Discussion:
Is the uptick in GDP worth it?
Add Reply
islander
2018-09-11 19:29:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
GLOBALIST
2018-09-11 20:03:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 2:29:42 PM UTC-5, islander wrote:
> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

Obama's 3% is considered by most economist as stagnant, barely
alive, but that was all George W's fault huh?
Weatherman
2018-09-12 14:53:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
GLOBALIST wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 2:29:42 PM UTC-5, islander wrote:
>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>
> Obama's 3% is considered by most economist as stagnant, barely
> alive, but that was all George W's fault huh?
>

The fact that you posted this stupid, erroneous and quite ignorant post
is YOUR fault, dip shit racist.
El Castor
2018-09-11 21:01:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
What's not to like?
islander
2018-09-11 22:00:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>
> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
> What's not to like?
>
Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
$1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
El Castor
2018-09-13 07:56:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>
>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
>> What's not to like?
>>
>Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
>recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
>$1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
>increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
>premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?

I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.

As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
-- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
White House..
islander
2018-09-13 13:16:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 12:56 AM, El Castor wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>>>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>>>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>>>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>
>>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
>>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
>>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
>>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
>>> What's not to like?
>>>
>> Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
>> recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>> steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>> regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
>> $1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
>> increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
>> premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
>
> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>
> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
> White House..
>
Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have worked,
at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
(just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
don't you?
El Castor
2018-09-13 17:12:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:16:39 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/13/2018 12:56 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>>>>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>>>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>>>>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>>>>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>>
>>>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>>>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
>>>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>>>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
>>>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
>>>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>>>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
>>>> What's not to like?
>>>>
>>> Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
>>> recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>>> steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>>> regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
>>> $1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
>>> increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
>>> premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
>>
>> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
>> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
>> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
>> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
>> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
>> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>>
>> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
>> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
>> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
>> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
>> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
>> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
>> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
>> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
>> White House..
>>
>Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
>2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have worked,
>at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
>(just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
>business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
> It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
>don't you?

You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8
islander
2018-09-14 14:20:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 10:12 AM, El Castor wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:16:39 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2018 12:56 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>>>>>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>>>>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>>>>>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>>>>>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>>>>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
>>>>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>>>>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
>>>>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
>>>>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>>>>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
>>>>> What's not to like?
>>>>>
>>>> Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
>>>> recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>>>> steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>>>> regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
>>>> $1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
>>>> increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
>>>> premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
>>>
>>> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
>>> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
>>> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
>>> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
>>> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
>>> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>>>
>>> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
>>> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
>>> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
>>> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
>>> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
>>> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
>>> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
>>> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
>>> White House..
>>>
>> Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
>> 2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have worked,
>> at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
>> (just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
>> business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
>> It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
>> don't you?
>
> You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
> will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8
>
Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.
El Castor
2018-09-14 19:13:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:20:44 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/13/2018 10:12 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:16:39 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2018 12:56 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>>>>>>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>>>>>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>>>>>>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>>>>>>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>>>>>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
>>>>>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>>>>>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
>>>>>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
>>>>>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>>>>>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
>>>>>> What's not to like?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
>>>>> recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>>>>> steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>>>>> regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
>>>>> $1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
>>>>> increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
>>>>> premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
>>>>
>>>> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
>>>> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
>>>> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
>>>> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
>>>> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
>>>> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>>>>
>>>> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
>>>> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
>>>> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
>>>> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
>>>> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
>>>> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
>>>> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
>>>> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
>>>> White House..
>>>>
>>> Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
>>> 2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have worked,
>>> at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
>>> (just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
>>> business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
>>> It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
>>> don't you?
>>
>> You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
>> will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8
>>
>Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.

Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?
islander
2018-09-14 22:12:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/14/2018 12:13 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:20:44 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2018 10:12 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:16:39 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:56 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>>>>>>>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>>>>>>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>>>>>>>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>>>>>>>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>>>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>>>>>>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
>>>>>>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>>>>>>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
>>>>>>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
>>>>>>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>>>>>>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
>>>>>>> What's not to like?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
>>>>>> recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>>>>>> steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>>>>>> regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
>>>>>> $1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
>>>>>> increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
>>>>>> premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
>>>>> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
>>>>> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
>>>>> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
>>>>> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
>>>>> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
>>>>> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
>>>>> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
>>>>> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
>>>>> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
>>>>> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
>>>>> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
>>>>> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
>>>>> White House..
>>>>>
>>>> Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
>>>> 2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have worked,
>>>> at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
>>>> (just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
>>>> business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
>>>> It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
>>>> don't you?
>>>
>>> You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
>>> will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8
>>>
>> Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.
>
> Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
> yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?
>
Do you believe that someone seeking a life-time appointment in the
highest court in the land should be excused for a crime, even if it
occurred when he was in high school? It seems to me that you (and the
Republicans) will stoop pretty low to get this guy appointed. Why is this?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-09-14 22:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/14/2018 3:12 PM, islander wrote:
> On 9/14/2018 12:13 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:20:44 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2018 10:12 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:16:39 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:56 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of
>>>>>>>>> $371B or
>>>>>>>>> an increase of 1.8%.  Compare that with economic performance
>>>>>>>>> during the
>>>>>>>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a
>>>>>>>>> rate of
>>>>>>>>> 3% per year.  In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue
>>>>>>>>> loss of
>>>>>>>>> approximately $1T?  Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>>>>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>>>>>>>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a
>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>>>>>>>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record
>>>>>>>> numbers.
>>>>>>>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers
>>>>>>>> quitting
>>>>>>>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>>>>>>>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level
>>>>>>>> positions.
>>>>>>>> What's not to like?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you look at the FRED graph?  Yes, there was a drop in GDP,
>>>>>>> but the
>>>>>>> recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>>>>>>> steady progress.  There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>>>>>>> regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite
>>>>>>> pumping
>>>>>>> $1T in deficit spending back into the economy.  Is it worth the
>>>>>>> increased debt?  If so, you should be able to cite data
>>>>>>> supporting the
>>>>>>> premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost.  Can you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
>>>>>> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
>>>>>> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't
>>>>>> agree,
>>>>>> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
>>>>>> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
>>>>>> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
>>>>>> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
>>>>>> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
>>>>>> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
>>>>>> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in
>>>>>> deficits.
>>>>>> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
>>>>>> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and
>>>>>> spending
>>>>>> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
>>>>>> White House..
>>>>>>
>>>>> Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
>>>>> 2009.  As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have
>>>>> worked,
>>>>> at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong
>>>>> time
>>>>> (just like GW Bush did).  For a party that pretends to be smart about
>>>>> business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance
>>>>> sheet.
>>>>>    It is called a balance sheet for a reason.  You do understand that,
>>>>> don't you?
>>>>
>>>> You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
>>>> will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8
>>>>
>>> Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.
>>
>> Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
>> yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?
>>
> Do you believe that someone seeking a life-time appointment in the
> highest court in the land should be excused for a crime, even if it
> occurred when he was in high school?  It seems to me that you (and the
> Republicans) will stoop pretty low to get this guy appointed.  Why is this?

