinced in 2005 that the housing market wasn't going to turn south and destroy the economy, I find it hard to believe Conservatives when they say artificially inflating the stock market won't lead to economic downturns today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If any company ever announces any layoffs from this point forward, that means tax cuts don't work? LOL!

No, it means tax cuts don't create jobs. And that the decision to give bonuses to employees was a PR move intended to grease the wheels ahead of the DOJ's suit against the AT&T/Time Warner merger this March. AT&T could have given these bonuses without the rate change, since the rate change doesn't start until 2018 and isn't applicable to 2017 revenues, from where these bonuses come.

Nobody ever claimed it would be.

So then cutting the corporate income tax does nothing to increase consumer growth. So why cut it, and why cut it to a rate still above the rate in Ireland and the Caymans? If you're telling me that growth is going to be the same as it was pre-tax, then you've eliminated the only justification you had for cutting the rate in the first place. So then all cutting the rate accomplished was a boost to the share price and the addition of at least $1.5T to the deficit, not any growth or new jobs.

BTW - Trump's created the fewest jobs since 2012 and depending on December's jobs report, possibly the fewest jobs since 2010.

Keep repeating your idiotic claim.

We will be in a recession by this time next year. It's inevitable.

No, it means tax cuts don't create jobs.

Because AT&T cut a few hundred jobs the same day the tax bill was signed means tax cuts don't create jobs?
You're actually getting dumber every time you post.

And that the decision to give bonuses to employees was a PR move intended to grease the wheels ahead of the DOJ's suit against the AT&T/Time Warner merger this March.

OK. So fucking what?

AT&T could have given these bonuses without the rate change,

Yup. And they could have fired a few thousand instead of a few hundred.

So then cutting the corporate income tax does nothing to increase consumer growth.

Not directly. So what?

So why cut it,

Because it was too fucking high.

and why cut it to a rate still above the rate in Ireland and the Caymans?

You've convinced me. We should cut it to 10%.

If you're telling me that growth is going to be the same as it was pre-tax,

I didn't tell you that. I think growth will be higher.

So then all cutting the rate accomplished was a boost to the share price

And the higher dividends. Don't forget the dividends.

We will be in a recession by this time next year. It's inevitable.

A recession is inevitable. It won't be by January 2019.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If my broker gave me idiotic advice like, "Go short, because no one expects Q2 profit growth percentage is going to be much less than Q1 profit growth percentage", that crappy, idiotic advice will get him much fewer fees from me.

So you say, but you can just go to another broker who will tell you the exact same thing. Brokers are not obligated to provide you with any good advice. That's thanks to recent deregulation from you guys. So your broker is most likely telling you what you want to hear, even if what you want to hear isn't good for you. Boy, that sure sounds familiar....

A company that had $5 per share earnings every quarter last year will have $6 per share earnings every quarter this year, simply because of the tax cut.

Right, because of the cut...not because of increased revenues or growth. So all you're doing is increasing the after-tax profit, but you're failing to address the real issue; which is demand that increases pre-tax revenue growth. You seem to be telling me that the pre-tax revenue growth will simply return to 2017 levels which would undermine the single key argument you made for these tax cuts; that they will lead to growth and jobs.

Now you're telling me that it's not going to do that, and it's only going to temporarily boost the share price and that you're making a company more profitable by adjusting the rate, but you're saying that long-term the company won't grow. So to make up for the low rate of pre-tax revenue growth, you are cutting the tax rate which boosts after-tax income. But it doesn't boost pre-tax revenues, which means it doesn't generate growth.

And since it doesn't generate growth, what was the need for the cuts???

• You didn't make our corporate tax rate any more competitive to that of Ireland or the Cayman's, which are lower STILL
• You didn't increase consumer demand and sales revenues
• You temporarily boosted a share price but you haven't done anything to protect and encourage growth, since you're saying the rate of growth will be the same as it was prior to 2018.
• If you're not showing improvements to growth over 2017, then you're not going to maintain those high share prices either.

Those shares will be more in demand this year than last year.

They will through Q1 and Q2, but not through Q3. The bear market is going to hit us like a ton of bricks. By this time next year, it's more likely than not that we will be in a recession...one caused entirely by your shitty tax cuts and bonehead fiscal policy, and you'll have no one to blame.

Not to mention that starting 1/1/19, there will be automatic PayGo cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which is going to result in less benefits and more out-of-pocket spending by consumers outside the consumer economy. So the money that otherwise would be spent buying things will instead be used to cover the drop in benefits that came from the PayGo cuts your tax plan caused because it adds trillions to the deficit.

