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

[The Derp]

However, in 2004-7 banks were betting on those mortgages defaulting
Bullshit

Apparently, you've never heard of AIG.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

View attachment 169180

Why are there homeless people in high tax countries in Europe?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why aren't they increasing pre-tax revenues?.

Because there's no demand increase. You haven't baked that into anything. You think that just by virtue of higher profits, consumers will increase their demand and that's silly, magical, faith-based thinking. It's voodoo economics.

There isn't growing demand?

No. Trickle-down doesn't exist. You've done nothing to increase demand...all you've done is increase after-tax profits. But that doesn't translate to increased pre-tax revenues. It doesn't affect increased pre-tax revenues.

Did anyone say demand was going to increase in that exact area in a few hours, to alleviate the overstaffing they saw? Link?

YOU SAID THAT! You all argued that if we cut the corporate income tax rate, it would lead to magical investing and expansion and unicorns and pixie farts. But you only invest and expand when there's demand to meet. And since the corporate income tax rate doesn't increase aggregate consumer demand, you've done nothing except balloon the deficit. A deficit you screeched like a barnyard animal about during Obama. So not only are you an economic illiterate, you're also a flaming hypocrite.

Darn it, if only we had raised our already highest in the 1st world corporate rates, they would never have fired another employee ever again.......

No, what it's proving is that it doesn't matter what the corporate tax rate is; businesses hire and fire workers based on aggregate demand for their product. You don't increase demand by boosting the share price temporarily. And that share price boost will be temporary. It will disappear just like it has so many times before.

Really? I said something before that conflicted with what I just said? Link?

Well, you said that businesses if given a tax cut will expand and invest. Now you're saying they won't and that it's "indirect". Which is just another word for "bullshit".

Yes. Abso-fucking-lutely.

Why would they? If there's no increased demand, why would a business expand? That makes no sense. This is where your lack of inexperience and your dogmatic supply-side theories come into play. A business isn't going to expand just because it got a tax cut; a business is going to expand if and only if there is demand for their product to justify the expansion. The corporate tax rate matters exactly 0% in that equation.

Read my post again. Maybe if you read it out loud, you'll notice your error?

That's what you said...your position now is that corporate tax cuts kinda, somehow increase aggregate demand, though you can't say how because you don't know how. Because you're just guessing here and coming up with shit off the top of your head. No effort put into anything you do; you're just a lazy know-nothing.

Yup. And?

So lowering the rate didn't lure any business back, didn't create any jobs, didn't increase consumer demand. All it did was balloon the deficit, the very deficit you screeched about like a barnyard animal throughout Obama.

A 10% rate cut is good, a 14% cut is better.
20% is better than 14%......25% better still.
I wouldn't mind a 5% corporate rate.

But the rate cut you supported was to 21%, which is still higher than all those countries to where corporations relocated their tax HQ's. So the cut was completely pointless, then, and only inflates a market bubble. So you screeched like a barnyard animal that we had to cut the corporate rate to be "more competitive", even though the rate cut wasn't competitive enough. So what made you guys settle on the 21% number, anyway? Why didn't you get a 15% or 10% or 5% rate? Why 21%? It makes no sense. You're here screeching that we need to bring these HQ's back to the US by cutting the corporate rate so you cut the corporate rate...to levels still higher elsewhere.

So it was never about bringing these corporations back; it was purely about transferring wealth from the workers to the corporations. If you intended to bring these HQ's back, you would have lowered the rate below the lowest rate out there. But you didn't do that; so this was never about bringing HQ's back, this was just about taking more wealth for the rich at your personal expense. Fucking dumb.

A lower rate on profits and immediate 100% expensing will lead to growth.More incentive to invest, more incentive to expand.

But if there's no demand, why expand at all? Because you believe "If you built it, they will come"? Do you use Hollywood movies as the basis for all your thinking or just your thinking around economics?

You told me, straight up, that revenues and profit growth would return to the same levels it was prior to 2018. So then that means consumer demand is untouched and doesn't increase. A business only expands and invests if there is requisite demand. But you've done nothing to increase demand.