Of course the accusation is serious. But, revealing it at the last
minute seems suspicious. That being said, after Garland, there are no
norms to be followed.
islander
2018-09-15 03:57:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/14/2018 3:43 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 9/14/2018 3:12 PM, islander wrote:
>> On 9/14/2018 12:13 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:20:44 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2018 10:12 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:16:39 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:56 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of
>>>>>>>>>> $371B or
>>>>>>>>>> an increase of 1.8%.  Compare that with economic performance
>>>>>>>>>> during the
>>>>>>>>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a
>>>>>>>>>> rate of
>>>>>>>>>> 3% per year.  In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue
>>>>>>>>>> loss of
>>>>>>>>>> approximately $1T?  Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>>>>>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>>>>>>>>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a
>>>>>>>>> great
>>>>>>>>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>>>>>>>>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record
>>>>>>>>> numbers.
>>>>>>>>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers
>>>>>>>>> quitting
>>>>>>>>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>>>>>>>>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level
>>>>>>>>> positions.
>>>>>>>>> What's not to like?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you look at the FRED graph?  Yes, there was a drop in GDP,
>>>>>>>> but the
>>>>>>>> recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> steady progress.  There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>>>>>>>> regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite
>>>>>>>> pumping
>>>>>>>> $1T in deficit spending back into the economy.  Is it worth the
>>>>>>>> increased debt?  If so, you should be able to cite data
>>>>>>>> supporting the
>>>>>>>> premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost.  Can you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
>>>>>>> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our
>>>>>>> economy. I
>>>>>>> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't
>>>>>>> agree,
>>>>>>> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
>>>>>>> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does
>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
>>>>>>> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
>>>>>>> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
>>>>>>> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
>>>>>>> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in
>>>>>>> deficits.
>>>>>>> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
>>>>>>> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and
>>>>>>> spending
>>>>>>> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> White House..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
>>>>>> 2009.  As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have
>>>>>> worked,
>>>>>> at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> (just like GW Bush did).  For a party that pretends to be smart about
>>>>>> business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance
>>>>>> sheet.
>>>>>>    It is called a balance sheet for a reason.  You do understand
>>>>>> that,
>>>>>> don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
>>>>> will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.
>>>
>>> Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
>>> yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?
>>>
>> Do you believe that someone seeking a life-time appointment in the
>> highest court in the land should be excused for a crime, even if it
>> occurred when he was in high school?  It seems to me that you (and the
>> Republicans) will stoop pretty low to get this guy appointed.  Why is
>> this?
>
> Of course the accusation is serious.  But, revealing it at the last
> minute seems suspicious.  That being said, after Garland, there are no
> norms to be followed.

I think that it was delayed because it is so serious. The victim of the
sexual abuse wanted to remain anonymous and there was no independent
verification. I'm not sure what Feinstein was thinking in sending it to
the FBI. Any statue of limitations has long since passed. What do you
do with something like this? What is the downside when you cannot prove
it? In the news today they were drawing parallels to Anita Hill who
initially wanted to remain anonymous. What good did it do for her to
come forward?
El Castor
2018-09-15 08:21:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:12:09 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/14/2018 12:13 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:20:44 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2018 10:12 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:16:39 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:56 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>>>>>>>>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>>>>>>>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>>>>>>>>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>>>>>>>>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>>>>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>>>>>>>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
>>>>>>>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>>>>>>>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
>>>>>>>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
>>>>>>>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>>>>>>>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
>>>>>>>> What's not to like?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
>>>>>>> recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>>>>>>> steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>>>>>>> regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
>>>>>>> $1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
>>>>>>> increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
>>>>>>> premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
>>>>>> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
>>>>>> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
>>>>>> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
>>>>>> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
>>>>>> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
>>>>>> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
>>>>>> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
>>>>>> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
>>>>>> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
>>>>>> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
>>>>>> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
>>>>>> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
>>>>>> White House..
>>>>>>
>>>>> Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
>>>>> 2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have worked,
>>>>> at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
>>>>> (just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
>>>>> business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
>>>>> It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
>>>>> don't you?
>>>>
>>>> You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
>>>> will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8
>>>>
>>> Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.
>>
>> Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
>> yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?
>>
>Do you believe that someone seeking a life-time appointment in the
>highest court in the land should be excused for a crime, even if it
>occurred when he was in high school? It seems to me that you (and the
>Republicans) will stoop pretty low to get this guy appointed. Why is this?

