1. Kony

    Kony Bad ape

    1,126
    697
    Jul 29, 2016
    I think what you meant is don't believe fake stats made up by Trump supporters like yourself, son.

    Firstly, check back through the posts and notice the term used was "white supremacists". Feel free to check out how many white supremacist groups there are in the US:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:White_supremacist_groups_in_the_United_States

    If you really believe there are only 500, or even 5000 members, based on that list of groups, then good luck to you!

    Your comment above is contradictory and makes no sense. For starters, Trump appealed to the racist element in the US with his Muslim travel ban among other things. Trump is popular with white supremacists because:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

    By the way, it's now 72 hours since I asked what there is to like about Trump or what he stands for - still no response to that....

    And here's Chomsky dissecting how the right gets played into supporting Trump.

     
    chimuelo, D Halgren and richardt4520 like this.
  2. TheNorseman

    TheNorseman Active Member

    424
    241
    Jun 27, 2017
    Two points to bring up here

    Again, I don't respond to you at your convenience, so I don't know why you would even bother bringing that up a second time right after I explained that to you the first time.

    I work in the industrial sector.

    Before Trump: FLAT, big jobs were few and far between.

    After Trump: Economic surge, the amount of work that I am turning down just in the state of North Carolina is insane even after hiring 18 new people and paying health insurance for them and their families. Which is actually why I'm hoping the democrats take charge in 2020 and pass medicare for all. Why would I want to pay for your health insurance when you can pay for it yourself?
     
    chimuelo and WaveRider like this.
  3. WaveRider

    WaveRider Member

    131
    79
    Mar 17, 2019
    Norseman... you are spot on. I'll add my anecdote too for anyone who cares. I work for a multi-billion dollar company in the tech sector with over 10,000 employees. Because of the Trump corporate tax cuts, the company suddenly found itself with so much extra cash it didn't even know what to do. So we ALL got healthy raises and bonuses. And they pumped a bunch of money back into the company to make life better for the employees like upgraded office spaces, free lunches, etc. They also put money back into R&D which in turn created more jobs. The extra money did NOT go to the CEO like lying Chuck Schumer said it would.

    Also, whoever said these types of policies only benefit the 1% is full of shit. My company creates jobs for all kinds of people including poor people benefiting from the booming business.

    Business has never been better, and quality of life has never been greater. I've also never seen more minorities and African Americans employed. Ever.

    I would love for someone to please tell me how a Democrat could possibly make life any better than it currently is?
     
    TheNorseman and chimuelo like this.
  4. Kony

    Kony Bad ape

    1,126
    697
    Jul 29, 2016
    Nobody said anything about responding at anyone else's convenience - it was about addressing what your reasons are for supporting Trump. It's taken you a really long time to answer that - and your answer was jobs growth. So why delay saying that with the flannel you gave in two posts about being too busy to respond - since the answer which you finally gave is a lot shorter than the two posts about being too busy which preceded it.

    Having said that, I like your reason and think it's a good point - jobs growth is going great in the US for the 100th consecutive month. It might be worth bearing in mind how many months Trump has been POTUS....

    Moving along - I assumed you'd have more than a promise for jobs growth as a reason for supporting Trump, since jobs growth was already happening for circa 50 months before Trump came along....
     
  5. Kony

    Kony Bad ape

    1,126
    697
    Jul 29, 2016
    Honestly, really happy to hear that. However, it's not as good for everyone as both you and Norseman think. And yes, Chimuelo, the following is a copy/paste (from Wiki) - how else would I know about specific tax details?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017#Individual_vs._business

    "If the tax cuts are paid for
    The scoring by the organizations above assumes the tax cuts are deficit-financed, meaning that over ten years the deficit rises by $1.4 trillion relative to the current law baseline; or $1.0 trillion after economic feedback effects. However, if one assumes the tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts, the distribution is much more unfavorable to lower- and middle-income persons, as most government spending is directed to them; the higher income taxpayers tend to get tax breaks, not direct payments. According to the Tax Policy Center, if the Senate bill were financed by a $1,210 per household cut in government spending per year (a more likely scenario than focusing cuts proportionally by income or income taxes paid), then during 2019:

    • Approximately 72% of taxpayers would be worse off than current law, meaning benefits from tax cuts would be more than offset by reduced spending on their behalf.
    • The bottom 60% of taxpayers would have lower after-tax income, paying a higher average federal tax rate.
    • The benefits to the 60th to 80th percentiles would be minimal, a $350 net benefit on average or 0.3% lower effective tax rate.
    • Significant tax benefits would only accrue to the top 20% of taxpayers.
    Republican politicians such as Paul Ryan have advocated for spending cuts to help finance the tax cuts, while the President Trump's 2018 budget includes $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over ten years to Medicaid, Affordable Care Act subsidies, food stamps, Social Security disability insurance, Supplemental security income, and cash welfare (TANF)."