X x T = P
You need to recheck your formula..

No, you need to reconcile that lowering the tax rate doesn't increase pre-tax revenues. In no world will it.

Yup. I think we'll see decent growth in corporate revenues this year.

We'll probably see the exact same growth we saw in 2017, which is pretty much the same growth we saw in 2016, which is pretty much the same growth we saw in 2015, 2014, and 2013. So this tax cut didn't do anything to increase that growth. And I'm not sure why you think it will unless you believe the corporations will "trickle down" their wealth...we already know they won't, because they didn't before when we had a corporate repatriation in 2004. So since it didn't work then -at a rate much, much lower than the rate you set now- there's no reason to believe it will work today.

Because there's no demand increase.

You're wrong.

You think that just by virtue of higher profits, consumers will increase their demand

I can increase my demand. Sorry about your situation.

No. Trickle-down doesn't exist.

Who needs trickle down? Demand is increasing.

YOU SAID THAT!

No, I never said that demand was going to increase in every business area in a few hours so much that no layoffs would ever occur again.

You all argued that if we cut the corporate income tax rate, it would lead to magical investing and expansion

Yup. Logical investing, not magical.

Well, you said that businesses if given a tax cut will expand and invest. Now you're saying they won't and that it's "indirect".

Businesses will expand. You asked about consumers. When I said indirect, it was in answer to your consumer question. If you're confused about the difference......?

Why would they?

Why wouldn't they?

If there's no increased demand,

Why do you keep repeating your error?
There is increased demand.

But the rate cut you supported was to 21%

I supported a much steeper cut. I settled for 21%.

which is still higher than all those countries to where corporations relocated their tax HQ's.

Yup. There are still areas with lower rates.

So the cut was completely pointless, then

How can a cut that makes us more competitive be pointless?

we had to cut the corporate rate to be "more competitive",

Yup.

even though the rate cut wasn't competitive enough.

Wasn't competitive enough for what?

So what made you guys settle on the 21% number, anyway?

Senate budget rules, mostly.

So it was never about bringing these corporations back;

It wasn't?

it was purely about transferring wealth from the workers to the corporations.

How does allowing corporations to keep money away from the tax man....taking wealth from the workers?

But if there's no demand, why expand at all?

Where have you been? Look at S&P 500 revenues. Look at their earnings.
Demand is expanding all over the place.

You told me, straight up, that revenues and profit growth would return to the same levels it was prior to 2018.

Really? That was my prediction?
I think you're lying.

We'll probably see the exact same growth we saw in 2017, which is pretty much the same growth we saw in 2016, which is pretty much the same growth we saw in 2015, 2014, and 2013.

The same growth and much higher profits?
I'll take it!!!
Soon my 401K will be an 801K!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've been saying, countless times, that a lower rate won't influence corporations to invest in one location over another location, because investment is done pre-tax.

And it won't. So once again, you're trying to conflate expanding into a market with relocating a headquarters. And you do that because you're a sophist fuckhead.

And it won't.

You just admitted a lower corporate tax rate is beneficial.
No one changes behavior to receive a benefit?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Republicans, not conservatives.

Ah, so here's the part where you try to retroactively pretend that the policies you supported weren't what you actually supported. Of course, that's all bullshit and Republicans and Conservatives are interchangeable and always have been. Republicans are just the political party of Conservatives. A distinction without difference.

Not at that point. So?

And not after it either. In fact, Democrats had nothing to do with Bush's regulators ceasing the enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004. Your guy, Bush, even said that in his Working Group on Financial Markets in 2008. I know, I know...Bush's Working Group is just some Democratic ploy to get Bush to appoint a group that would pin the blame for the mortgage crisis on deregulatory policies toward standard enforcement in 2004, when Democrats had no political power, all so you could look like a fool 9 years later on an internet message board.

Gosh, two politicians who were wrong about something. That never happens.

No, not two politicians. ONE Bush Conservative appointee who told Barney Frank not to worry. So Barney Frank was wrong...to believe what Bush's people were saying? That's your defense? That everyone should have known better than to trust Conservatives when they say things? So why shouldn't that apply to you and your posts?