Excused of what crime? In today's climate an unfounded anonymous
accusation will be swallowed hook, line and proverbial sinker by you
partisan haters of anything Trump. How very convenient. Clinton had
accusers lined up out the door, and I'll bet you didn't give them a
second thought when you pulled the lever in the voting booth. Am I
right?

Here is a letter signed by dozens of Kavanaugh's high school
classmates. This is authentic, specific, contains many names, and is
highly complimentary.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/heres-the-letter-brett-kavanaughs-high-school-classmates-sent-to-the-senate-calling-for-his-confirmation
islander
2018-09-15 14:45:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/15/2018 1:21 AM, El Castor wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:12:09 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/14/2018 12:13 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:20:44 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2018 10:12 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:16:39 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:56 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>>>>>>>>>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>>>>>>>>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>>>>>>>>>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>>>>>>>>>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>>>>>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>>>>>>>>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
>>>>>>>>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>>>>>>>>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
>>>>>>>>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
>>>>>>>>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>>>>>>>>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
>>>>>>>>> What's not to like?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
>>>>>>>> recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>>>>>>>> steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>>>>>>>> regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
>>>>>>>> $1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
>>>>>>>> increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
>>>>>>>> premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
>>>>>>> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
>>>>>>> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
>>>>>>> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
>>>>>>> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
>>>>>>> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
>>>>>>> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
>>>>>>> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
>>>>>>> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
>>>>>>> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
>>>>>>> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
>>>>>>> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
>>>>>>> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
>>>>>>> White House..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
>>>>>> 2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have worked,
>>>>>> at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
>>>>>> (just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
>>>>>> business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
>>>>>> It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
>>>>>> don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
>>>>> will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.
>>>
>>> Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
>>> yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?
>>>
>> Do you believe that someone seeking a life-time appointment in the
>> highest court in the land should be excused for a crime, even if it
>> occurred when he was in high school? It seems to me that you (and the
>> Republicans) will stoop pretty low to get this guy appointed. Why is this?
>
> Excused of what crime? In today's climate an unfounded anonymous
> accusation will be swallowed hook, line and proverbial sinker by you
> partisan haters of anything Trump. How very convenient. Clinton had
> accusers lined up out the door, and I'll bet you didn't give them a
> second thought when you pulled the lever in the voting booth. Am I
> right?
>
> Here is a letter signed by dozens of Kavanaugh's high school
> classmates. This is authentic, specific, contains many names, and is
> highly complimentary.
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/heres-the-letter-brett-kavanaughs-high-school-classmates-sent-to-the-senate-calling-for-his-confirmation
>
Hmmm. This guy really gets around. Imagine 65 women who claim to have
known him since high school. Where did he go to high school?
Georgetown Prep, an elite all-boys Jesuit school in Bethesda, MD.
Possible, I suppose and the statute of limitations would have long since
expired. But, lying to Congress while under oath is current. Sen.
Hirono specifically asked him if he "ever made unwanted requests for
sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault
of a sexual nature." He said, "No." Add this to his alleged lies, not
only in this confirmation hearing, but also in his confirmation hearings
for the District Court of Appeals in 2004 and 2006.

These all raise questions about his moral character. The Democrats are
asking that the Congress take the time to fully investigate these
allegations. I think that we both know why the Republicans are ramming
this through.

