Trump Effects

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, Butch said:

if Trump can't or won't get the job done we will find someone else who is a nationalist statesman in 2020.

In what way does being a nationalist help us in the current economy? 

[Butch]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

In what way does being a nationalist help us in the current economy? 

Ask the UN, they have a better sense of it than they did a few days ago.

[John Cuthber]

33 minutes ago, Butch said:

Ask the UN, they have a better sense of it than they did a few days ago.

The UN isn't a member of the forum, but you are.

So it's even more clear than usual that it's your job to address points raised in reply to your assertions.

In what way does being a nationalist help us in the current economy? 

1 hour ago, Butch said:

we will find someone else who is a nationalist statesman in 2020.

Nationalist or not, a statesman would be an improvement on Trump.

[Butch]

18 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The UN isn't a member of the forum, but you are.

So it's even more clear than usual that it's your job to address points raised in reply to your assertions.

In what way does being a nationalist help us in the current economy? 

Nationalist or not, a statesman would be an improvement on Trump.

A nationalist is looking out for America's interests. I believe Trump is a statesman(all the politicos hate him).

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Butch said:

A nationalist is looking out for America's interests. I believe Trump is a statesman(all the politicos hate him).

You should become an Olympian. I would give you gold for mental gymnastics.

[Phi for All]

16 minutes ago, Butch said:

A nationalist is looking out for America's interests. I believe Trump is a statesman(all the politicos hate him).

It's still one of the most catastrophic of the effects this stain of a man has on people, that he can trick so many into thinking day is night. They believe he is looking out for them, when the reality is he does NOTHING for anyone but himself and his wealthy cronies. They believe when people hate you it makes you a statesman. And they believe when Trump lies his ass off, he's being honest and speaking his mind. 

I have nothing but contempt for those who poke their own eyes out just so they don't have to see reason.

[iNow]

49 minutes ago, Butch said:

A nationalist is looking out for America's interests.

Thank you for answering. Which interests, though? 

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, Butch said:

I have not supported a president since Reagan...

You haven't voted since Reagan? 

[iNow]

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You haven't voted since Reagan? 

I suggest there is a relevant distinction to be made here. There’s a difference between a Trump voter and a Trump supporter, especially as the former begin to peel away and regret their selection. 

[Ten oz]

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

I suggest there is a relevant distinction to be made here. There’s a difference between a Trump voter and a Trump supporter, especially as the former begin to peel away and regret their selection. 

Giving a Politician a vote is the greatest form of support one can give them. 

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Giving a Politician a vote is the greatest form of support one can give them. 

Don’t disagree, but voting is a time stamped one-time event whereas support in general is not. The distinction between Trump voter and Trump supporter remains relevant. 

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Giving a Politician a vote is the greatest form of support one can give them. 

Greater than a million dollars to their PAC?

[Butch]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You haven't voted since Reagan? 

I have voted, not for president. 

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Thank you for answering. Which interests, though? 

Paris Accord, Travel ban, UN support, Tax bill.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Greater than a million dollars to their PAC?

I would like to see corporate $'s go away, for that matter special interests completely... Not going to happen until we get rid of the corruption.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

I would like to see corporate $'s go away, for that matter special interests completely... Not going to happen until we get rid of the corruption.

And yet, in the sentence you typed immediately prior to this, you applaud the tax bill as a win for our interests... even though the majority of the cuts within that bill go to those same corporations and special interests you’d like to go away. 

Corruption does need to be weeded out. Unfortunately, there is also corruption in the critical thinking and reasoning skills of my fellow citizens such as yourself. 

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Greater than a million dollars to their PAC?

Clinton raised a lot of money in 2016 but lost because she needed more votes in specific key areas. Campaign money is used to whip up votes and not vice versa.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Clinton raised a lot of money in 2016 but lost because she needed more votes in specific key areas. Campaign money is used to whip up votes and not vice versa.

Exactly the point. Money gets you more than 1 vote. A vote is not the most valuable thing you can give to a candidate.

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, Butch said:

A nationalist is looking out for America's interests. I believe Trump is a statesman(all the politicos hate him).

His problem is failing (as you do) to understand that the best way to help the 4% of people who are Americans is to cooperate with the 96% who are not.

That's why he isn't a statesman and it's also the reason he's neither good for the US nor for the rest of the world.
He only helps people who need instability elsewhere to make their own position look good.

Putin's doing really well out of Trump

[swansont]

19 hours ago, Butch said:

A nationalist is looking out for America's interests. I believe Trump is a statesman(all the politicos hate him).