And then on top of that, because you raised the lowest bracket's rate and chained the brackets to CPI, millions are going to get pushed into higher brackets simply because of inflation, which is also going to be much higher because the Fed is going to have to raise interest rates. So the cut expires in 2025 and by 2027, 80-90 million people will be paying more in taxes than they do today, and premiums will increase at least an additional 10% thanks to removing the mandate, and benefits will be cut. So I sure hope you like wiping your old parents' dirty asses, because that's what you're gonna have to do thanks to the Medicaid cuts your stupid tax bill causes. Medicaid pays about 60% of the total nursing home/convalescent home bills. You cut Medicaid more, you force children to spend out of pockets to provide care for their parents.

That's not going to cause a bear market. Is sure isn't going to cause a recession.

Well, given that Conservatives were totally convinced in 2005 that the housing market wasn't going to turn south and destroy the economy, I find it hard to believe Conservatives when they say artificially inflating the stock market won't lead to economic downturns today.

So you say, but you can just go to another broker who will tell you the exact same thing.

It's true. There are plenty of brokers just as dumb as you. I don't work with the dumb ones.

Right, because of the cut.

Right. After-tax earnings will be higher because the tax rate was cut.
That means they'll have more money for buybacks, making my shares more valuable.
They'll have more money for dividends, also making my shares more valuable.

So all you're doing is increasing the after-tax profit,

Yup. Higher profits. That's actually a good thing.

You seem to be telling me that the pre-tax revenue growth will simply return to 2017 levels

No, I actually told you that even if , IF, revenues remain unchanged, Q2 after-tax earnings will still be higher than every quarter of earnings last year, because the 21% rate is the rate for every quarter going forward, not just Q1.

You didn't make our corporate tax rate any more competitive to that of Ireland or the Cayman's

We did make it more competitive, 14% more competitive.
Even if their rate is still lower, the difference is less than it was.

So the cut expires in 2025

So they'll be extended before then.
If the Dems cared, they'd introduce legislation to do that now.

 

[The Derp]

It's true. There are plenty of brokers just as dumb as you. I don't work with the dumb ones.

So back in 2005, Conservatives were saying of the then-housing bubble that it wasn't a bubble, that there was no need to short the housing market, and that share prices and indexes would remain high "for the foreseeable future". Larry Kudlow, who is basically you with some fame, said in 2005 that those warning of an imminent collapse to housing were "bubbleheads". Larry Kudlow was saying that thanks to tax cuts and the growth of the housing market, that there will be a bull market "for at least the next decade".

He was wrong.

So since he was wrong then, and since you share his fundamentals, why the fuck would you be right today?

Right. After-tax earnings will be higher because the tax rate was cut.

Exactly, which I never denied. Of course that after-tax income is going to rise because the rate is cut. But what didn't rise? Pre-tax revenues. So you didn't create any growth, you just increased the amount of profit shareholders get. So you didn't grow the economy, you didn't create jobs, you just added at least $1.5T to the deficit. You fixed the wrong part of the equation. If you truly wanted to create growth and sustainable higher profits (and I doubt that's your goal), you'd increase pre-tax revenues somehow, not after-tax income. But that's because you don't have a fundamental understanding of how the economy works. It's just supply-side economic voodoo. And why by this time next year, we will be in a recession. All the markers are there; diminished job growth (thanks to the shitty Trump deregulations), "irrational exuberance", a nominal increase in demand...it's a house of cards.

That means they'll have more money for buybacks, making my shares more valuable.They'll have more money for dividends, also making my shares more valuable.

LOL! None of which creates any economic growth, contrary to your wild claims. The claims were that the tax cut would create jobs and growth. You're telling me that isn't the case...that you're only increasing profits, not pre-tax revenues. So you're not doing anything to create growth...you're just inflating a market bubble (*typical of your kind...S&L's, Dotcoms, Subprimes). One that we're not prepared for when it pops thanks to the $1T annual deficit your tax cut now will produce.

Say - I thought trillion dollar deficits were bad? Now you're telling me they're OK? What a fucking fraud.

up. Higher profits. That's actually a good thing.

How so? They're not translating to any new growth. They're not creating jobs. You're admitting that the growth in profits is due to a lower rate, not due to increased consumer demand and pre-tax revenues. So you're doing nothing more than inflating a market bubble, one we're not prepared for when it pops. And when it pops, you'll have no one to blame. You won't be able to blame Obama. You won't be able to blame Democrats. The blame will fall squarely on you and your kind. About fucking time it did. These zombie ideas of yours should have been put down, Rick Grimes-style, decades ago.