We made a serious mistake in not listening to Anita Hill. We should
learn from that history.
El Castor
2018-09-15 18:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 07:45:35 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/15/2018 1:21 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:12:09 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/14/2018 12:13 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 07:20:44 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/13/2018 10:12 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:16:39 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:56 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/2018 2:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:29:37 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
>>>>>>>>>>> an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic performance during the
>>>>>>>>>>> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
>>>>>>>>>>> 3% per year. In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
>>>>>>>>>>> approximately $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>>>>>>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Obama was elected at the bottom of the "great recession" -- growth
>>>>>>>>>> from those depths was to be expected. The Trump economy owes a great
>>>>>>>>>> deal to tax and regulation cuts. The unusually strong economy has
>>>>>>>>>> begun to push wages up as unfilled job opening reach record numbers.
>>>>>>>>>> Those increased job openings have resulted in record numbers quitting
>>>>>>>>>> jobs to fill more lucrative positions. This has the made more jobs
>>>>>>>>>> available to teenagers and minorities seeking entry level positions.
>>>>>>>>>> What's not to like?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
>>>>>>>>> recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>>>>>>>>> steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>>>>>>>>> regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
>>>>>>>>> $1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
>>>>>>>>> increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
>>>>>>>>> premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
>>>>>>>> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
>>>>>>>> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
>>>>>>>> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
>>>>>>>> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
>>>>>>>> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
>>>>>>>> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
>>>>>>>> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
>>>>>>>> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
>>>>>>>> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
>>>>>>>> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
>>>>>>>> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
>>>>>>>> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
>>>>>>>> White House..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Funny thing, I don't hear much about Freedman economic theory since
>>>>>>> 2009. As to Kensian theory being discredited, it seems to have worked,
>>>>>>> at least until Trump got tempted to cut taxes at exactly the wrong time
>>>>>>> (just like GW Bush did). For a party that pretends to be smart about
>>>>>>> business, they continue to ignore the revenue side of the balance sheet.
>>>>>>> It is called a balance sheet for a reason. You do understand that,
>>>>>>> don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've heard what I have to say on the subject. BTW -- looks like we
>>>>>> will be getting a new Supreme Court justice as early as next week. (-8
>>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, but the Democrats are not giving up.
>>>>
>>>> Diane Feinstein has a letter from a female high school classmate --
>>>> yet to be revealed! How low will they go to stop him?
>>>>
>>> Do you believe that someone seeking a life-time appointment in the
>>> highest court in the land should be excused for a crime, even if it
>>> occurred when he was in high school? It seems to me that you (and the
>>> Republicans) will stoop pretty low to get this guy appointed. Why is this?
>>
>> Excused of what crime? In today's climate an unfounded anonymous
>> accusation will be swallowed hook, line and proverbial sinker by you
>> partisan haters of anything Trump. How very convenient. Clinton had
>> accusers lined up out the door, and I'll bet you didn't give them a
>> second thought when you pulled the lever in the voting booth. Am I
>> right?
>>
>> Here is a letter signed by dozens of Kavanaugh's high school
>> classmates. This is authentic, specific, contains many names, and is
>> highly complimentary.
>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/heres-the-letter-brett-kavanaughs-high-school-classmates-sent-to-the-senate-calling-for-his-confirmation
>>
>Hmmm. This guy really gets around. Imagine 65 women who claim to have
>known him since high school. Where did he go to high school?
>Georgetown Prep, an elite all-boys Jesuit school in Bethesda, MD.
>Possible, I suppose and the statute of limitations would have long since
>expired. But, lying to Congress while under oath is current. Sen.
>Hirono specifically asked him if he "ever made unwanted requests for
>sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault
>of a sexual nature." He said, "No." Add this to his alleged lies, not
>only in this confirmation hearing, but also in his confirmation hearings
>for the District Court of Appeals in 2004 and 2006.
>
>These all raise questions about his moral character. The Democrats are
>asking that the Congress take the time to fully investigate these
>allegations. I think that we both know why the Republicans are ramming
>this through.

On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
(in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
spree.

>We made a serious mistake in not listening to Anita Hill. We should
>learn from that history.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-09-15 19:01:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:

{snip}

> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
> spree.

The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
El Castor
2018-09-15 20:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<***@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>> spree.
>
>The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>
>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast

That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
Spending cuts would also be helpful. Obama's $19 trillion tax and
spend orgy could not be allowed to continue.

Cutting corporate tax rates is not a new idea. The UK has gone from a
high of 52% to 19%, Sweden from 60.1% to 22%, Italy from 53% to 24%,
Denmark 50% to 22%, and Ireland 50% to 12.5%. Where was Obama and his
party while this was going on?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-09-15 20:06:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>
>> {snip}
>>
>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>> spree.
>>
>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>
>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>
> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.

Great motive. Lousy results.
El Castor
2018-09-16 05:58:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<***@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>> spree.
>>>
>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>
>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>
>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>
>Great motive. Lousy results.

Be patient. These things don't happen overnight. There is a reason the
countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
to go back to 35%?

Oh, and ...

"U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07

"In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07

"SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
would make a sizable investment in the United States."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
islander
2018-09-16 15:04:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/15/2018 10:58 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> {snip}
>>>>
>>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>>> spree.
>>>>
>>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>>
>>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>>
>> Great motive. Lousy results.
>
> Be patient. These things don't happen overnight. There is a reason the
> countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
> lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
> something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
> control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
> to go back to 35%?
>
> Oh, and ...
>
> "U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07

Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
made any significant gains since 1973.
>
> "In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
> rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
> lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07

Actually a continuation of a 9 year trend that started in 2010. Guess
which administration had a similar trend? The Clinton administration
and they did it without tax cuts. See BLS statistics that go back to 1972.

>
> "SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
> foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
> overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
> majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
> would make a sizable investment in the United States."
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
>
There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
El Castor
2018-09-16 20:18:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/15/2018 10:58 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>
>>>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>>>> spree.
>>>>>
>>>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>>>
>>>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>>>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>>>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>>>
>>> Great motive. Lousy results.
>>
>> Be patient. These things don't happen overnight. There is a reason the
>> countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
>> lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
>> something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
>> control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
>> to go back to 35%?
>>
>> Oh, and ...
>>
>> "U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07
>
>Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
>made any significant gains since 1973.
>>
>> "In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
>> rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
>> lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07
>
>Actually a continuation of a 9 year trend that started in 2010. Guess
>which administration had a similar trend? The Clinton administration
>and they did it without tax cuts. See BLS statistics that go back to 1972.
>
>>
>> "SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
>> foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
>> overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
>> majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
>> would make a sizable investment in the United States."
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
>>
>There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.

So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
b***@gmail.com
2018-09-16 22:37:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 1:18:58 PM UTC-7, El Castor wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander
> >There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
> >are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
> >dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
> >the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
> >fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
> >operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
> >personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
> >scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
> >technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
> >related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
> >that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
> >was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
> >project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
> >operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
> >stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>
> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>

Because in a socialist economy everybody gets lazy and doesn't want to work if all their expenses are paid. That's what happened to the Soviet Union when they went broke. Everyone sat around drinking Vodka all day since they couldn't get ahead doing anything else.


.
islander
2018-09-16 23:55:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/16/2018 3:37 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 1:18:58 PM UTC-7, El Castor wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander
>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>
>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>
>
> Because in a socialist economy everybody gets lazy and doesn't want to work if all their expenses are paid. That's what happened to the Soviet Union when they went broke. Everyone sat around drinking Vodka all day since they couldn't get ahead doing anything else.
>
>
> .
>
Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his contribution." Stalin adopted a slightly different
form of this stating, "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his work." People didn't get paid for not working in the
Soviet Union. Work was expected as part of a fair exchange of labor for
consumption.