Republicans and Conservatives are interchangeable and always have been.

That's funny. I wish it were true.

And not after it either.

Clinton regulations pushing home ownership on low and middle income buyers were still in place.
His rule had Fannie and Freddie making 50% of their mortgages purchases in the subprime area.
Bush made it 55%.

No, not two politicians. ONE

Did Barney Frank believe everything any Republican official told him?
Couldn't do any research on his own? Maybe later Frank came out and said, "I wanted to dial back lending, but gosh darn it, Snow was just so convincing"? LOL!

When Frank later said he wanted to keep going, no danger of Fannie and Freddie failing.....still Snow talking?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

However, in 2004-7 banks were betting on those mortgages defaulting
Bullshit

Apparently, you've never heard of AIG.

AIG was betting on mortgages defaulting?
Hoping mortgages would default?

 

[The Derp]

You're wrong.

You're the one who continually and repeatedly refuses to explain how corporate tax cuts result in increased consumer demand. I don't think you can even explain it because you recognize the logical fallacy that it is. So rather than own up to that, you have to fight to preserve your ego on an anonymous message board. Fucking lame, dude.

I can increase my demand. Sorry about your situation.

So you say, but why the fuck should we believe you? And how is your demand increased? You don't say...more of that ambiguous vague general personal anecdote bullshit that pollutes every post of yours.

Who needs trickle down? Demand is increasing.

Not because of the tax cut. Demand was already increasing and had for years during Obama. Trump's done nothing to increase demand, and we're seeing that manifested in the worst year for job creation since 2012, maybe since 2010. So a drop in job creation would seem to indicate that there's a drop in demand. There just wasn't as much demand in 2017 as there was in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2011.

No, I never said that demand was going to increase in every business area in a few hours so much that no layoffs would ever occur again..

LOL! You're right...you never said that. Because you never got to that level of specificity because you've had to spend this thread walking back what you've said before by redefining the parameters of the conversation a priori. So now you've added in that qualifier that it wasn't going to be in "every" business. Ummm, OK, so which businesses, then? Do you know? No, of course not. Because you're making this shit up off the top of your head, aren't you? You've yet to prove that cutting these taxes produces any demand. You've established that the demand is already there, so cutting corporate taxes doesn't add to that demand. All it does is inflate a bubble and the deficit.

But that's your real goal, isn't it? To practice fiscal terrorism; you fly a plane of tax cuts into the budget, then use the resulting debt hysteria from that to force through a narrow, unpopular, ideological agenda of spending cuts to programs you oppose on an ideological level, but could never repeal through conventional legislation because they're too popular and they help too many people. So you manufacture a deficit crisis, then use that deficit crisis to inflict harm on those you judge to be undeserving. So that makes you a terrorist in every sense of the word.

Yup. Logical investing, not magical.

Why would any business expand if there's no demand to expand to meet?

Businesses will expand.You asked about consumers. When I said indirect, it was in answer to your consumer question. If you're confused about the difference......?

Why? Why would a business expand if there's no demand to justify it? You haven't done anything to increase demand. Increasing corporate profits = / = increasing consumer demand. It wasn't an answer because "indirect" isn't an answer...it's just a vague ambiguity you vomited out there in absence of a clear, thought-out answer to how consumer demand is increased via corporate profit tax cuts. So you may as well have said it was from unicorns and pixie farts, because it's just as believable an explanation as "indirect".

Why would they?
Why wouldn't they?

Because there's no increased demand to justify expansion. That's why they wouldn't do it. That's why AT&T just laid off 1,000+ people.

Why do you keep repeating your error?
There is increased demand.

Not from the tax cut. You haven't explained how. You said "indirectly" like that's an answer. It's not. It's a vague ambiguity you spat out because you're not secure in your shit argument.

I supported a much steeper cut. I settled for 21%..

But why settle for 21% since it's still above all those countries to where corporate HQ's went? And why settle on that number? Why 21%? That makes no sense. It seems like it was just pulled out of your fat rear end. "Let's see, the corporate rate in Ireland is 15%, it's like 5% in the Canary Islands, so let's lower the rate to...21%"...?????