No, I actually told you that even if , IF, revenues remain unchanged, Q2 after-tax earnings will still be higher than every quarter of earnings last year, because the 21% rate is the rate for every quarter going forward, not just Q1.

Which doesn't translate to economic growth and jobs. You're right here saying that demand is unchanged. So these corporations are seeing higher profits not because they increase their revenues and/or market share, but because of an artificial, one-time only rate change...a rate still higher than that of the countries they moved HQ's to...

What you've failed to do is translate higher corporate profits to higher pre-tax revenues. You've never been able to do that. So the "growth" in profits you're advocating is just a hollow, temporary fix that doesn't address the 500-lb gorilla in the room; demand.

We did make it more competitive, 14% more competitive.

To borrow from one of your posts;

If I choose between rate of 15% vs. a rate of 21%, which rate will I take?

Your own argument from before smashes your new one here to bits.

Your problem is that all this time, you've been arguing that Ireland's 15% (or whatever it is now) rate is why those corporations relocated there. Well, you haven't lowered our corporate rate below theirs, so why would they leave?

Even if their rate is still lower, the difference is less than it was.

If my rate is 21% on profits of $100,000 is that more or less than if the rate is 15% on profits of $100,000?

This is your argument I am using right back at ya! Only I'm arguing correctly and not from a fallacious place.

So they'll be extended before then.
If the Dems cared, they'd introduce legislation to do that now.

Why should Democrats bail out shitty Conservative policy? Why do the cuts expire in the first place?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's true. There are plenty of brokers just as dumb as you. I don't work with the dumb ones.

So back in 2005, Conservatives were saying of the then-housing bubble that it wasn't a bubble, that there was no need to short the housing market, and that share prices and indexes would remain high "for the foreseeable future". Larry Kudlow, who is basically you with some fame, said in 2005 that those warning of an imminent collapse to housing were "bubbleheads". Larry Kudlow was saying that thanks to tax cuts and the growth of the housing market, that there will be a bull market "for at least the next decade".

He was wrong.

So since he was wrong then, and since you share his fundamentals, why the fuck would you be right today?

Right. After-tax earnings will be higher because the tax rate was cut.

Exactly, which I never denied. Of course that after-tax income is going to rise because the rate is cut. But what didn't rise? Pre-tax revenues. So you didn't create any growth, you just increased the amount of profit shareholders get. So you didn't grow the economy, you didn't create jobs, you just added at least $1.5T to the deficit. You fixed the wrong part of the equation. If you truly wanted to create growth and sustainable higher profits (and I doubt that's your goal), you'd increase pre-tax revenues somehow, not after-tax income. But that's because you don't have a fundamental understanding of how the economy works. It's just supply-side economic voodoo. And why by this time next year, we will be in a recession. All the markers are there; diminished job growth (thanks to the shitty Trump deregulations), "irrational exuberance", a nominal increase in demand...it's a house of cards.

That means they'll have more money for buybacks, making my shares more valuable.They'll have more money for dividends, also making my shares more valuable.

LOL! None of which creates any economic growth, contrary to your wild claims. The claims were that the tax cut would create jobs and growth. You're telling me that isn't the case...that you're only increasing profits, not pre-tax revenues. So you're not doing anything to create growth...you're just inflating a market bubble (*typical of your kind...S&L's, Dotcoms, Subprimes). One that we're not prepared for when it pops thanks to the $1T annual deficit your tax cut now will produce.

Say - I thought trillion dollar deficits were bad? Now you're telling me they're OK? What a fucking fraud.

up. Higher profits. That's actually a good thing.

How so? They're not translating to any new growth. They're not creating jobs. You're admitting that the growth in profits is due to a lower rate, not due to increased consumer demand and pre-tax revenues. So you're doing nothing more than inflating a market bubble, one we're not prepared for when it pops. And when it pops, you'll have no one to blame. You won't be able to blame Obama. You won't be able to blame Democrats. The blame will fall squarely on you and your kind. About fucking time it did. These zombie ideas of yours should have been put down, Rick Grimes-style, decades ago.

No, I actually told you that even if , IF, revenues remain unchanged, Q2 after-tax earnings will still be higher than every quarter of earnings last year, because the 21% rate is the rate for every quarter going forward, not just Q1.

Which doesn't translate to economic growth and jobs. You're right here saying that demand is unchanged. So these corporations are seeing higher profits not because they increase their revenues and/or market share, but because of an artificial, one-time only rate change...a rate still higher than that of the countries they moved HQ's to...

