Page 12 of 129 FirstFirst ... 278910111213141516172262112 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 2573

Thread: Biggest Reform EVER passed thread

  1. #221
    Yeah if you can point to like one substantive thing Trump has done to cause that growth, I'm all ears.

  2. #222
    I'm not even trying to credit Obama, I just think ascribing full credit for stock market movements to presidents is dumb. Especially when this current guy hasn't accomplished anything in office.

  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    Thanks, Obama, you mean
    Good catch. I neglected to mention the true architect of the economic growth over the past year.

    Mea culpa
    Great post Gools

  4. #224
    Scooter Banks
    ConnorEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    7,625
    The market has been rising since long before Trump's election. I do think some subsequent rise is due to his election and the belief that he and Pubs will cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy and viola that's good (SHORT TERM) for corporations and the wealthy (who--domestic and foreign--own most of the market).

    Longer term, we're all going to just be worse off. Though most of the truly wealthy (and smart ones) will not suffer so much. Congrats.
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  5. #225
    So itís the same old same old just with more racism and nationalism. All those stock market gains sure do help the rubes that voted for trump.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by ConnorEl View Post
    Longer term, we're all going to just be worse off.
    Now I'm not in academia and I have yet to read this month's issue of The Atlantic cover-to-cover so I don't have as strong a grasp on the economy as many here on the Tunnels.

    However, please explain (as you would to a rube) why lower corporate tax rates and a bull market will lead to long term pain for everyone?

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Angus View Post
    Now I'm not in academia and I have yet to read this month's issue of The Atlantic cover-to-cover so I don't have as strong a grasp on the economy as many here on the Tunnels.

    However, please explain (as you would to a rube) why lower corporate tax rates and a bull market will lead to long term pain for everyone?
    Such a sincere request. But if you were actually curious, there is nothing wrong with tax reform, and lower corporate tax rates in and of themselves are not necessarily a problem. But increasing the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion in order to give a huge tax cut to the very rich, while slashing medicaid and medicare that many people rely on by over a trillion dollars, seems to be pretty terrible policy to me, whether the Atlantic says so or not.

  8. #228
    Still waiting on that $ to trickle down.


  9. #229
    BBRRRAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

  10. #230
    Scooter Banks
    ConnorEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    7,625
    Sorry, don't really have time to spend answering...maybe go back and read some of the articles referenced over the last 3-4 pages.

    But I'll try in rubeese:







    Simply, further inflating income inequality and national debt will ultimately have negative consequences for economic growth. As well as likely degrading important and salutary government services and protections (to try and make up the lost tax revenue).

    [seriously, sorry but I won' t be able to do much back and forth for a while now.]
    Last edited by ConnorEl; 10-27-2017 at 01:22 PM.
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  11. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by MHBDemon View Post
    Still waiting on that $ to trickle down.

    That chart, IMO, is the whole enchilada. jhmd will tell you that white middle Americans are fed up with food stamps and section 8 and welfare and Medicare and blacks not having two-parent households and all that.

    But that is and has been The Great Distractionô brought to you by your friends at right-wing radio and TV for the past 35 years to keep your eye and your blame off the robber barons who have bought and paid for the policymakers to line their pockets. This is real Republican wet dream shit, here. And since 1980 when Reagan enacted the single worst economic policy to America in the post war-era, these white blue-collar tweakers have been hoodwinked, Shanghai'd, hornswoggled - into believing it was because of the lazies, and patted on the head and told to keep working hard and vote R to get them off the dole. suckers

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeandBake View Post
    That chart, IMO, is the whole enchilada. jhmd will tell you that white middle Americans are fed up with food stamps and section 8 and welfare and Medicare and blacks not having two-parent households and all that.

    But that is and has been The Great Distraction™ brought to you by your friends at right-wing radio and TV for the past 35 years to keep your eye and your blame off the robber barons who have bought and paid for the policymakers to line their pockets. This is real Republican wet dream shit, here. And since 1980 when Reagan enacted the single worst economic policy to America in the post war-era, these white blue-collar tweakers have been hoodwinked, Shanghai'd, hornswoggled - into believing it was because of the lazies, and patted on the head and told to keep working hard and vote R to get them off the dole. suckers
    In fairness, Dem presidents since Reagan have been very pro-Wall Street, too. The Great Distraction is played by both sides, in favor of the rich. Basically, the cartoon above your post is really the whole enchilada.