Don't get me wrong. Marx viewed this as a practical first step to
communism, but the Soviet Union never made it to a next step. Both Marx
and Stalin knew that in the real world of the last century that people
had to contribute their labor or the system would not work.
El Castor
2018-09-17 06:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:55:01 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/16/2018 3:37 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 1:18:58 PM UTC-7, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander
>>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>>
>>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>>
>>
>> Because in a socialist economy everybody gets lazy and doesn't want to work if all their expenses are paid. That's what happened to the Soviet Union when they went broke. Everyone sat around drinking Vodka all day since they couldn't get ahead doing anything else.
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
>defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
>according to his contribution."

Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".

""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs


>Stalin adopted a slightly different
>form of this stating, "From each according to his ability, to each
>according to his work." People didn't get paid for not working in the
>Soviet Union. Work was expected as part of a fair exchange of labor for
>consumption.
>
>Don't get me wrong. Marx viewed this as a practical first step to
>communism, but the Soviet Union never made it to a next step. Both Marx
>and Stalin knew that in the real world of the last century that people
>had to contribute their labor or the system would not work.

Back in the 80's, when I was still in the securities end of banking, I
worked with the American daughter of Yugoslavian parents. She was very
nostalgic about her parents mother country and married a guy who was
the son of Yugoslavian immigrants. Together the newly weds moved to
Yugoslavia and went to work for a state owned bank. A few months later
they returned, very disillusioned, and she was hired back into the
unit she had left. She told me that the old saying about communism,
was completely true -- the workers pretended to work and the bank
pretended to pay them.
islander
2018-09-17 13:52:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/16/2018 11:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:55:01 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/2018 3:37 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 1:18:58 PM UTC-7, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander
>>>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>>>
>>>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>>>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>>>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>>>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because in a socialist economy everybody gets lazy and doesn't want to work if all their expenses are paid. That's what happened to the Soviet Union when they went broke. Everyone sat around drinking Vodka all day since they couldn't get ahead doing anything else.
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>> Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
>> defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
>> according to his contribution."
>
> Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
>
> ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
> is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
> Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
> goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
> will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
> developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
> full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
> will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs
>
You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
and communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution
>
>> Stalin adopted a slightly different
>> form of this stating, "From each according to his ability, to each
>> according to his work." People didn't get paid for not working in the
>> Soviet Union. Work was expected as part of a fair exchange of labor for
>> consumption.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong. Marx viewed this as a practical first step to
>> communism, but the Soviet Union never made it to a next step. Both Marx
>> and Stalin knew that in the real world of the last century that people
>> had to contribute their labor or the system would not work.
>
> Back in the 80's, when I was still in the securities end of banking, I
> worked with the American daughter of Yugoslavian parents. She was very
> nostalgic about her parents mother country and married a guy who was
> the son of Yugoslavian immigrants. Together the newly weds moved to
> Yugoslavia and went to work for a state owned bank. A few months later
> they returned, very disillusioned, and she was hired back into the
> unit she had left. She told me that the old saying about communism,
> was completely true -- the workers pretended to work and the bank
> pretended to pay them.
>
El Castor
2018-09-17 19:15:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:52:54 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/16/2018 11:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:55:01 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/16/2018 3:37 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 1:18:58 PM UTC-7, El Castor wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander
>>>>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>>>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>>>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>>>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>>>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>>>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>>>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>>>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>>>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>>>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>>>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>>>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>>>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>>>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>>>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>>>>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>>>>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>>>>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because in a socialist economy everybody gets lazy and doesn't want to work if all their expenses are paid. That's what happened to the Soviet Union when they went broke. Everyone sat around drinking Vodka all day since they couldn't get ahead doing anything else.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
>>> defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
>>> according to his contribution."
>>
>> Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
>>
>> ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
>> is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
>> Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
>> goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
>> will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
>> developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
>> full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
>> will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs
>>
>You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
>and communism.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution
>>

What I didn't miss was your mis-quote of Marx.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
... Karl Marx -- That is verbatim what he said. Marx was prescient, in
that his one sentence might as well be the governing motto of today's
liberalism.

>>> Stalin adopted a slightly different
>>> form of this stating, "From each according to his ability, to each
>>> according to his work." People didn't get paid for not working in the
>>> Soviet Union. Work was expected as part of a fair exchange of labor for
>>> consumption.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong. Marx viewed this as a practical first step to
>>> communism, but the Soviet Union never made it to a next step. Both Marx
>>> and Stalin knew that in the real world of the last century that people
>>> had to contribute their labor or the system would not work.
>>
>> Back in the 80's, when I was still in the securities end of banking, I
>> worked with the American daughter of Yugoslavian parents. She was very
>> nostalgic about her parents mother country and married a guy who was
>> the son of Yugoslavian immigrants. Together the newly weds moved to
>> Yugoslavia and went to work for a state owned bank. A few months later
>> they returned, very disillusioned, and she was hired back into the
>> unit she had left. She told me that the old saying about communism,
>> was completely true -- the workers pretended to work and the bank
>> pretended to pay them.
>>
islander
2018-09-18 01:43:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/17/2018 12:15 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:52:54 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/2018 11:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:55:01 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/16/2018 3:37 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 1:18:58 PM UTC-7, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander
>>>>>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>>>>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>>>>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>>>>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>>>>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>>>>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>>>>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>>>>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>>>>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>>>>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>>>>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>>>>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>>>>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>>>>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>>>>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>>>>>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>>>>>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>>>>>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because in a socialist economy everybody gets lazy and doesn't want to work if all their expenses are paid. That's what happened to the Soviet Union when they went broke. Everyone sat around drinking Vodka all day since they couldn't get ahead doing anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>> Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
>>>> defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
>>>> according to his contribution."
>>>
>>> Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
>>>
>>> ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
>>> is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
>>> Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
>>> goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
>>> will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
>>> developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
>>> full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
>>> will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs
>>>
>> You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
>> and communism.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution
>>>
>
> What I didn't miss was your mis-quote of Marx.
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
> ... Karl Marx -- That is verbatim what he said. Marx was prescient, in
> that his one sentence might as well be the governing motto of today's
> liberalism.

