Trump seeks 15 percent corporate tax rate, even if it swells the national debt

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, Sleepr2 said:

And there's the libtard notion that business are only exist only to create union jobs any money for government 

There it is.  It's all for the G'ment.  They know what's best for their subjects.

[Sleepr2]

Just now, Zambroski said:

There it is.  It's all for the G'ment.  They know what's best for their subjects.

Actually it should read for liberals to by votes.

[Highmark]

If you want greater than 2% growth then you have to cut taxes.   If you are happy with sub 2% growth then keep the status quo.  

I'd like to see a freeze in spending growth for about 10 years.   It would amount to huge cuts by the end of that decade.   Then we can start actually cutting the size of govt from there.  I'd really like to cut govt down by 25% after 10 years but its probably not realistic.  

Without investment incentive we will continue to have the economy grow at basically the population growth or even less when accounting for illegal immigration if its not dramtically curbed or halted.

[Anler]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

If you want greater than 2% growth then you have to cut taxes.   If you are happy with sub 2% growth then keep the status quo.  

I'd like to see a freeze in spending growth for about 10 years.   It would amount to huge cuts by the end of that decade.   Then we can start actually cutting the size of govt from there.  I'd really like to cut govt down by 25% after 10 years but its probably not realistic.  

Without investment incentive we will continue to have the economy grow at basically the population growth or even less when accounting for illegal immigration if its not dramtically curbed or halted.

I dont think irrational growth is good either. spurs inflation and creates an unstable market. Like a roller coaster. I think slow steady growth is better for the long term. 

[Highmark]

Just now, Anler said:

I dont think irrational growth is good either. spurs inflation and creates an unstable market. Like a roller coaster. I think slow steady growth is better for the long term. 

Not saying I disagree but I don't consider under 2% slow and steady.   When subtracting out population growth 1% is basically zero or less.  Recessions will happen no matter the growth pattern.  Its inevitable in any economy.  If people are to get greater than cost of living raises common sense says the economy growth rate must exceed that.  

[Anler]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Not saying I disagree but I don't consider under 2% slow and steady.   When subtracting out population growth 1% is basically zero or less.  Recessions will happen no matter the growth pattern.  Its inevitable in any economy.  If people are to get greater than cost of living raises common sense says the economy growth rate must exceed that.  

Our economy is a debt based economy. For real growth we need a demand based economy and that might require some socialism brah... 

[Zambroski]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

If you want greater than 2% growth then you have to cut taxes.   If you are happy with sub 2% growth then keep the status quo.  

I'd like to see a freeze in spending growth for about 10 years.   It would amount to huge cuts by the end of that decade.   Then we can start actually cutting the size of govt from there.  I'd really like to cut govt down by 25% after 10 years but its probably not realistic.  

Without investment incentive we will continue to have the economy grow at basically the population growth or even less when accounting for illegal immigration if its not dramtically curbed or halted.

Ughhhh....leave it to you to throw somthing intellectual into this shit show.

Yep...gotta cut them.  Corps are flush with money and getting ready to dump tons of it back into their American operations.  A nice cut will really springboard them into another era of growth.  We all win.

Let's just hope for slowed spending.  With growth comes tax revenues.  It's a win anyway.  I'm wondering how much of Trump's "unfilled postiions" are ever gonna get filled.  I'm thinking a lot of them aren't needed at all.  Just overrun and overkill....two/three/four positions doing the job of one.

I think illegals are being cured quite well.  Actually surprisingly well.  They aren't seeing this as the "land of give-a-ways" like they used to and employers are starting to watch what they are doing with their hiring procedures.  They know it could cost them big time down the road...short road too.  I think this wall thing is and has always been overrated....bot really sure why R's are pushing it as some sort of symbol.  There are better ways to control it and much cheaper...but lethal.  And that would really spin the Dems up!  I'm all for it!

7 minutes ago, Anler said:

I dont think irrational growth is good either. spurs inflation and creates an unstable market. Like a roller coaster. I think slow steady growth is better for the long term. 

That's been the slogan of the last eight though, "slow and steady".  It's been a broken plan.  We should grow as fast as we can....the Fed can adjust rates accordingly to curb inflation.  Keep in mind...growth isn't gonna be "light speed", we still have recovering to do.

[Snoslinger]

broski is right about one thing - corps are, and have been, flush with money. the only way they're going to spend it though is if they see demand increase.

[Zambroski]

Just now, Snoslinger said:

broski is right about one thing - corps are, and have been, flush with money. the only way they're going to spend it though is if they see demand increase.

Why are they flush with money though...why haven't they reinvested in their own stateside growth?  A: it wasn't worth the pay-out of high capital tax rates for corporate improvements in a market with such low consumer confidence and an overbearing and over regulating administration.  Better to plan an overseas merger or just plain move operations out of the country.  It was cheaper and almost no oversight or penalties for doing so.

[Highmark]

15 minutes ago, Anler said:

Our economy is a debt based economy. For real growth we need a demand based economy and that might require some socialism brah... 

By socialism you mean like military spending?  Virtually all military hardware is built in the US.  Not really any different than infrastructure spending.   

In 2001 when GWB gave a rebate people just put it in the bank.   It did little to no good for the economy.   Please debate the facts below brah or bro or whatever you cool kids are calling it these days.  

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

 

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Highmark

[Mainecat]

tell me its not father and son here.....

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Ez ryder. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Sleepr2. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Ez ryder. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Sleepr2. Options

 

 

[Mainecat]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

If you want greater than 2% growth then you have to cut taxes.   If you are happy with sub 2% growth then keep the status quo.  

I'd like to see a freeze in spending growth for about 10 years.   It would amount to huge cuts by the end of that decade.   Then we can start actually cutting the size of govt from there.  I'd really like to cut govt down by 25% after 10 years but its probably not realistic.  