Yup. There are still areas with lower rates.

So you didn't lure any businesses back. Even though you said lowering the rate would. So it doesn't. Which means lowering the rate was never about bringing corporate HQ's back, it was about inflating a market bubble.

How can a cut that makes us more competitive be pointless?

We're not competitive any more now than we were when the rate was 35%. You proved this point in the last thing you said that I quoted. "There are still areas with lower rates". Those were your words, were they not? So you haven't been able to prove cutting the corporate profit tax rate increases demand, you haven't been able to prove how we're more competitive with nations who still have lower rates far below what we now have...so basically, your argument isn't even there. You're not even making an argument anymore; you're just vomiting rhetoric.

we had to cut the corporate rate to be "more competitive",
Yup.
even though the rate cut wasn't competitive enough.
Wasn't competitive enough for what?

For luring back those businesses that relocated their HQ's. That's why you said we had to lower the rate, didn't you? To bring them back here. Well, this rate doesn't achieve that because it's still higher. So you accomplished nothing other than inflating a market bubble and increasing the deficit by at least $1.5T.

So what made you guys settle on the 21% number, anyway?
Senate budget rules, mostly.

And those rules are, what? That if it adds to the deficit after 10 years, it requires 60 votes. So then that means these stupid tax cuts do not pay for themselves, which means they don't generate economic activity, which means they don't increase demand, which means your entire argument is bullshit. If these tax cuts increased demand, then they would pay for themselves and they wouldn't require 60 votes. But they don't pay for themselves, do they? In fact, they don't generate any increased economic activity, don't they? So your chief argument that these cuts somehow translate to growth is undermined by the fact that you need 60 votes to pass it.

So it was never about bringing these corporations back;
It wasn't?

No. If it was, then the corporate rate would be the lowest in the world. But you didn't go that low. Instead you "settled" with the deficit on 21%. Which means your shitty tax cuts don't generate any economic growth. If they did, then they wouldn't need 60 votes to pass. And that's with the new "dynamic scoring" rules Conservatives use. Even with your thumb on the scale you're still showing these cuts won't produce any meaningful growth, maybe any growth at all.

it was purely about transferring wealth from the workers to the corporations.
How does allowing corporations to keep money away from the tax man....taking wealth from the workers?

Because for one, you've raised the lowest bracket's rate. And for two, you've set the cuts to expire in 2025 while also chaining the brackets to inflation, which will also rise thanks to your shitty tax plan, which is going to push 80-90 million people into higher brackets than they are currently in simply because of inflation. Why do the income tax cuts for everyone but the wealthy expire in 2025? And then on top of all that, you're increasing premiums by an extra 10%, and you're forcing PayGo cuts that will start 1/1/19 and force workers to pay more out of pocket for things like health care for their elderly parents.

But if there's no demand, why expand at all?
Where have you been? Look at S&P 500 revenues. Look at their earnings.
Demand is expanding all over the place.

You're confusing profits with revenues, and you do that because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A corporation's profits can increase even if demand drops. That's done by lowering the tax rate, and/or cutting payroll.

BTW - Obama grew the S&P 500 more in his first year than Trump did. And Obama inherited a recession, Trump didn't.

You told me, straight up, that revenues and profit growth would return to the same levels it was prior to 2018.
Really? That was my prediction?
I think you're lying.

That's what you said, man. Because you let it slip that you rightly recognize lowering the corporate profit tax doesn't translate to increased demand. It may lead to increased profits, but profits = / = demand.

We'll probably see the exact same growth we saw in 2017, which is pretty much the same growth we saw in 2016, which is pretty much the same growth we saw in 2015, 2014, and 2013.
The same growth and much higher profits?
I'll take it!!!
Soon my 401K will be an 801K!

No it won't. Soon, it's going to collapse, just like it has the last few times the market was turned into a bubble by Conservative policy.

 

[The Derp]

You just admitted a lower corporate tax rate is beneficial.
No one changes behavior to receive a benefit?

Beneficial to where you headquarter yourself, but has nothing to do with expanding into or within consumer markets.