  13. #233
    The tax plan is also finally scraping the final piece of the untouched not quite rich pie. Poor forgotten about, middle class previously raped by tax cuts going to the 1% of 1%, now the next round of tax cuts for the 1% of the 1% paid for by taking away upper middle class savings.

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by MHBDemon View Post
    Still waiting on that $ to trickle down.

    I'm still waiting for someone to explain the relevance of income inequality when the standard of living has undoubtedly and significantly improved for all over that same time period. The only logical explanation I've ever received is simple jealousy. Nothing else makes sense. But keep jizzing on your 2-D black and white line graph as a worthwhile economic policy evaluation.

  15. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by 2&2 Slider To Leyritz View Post
    I'm still waiting for someone to explain the relevance of income inequality when the standard of living has undoubtedly and significantly improved for all over that same time period. The only logical explanation I've ever received is simple jealousy. Nothing else makes sense. But keep jizzing on your 2-D black and white line graph as a worthwhile economic policy evaluation.
    ah yes, the ole "poors have microwaves" argument.

  16. #236
    Yeah, whenever one of those bullshit heritage ďresearchĒ papers gets put out Iíd love some more information beyond the shiny distraction of poors have things see they arenít that poor. How about the actual monetary spending required to get said objects, average age of objects in comparison to those above the poverty line etc... Iím thinking the findings would be the poors have things like a car, tv, fridge, phone, microwave however said things are an Oldsmobile from 1988, a goodwill television for 100 dollars, a fridge that came with their assisted housing thatís 20 Years old, a phone through a government program, a microwave (New is 25 dollars at Walmart) so 5 dollars used the combined value of all material possession 500 dollars.

  17. #237
    Scooter Banks
    ConnorEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    7,625
    Interesting exercise: do a google image search for "republican vs democrat fiscal policy graph".
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  18. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by 2&2 Slider To Leyritz View Post
    I'm still waiting for someone to explain the relevance of income inequality when the standard of living has undoubtedly and significantly improved for all over that same time period. The only logical explanation I've ever received is simple jealousy. Nothing else makes sense. But keep jizzing on your 2-D black and white line graph as a worthwhile economic policy evaluation.
    Because the comparison is between 2017 poor people and 2017 rich people and not 2017 poor people and 1917 poor people (or 1917 rich people)?

    The tax discussion is based on how it will impact the present and future societies, not how it will impact today's society compared to last century's.

    Is this post even serious? Like what is this garbage?

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis Gossett Jr View Post
    Yeah, whenever one of those bullshit heritage “research” papers gets put out I’d love some more information beyond the shiny distraction of poors have things see they aren’t that poor. How about the actual monetary spending required to get said objects, average age of objects in comparison to those above the poverty line etc... I’m thinking the findings would be the poors have things like a car, tv, fridge, phone, microwave however said things are an Oldsmobile from 1988, a goodwill television for 100 dollars, a fridge that came with their assisted housing that’s 20 Years old, a phone through a government program, a microwave (New is 25 dollars at Walmart) so 5 dollars used the combined value of all material possession 500 dollars.
    Even if that is the case, so what? Assuming that it works, are they better off with it or without it?

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Because the comparison is between 2017 poor people and 2017 rich people and not 2017 poor people and 1917 poor people (or 1917 rich people)?

    The tax discussion is based on how it will impact the present and future societies, not how it will impact today's society compared to last century's.

    Is this post even serious? Like what is this garbage?
    This post may be your most self-contradicting yet. First you say that the comparison should be present to present, not present to past. But then you say that the tax discussion should be present to future impact. So..... if the question is whether past policies have worked, it would seem to make sense that the comparison for analysis purposes should in fact be present to past to help predict present to future. Present to present doesn't appear anywhere in the analysis other than via the aforementioned jealousy.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •