Latest figure on the tax reform bill

[Dene]

Something wrong with 60% benefitting?

Article doesn't mention the benefits of tax simplification and the corporate tax cuts, which even some astute Dems admit, is badly needed. It will be interesting if Dem Senators and Reps put America first and vote for this.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/60-percent-of-households-would-see-tax-cut-under-senate-gop-tax-bill-jct/ar-BBFWrRn?ocid=spartanntp

What happens 10 years from now is irrelevant. The Bush tax cuts were reinstated when they were set to expire. Likely the same will happen in 2029.

BTW...hope lawmakers delete the individual mandate repeal. It does work to motivate people to buy insurance, especially younger ones.

[Alan Baker]

Who controls the Joint Committee on Taxation, Greg?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-11-29 10:43 PM, Dene wrote:

Oh, yes:

Where is the strident concern you previously had for deficits and debt?

[-hh]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 1:43:58 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> Something wrong with 60% benefitting?

Yes, because of how "benefit" is defined. The metric being used is $100/year:

"More than 60 percent of households would see a tax cut of at least $100 in 2019".

The problem with that metric is that since the bill isn't revenue-neutral, it is
achieving some "savings" merely by knowingly adding to the National Debt.

There's 125.82 million households in the USA, so this "borrow and spend"
has a per-household magnitude of ~$1200/year per household.

TL;DR: the "benefit" needs to be defined as being more than $1200/yr to
actually be a savings, instead of an increased deficit "borrowing".


Plus even their claimed 'benefit' is transient:

"In 2027, after the tax cuts for individuals expire, ... only about 16 percent would
see tax cuts of at least $100."

Bottom line is that you're trying to brag about what will probably work out
to be not much more than $100/yr * 9 years = $900 savings ...

> What happens 10 years from now is irrelevant.

No, because while you're gloating over your $100/yr (for only 9 years) break,
all US households are also taking on an additional $12K/household in debt.

And from a debt service standpoint, even at an optimistic 4% interest rate,
the annual -- per household -- cost for that increase in National Debt grows
annually to be no less than $480/year by the end of this bill's proposed period.

TL;DR: a $100/yr "savings" results in interest payments that grow to $480/yr by 2029.

Still want to claim that this sort of fiscal policy is "America First"?

I don't. This bill is a total rape of the general American public, and by
knowingly using bad & deceptive metrics, its proponents know it too.

> BTW...hope lawmakers delete the individual mandate repeal.

Agreed -- but they still haven't yet done so.

BTW, attended a lecture yesterday, where one of the topics that was discussed
included drug costs. Some of the problems are systemic, such as how the
patent on a drug is for only 21 years, but it typically takes 16 years from
invention to get it through all testing and to market, so the payback window
is relatively short. What I found more interesting is that the first "FDA" style
drug safety laws --- circa 1902? -- create some conflict-of-interest elements,
so we've had this bad structure for a century.


-hh

[John B.]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 1:43:58 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

The Bush tax cuts sent the deficit through the roof and the
Trump tax bill will be even worse. But of course, Republicans
only care about deficits when a Democrat is in office.

[Dene]

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 1:43:58 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

- show quoted text -

The Bush tax cuts sent the deficit through the roof and the
Trump tax bill will be even worse. But of course, Republicans
only care about deficits when a Democrat is in office.

So you prefer the status quo?

[John B.]

Yes.

[-hh]

John B wrote:

> Greg wrote:
>> So you prefer the status quo?
>
> Yes

Yes here too. And recall that I've already quoted Forbes saying its crap.


-hh

[Dene]

- hide quoted text -

Corporate tax rate at 40%?
Ever thought about immigrating to Canada?

[-hh]

Greg wrote:

> John B wrote:
>>On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:33:39 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 1:43:58 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

> >>> [attribution]

>>>>>> The Bush tax cuts sent the deficit through the roof and the
>>>>>> Trump tax bill will be even worse. But of course, Republicans
>>>>>> only care about deficits when a Democrat is in office.
>>>
>>> So you prefer the status quo?
>
>> Yes.
>
> Corporate tax rate at 40%?

Before deductions...current average rate is already around only 20%.

> Ever thought about immigrating to Canada?

*emigrating.

Yes. Considering how Republicans are selling out to the .1%, Canada may
very well become one of the few realistic options for the middle class for a
quality retirement with adequate & affordable healthcare, etc. retiring to the
central Caribbean is a bit cheaper, but has heat & hurricanes to factor...


