• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Donald Trump and the GOP, I Want my Party Back

Income redistribution is more of a Dem talking point. Don't think that his high on Trumps agenda.
I'm sure your response is very common among fiscally conservative Trump-shills, but it doesn't show very much awareness of American history. What exactly do you and Trump believe happened to the middle class? The foundation of Populist economics is forced economic re-distribution. Bullying companies into staying in the US is economic re-distribution.
 
They might. The theory is that lower taxes, less regulation, and bringing back dollars from overseas will increase the economy as a whole, allowing for more opportunities for the working poor and everyone else.

Will have to wait and see if it happens.

You mean like the last time we tried that scam and eight of the ten top companies that benefited from it cut jobs?

All it did was make some rich people richer and some workers unemployed. But let's try it again.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203633104576623771022129888

"The 15 companies that repatriated the most after the 2004 tax break on the return of overseas profits later cut a net 20,931 jobs between 2004 and 2007 and slightly decreased the pace of their spending on research and development, found the report surveying 19 companies' activity."

"However, repeating the 2004 repatriation tax break has already come under criticism from skeptics, including the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, who have argued that companies aren't low on capital and the tax break won't nudge them into making any investments they wouldn't already make.

The five companies that benefitted the most from the 2004 tax break included Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co., Hewlett-Packard Co., Johnson & Johnson and International Business Machines Corp., repatriating $88 billion, or 28% of the total amount brought back to the U.S., according to the report. In total, 843 companies brought back $312 billion, the Internal Revenue Service has assessed.

The report noted that Pfizer had the single largest share of the repatriated profits, bringing home $35.5 billion in foreign earnings, while also cutting 11,748 U.S. jobs between 2004 and 2007. Similarly, IBM brought back $9.5 billion, but cut 12,830 jobs, the report stated, citing answers from the companies in response to its questions."

This is a cynical scam to enrich a few and fuck American workers.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure your response is very common among fiscally conservative Trump-shills, but it doesn't show very much awareness of American history. What exactly do you and Trump believe happened to the middle class? The foundation of Populist economics is forced economic re-distribution. Bullying companies into staying in the US is economic re-distribution.

The theory is that lower taxes, less regulation, and bringing back dollars from overseas will increase the economy as a whole, allowing for more opportunities for the working poor and everyone else.

Will have to wait and see if it happens.
 
You mean like the last time we tried that scam and eight of the ten top companies that benefited from it cut jobs?

All it did was make some rich people richer and some workers unemployed. But let's try it again.

I am thinking more like the return of Reaganomics. We shall see.
 
The theory is that lower taxes, less regulation, and bringing back dollars from overseas will increase the economy as a whole, allowing for more opportunities for the working poor and everyone else.

Will have to wait and see if it happens.

See my edits above. We HAVE seen what will happen and it's nothing you and the GOP allege.
 
See my edits above. We HAVE seen what will happen and it's nothing you and the GOP allege.

Even if no positives come out of it (which I very much doubt), what is the harm? How are those dollars overseas doing anything at all for the US economy?
 
It wasn't that no positives came out of it. Many bad things happened. It was a mutil-billion dollar give-away.

Why not let people who make $1M+ pay no taxes? It's basically what you want to do.
 
It wasn't that no positives came out of it. Many bad things happened. It was a mutil-billion dollar give-away.

Why not let people who make $1M+ pay no taxes? It's basically what you want to do.

If the money stays overseas, it has no impact at all on the US economy. Are you saying that bringing it back to the US at a lower than normal tax rate will somehow do damage to the US economy?

It would seem that even under your silly scenario that it does not help, it would still not be harmful. Would it just hurt you mentally to know that companies you may not have invested in are doing well?

Other than envy, how else is there harm?
 
There's no envy whatsoever. I have no problems with companies making tons of money. If you paid to what I post, not who posted it, you'd know this.

They knew what the rules were when they made the money. Why should they get a massive corporate welfare?

History has shown the only tax cuts that help the economy (once tax rates became rational) are those for the lower and lower-middle income earners. It's very logical why this is. People on those levels need the money for their families and will spend the money.

Creating new consumers creates jobs. It also makes the rich richer.
 