Without investment incentive we will continue to have the economy grow at basically the population growth or even less when accounting for illegal immigration if its not dramtically curbed or halted.

Cut taxes fine but cut expenses where they are the largest...the military

[Mainecat]

If the burden falls on the one segment that drives the economy its will halt all economic growth...THE FUCKIN END

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

tell me its not father and son here.....

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Ez ryder. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Sleepr2. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Ez ryder. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Sleepr2. Options

 

 

Poor stupid and weak MC.  

[Sleepr2]

46 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

with all the loopholes out there businesses pay significantly lower taxes than what is on paper. hell some pay none.

 

 

Th same loopholes that everyone else can use.

13 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

broski is right about one thing - corps are, and have been, flush with money. the only way they're going to spend it though is if they see demand increase.

It's their money.

3 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

tell me its not father and son here.....

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Ez ryder. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Sleepr2. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Ez ryder. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Sleepr2. Options

 

 

What's pussy 

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, Mainecat said:

If the burden falls on the one segment that drives the economy its will halt all economic growth...THE FUCKIN END

Just stop dude....you don't have the foggiest idea of what your are talking about.  Economics is not in your wheel-house at all.  You just keep sucking on the financial tits you are given.

[Sleepr2]

2 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

If the burden falls on the one segment that drives the economy its will halt all economic growth...THE FUCKIN END

12.50 an hour should do it, right Liar?

[ArcticCrusher]

14 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

broski is right about one thing - corps are, and have been, flush with money. the only way they're going to spend it though is if they see demand increase.

Corps and individuals both can invest if they see its worth it.  Governments punishing success does not have positive outcomes.

[Mainecat]

bla bla bla bla

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Sleepr2. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Zambroski. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Sleepr2. Options

[Anler]

Just now, Highmark said:

By socialism you mean like military spending?  Virtually all military hardware is built in the US.  Not really any different than infrastructure spending.   

In 2001 when GWB gave a rebate people just put it in the bank.   It did little to no good for the economy.   Please debate the facts below brah or bro or whatever you cool kids are calling it these days.  

As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book “The End of Prosperity” (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush’s strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans’ pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.

By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the ‘03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

 

 

Yes I remember Dubyas $300 refund checks and then there was a another one or 2 after that. Those amounts were insignificant and not capable of any economic impact. really just a stupid gesture and attempt at a "conservative" effort. Because for 1 the cost of just distributing the money was ridiculous and self defeating. And 2 the congress promptly increased spending in 2001 by 40%. So not only was it a weak attempt at stimulus, it added insult to injury with the added reckless spending. 

Military spending is not what i would consider an effective domestic economic builder as other solutions. Those products are very expensive and are used once and done. then the resulting spending to rebuild the shit we just blew up has no domestic benefit. Spending on domestic projects like infrastructure and others keeps the money here circulating in our economy. But really that is not the socialism I was referring to either. Im talking about bringing domestic manufacturing back. That has the most bang for the buck and creates a demand based economy. 

[Highmark]

11 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Cut taxes fine but cut expenses where they are the largest...the military

Cut EVERYTHING!  

[Highmark]

7 minutes ago, Anler said:

Yes I remember Dubyas $300 refund checks and then there was a another one or 2 after that. Those amounts were insignificant and not capable of any economic impact. really just a stupid gesture and attempt at a "conservative" effort. Because for 1 the cost of just distributing the money was ridiculous and self defeating. And 2 the congress promptly increased spending in 2001 by 40%. So not only was it a weak attempt at stimulus, it added insult to injury with the added reckless spending. 

Military spending is not what i would consider an effective domestic economic builder as other solutions. Those products are very expensive and are used once and done. then the resulting spending to rebuild the shit we just blew up has no domestic benefit. Spending on domestic projects like infrastructure and others keeps the money here circulating in our economy. But really that is not the socialism I was referring to either. Im talking about bringing domestic manufacturing back. That has the most bang for the buck and creates a demand based economy. 

You can only give so much money back to people who pay in very little to zero or even get a return.  When almost 90% of the taxes are paid by the top 20% its pretty hard to do demand side anything without them getting the bulk of the money.  

Fact is people in our country buy whatever they want anyway.  Rather on CC or loans.   When you give them more money they just use it to pay shit off.   There is no way you cannot see that.  

Edited April 25, 2017 by Highmark

[Zambroski]

Just now, Highmark said:

You can only give so much money back to people who pay in very little to zero or even get a return.

Fact is people in our country buy whatever they want anyway.  Rather on CC or loans.   When you give them more money they just use it to pay shit off.   There is no way you cannot see that.  

"Cut" meaning save (or pay down debt), or "Cut" meaning reallocate?  Imagine that argument from both sides.  I say pay down debt.  Others would say more social welfare.

[Anler]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

You can only give so much money back to people who pay in very little to zero or even get a return.  When almost 90% of the taxes are paid by the top 20% its pretty hard to do demand side anything without them getting the bulk of the money.  

Fact is people in our country buy whatever they want anyway.  Rather on CC or loans.   When you give them more money they just use it to pay shit off.   There is no way you cannot see that.  

I dont think you understand what I am saying. Carry on... 

[Highmark]

Just now, Zambroski said:

"Cut" meaning save (or pay down debt), or "Cut" meaning reallocate?  Imagine that argument from both sides.  I say pay down debt.  Others would say more social welfare.

Tax cuts in the right places have historically always created increases in tax revenue.

Spending cuts I mean save....not reallocate.   We already collect over $22,000 per person in this country in Federal, State and Local taxes.   That's more than enough for what the govt should be responsible for doing for its people.   I just love that NOBODY likes to talk about what the govt ALREADY collects.