-hh

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

Yes.

Well your tax n spend ilk just took a hit tonight!

[-hh]

The bill is nothing less than a "BORROW and spend", which fiscally is a disaster
for the Country at large during this economic expansion.

And Individual Mandate was killed, which will death-spiral the ACA, which will
snowball into killing off the remaining careers of health insurance brokers, since
there's no healthcare reform coming: they had better pray that they can retire
with a pension and six digit 401(k) before then, or to go change careers. The
timing is going to be the wildcard here, as this year's open season probably can't
be affected, and it's unclear right now what will kick in when: if the IA is relatively
immediate and people won't have to fear a 2018 penalty, they could start cancelling
their plans earlier rather than later.

And remember kids: if your household's tax savings turns out to be less than $1200/yr,
you're part of America that's not even getting an equal share of the deficit spending increase,
so you're paying for Corporate and 1%'er cuts....

Sure what they've promised you is a GDP that's a whopping +0.8% larger in 10 years that's
supposedly going to "trickle down" into a pay raise for you. But put that into perspective, if
100% is trickeled down (fat chance!), a 0.8% raise, for someone earning $100K/yr looks like
it would be +$800/yr ... but since this GDP rise is for the decade, divide by ten years: it is
only a $80/year raise, which is only +$1.54/week.

Rather than to calculate multiple examples, it's sufficient to note that this trickle-down raise
drops to below a dollar per week when income drops below $65K/yr..

Don't spend it all in once place.


-hh

[Carbon]

On 12/02/2017 02:29 AM, Dene wrote:
>
> Yes.
>
> Well your tax n spend ilk just took a hit tonight!

You know, it's strange: from 2008 to 2016 you conservatives hated deficits, but now you think they're the best thing since sliced bread.

[Dene]

I honestly believe the growth in the economy will make up for it.

[Carbon]

Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down economics has ever been successful at its stated purpose.

(For now we are excluding the actual purpose, which is to transfer wealth from the middle class to a ruling class that doesn't need it.)

[John B.]

I'm not part of any tax and spend ilk. I don't see any reason for tax cuts,
particularly for upper-income people. This bill will send the deficit
through the roof and add a $1 trillion to the debt. It's a purely
political ploy to allow Republican members of Congress to go home in
two weeks and say they actually accomplished something.

[John B.]

Gimme a fuckin break. Ronald Reagan said that when he cut taxes
and the deficit went from $73 billion to $250 billion. GW Bush
said that when he cut taxes and the deficit went up. Obama
raised the upper-income tax bracket to 36.5% and the deficit
went down by 2/3. Tax cuts have NEVER led to deficit reduction,
yet Republicans keep spouting the same horseshit, counting on
the gullibility of people like you.

[Alan Baker]

The economy has been going nothing but up for the last 9 years, Greg...

[Dene]

Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down economics has ever been successful at its stated purpose.

There is always the first.

(For now we are excluding the actual purpose, which is to transfer wealth from the middle class to a ruling class that doesn't need it.)

The tired old Dem mantra.
Your actual solution is? You oppose the corporate tax rate decrease?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-12-02 7:38 AM, Dene wrote:
> Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down economics has ever been successful at its stated purpose.
>
> There is always the first.

So you admit there's never been such a time.

>
> (For now we are excluding the actual purpose, which is to transfer wealth from the middle class to a ruling class that doesn't need it.)
>
> The tired old Dem mantra.
> Your actual solution is? You oppose the corporate tax rate decrease?

Yup.

Your economy has been doing great, and now you want others to come up
with a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist.

[John B.]

Solution to what?

[Carbon]

On 12/02/2017 10:38 AM, Dene wrote:

>> Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down economics has ever been successful at its stated purpose.
>
> There is always the first.

Gullible much?

>> (For now we are excluding the actual purpose, which is to transfer wealth from the middle class to a ruling class that doesn't need it.)
>
> The tired old Dem mantra.
> Your actual solution is? You oppose the corporate tax rate decrease?

I oppose needless deficits, so yes.

[Dene]

- hide quoted text -

Deficit spending....since you Dems are suddenly concerned about and the 35% corporate tax rate, which is uncompetitive among world standards.

[Dene]

Which means you are comfortable with wealth and jobs being elsewhere.
If you care about the deficit, let’s hear what government programs need to be cut.

[Carbon]

Perhaps we should just not give a massive tax break to a ruling class that doesn't need it...