 

[The Derp]

Republicans and Conservatives are interchangeable and always have been.
That's funny. I wish it were true.?

It's funny how after Bush, you couldn't find a single Conservative that says they supported him, even though someone was voting for Bush and cheerleading his policies on the internet for 8 years. We are expected to believe that you secretly opposed Bush the whole time you supported him? You'll do the same thing with Trump too, once it turns out he's as full of shit as the rest.

And not after it either.
Clinton regulations pushing home ownership on low and middle income buyers were still in place.
His rule had Fannie and Freddie making 50% of their mortgages purchases in the subprime area.
Bush made it 55%.

And even then GSE loans performed at rates far and above that of the privately-issued subprime loans that Bush's regulators weren't even looking at to see if they conformed with lending standards.

GSE loans didn't cause the bubble or collapse; your dramatic weakening of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007 were.

Did Barney Frank believe everything any Republican official told him?
Couldn't do any research on his own? Maybe later Frank came out and said, "I wanted to dial back lending, but gosh darn it, Snow was just so convincing"? LOLWhen Frank later said he wanted to keep going, no danger of Fannie and Freddie failing.....still Snow talking?

So here's what your argument amounts to:

Everyone should have known better than to trust what Conservatives were telling them.

And that is exactly why I don't trust anything you tell me today.

So I'm glad we're in agreement then; never trust anything a Conservative tells you because chances are, they're either lying or just making shit up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're wrong.

You're the one who continually and repeatedly refuses to explain how corporate tax cuts result in increased consumer demand. I don't think you can even explain it because you recognize the logical fallacy that it is. So rather than own up to that, you have to fight to preserve your ego on an anonymous message board. Fucking lame, dude.

I can increase my demand. Sorry about your situation.

So you say, but why the fuck should we believe you? And how is your demand increased? You don't say...more of that ambiguous vague general personal anecdote bullshit that pollutes every post of yours.

Who needs trickle down? Demand is increasing.

Not because of the tax cut. Demand was already increasing and had for years during Obama. Trump's done nothing to increase demand, and we're seeing that manifested in the worst year for job creation since 2012, maybe since 2010. So a drop in job creation would seem to indicate that there's a drop in demand. There just wasn't as much demand in 2017 as there was in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2011.

No, I never said that demand was going to increase in every business area in a few hours so much that no layoffs would ever occur again..

LOL! You're right...you never said that. Because you never got to that level of specificity because you've had to spend this thread walking back what you've said before by redefining the parameters of the conversation a priori. So now you've added in that qualifier that it wasn't going to be in "every" business. Ummm, OK, so which businesses, then? Do you know? No, of course not. Because you're making this shit up off the top of your head, aren't you? You've yet to prove that cutting these taxes produces any demand. You've established that the demand is already there, so cutting corporate taxes doesn't add to that demand. All it does is inflate a bubble and the deficit.

But that's your real goal, isn't it? To practice fiscal terrorism; you fly a plane of tax cuts into the budget, then use the resulting debt hysteria from that to force through a narrow, unpopular, ideological agenda of spending cuts to programs you oppose on an ideological level, but could never repeal through conventional legislation because they're too popular and they help too many people. So you manufacture a deficit crisis, then use that deficit crisis to inflict harm on those you judge to be undeserving. So that makes you a terrorist in every sense of the word.

Yup. Logical investing, not magical.

Why would any business expand if there's no demand to expand to meet?

Businesses will expand.You asked about consumers. When I said indirect, it was in answer to your consumer question. If you're confused about the difference......?

Why? Why would a business expand if there's no demand to justify it? You haven't done anything to increase demand. Increasing corporate profits = / = increasing consumer demand. It wasn't an answer because "indirect" isn't an answer...it's just a vague ambiguity you vomited out there in absence of a clear, thought-out answer to how consumer demand is increased via corporate profit tax cuts. So you may as well have said it was from unicorns and pixie farts, because it's just as believable an explanation as "indirect".

Why would they?
Why wouldn't they?