Sometimes I think you are being intentionally stupid. Marx was
describing communism. In his Critique of Gotha Programme, he was using
the word "contribution" to describe socialism as it was used by
pre-Marxist proponents. Marx was a proponent of communism.

>
>>>> Stalin adopted a slightly different
>>>> form of this stating, "From each according to his ability, to each
>>>> according to his work." People didn't get paid for not working in the
>>>> Soviet Union. Work was expected as part of a fair exchange of labor for
>>>> consumption.
>>>>
>>>> Don't get me wrong. Marx viewed this as a practical first step to
>>>> communism, but the Soviet Union never made it to a next step. Both Marx
>>>> and Stalin knew that in the real world of the last century that people
>>>> had to contribute their labor or the system would not work.
>>>
>>> Back in the 80's, when I was still in the securities end of banking, I
>>> worked with the American daughter of Yugoslavian parents. She was very
>>> nostalgic about her parents mother country and married a guy who was
>>> the son of Yugoslavian immigrants. Together the newly weds moved to
>>> Yugoslavia and went to work for a state owned bank. A few months later
>>> they returned, very disillusioned, and she was hired back into the
>>> unit she had left. She told me that the old saying about communism,
>>> was completely true -- the workers pretended to work and the bank
>>> pretended to pay them.
>>>
El Castor
2018-09-18 05:50:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:43:18 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/17/2018 12:15 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:52:54 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/16/2018 11:01 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:55:01 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/16/2018 3:37 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 1:18:58 PM UTC-7, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander
>>>>>>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>>>>>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>>>>>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>>>>>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>>>>>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>>>>>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>>>>>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>>>>>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>>>>>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>>>>>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>>>>>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>>>>>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>>>>>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>>>>>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>>>>>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>>>>>>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>>>>>>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>>>>>>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in a socialist economy everybody gets lazy and doesn't want to work if all their expenses are paid. That's what happened to the Soviet Union when they went broke. Everyone sat around drinking Vodka all day since they couldn't get ahead doing anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>> Where did you get that idea? The fundamental principle of socialism as
>>>>> defined by Marx was, "From each according to his ability, to each
>>>>> according to his contribution."
>>>>
>>>> Wrong ... Where did you get "contribution"? The word was "needs".
>>>>
>>>> ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
>>>> is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha
>>>> Program. The principle refers to free access and distribution of
>>>> goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement
>>>> will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a
>>>> developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the
>>>> full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there
>>>> will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs."
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs
>>>>
>>> You completely missed the distinction that Marx made between socialism
>>> and communism.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution
>>>>
>>
>> What I didn't miss was your mis-quote of Marx.
>> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
>> ... Karl Marx -- That is verbatim what he said. Marx was prescient, in
>> that his one sentence might as well be the governing motto of today's
>> liberalism.
>
>Sometimes I think you are being intentionally stupid. Marx was
>describing communism. In his Critique of Gotha Programme, he was using
>the word "contribution" to describe socialism as it was used by
>pre-Marxist proponents. Marx was a proponent of communism.

Sounds to me like he was describing a significant portion of the 2018
Democrat Party -- the self described socialist wing. Anyhow, please
get your quotes right the next time.

>>>>> Stalin adopted a slightly different
>>>>> form of this stating, "From each according to his ability, to each
>>>>> according to his work." People didn't get paid for not working in the
>>>>> Soviet Union. Work was expected as part of a fair exchange of labor for
>>>>> consumption.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't get me wrong. Marx viewed this as a practical first step to
>>>>> communism, but the Soviet Union never made it to a next step. Both Marx
>>>>> and Stalin knew that in the real world of the last century that people
>>>>> had to contribute their labor or the system would not work.
>>>>
>>>> Back in the 80's, when I was still in the securities end of banking, I
>>>> worked with the American daughter of Yugoslavian parents. She was very
>>>> nostalgic about her parents mother country and married a guy who was
>>>> the son of Yugoslavian immigrants. Together the newly weds moved to
>>>> Yugoslavia and went to work for a state owned bank. A few months later
>>>> they returned, very disillusioned, and she was hired back into the
>>>> unit she had left. She told me that the old saying about communism,
>>>> was completely true -- the workers pretended to work and the bank
>>>> pretended to pay them.
>>>>
islander
2018-09-16 23:31:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/16/2018 1:18 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/15/2018 10:58 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>>>>> spree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>>>>
>>>>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>>>>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>>>>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>>>>
>>>> Great motive. Lousy results.
>>>
>>> Be patient. These things don't happen overnight. There is a reason the
>>> countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
>>> lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
>>> something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
>>> control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
>>> to go back to 35%?
>>>
>>> Oh, and ...
>>>
>>> "U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07
>>
>> Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
>> made any significant gains since 1973.
>>>
>>> "In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
>>> rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
>>> lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07
>>
>> Actually a continuation of a 9 year trend that started in 2010. Guess
>> which administration had a similar trend? The Clinton administration
>> and they did it without tax cuts. See BLS statistics that go back to 1972.
>>
>>>
>>> "SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
>>> foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
>>> overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
>>> majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
>>> would make a sizable investment in the United States."
>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
>>>
>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>
> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>
We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
community through tax law is much more important to me than the
corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
something that Republicans avoid like the plague?

Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
burden anyway.
El Castor
2018-09-17 06:29:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:31:13 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/16/2018 1:18 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/15/2018 10:58 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>>>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>>>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>>>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>>>>>> spree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>>>>>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>>>>>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great motive. Lousy results.
>>>>
>>>> Be patient. These things don't happen overnight. There is a reason the
>>>> countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
>>>> lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
>>>> something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
>>>> control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
>>>> to go back to 35%?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and ...
>>>>
>>>> "U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
>>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07
>>>
>>> Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
>>> made any significant gains since 1973.
>>>>
>>>> "In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
>>>> rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
>>>> lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
>>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07
>>>
>>> Actually a continuation of a 9 year trend that started in 2010. Guess
>>> which administration had a similar trend? The Clinton administration
>>> and they did it without tax cuts. See BLS statistics that go back to 1972.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
>>>> foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
>>>> overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
>>>> majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
>>>> would make a sizable investment in the United States."
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
>>>>
>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>
>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>
>We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
>against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
>for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
>Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
>community through tax law is much more important to me than the
>corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
>that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
>something that Republicans avoid like the plague?
>
>Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
>the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
>burden anyway.

I suspect that your loophole is another man's reasonable adjustment,
but if what you refer to as a loophole is unjust, then of course it
should be eliminated. Should you be able to deduct mortgage interest,
but not the interest on a car you need to get to work? Is your
mortgage deduction a just loophole? In any event, why worry so much
about corporate profits, and tax the cash when it makes its way into
the pocket of an individual? Your hatred of corporations is emotional,
not logical. Personally, I have a greater problem with corporate
taxation than individual -- not because of any empathy for
corporations, but because corporations generate the paychecks, goods,
and services we all depend on. They understand that from Sweden to
Switzerland and Taiwan to Thailand, so what is your problem?
islander
2018-09-17 13:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/16/2018 11:29 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:31:13 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/2018 1:18 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/15/2018 10:58 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>>>>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>>>>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>>>>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>>>>>>> spree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>>>>>>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>>>>>>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great motive. Lousy results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Be patient. These things don't happen overnight. There is a reason the
>>>>> countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
>>>>> lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
>>>>> something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
>>>>> control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
>>>>> to go back to 35%?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
>>>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07
>>>>
>>>> Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
>>>> made any significant gains since 1973.
>>>>>
>>>>> "In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
>>>>> rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
>>>>> lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
>>>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07
>>>>
>>>> Actually a continuation of a 9 year trend that started in 2010. Guess
>>>> which administration had a similar trend? The Clinton administration
>>>> and they did it without tax cuts. See BLS statistics that go back to 1972.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
>>>>> foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
>>>>> overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
>>>>> majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
>>>>> would make a sizable investment in the United States."
>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
>>>>>
>>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>>
>>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>>
>> We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
>> against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
>> for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
>> Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
>> community through tax law is much more important to me than the
>> corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
>> that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
>> something that Republicans avoid like the plague?
>>
>> Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
>> the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
>> burden anyway.
>
> I suspect that your loophole is another man's reasonable adjustment,
> but if what you refer to as a loophole is unjust, then of course it
> should be eliminated. Should you be able to deduct mortgage interest,
> but not the interest on a car you need to get to work? Is your
> mortgage deduction a just loophole? In any event, why worry so much
> about corporate profits, and tax the cash when it makes its way into
> the pocket of an individual? Your hatred of corporations is emotional,
> not logical. Personally, I have a greater problem with corporate
> taxation than individual -- not because of any empathy for
> corporations, but because corporations generate the paychecks, goods,
> and services we all depend on. They understand that from Sweden to
> Switzerland and Taiwan to Thailand, so what is your problem?
>
What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
what works and what doesn't.
b***@gmail.com
2018-09-17 18:13:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:59:21 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
> On 9/16/2018 11:29 PM, El Castor wrote:
> > I suspect that your loophole is another man's reasonable adjustment,
> > but if what you refer to as a loophole is unjust, then of course it
> > should be eliminated. Should you be able to deduct mortgage interest,
> > but not the interest on a car you need to get to work? Is your
> > mortgage deduction a just loophole? In any event, why worry so much
> > about corporate profits, and tax the cash when it makes its way into
> > the pocket of an individual? Your hatred of corporations is emotional,
> > not logical. Personally, I have a greater problem with corporate
> > taxation than individual -- not because of any empathy for
> > corporations, but because corporations generate the paychecks, goods,
> > and services we all depend on. They understand that from Sweden to
> > Switzerland and Taiwan to Thailand, so what is your problem?
> >
> What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
> favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
> what works and what doesn't.
>