What you've failed to do is translate higher corporate profits to higher pre-tax revenues. You've never been able to do that. So the "growth" in profits you're advocating is just a hollow, temporary fix that doesn't address the 500-lb gorilla in the room; demand.

We did make it more competitive, 14% more competitive.

To borrow from one of your posts;

If I choose between rate of 15% vs. a rate of 21%, which rate will I take?

Your own argument from before smashes your new one here to bits.

Your problem is that all this time, you've been arguing that Ireland's 15% (or whatever it is now) rate is why those corporations relocated there. Well, you haven't lowered our corporate rate below theirs, so why would they leave?

Even if their rate is still lower, the difference is less than it was.

If my rate is 21% on profits of $100,000 is that more or less than if the rate is 15% on profits of $100,000?

This is your argument I am using right back at ya! Only I'm arguing correctly and not from a fallacious place.

So they'll be extended before then.
If the Dems cared, they'd introduce legislation to do that now.

Why should Democrats bail out shitty Conservative policy? Why do the cuts expire in the first place?

So back in 2005, Conservatives were saying of the then-housing bubble that it wasn't a bubble,

Unlike all the Liberals, back in 2005, saying there was a housing bubble?

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's true. There are plenty of brokers just as dumb as you. I don't work with the dumb ones.

So back in 2005, Conservatives were saying of the then-housing bubble that it wasn't a bubble, that there was no need to short the housing market, and that share prices and indexes would remain high "for the foreseeable future". Larry Kudlow, who is basically you with some fame, said in 2005 that those warning of an imminent collapse to housing were "bubbleheads". Larry Kudlow was saying that thanks to tax cuts and the growth of the housing market, that there will be a bull market "for at least the next decade".

He was wrong.

So since he was wrong then, and since you share his fundamentals, why the fuck would you be right today?

Right. After-tax earnings will be higher because the tax rate was cut.

Exactly, which I never denied. Of course that after-tax income is going to rise because the rate is cut. But what didn't rise? Pre-tax revenues. So you didn't create any growth, you just increased the amount of profit shareholders get. So you didn't grow the economy, you didn't create jobs, you just added at least $1.5T to the deficit. You fixed the wrong part of the equation. If you truly wanted to create growth and sustainable higher profits (and I doubt that's your goal), you'd increase pre-tax revenues somehow, not after-tax income. But that's because you don't have a fundamental understanding of how the economy works. It's just supply-side economic voodoo. And why by this time next year, we will be in a recession. All the markers are there; diminished job growth (thanks to the shitty Trump deregulations), "irrational exuberance", a nominal increase in demand...it's a house of cards.

That means they'll have more money for buybacks, making my shares more valuable.They'll have more money for dividends, also making my shares more valuable.

LOL! None of which creates any economic growth, contrary to your wild claims. The claims were that the tax cut would create jobs and growth. You're telling me that isn't the case...that you're only increasing profits, not pre-tax revenues. So you're not doing anything to create growth...you're just inflating a market bubble (*typical of your kind...S&L's, Dotcoms, Subprimes). One that we're not prepared for when it pops thanks to the $1T annual deficit your tax cut now will produce.

Say - I thought trillion dollar deficits were bad? Now you're telling me they're OK? What a fucking fraud.

up. Higher profits. That's actually a good thing.

How so? They're not translating to any new growth. They're not creating jobs. You're admitting that the growth in profits is due to a lower rate, not due to increased consumer demand and pre-tax revenues. So you're doing nothing more than inflating a market bubble, one we're not prepared for when it pops. And when it pops, you'll have no one to blame. You won't be able to blame Obama. You won't be able to blame Democrats. The blame will fall squarely on you and your kind. About fucking time it did. These zombie ideas of yours should have been put down, Rick Grimes-style, decades ago.

No, I actually told you that even if , IF, revenues remain unchanged, Q2 after-tax earnings will still be higher than every quarter of earnings last year, because the 21% rate is the rate for every quarter going forward, not just Q1.

Which doesn't translate to economic growth and jobs. You're right here saying that demand is unchanged. So these corporations are seeing higher profits not because they increase their revenues and/or market share, but because of an artificial, one-time only rate change...a rate still higher than that of the countries they moved HQ's to...

What you've failed to do is translate higher corporate profits to higher pre-tax revenues. You've never been able to do that. So the "growth" in profits you're advocating is just a hollow, temporary fix that doesn't address the 500-lb gorilla in the room; demand.