    "The Tax Policy Center (TPC) reported its distributional estimates for the Act. This analysis excludes the impact from repealing the ACA individual mandate, which would apply significant costs primarily to income groups below $40,000. It also assumes the Act is deficit financed and thus excludes the impact of any spending cuts used to finance the Act, which also would fall disproportionally on lower income families as a percentage of their income.[87]

    • Compared to current law, 5% of taxpayers would pay more in 2018, 9% in 2025, and 53% in 2027.
    • The top 1% of taxpayers (income over $732,800) would receive 8% of the benefit in 2018, 25% in 2025, and 83% in 2027."

    I think anyone who makes unsubstantiated claims is full of shit. And you're welcome :)
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2019
    chimuelo, richardt4520 and patrick76 like this.
  6. chimuelo

    chimuelo Star Of Stage & Screen

    11,004
    2,086
    May 14, 2007
    Between 120-150bpm
    Brotha’ Man Kony, you should support Trump.

    You obviously are Liberal, and your guys are economically illiterate, so having Trump create the wealth your guys need to buy voters with would be something I thought you’d support.
    It’s just the best thing for an economy IMHO.

    Let the folks who are great at creating wealth and developing an economy have 8 years.
    Then people who are great at wasting money and destroying economic growth give everything away.

    Then repeat the process.

    In this way we all share and we all win, even if Liberals are still broke, uneducated and poor every cycle. Some folks just have different life choices.
    But one thing concerns me, you shouldn’t be allowed to spend money buying voters if you can’t take care of the thousands of Liberals sleeping on the streets, shitting everywhere, and leaving needles in public parks, etc.
    You have to show some form of success before being allowed to lose for 8 years.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  7. robgb

    robgb I was young once

    2,951
    3,032
    Apr 6, 2016
    So, bottom line, as long as you're making money, life is great and fuck everyone else. Honestly, if your motivation is all about money and the rich getting richer, then you should ride the Republican horse as long as you can. Because they will, at the expense of everyone else, make that dream come true. But Democrats want to make life better for EVERYONE. And when EVERYONE is happy, the world is a much, much better—and safer—place.
     
    richardt4520 likes this.
  8. WaveRider

    WaveRider Member

    131
    79
    Mar 17, 2019
    That's a Socialist hippie pipe dream. A failed idea from a failed generation. The very idea that Democrats could even possibly make everyone happy is so far removed from reality it's not even worth discussing.

    The world is a competitive place. Always has been, always will be. Those who make good decisions in their lives should be rewarded with a better outcome than those who don't.

    But you apparently think there should be an equal outcome for everyone... including idiots who make bad decisions.

    In life, there are no participation trophies.
     
  9. robgb

    robgb I was young once

    2,951
    3,032
    Apr 6, 2016
    See, this is the difference between Republicans today and people who actually care about the world and this country. Republicans call it a pipe dream, throw up their hands and say, fuck it, what's the point of trying to make sure everyone is included? I've got mine, so fuck everyone else. This is the kind of thinking that has caused the fall of empires. Glad you're all ready to hasten the country's demise. But, hey, as long as got your raises, who cares, right?

    Just because we MAY not achieve an ideal doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it anyway. The only thing that removes that idea from reality is people being selfish and making petty excuses for that selfishness. I don't prefer to live that way. I prefer to help my neighbors and my neighbor's neighbor, and if that means a little less for me, that's fine.

    I never said a thing about equal outcome. I merely said that we should be trying to make everyone happy. Give people a roof, a bed, a meal, a job, and stop trying to exclude everyone.

    Sorry if that offends you.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
    richardt4520 and patrick76 like this.
  10. chimuelo

    chimuelo Star Of Stage & Screen

    11,004
    2,086
    May 14, 2007
    Between 120-150bpm
    I'd like to build the world a home
    And furnish it with love
    Grow apple trees and honey bees
    And snow white turtle doves

    I'd like to teach the world to sing
    In perfect harmony
    I'd like to hold it in my arms
    And keep it company

    I'd like to see the world for once
    All standing hand in hand
    And hear them echo through the hills
    For peace through out the land

    I'd like to teach the world to sing
    In perfect harmony
    I'd like to teach the world to sing
    In perfect harmony

    I'd like to build the world a home
    And furnish it with love
    Grow apple trees and honey bees
    And snow white turtle doves
     
    WaveRider likes this.
  11. robgb

    robgb I was young once

    2,951
    3,032
    Apr 6, 2016
    Cynicism is neither cool nor pretty. Those who practice it are not as clever as they think they are. Maybe they're the ones who are truly unhappy.
     
    richardt4520 likes this.
  12. WaveRider

    WaveRider Member

    131
    79
    Mar 17, 2019
    No offense taken. Very interesting you used the word give. Curious what you mean by that... give for free? To who? And with whose money? The only thing you got right in that sentence is "a job".

    I'm all for equal opportunity. My original post was about how something as simple as a corporate tax cut can benefit everyone. So who am I excluding?

    I'll remind you what I said:

    And somehow you translated this into "fuck everyone else" ??
     
  13. Craig Duke

    Craig Duke Member

    141
    131
    Dec 12, 2004
    Chicago
    My 30+ years of experience with Fortune 50 companies (telecom, aerospace, pharma) tells me the following.

    US corps do not hire based on increased profits (tax cuts). They hire based on the needs of their business e.g. increased demand for their products and services. US corps do not increase wages based on increasing profit. They increase wages when their is a business need to do so e.g. retaining workers. That is how capitalism works.

    Consider that US corp profits have been hitting record highs since 2010. Despite this, wage growth has been flat, only keeping up with inflation. Why would corp execs increase worker wages because of a tax break? To me nice? Capitalism does not work that way.

    We've heard "trickle down" claims for tax cuts from Reagan (largest), Bush 43 (second largest), and now Trump (eighth largest). None worked as sold. Why? Because that is not how modern capitalism works (to repeat myself). Reagan eventually understood this when he pushed and passed the largest tax increase ever because of the resulting deficits from his tax cuts. Tax cuts neither pay for themselves nor does the borrowed wealth they shift to the top trickle down.

    One irony here is that the 2018 tax cut helped the "globalist" corps the most while throwing a bone to the working lower/middle class. The bone has pacified some, but not all.
     
    robgb and richardt4520 like this.
  14. WaveRider

    WaveRider Member

    131
    79
    Mar 17, 2019
    But running a good business does. Employee engagement is huge. Well-paid employees are by-and-large more motivated to do good work.

    A lot of companies these days are also under pressure to be good corporate citizens. To be good to their employees, give back to their communities, be mindful of diversity etc. None of things existed in the Reagan/Bush era when corporations were mostly run by assholes only concerned with $$$.

    Using Apple as an example, they announced they would take money from the tax breaks and create 20,000 more jobs by 2023.
     
  15. robgb

    robgb I was young once

    2,951
    3,032
    Apr 6, 2016
    Right. Let's parse what I said to the point of ridiculousness. Everyone needs to earn their way, but some have a harder time because of illness, social circumstances, systemic oppression, failure of the educational system, cost of higher education... any number of factors. There will always be people who want something for free, but that's a lot different from people who are in NEED. And if we want a society that functions properly, those in need must be helped so that they can more easily contribute to society. They must be fed when they're hungry, given healthcare when they're sick, taught trades, given more opportunities. We are only strong when the "least" of us is doing their best. But the way it works in a Republican-led society is that the rich are given tax cuts while the poor are shoved aside. That's a recipe for disaster. Instead we should be investing in our populace. The wealthy BECAME wealthy on the backs of poor laborers. Anything we can do to help the poor and middle class benefits us all.
     
    richardt4520 likes this.
  16. Kony

    Kony Bad ape

    1,126
    697
    Jul 29, 2016
    And yet the major players avoid paying corporate taxes....
     
    chimuelo and richardt4520 like this.
  17. chimuelo

    chimuelo Star Of Stage & Screen

    11,004
    2,086
    May 14, 2007
    Between 120-150bpm
    Well I’m getting 13 checks a year instead of 12. My daughter n laws business has grown 180%, had to hire 17 more workers.

    I guess you could say tax breaks alone didn’t help, but combine those “breaks” with Consumer Confidence (because Liberals are gone) and de regulation, you’ve got an economic engine with no end in sight.

    Corporations bought back stock in 2018 more than rewarding workers, but wages are up, it’s nothing but good news.

    Liberals of course will find something wrong with it. I’d rather hear that angle than Obama claiming it was him he boomed the economy. I think even losing as a President can get to your head.