Because there's no increased demand to justify expansion. That's why they wouldn't do it. That's why AT&T just laid off 1,000+ people.

Why do you keep repeating your error?
There is increased demand.

Not from the tax cut. You haven't explained how. You said "indirectly" like that's an answer. It's not. It's a vague ambiguity you spat out because you're not secure in your shit argument.

I supported a much steeper cut. I settled for 21%..

But why settle for 21% since it's still above all those countries to where corporate HQ's went? And why settle on that number? Why 21%? That makes no sense. It seems like it was just pulled out of your fat rear end. "Let's see, the corporate rate in Ireland is 15%, it's like 5% in the Canary Islands, so let's lower the rate to...21%"...?????

Yup. There are still areas with lower rates.

So you didn't lure any businesses back. Even though you said lowering the rate would. So it doesn't. Which means lowering the rate was never about bringing corporate HQ's back, it was about inflating a market bubble.

How can a cut that makes us more competitive be pointless?

We're not competitive any more now than we were when the rate was 35%. You proved this point in the last thing you said that I quoted. "There are still areas with lower rates". Those were your words, were they not? So you haven't been able to prove cutting the corporate profit tax rate increases demand, you haven't been able to prove how we're more competitive with nations who still have lower rates far below what we now have...so basically, your argument isn't even there. You're not even making an argument anymore; you're just vomiting rhetoric.

we had to cut the corporate rate to be "more competitive",
Yup.
even though the rate cut wasn't competitive enough.
Wasn't competitive enough for what?

For luring back those businesses that relocated their HQ's. That's why you said we had to lower the rate, didn't you? To bring them back here. Well, this rate doesn't achieve that because it's still higher. So you accomplished nothing other than inflating a market bubble and increasing the deficit by at least $1.5T.

So what made you guys settle on the 21% number, anyway?
Senate budget rules, mostly.

And those rules are, what? That if it adds to the deficit after 10 years, it requires 60 votes. So then that means these stupid tax cuts do not pay for themselves, which means they don't generate economic activity, which means they don't increase demand, which means your entire argument is bullshit. If these tax cuts increased demand, then they would pay for themselves and they wouldn't require 60 votes. But they don't pay for themselves, do they? In fact, they don't generate any increased economic activity, don't they? So your chief argument that these cuts somehow translate to growth is undermined by the fact that you need 60 votes to pass it.

So it was never about bringing these corporations back;
It wasn't?

No. If it was, then the corporate rate would be the lowest in the world. But you didn't go that low. Instead you "settled" with the deficit on 21%. Which means your shitty tax cuts don't generate any economic growth. If they did, then they wouldn't need 60 votes to pass. And that's with the new "dynamic scoring" rules Conservatives use. Even with your thumb on the scale you're still showing these cuts won't produce any meaningful growth, maybe any growth at all.

it was purely about transferring wealth from the workers to the corporations.
How does allowing corporations to keep money away from the tax man....taking wealth from the workers?

Because for one, you've raised the lowest bracket's rate. And for two, you've set the cuts to expire in 2025 while also chaining the brackets to inflation, which will also rise thanks to your shitty tax plan, which is going to push 80-90 million people into higher brackets than they are currently in simply because of inflation. Why do the income tax cuts for everyone but the wealthy expire in 2025? And then on top of all that, you're increasing premiums by an extra 10%, and you're forcing PayGo cuts that will start 1/1/19 and force workers to pay more out of pocket for things like health care for their elderly parents.

But if there's no demand, why expand at all?
Where have you been? Look at S&P 500 revenues. Look at their earnings.
Demand is expanding all over the place.

You're confusing profits with revenues, and you do that because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A corporation's profits can increase even if demand drops. That's done by lowering the tax rate, and/or cutting payroll.

BTW - Obama grew the S&P 500 more in his first year than Trump did. And Obama inherited a recession, Trump didn't.

You told me, straight up, that revenues and profit growth would return to the same levels it was prior to 2018.
Really? That was my prediction?
I think you're lying.

That's what you said, man. Because you let it slip that you rightly recognize lowering the corporate profit tax doesn't translate to increased demand. It may lead to increased profits, but profits = / = demand.