We did make it more competitive, 14% more competitive.

To borrow from one of your posts;

If I choose between rate of 15% vs. a rate of 21%, which rate will I take?

Your own argument from before smashes your new one here to bits.

Your problem is that all this time, you've been arguing that Ireland's 15% (or whatever it is now) rate is why those corporations relocated there. Well, you haven't lowered our corporate rate below theirs, so why would they leave?

Even if their rate is still lower, the difference is less than it was.

If my rate is 21% on profits of $100,000 is that more or less than if the rate is 15% on profits of $100,000?

This is your argument I am using right back at ya! Only I'm arguing correctly and not from a fallacious place.

So they'll be extended before then.
If the Dems cared, they'd introduce legislation to do that now.

Why should Democrats bail out shitty Conservative policy? Why do the cuts expire in the first place?

Even if their rate is still lower, the difference is less than it was.

If my rate is 21% on profits of $100,000 is that more or less than if the rate is 15% on profits of $100,000?

Are you admitting a lower rate is beneficial?

 

[The Derp]

Because AT&T cut a few hundred jobs the same day the tax bill was signed means tax cuts don't create jobs?You're actually getting dumber every time you post.

Why would they create any job since they're not increasing pre-tax revenues, and expanding pre-tax revenues is why you'd create jobs? Because growing pre-tax revenues means there's growing demand, and you hire to meet that demand. But if you're not increasing pre-tax revenues, and just increase after-tax profit, how are you creating demand? You're not. You're just inflating a bubble.

X (Revenues) * T (tax rate) = Profit.

Lowering T can increase profit.

Raising X can increase profit.

Lowering T and raising X can increase profit.

But lowering T does not increase X.

X is the important number here because X indicates if the business is growing. A business can grow profits without growing the business...that's done by cutting payroll or lowering the tax rate. But a business doesn't grow if pre-tax revenues don't grow. You ignore the one thing in the equation that is most important.

OK. So fucking what?

So the tax cuts didn't increase demand to justify expansion, and they never will. So arguing that lowering the tax rate will create jobs is a fucking lie, isn't it?

Yup. And they could have fired a few thousand instead of a few hundred.

Ummm, AT&T is firing thousands of people

AT&T ANNOUNCES THOUSANDS OF LAYOFFS, FIRINGS JUST IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS
BY CARLOS BALLESTEROS ON 12/24/17 AT 3:53 PM
AT&T plans to lay off and fire more than a thousand workers starting early next year, according to local reports.​

So then cutting the corporate income tax does nothing to increase consumer growth.
Not directly. So what?

Whoa, there! Hold those horses! That's not what y'all were saying before. You were saying that these businesses would expand and invest if their income tax rate was cut. Now you're telling me that it's not a direct correlation? So at what point does the tax cut actually create a job? You know I'm leading you with this question, right? Because I expect your answer to be trickle-down in not as few words.

Because it was too fucking high.

It's still higher than the rate of those countries to whom you were screeching that we were losing corporate HQ's to.

So, if we use your shit argument from before:

What is more? 21% of $100,000 or 15% of $100,000?

That's your shit argument and why we had to cuit our corporate rate. You said we had to cut it because we were losing HQ's to other territories. Well, you didn't cut the rate below the rate in those other territories, so why would any business relocating from those to territories with a higher rate? YOU WERE ARGUING AGAINST THAT VERY THING A WEEK AGO. This corporate rate cut still has our rate above those nations like Ireland and the Caymans.

and why cut it to a rate still above the rate in Ireland and the Caymans?
You've convinced me. We should cut it to 10%.

You've redefined parameters yet again. So if the recent rate cut wasn't low enough, why did you support it? The answer is obvious; you're a partisan hack and fraud.

I didn't tell you that. I think growth will be higher.

What makes you think that?

X = Net Revenues
T = Tax rate
P = Profits

X x T = P

How does lowering T increase X?

And the higher dividends. Don't forget the dividends.

Which benefits the wealthy who we now know save more than they spend when given a tax cut, and that there's no amount of economic activity generated by higher dividends that makes up for the gap in revenues lost thanks to the tax cut. Your big promise was that increasing after-tax profits will generate growth that increases pre-tax revenues. But now you're telling me that isn't true, and they're not linked, and you're just guessing (without showing your work). Why the fuck should anyone listen to you? Remind me.

We will be in a recession by this time next year. It's inevitable.
A recession is inevitable. It won't be by January 2019.

I hope you're right, but I know you're wrong.