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> Not as fast as spending.

Not anymore, for sure.

--
Trump ***Irresponsible, unprofessional and sending the wrong message.***

[Dene]

Perhaps we should just not give a massive tax break to a ruling class that doesn't need it...

Exactly what is the ruling class tax break? Are you referring to the corporate tax rate? If so...who provides the jobs in this country? The rich or the poor?

If indeed the higher tier gets a break, what do they do with the money...put it under a mattress? No! They spend or invest, which is fuels the economy. Remember...recessions are caused when people quit spending money.

[Carbon]

Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down economics has ever been successful at its stated purpose...

[DumbedDownUSA]

Dene wrote:

>
> Perhaps we should just not give a massive tax break to a ruling class
> that doesn't need it...
>
> Exactly what is the ruling class tax break? Are you referring to the
> corporate tax rate? If so...who provides the jobs in this country?
> The rich or the poor?
>
> If indeed the higher tier gets a break, what do they do with the
> money...put it under a mattress? No! They spend or invest, which is
> fuels the economy.

OMG this guy actually believes the bullshit... he's practically
brainwashed. Trickle down is a myth put about by politicians who want
to give back to their donors.

> Remember...recessions are caused when people quit
> spending money.

Ergo give to the poor, they never save. They spend and that is what
drives the economy; flush up.

Some rich guy buying a piece of art does fuck all for the economy.

[DumbedDownUSA]

The concept appears to have been very successful at brainwashing the
weak minded.

[-hh]

Greg writes:
> [John B wrote]:

>>On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:39:01 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

>>> [Carbon wrote]:

>>>> Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down economics has ever been
>>>> successful at its stated purpose.
>>>
>>> There is always the first.

There's also the question of what's the longest period of economic expansion that the US
has ever experienced. For this to work as claimed requires one no less than 19 years long,
and I don't recall ever hearing of any that long.

>>>> (For now we are excluding the actual purpose, which is to transfer wealth from the
>>>> middle class to a ruling class that doesn't need it.)
>>>
>>> The tired old Dem mantra.
>>> Your actual solution is? You oppose the corporate tax rate decrease?
>>
>> Solution to what?
>

> Deficit spending....since you Dems are suddenly concerned about ...

Except that this violates Keansian economics (as Greg's trying to use an overly broad
brush) as well as is being deliberately regressive.

> ...and the 35% corporate tax rate, which is uncompetitive among world standards.

An untrue claim because the US code has many more loopholes vs ROW, which makes
a comparison of only rates invalid: the actual average corporate tax rate as paid in the
USA is roughly 20%, not 35%.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-12-02 8:01 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> Not as fast as spending.
>

And this bill has been scored to be even WORSE.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-12-02 9:10 AM, Dene wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should just not give a massive tax break to a ruling class that doesn't need it...
>
> Exactly what is the ruling class tax break? Are you referring to the corporate tax rate? If so...who provides the jobs in this country? The rich or the poor?

You think only corporations are getting a break?

>
> If indeed the higher tier gets a break, what do they do with the money...put it under a mattress? No! They spend or invest, which is fuels the economy. Remember...recessions are caused when people quit spending money.
>

So put money in the hands of those who basically spend ALL of it: the
little guys.

[Dene]

- hide quoted text -

As I stated earlier, there is the first. Also don’t discount the pro-business atmosphere our president perpetuates, in contrast to Obama. Note the 3% quarterly growth, low UE, and record stock market. The tax reform will further this.

Also note the Dems have no solutions, except tired whiney mantras. I remember Mondale repeating this horseshit against Reagan and getting his liberal ass waxed. Your party better come up with some original thinking or history will repeat itself in 2020.

[Carbon]

On 12/02/2017 07:23 PM, Dene wrote:
> On 12/02/2017 12:10 PM, Dene wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we should just not give a massive tax break to a ruling class that doesn't need it...
>>
>> Exactly what is the ruling class tax break? Are you referring to the corporate tax rate? If so...who provides the jobs in this country? The rich or the poor?
>>
>> If indeed the higher tier gets a break, what do they do with the money...put it under a mattress? No! They spend or invest, which is fuels the economy. Remember...recessions are caused when people quit spending money.
>
> Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down economics has ever been successful at its stated purpose
>
> As I stated earlier, there is the first.

I don't keep up on right-wing mythology. What first are you referring to?