We'll probably see the exact same growth we saw in 2017, which is pretty much the same growth we saw in 2016, which is pretty much the same growth we saw in 2015, 2014, and 2013.
The same growth and much higher profits?
I'll take it!!!
Soon my 401K will be an 801K!

No it won't. Soon, it's going to collapse, just like it has the last few times the market was turned into a bubble by Conservative policy.

You're the one who continually and repeatedly refuses to explain how corporate tax cuts result in increased consumer demand.

Hold on there, Sparky!

You asked, why would AT&T expand without increased demand.

T Income Statement | AT&T Inc. Stock - Yahoo Finance

Their demand is increasing. Their revenues are increasing.
You were wrong.

And how is your demand increased?

My dividends and stock prices are going to increase.

Demand is increasing.​

​

Not because of the tax cut.​

The tax cut was just signed, moron.​

​

But why settle for 21% since it's still above all those countries to where corporate HQ's went?​

If you think we need to cut the rate further, you should push for that.

There are still areas with lower rates.
​

So you didn't lure any businesses back.​

The tax cut was just signed, moron.
​

And those rules are, what? That if it adds to the deficit after 10 years, it requires 60 votes. ​

No shit, Sherlock.
​

So then that means these stupid tax cuts do not pay for themselves​

I don't care.​

​

which means they don't generate economic activity​

You're mistaken.
​

We're not competitive any more now than we were when the rate was 35%.​

If you think 21% doesn't make us more competitive than 35%, you're dumber than I thought.
​

You're confusing profits with revenues,​

Nope. Not even a little.
​

A corporation's profits can increase even if demand drops.​

No shit.
​

That's what you said, man. ​

You're lying. And stupid. You're a stupid liar.
​

Because you let it slip that you rightly recognize lowering the corporate profit tax doesn't translate to increased demand.​

Nope. Didn't say that either.​

​

No it won't. Soon, it's going to collapse​

Let me know when you go short.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Republicans and Conservatives are interchangeable and always have been.
That's funny. I wish it were true.?

It's funny how after Bush, you couldn't find a single Conservative that says they supported him, even though someone was voting for Bush and cheerleading his policies on the internet for 8 years. We are expected to believe that you secretly opposed Bush the whole time you supported him? You'll do the same thing with Trump too, once it turns out he's as full of shit as the rest.

And not after it either.
Clinton regulations pushing home ownership on low and middle income buyers were still in place.
His rule had Fannie and Freddie making 50% of their mortgages purchases in the subprime area.
Bush made it 55%.

And even then GSE loans performed at rates far and above that of the privately-issued subprime loans that Bush's regulators weren't even looking at to see if they conformed with lending standards.

GSE loans didn't cause the bubble or collapse; your dramatic weakening of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007 were.

Did Barney Frank believe everything any Republican official told him?
Couldn't do any research on his own? Maybe later Frank came out and said, "I wanted to dial back lending, but gosh darn it, Snow was just so convincing"? LOLWhen Frank later said he wanted to keep going, no danger of Fannie and Freddie failing.....still Snow talking?

So here's what your argument amounts to:

Everyone should have known better than to trust what Conservatives were telling them.

And that is exactly why I don't trust anything you tell me today.

So I'm glad we're in agreement then; never trust anything a Conservative tells you because chances are, they're either lying or just making shit up.

It's funny how after Bush, you couldn't find a single Conservative that says they supported him,

Bush spent way too much. Didn't resist increases in spending, not even a little.
And he was a pussy. Never fought back against liberal attacks.

And even then GSE loans performed at rates far and above that of the privately-issued subprime loans that Bush's regulators weren't even looking at to see if they conformed with lending standards.

Yup. That's why the GSEs needed bailouts of over $100 billion.

GSE loans didn't cause the bubble or collapse;

19.2 million subprime mortgages on their books. 70% of all subprime mortgages.
Yeah, they didn't play any part in the bubble......Moron.

​

So here's what your argument amounts to:​

Barney didn't think there was a problem.
Snow didn't think there was a problem.
Full stop.​