    Life’s good, get over your anger, ask your boss for a raise since you don’t like being your own boss.
    I could never work for someone, work with, of course. But I know I’m worth x amount of dollars. Someone won’t pay me, fuck them.
    Nobody’s holding a gun to your head.
     
    WaveRider likes this.
  18. Craig Duke

    Craig Duke Member

    141
    131
    Dec 12, 2004
    Chicago
    I agree with your point but that doesn't mean corporate America agrees with it. Corp America serves the big shareholders and the self interests of execs who make the decisions (and the $100,000s bonuses). Even at full employment, where we have been since 2015 per economist's definitions, there is little movement in average wages despite the fact that there is plenty of money available. I'm not making a value judgement, just calling as I see it.

    Since the early 2000s and later the Great Recession, to my mind, employees have been happy just to have a job. They saw the world of their parents evaporate. A world where, if they did a good job and kept their heads down, they had life long job security. Corps know this. Corps strive to keep the costs of labor as low as possible. Their solutions to this is to keep salaries down, get salaried employees to work more for free and outsourcing. For manufacturing, outsourcing has proven to be an excellent business choice and helped drive US prosperity for the last two decades (for many but not all).

    In my industry, starting in the 2000s, the outsourcing trend continued into white collar jobs. While this move has been costly for the companies, voluntarily moves proprietary knowledge offshore, causes constant schedule slips and loss of control over the product, and many other problems, it has been followed with gusto. As I heard a VP say to first and second level managers fifteen years ago "If outsourcing engineering doesn't work, you are the problem!" I mention this to point out that management trends do not always make sense or match real-world data. Execs do what is expected of them.

    What I mention is only a small piece of the low wage puzzle. I do know that a lot of economists are stumped as to why wages have stayed so flat for so long (since the late 70's). I think it marks the end of the America Dream. It was nice while it lasted.

    We can hope for more public pressure on corps but its not at a level to make a big difference is it? WalMart, for example, was a driving force in moving manufacturing to Asia but the lower middle class who lost their good factory jobs because of them keep buying WalMart.

    My guess is that Apple is playing to Trump or the public. Just a few years ago Apple was sitting on over $300 billion in cash. They have more now. If they want to expand into a new business they don't need a tax cut to do it and they don't make such decision based on available cash. They do it because they see an opportunity.

    In the end, remember, this is borrowed money and part of the reason the deficit is now 1 trillion/yr. Had they cut defense spending by 75B/yr and percentage cuts elsewhere and given all of the tax cuts to the middle class, that would be a different story to me. How did Clinton balance the budget (with the help of the GOP) and eventually create a 1/4 trillion $ surplus? Cut defense, raise taxes on the 1% (by 3.5 % as I remember) and be president during a booming economy. I wish would do that now.
     
  19. NYC Composer

    NYC Composer Senior Member

    11,134
    1,828
    Jul 24, 2008
    Craig-essentially I agree with your assessment of capitalism and corporations, which is why I vehemently disagree with one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever-Citizens United. Corporations are not people. They are entities designed to make money for the shareholders, their board members and their executives. They try, as you said, to keep labor costs as low as possible in their quest for net profits.

    One of the equalizers for the rights of workers was the union movement. It established wage negotiation where there had been none before, safety standards where there had been none before, etc. However, over time oligarchs with large stakes in public corporations (and some private owners of private corporations) have managed to change the narrative and get people to focus on the corrupt aspects of unions rather than their pro-worker benefits. While there certainly has been corruption , workers have voted against there own interests in supporting anti-union, pro business candidates. As a result, wages are stagnant and more and more jobs are filled by lowly paid, desperate people.
     
    chimuelo and richardt4520 like this.
  20. Craig Duke

    Craig Duke Member

    141
    131
    Dec 12, 2004
    Chicago
    Yes, the ruling was devastating for democracy and made a bad problem worse. To my mind, large campaign contributions are the primary driver of corruption in our government. You can see it's results, for example, in the tax code with the tens of thousands of special breaks for corporations. Lose money last year? The gov will subside that loss for you on your income tax. Is the building you bought worth less than it was last year? The tax code allows you to write off the loss. And we call this capitalism?

    The big unions are problematic in many respects but unions did help create the middle class and are the only way most of these workers will see consistent meaningful wage increases. I've thought what you mention for years, that these workers keep voting against their own interests. There is a natural battle between upper management and workers. These workers have ceded the fight to their employers. Are they still hoping for trickle down from the "job creators"? They should be voting for people who want to help retrain them for the new economy not people who want to bust their unions and see coal and steel as the future.
     
    richardt4520 and chimuelo like this.

Share This Page