[-hh]

On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 7:24:00 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> > [Carbon? wrote]

> > Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down economics
> > has ever been successful at its stated purpose
>
> As I stated earlier, there is the first. Also don’t discount the pro-business
> atmosphere our president perpetuates, in contrast to Obama.

Where this 'pro' atmosphere was eight (8) years of economic growth...?

> Note the 3% quarterly growth, low UE, and record stock market.

As well as record profits for corporations - - all of which we are supposed
to believe is "proof" that the economy is doing horribly, and needs a dose
of additional deficit spending to get them out of the hole (that they're
clearly not in).

> The tax reform will further this.

Except that there is no reform - - it is simply a huge give-away to their
big donor interests with an additional +$1T in debt, and a violation of
Keyansian economics ...

... plus with the unemployment rate being so low, there simply aren't
enough unemployed people remaining to be conventionally put to work
to create much more GDP growth. We're already into 'diminishing returns'
for stimulus.

> Also note the Dems have no solutions, except tired whiney mantras.

Translation: deflection & distract attempts, because Greg still hasn't
come up with showing the business-centric loopholes that were supposed
to be closed to make tax reform actually BE reform.


-hh

[John B.]

How, exactly, will reducing the corporate tax rate curb deficit
spending? They are entirely separate issues.

[John B.]

This economic theory has been proven false many times over. It's
what Republicans said when GW Bush cut taxes on the so-called
job creators and guess what! The job creators didn't create any
jobs. So then the Republican talking point was that the job
creators were "on strike" because of excessive government
regulations. Now they're trying the same ploy yet again,
counting on the ignorance and gullibility of people like you.

[John B.]

He's saying that although trickle-down has never worked before,
there's a first time for everything. Convincing, isn't it?

[Carbon]

No.

[Carbon]

I'm assuming Greg knows the whole thing is a giant sack of shit, but thinks he personally might make out better under this new con. That's the "I got mine, fuck you" Republican way, isn't it?

[-hh]

Carbon wrote:

> I'm assuming Greg knows the whole thing is a giant sack of shit, but thinks he personally
> might make out better under this new con.

With the Individual Mandate on the bubble, he simply won't make out better: his line of
business will be going out of business.

> That's the "I got mine, fuck you" Republican way, isn't it?

It's not even a "none o my business" or "live and let live", but has become even much
more hypocritical and punitive: they've been screaming about getting Gvt out of business
& persona live while simultaneously inserting Gvt into business & personal life on their
(usually religious) agenda items. The latest one I noticed is that "office supplies" are
reportedly to no longer be an allowed business expense. Will have to look at that one
more closely & track...have already bought a new laptop before that deduction disappears.

-hh

[Dene]

I'm saying that 50+ Senators spent a lot of time getting some badly overdue tax reform and cuts accomplished while the Dems did what they do best....piss and moan...without creating any solutions of their own.

The same is evident in this room.

[Alan Baker]

What you're saying is pure bullshit.

It isn't up to the Democrats to provide solutions right now, Greg:
they're the opposition.

And pissing and moaning is what you did when Obama was president.

ALL THE TIME.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Do you even have a clue what the effective corporate tax rate is?

Just like all Trumpets you are brainwashed by the headline rhetoric but
clueless about the underlying truth.

[DumbedDownUSA]

50+ Senators paid off their donors. That is the only problem they
solved... other than voting themselves richer.

What they have done is not good for your country. They do not have the
country's interests at their hearts. They, like you, act only out of
selfishness.

Selfish, racist, misogynist...

You're lining up a cracking set of traits. Is it that you never had any
morals or that you sell them cheap.

[Carbon]

On 12/03/2017 03:11 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:

> Dene wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:39:01 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down
>>>>> economics has ever been successful at its stated purpose.
>>>>
>>>> There is always the first.
>>>>
>>>>> (For now we are excluding the actual purpose, which is to transfer
>>>>> wealth from the middle class to a ruling class that doesn't need
>>>>> it.)
>>>>
>>>> The tired old Dem mantra.
>>>> Your actual solution is? You oppose the corporate tax rate
>>>> decrease?
>>>
>>> Solution to what?
>>
>> Deficit spending....since you Dems are suddenly concerned about and
>> the 35% corporate tax rate, which is uncompetitive among world
>> standards.
>
> Do you even have a clue what the effective corporate tax rate is?
>
> Just like all Trumpets you are brainwashed by the headline rhetoric but
> clueless about the underlying truth.