There's no envy whatsoever. I have no problems with companies making tons of money. If you paid to what I post, not who posted it, you'd know this.

They knew what the rules were when they made the money. Why should they get a massive corporate welfare?

History has shown the only tax cuts that help the economy (once tax rates became rational) are those for the lower and lower-middle income earners. It's very logical why this is. People on those levels need the money for their families and will spend the money.

Creating new consumers creates jobs. It also makes the rich richer.

Just answer the damn question, RJ. Stop dancing.
 
Last time they did, people lost their jobs. Is that enough harm?
 
The last time they did this companies cut jobs. This is a fact. The Wall Street Journal (hardly a liberal rag) article shows it. There are thousands of other articles that show this historical event. If you want to have a serious, non-trolling discussion, you have to admit the outcome of the last effort at bringing back foreign profits did not do as promised. Tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs in spite of their companies being flush with cash.

If that isn't harm, I don't know what is.
 
The theory is that lower taxes, less regulation, and bringing back dollars from overseas will increase the economy as a whole, allowing for more opportunities for the working poor and everyone else.

Will have to wait and see if it happens.
Lower corporate taxes are an indirect cost to private citizens because they require public services being slashed.

Less corporate "regulation" leads to increased costs to private citizens in other areas to make up for, whether that be in court costs, environmental cleanup costs, etc.

"Bringing back dollars from overseas" is increased corporate regulation. Forcing corporations to spend more money in America is economic re-distribution.
 
RJ is right. Lowering corporate taxes doesn't create more jobs. Innovation creates more jobs, and lowering corporate taxes doesn't directly lead to increased innovation.
 
The last time they did this companies cut jobs. This is a fact. The Wall Street Journal (hardly a liberal rag) article shows it. There are thousands of other articles that show this historical event. If you want to have a serious, non-trolling discussion, you have to admit the outcome of the last effort at bringing back foreign profits did not do as promised. Tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs in spite of their companies being flush with cash.

If that isn't harm, I don't know what is.

I am just truly curious how corporations having more money to spend causes them to reduce their work force. It must be an amazingly complicated mechanism to be so counter intuitive.

The free market is truly an enigma.
 
RJ is right. Lowering corporate taxes doesn't create more jobs. Innovation creates more jobs, and lowering corporate taxes doesn't directly lead to increased innovation.

Do you, like RJ, also believe that lowering the tax rate causes corporations to cut jobs?
 
"Bringing back dollars from overseas" is increased corporate regulation. Forcing corporations to spend more money in America is economic re-distribution.

It's amazing what you can learn on the tunnels these days.
 
READ the article! It happened and there's no reason to think it won't happen again. They reneged on their promises last time. This is an historical fact. You can theorize all you want, but you can't change history.

Add to this, corporations are flush with cash in the US right now. They don't need more capital to create jobs. They have it but aren't using it for innovation or job creation.

I'm not talking about the bygone past. It didn't happen in the 1940s or 50s. It happened in the 2000s. Many of the same people who lied the last are still in charge or in charge of other beneficiaries.

Again, you can talk about theories. I am talking about historical events enacted by many of the same people.
 
READ the article! It happened and there's no reason to think it won't happen again. They reneged on their promises last time. This is an historical fact. You can theorize all you want, but you can't change history.

Add to this, corporations are flush with cash in the US right now. They don't need more capital to create jobs. They have it but aren't using it for innovation or job creation.

I'm not talking about the bygone past. It didn't happen in the 1940s or 50s. It happened in the 2000s. Many of the same people who lied the last are still in charge or in charge of other beneficiaries.

Again, you can talk about theories. I am talking about historical events enacted by many of the same people.

We kinda need an understanding of what about having increased money causes the companies to reduce their labor force. After all, we all know that correlation is not causation. If we are to extrapolate that bringing back money to this country and the US Gov receiving taxes on this money and the people who are invested in these companies seeing returns on their investment causes unemployment we are going to have to have a working theory on how that happens.

That is an awful lot of positives. If all these positives somehow indescribably cause increased unemployment, we need to figure out why that is before we just throw out the baby because she took a bath.
 
Back
Top