A staesman puts the interests of the country first. Trump continually puts his own interests first. Everything is always about him. And when it isn't, he makes it about him.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Exactly the point. Money gets you more than 1 vote. A vote is not the most valuable thing you can give to a candidate.

Money can get more than one vote but is not guaranteed to do so. The candidate with the most most still loses more often than does the candidate with the most votes. In order of precedence a vote is still greater than money in terms of support. Either way though in reference to someone saying they have not supported a President since Reagan is a false statement less they have abstained from voting and in this case Butch has in fact claimed he has abstained. 

13 hours ago, Butch said:

I have voted, not for president. 

Paris Accord, Travel ban, UN support, Tax bill.

 

Paris accord is a non-binding agreement to try.There are no actual enforceable restrictions or penalties involved. Other than insulting our established allies pulling out of it changes nothing. It cost this country country (USA) much as it cost you to say hello way passing people on the street.

The Travel Ban was deemed unconstitutional in court and has been rewritten a few times it order to get temporary versions of in place. Can you even explain to us what the current version on place is at this moment?

Assuming to understand that U.S. business (Apple, Boeing, Caterpillar, Microsoft, etc) do trillions of dollars globally around the world and than money directly impact our (USA) own economy please explain why it is a good thing to have have proactive leadership position with the United Nation?

Only time will tell if the tax bill achieve any of it promises. Considering the fact that politicians and regulators are still scrambling to complete the language for implementation of the changes you would be lying if you claimed you fully understood what all those changes were. At this point you are just stated that you approve of the notion of tax cuts in general and that the details of those cuts doesn't matter. 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Exactly the point. Money gets you more than 1 vote. A vote is not the most valuable thing you can give to a candidate.

 

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

A staesman puts the interests of the country first. Trump continually puts his own interests first. Everything is always about him. And when it isn't, he makes it about him.

Money does muddy the water, in a nation that sees nationalism as a growth medium.

Better to stay in the same pot that produced so many tomatoes last year, just add water.

[Butch]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

And yet, in the sentence you typed immediately prior to this, you applaud the tax bill as a win for our interests... even though the majority of the cuts within that bill go to those same corporations and special interests you’d like to go away. 

Corruption does need to be weeded out. Unfortunately, there is also corruption in the critical thinking and reasoning skills of my fellow citizens such as yourself. 

Who pays corporate taxes?

[dimreepr]

Just now, Butch said:

Who pays corporate taxes?

Mostly those that can't afford them.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

At this point you are just stated that you approve of the notion of tax cuts in general and that the details of those cuts doesn't matter. 

Many Republicans have proven they don't understand the way taxes work, and they actively practice what you write here. Remember that Bush I and Bush II pulled the tax refund swindle and got away with it. They spent millions in taxpayer dollars announcing how big a check you were going to get back, and re-announcing it with mailer notices before finally mailing out checks to everyone. OMG, thanks POTUS Bush!

Liberal sources tried to warn that it was NOT a refund per se, but merely a loan against the following year's taxes. Most everybody got a check one year, and the next year your refund was that much less. Dog and pony show, very short-term affect, and something designed to tickle conservative fancy while bypassing their reasoning skills. 

Now they believe the billionaire is going to lower their taxes. No surprise there. One born every minute.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Who pays corporate taxes?

A better question is who pays FOR these cuts that they neither needed nor requested. A few facts are helpful here to understand context. 

The headline corporate tax rate was 35%. With loopholes and accounting gimmicks, actual corporate taxes paid was closer to a 20% rate. 

Corporations were only asking for a cut to their headline tax rate from 35% to 29%, but we gave them an even bigger cut and made the headline rate 21%. We did so without closing any of the existing loopholes. In fact, most analyses show that the number of loopholes has actually increased with this bill. 

That means corporate taxes have a new effective rate closer to 10%. 

Now, the core argument is that corporations will suddenly go gangbusters and hire a bunch of people and give all employees a huge raise now that they have all this extra cash available. However, corporations are already sitting on record cash reserves, they’re overloaded with cash yet wages continue to stay flat and hiring remains muted.

This suggests a lack of cash isn’t the problem, and further tax cuts are unlikely to help. What’s likely to happen is this extra money will be used for stock buybacks to inflate their stock prices, coupled with bonuses to executives.

We also know that other countries will retaliate by adjusting their own corporate taxes and the benfit were hoping for here I the US will be diminished. It will become a race to the bottom, amd all of us individuals and workers here in the US and around the globe will unnecessarily suffer and lose opportunities.

If the goal was to help us workers and to assist the middle class, a better approach would’ve been to give the huge rate cut directly to us, not to the corporations with our fingers crossed... just hoping/wishing/praying that they’ll use it to pay workers more. The only reason they would is due to kindness and good natures, but those are uncommon in the cutthroat world of business where quarterly profit takes priority above all else. There are simply no provisions in the bill mandating that corporations use this money to increase wages or jobs so (while a tiny fraction might) most wont. 

Corprations asked for 29%. They got 21%. Why not just cut out the middle man and give that extra 8% directly to us? It’s because we’re being sold a lie, that’s why  

This was a giant giveaway to rich friends and donors, and next they’ll claim a desperate need to “fix the deficit and debt”...the same deficit they just completely exploded with the tax bill... by cutting our Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and investment in schools, roads, and related infrastructure that all of us at all income levels depend so heavily upon.

So, as I stated at the beginning of this post... A much better question than “who pays corporate taxes” is instead who pays FOR these cuts that corporations neither needed nor requested? The answer is you and me, brother. Sad. 

Edited December 27, 2017 by iNow

[Butch]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

A better question is who pays FOR these cuts that they neither needed nor requested. A few facts are helpful here to understand context. 

The headline corporate tax rate was 35%. With loopholes and accounting gimmicks, actual corporate taxes paid was closer to a 20% rate. 

Corporations were only asking for a cut to their headline tax rate from 35% to 29%, but we gave them an even bigger cut and made the headline rate 21%. We did so without closing any of the existing loopholes. In fact, most analyses show that the number of loopholes has actually increased with this bill. 

That means corporate taxes have a new effective rate closer to 10%. 

Now, the core argument is that corporations will suddenly go gangbusters and hire a bunch of people and give all employees a huge raise now that they have all this extra cash available. However, corporations are already sitting on record cash reserves, they’re overloaded with cash yet wages continue to stay flat and hiring remains muted.

This suggests a lack of cash isn’t the problem, and further tax cuts are unlikely to help. What’s likely to happen is this extra money will be used for stock buybacks to inflate their stock prices, coupled with bonuses to executives.

We also know that other countries will retaliate by adjusting their own corporate taxes and the benfit were hoping for here I the US will be diminished. It will become a race to the bottom, amd all of us individuals and workers here in the US and around the globe will unnecessarily suffer and lose opportunities.

If the goal was to help us workers and to assist the middle class, a better approach would’ve been to give the huge rate cut directly to us, not to the corporations with our fingers crossed... just hoping/wishing/praying that they’ll use it to pay workers more. The only reason they would is due to kindness and good natures, but those are uncommon in the cutthroat world of business where quarterly profit takes priority above all else. There are simply no provisions in the bill mandating that corporations use this money to increase wages or jobs so (while a tiny fraction might) most wont. 

Corprations asked for 29%. They got 21%. Why not just cut out the middle man and give that extra 8% directly to us? It’s because we’re being sold a lie, that’s why  

This was a giant giveaway to rich friends and donors, and next they’ll claim a desperate need to “fix the deficit and debt”...the same deficit they just completely exploded with the tax bill... by cutting our Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and investment in schools, roads, and related infrastructure that all of us at all income levels depend so heavily upon.

So, as I stated at the beginning of this post... A much better question than “who pays corporate taxes” is instead who pays FOR these cuts that corporations neither needed nor requested? The answer is you and me, brother. Sad. 

Big surprise, consumers pay corporate taxes. It is a hidden tax, that is people don't know they are paying it every time they purchase a product or service.

40 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Many Republicans have proven they don't understand the way taxes work, and they actively practice what you write here. Remember that Bush I and Bush II pulled the tax refund swindle and got away with it. They spent millions in taxpayer dollars announcing how big a check you were going to get back, and re-announcing it with mailer notices before finally mailing out checks to everyone. OMG, thanks POTUS Bush!

Liberal sources tried to warn that it was NOT a refund per se, but merely a loan against the following year's taxes. Most everybody got a check one year, and the next year your refund was that much less. Dog and pony show, very short-term affect, and something designed to tickle conservative fancy while bypassing their reasoning skills. 

Now they believe the billionaire is going to lower their taxes. No surprise there. One born every minute.

Consumers are the only entity that pay taxes, taxing any other entity is just hiding the tax from the consumer!