That's the only way to get the suckers to vote against their own interests.

The propagandists put a lot of effort into this. The last thing they want is rational discussion about, for example, the economics of universal healthcare. Much better to have hired shills in the media screeching about death panels.

[-hh]

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 3:11:25 PM UTC-5, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Dene wrote:
>
> >
> > - hide quoted text -
> > On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 10:39:01 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> > > Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down
> > > economics has ever been successful at its stated purpose.
> > >
> > > There is always the first.
> > >
> > > (For now we are excluding the actual purpose, which is to transfer
> > > wealth from the middle class to a ruling class that doesn't need
> > > it.)
> > >
> > > The tired old Dem mantra.
> > > Your actual solution is? You oppose the corporate tax rate
> > > decrease?
> >
> > Solution to what?
> >
> > Deficit spending....since you Dems are suddenly concerned about and
> > the 35% corporate tax rate, which is uncompetitive among world
> > standards.
>
> Do you even have a clue what the effective corporate tax rate is?

There's a few definitions to understand, such as the difference between
the statutory rate, which is where the 39% comes from, and the "real world"
values such as the Average Effective Corporate Tax -- currently at 29% -- and
the marginal effective tax rate ... which is currently 18.6%:

<https://taxfoundation.org/cbo-report-compares-us-corporate-tax-g20/>

Plus then there is the ATR - the ACTUAL Tax Rate that is paid by US Corporations,
which is essentially what the official Average Effective rate is after it has been
optimized by Lawyers & Accountants ... thus, the above 29% had dropped to 20%
as of 2011 ... and the trend was that it probably is even lower today:

<https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/Average-Effective-Tax-Rates-2016.pdf>

> Just like all Trumpets you are brainwashed by the headline rhetoric but
> clueless about the underlying truth.

"But it COULD happen!" <-- just like how there have been a couple of people
who have fallen out of airplanes without a parachute ... and survived. Never
you mind the 99.999% who did not.

I'm waiting for one of them to point out that the Stock Market has been up
roughly +20% in the past year, so as to ask them if that has "trickled down"
into a +20% increase in their personal salary ... and if not, why not?


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:16:54 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

>On 2017-12-03 11:06 AM, Dene wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 10:19:50 AM UTC-8, Carbon wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2017 11:59 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 12:10:08 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps we should just not give a massive tax break to a ruling class that doesn't need it...
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly what is the ruling class tax break? Are you referring to the corporate tax rate? If so...who provides the jobs in this country? The rich or the poor?
>>>>>
>>>>> If indeed the higher tier gets a break, what do they do with the money...put it under a mattress? No! They spend or invest, which is fuels the economy. Remember...recessions are caused when people quit spending money.

That's exactly backwards. The higher tier does not reinvest the tax
savings they get into the economy, but into high yield savings. They
use their profits for investment. The middle class spends theirs
directly into the economy. Trickle down is an empty idea.

<clip>

>> I'm saying that 50+ Senators spent a lot of time getting some badly overdue tax reform and cuts accomplished while the Dems did what they do best....piss and moan...without creating any solutions of their own.
>
>What you're saying is pure bullshit.

Exactly.

>
>It isn't up to the Democrats to provide solutions right now, Greg:
>they're the opposition.
>
>And pissing and moaning is what you did when Obama was president.
>
>ALL THE TIME.
>
>>
>> The same is evident in this room.

What's evident in this room is naivety

[Dene]

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:16:54 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

>On 2017-12-03 11:06 AM, Dene wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 10:19:50 AM UTC-8, Carbon wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2017 11:59 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 12:10:08 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps we should just not give a massive tax break to a ruling class that doesn't need it...
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly what is the ruling class tax break? Are you referring to the corporate tax rate? If so...who provides the jobs in this country? The rich or the poor?
>>>>>
>>>>> If indeed the higher tier gets a break, what do they do with the money...put it under a mattress? No! They spend or invest, which is fuels the economy. Remember...recessions are caused when people quit spending money.

That's exactly backwards. The higher tier does not reinvest the tax
savings they get into the economy, but into high yield savings. They
use their profits for investment. The middle class spends theirs
directly into the economy. Trickle down is an empty idea.

Investment goes where?

<clip>
>> I'm saying that 50+ Senators spent a lot of time getting some badly overdue tax reform and cuts accomplished while the Dems did what they do best....piss and moan...without creating any solutions of their own.
>
>What you're saying is pure bullshit.
Exactly.

So saith a RAT and the biggest bitcher in the room.

>
>It isn't up to the Democrats to provide solutions right now, Greg:
>they're the opposition.
>
>And pissing and moaning is what you did when Obama was president.
>
>ALL THE TIME.

I pointed out that Obama was all talk.

>> The same is evident in this room.

What's evident in this room is naivety

More like zero original thinking.

[Alan Baker]

But neglect to acknowledge how well the economy did under his watch...

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 16:21:52 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>

wrote:

>On 2017-12-03 4:16 PM, Dene wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:16:54 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2017-12-03 11:06 AM, Dene wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 10:19:50 AM UTC-8, Carbon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2017 11:59 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 12:10:08 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps we should just not give a massive tax break to a ruling class that doesn't need it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly what is the ruling class tax break? Are you referring to the corporate tax rate? If so...who provides the jobs in this country? The rich or the poor?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If indeed the higher tier gets a break, what do they do with the money...put it under a mattress? No! They spend or invest, which is fuels the economy. Remember...recessions are caused when people quit spending money.
>>
>> That's exactly backwards. The higher tier does not reinvest the tax
>> savings they get into the economy, but into high yield savings. They
>> use their profits for investment. The middle class spends theirs
>> directly into the economy. Trickle down is an empty idea.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens

>>
>> Investment goes where?
>>
>> <clip>
>>>> I'm saying that 50+ Senators spent a lot of time getting some badly overdue tax reform and cuts accomplished while the Dems did what they do best....piss and moan...without creating any solutions of their own.
>>>
>>> What you're saying is pure bullshit.
>> Exactly.
>>
>> So saith a RAT and the biggest bitcher in the room.
>>
>>>
>>> It isn't up to the Democrats to provide solutions right now, Greg:
>>> they're the opposition.
>>>
>>> And pissing and moaning is what you did when Obama was president.
>>>
>>> ALL THE TIME.
>>
>> I pointed out that Obama was all talk.
>
>But neglect to acknowledge how well the economy did under his watch...
>
>>
>>>> The same is evident in this room.
>>
>> What's evident in this room is naivety

Oops! That should've naivete

>>
>> More like zero original thinking.

True. Supply side/trickle down is NOT original thinking its a boon
for the rich and a bust for the middle class. Anyone that doesn't
recognize that doesn't know history.
'


>>

[-hh]

Greg wrote:

> Alan wrote:
>> That's exactly backwards. The higher tier does not reinvest the tax
>> savings they get into the economy, but into high yield savings. They
>> use their profits for investment. The middle class spends theirs
>> directly into the economy. Trickle down is an empty idea.
>
> Investment goes where?

Investments such as buying shares in the Stock Market, causing it to go up.
And at that point, dividend yield percentages go down, since companies don't
generally directly benefit from the value of a share (since its effectively a holder
of a loan): they don't strictly have to raise dividends "just because".


-hh

[Dene]

>> What's evident in this room is naivety

Oops! That should've naivete
>>

Had to laugh at Foghorn’s BS that I will go out of business if the individual mandate is repealed. Unlike him, most of my clients are not idiots and understand the value of health insurance.

[michae...@gmail.com]

I have to laugh at just how much Shitstain Baker knows about OUR economy and the "great" "things" Obama did for OUR economy.

And the 10 TRILLION debt Obama left us.

Oh, wait, Shitstain stays mum on that.

[Dene]

I have to laugh at just how much Shitstain Baker knows about OUR economy and the "great" "things" Obama did for OUR economy.

And the 10 TRILLION debt Obama left us.

Oh, wait, Shitstain stays mum on that.

The legacy of the most worthless president since Carter. But....he sure looked good.

[Carbon]

He did look good... because he was book-ended by the two worst presidents since WW2.

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:

> On 12/02/2017 12:10 PM, Dene wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we should just not give a massive tax break to a ruling class that doesn't need it...
>>
>> Exactly what is the ruling class tax break? Are you referring to the corporate tax rate? If so...who provides the jobs in this country? The rich or the poor?
>>
>> If indeed the higher tier gets a break, what do they do with the money...put it under a mattress? No! They spend or invest, which is fuels the economy. Remember...recessions are caused when people quit spending money.
>
>

> Please point out one (1) time in history that trickle-down economics has ever been successful at its stated purpose...
>
>
Can't answer his question I see. You do have the Dem propaganda down pat
though.

[-hh]

On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 8:33:35 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

Well, I am quite willing to make a non-welcherable bet on your
future prospects are in this area.

And as usual, I'd choose to direct my proceeds to benefit a charity.
Details TBD, of course, including who would be the designated 3rd
Party who would hold the cash upfront to prevent all welching.


-hh

[michae...@gmail.com]

Yeah, at first glance. For a short time.

His most "notable" job before he became president, "community organizer". Whatever the fuck that is.

Over 1200 Executive orders.

Added 10 TRILLION to the debt.

Bowed and scraped and kissed the hand of a Raghead, AND apologized for America..

Let Putin fuck over him.

Let little Rocket man, fuck over him.

Let EVERYONE fuck over him.

POS Obama wasn't for this country. He is Soros's puppet.

And Soros's agenda is destroying America.

He is just an effeminate pantywaist.

And whoever thinks he was great, is delusional, or just a lying troll.

THANK GOD WE HAVE A REAL MAN FOR PRESIDENT.

And fuck the Libshits where they breath.

[B...@onramp.net]

>> That's exactly backwards. The higher tier does not reinvest the tax
>> savings they get into the economy, but into high yield savings. They
>> use their profits for investment. The middle class spends theirs
>> directly into the economy. Trickle down is an empty idea.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens
>>

[Carbon]

Perhaps you should look at things this way: since you are utterly clueless about nearly everything, most of the things you think are true are probably bullshit. For example here, you somehow don't know or care that the golden shower of prosperity that tinkle-down economics is supposed to bring about has never actually happened in fact. What has happened is that these policies have led directly to increased deficits. Do you know what deficits are, Mike? No? Well, they're bad. Let the googles be your guide in learning why.

[MNMikeW]

Oh, NOW deficits are bad right? They must only be bad under Republican
administrations.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

[Alan Baker]

YOU are the one who made so much of the deficits under the previous
administration, Mikey.

Why aren't you howling now?

>
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/
>
>

[Alan Baker]

You mean where they rate his statement "Mostly true"?

I can understand why you might be confused when they've spent the last
300+ days rating pretty much everything Trump says as "False", so you
now actually think telling the truth is bad.

[michae...@gmail.com]

Shitstain Baker is working so hard for your attention. But as usual, failing.

[Carbon]

Because he's a clueless hypocrite?

[MNMikeW]

I bitched about his adding to the DEBT! You know, the $9 trillion.

[Alan Baker]

1. You didn't bitch when GW Bush was president and the debt increased by
77% (from $7.08 trillion to $12.55 trillion).

2. Then you started whining endlessly when Obama was president, and the
debt increased by essentially the same factor despite having to deal
with a huge recession created by his predecessor.

3. Under Bush, the debt curve was positive (increase more and more with
each passing year). Under Obama, the curve was negative.

[John B.]

On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 2:06:04 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> On Sunday, December 3, 2017 at 10:19:50 AM UTC-8, Carbon wrote:
> > On 12/03/2017 11:59 AM, John B. wrote:

> > > On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 12:10:08 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Perhaps we should just not give a massive tax break to a ruling class that doesn't need it...
> > >>
> > >> Exactly what is the ruling class tax break? Are you referring to the corporate tax rate? If so...who provides the jobs in this country? The rich or the poor?
> > >>
> > >> If indeed the higher tier gets a break, what do they do with the money...put it under a mattress? No! They spend or invest, which is fuels the economy. Remember...recessions are caused when people quit spending money.
> > >

> > > This economic theory has been proven false many times over. It's
> > > what Republicans said when GW Bush cut taxes on the so-called
> > > job creators and guess what! The job creators didn't create any
> > > jobs. So then the Republican talking point was that the job
> > > creators were "on strike" because of excessive government
> > > regulations. Now they're trying the same ploy yet again,
> > > counting on the ignorance and gullibility of people like you.
> >
> >
> > I'm assuming Greg knows the whole thing is a giant sack of shit, but thinks he personally might make out better under this new con. That's the "I got mine, fuck you" Republican way, isn't it?
>

> I'm saying that 50+ Senators spent a lot of time getting some badly overdue tax reform and cuts accomplished while the Dems did what they do best....piss and moan...without creating any solutions of their own.
>

> The same is evident in this room.

Why were tax reform and tax cuts "badly needed"? Who is suffering under
the status quo?

[John B.]

You opined that Obama was all talk, and you are completely, totally,
utterly wrong.