Does the Laffer Curve work? How do we know what the correct amount of tax is and who should pay it. But I guess all the tax gets passed down to the consumer. Corporations don't pay any tax. It's either paid by the stock holders or the consumer.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-09-17 22:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:13:26 -0700 (PDT), ***@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:59:21 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
>> On 9/16/2018 11:29 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> > I suspect that your loophole is another man's reasonable adjustment,
>> > but if what you refer to as a loophole is unjust, then of course it
>> > should be eliminated. Should you be able to deduct mortgage interest,
>> > but not the interest on a car you need to get to work? Is your
>> > mortgage deduction a just loophole? In any event, why worry so much
>> > about corporate profits, and tax the cash when it makes its way into
>> > the pocket of an individual? Your hatred of corporations is emotional,
>> > not logical. Personally, I have a greater problem with corporate
>> > taxation than individual -- not because of any empathy for
>> > corporations, but because corporations generate the paychecks, goods,
>> > and services we all depend on. They understand that from Sweden to
>> > Switzerland and Taiwan to Thailand, so what is your problem?
>> >
>> What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
>> favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
>> what works and what doesn't.
>>
>
>Does the Laffer Curve work? How do we know what the correct amount of tax is and who should pay it. But I guess all the tax gets passed down to the consumer. Corporations don't pay any tax. It's either paid by the stock holders or the consumer


That's like saying Rolls Royces don't pay any tax. It's true, they
don't, so what difference does that make?
islander
2018-09-18 01:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/17/2018 11:13 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:59:21 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
>> On 9/16/2018 11:29 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> I suspect that your loophole is another man's reasonable adjustment,
>>> but if what you refer to as a loophole is unjust, then of course it
>>> should be eliminated. Should you be able to deduct mortgage interest,
>>> but not the interest on a car you need to get to work? Is your
>>> mortgage deduction a just loophole? In any event, why worry so much
>>> about corporate profits, and tax the cash when it makes its way into
>>> the pocket of an individual? Your hatred of corporations is emotional,
>>> not logical. Personally, I have a greater problem with corporate
>>> taxation than individual -- not because of any empathy for
>>> corporations, but because corporations generate the paychecks, goods,
>>> and services we all depend on. They understand that from Sweden to
>>> Switzerland and Taiwan to Thailand, so what is your problem?
>>>
>> What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
>> favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
>> what works and what doesn't.
>>
>
> Does the Laffer Curve work? How do we know what the correct amount of tax is and who should pay it. But I guess all the tax gets passed down to the consumer. Corporations don't pay any tax. It's either paid by the stock holders or the consumer.
>
>
>
Yes, the Laffer Curve accurately describes a relationship between tax
rate and government revenue. Unfortunately most conservatives don't
understand the Laffer Curve. It defines a maximum amount of revenue as
a function of taxation. Lower taxes below the maximum for revenue and
revenue will fall. Increase taxes above the maximum for revenue and
revenue will also fall. The trick is to find the maximum.

It is also naive to say that corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations
are owned by people and the taxes that they pay do reduce the dividends
that they pay to stockholders. But, most stockholders do not invest for
the dividends. They bet on increase in stock value (or decrease if they
sell short). That is almost independent of taxes. If corporations are
people as some seem to believe, then it would only be fair that they pay
taxes like individuals - on a progressive scale.
b***@gmail.com
2018-09-18 19:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:26:06 PM UTC-7, islander wrote:
> On 9/17/2018 11:13 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:59:21 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
> > Does the Laffer Curve work? How do we know what the correct amount of tax is and who should pay it. But I guess all the tax gets passed down to the consumer. Corporations don't pay any tax. It's either paid by the stock holders or the consumer.
> >
> >
> Yes, the Laffer Curve accurately describes a relationship between tax
> rate and government revenue. Unfortunately most conservatives don't
> understand the Laffer Curve. It defines a maximum amount of revenue as
> a function of taxation. Lower taxes below the maximum for revenue and
> revenue will fall. Increase taxes above the maximum for revenue and
> revenue will also fall. The trick is to find the maximum.
>
> It is also naive to say that corporations don't pay taxes. Corporations
> are owned by people and the taxes that they pay do reduce the dividends
> that they pay to stockholders. But, most stockholders do not invest for
> the dividends. They bet on increase in stock value (or decrease if they
> sell short). That is almost independent of taxes. If corporations are
> people as some seem to believe, then it would only be fair that they pay
> taxes like individuals - on a progressive scale.
>

Well, it seems like a fairly complex equation to me. There are many variables to consider. For example,
because tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production, they also help balance the budget by reducing means-tested government expenditures. A faster-growing economy means lower unemployment and higher incomes, resulting in reduced unemployment benefits and other social welfare programs.

But if one could write an accurate equation considering all the variables, you could simply use the first derivative set to zero to determine the highest point on the graph indicating maximum tax revenue.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future
El Castor
2018-09-17 19:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:59:17 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/16/2018 11:29 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:31:13 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/16/2018 1:18 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/15/2018 10:58 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>>>>>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>>>>>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>>>>>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>>>>>>>> spree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>>>>>>>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>>>>>>>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great motive. Lousy results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Be patient. These things don't happen overnight. There is a reason the
>>>>>> countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
>>>>>> lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
>>>>>> something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
>>>>>> control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
>>>>>> to go back to 35%?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, and ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
>>>>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
>>>>> made any significant gains since 1973.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
>>>>>> rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
>>>>>> lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
>>>>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually a continuation of a 9 year trend that started in 2010. Guess
>>>>> which administration had a similar trend? The Clinton administration
>>>>> and they did it without tax cuts. See BLS statistics that go back to 1972.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
>>>>>> foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
>>>>>> overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
>>>>>> majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
>>>>>> would make a sizable investment in the United States."
>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>>>
>>>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>>>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>>>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>>>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>>>
>>> We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
>>> against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
>>> for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
>>> Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
>>> community through tax law is much more important to me than the
>>> corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
>>> that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
>>> something that Republicans avoid like the plague?
>>>
>>> Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
>>> the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
>>> burden anyway.
>>
>> I suspect that your loophole is another man's reasonable adjustment,
>> but if what you refer to as a loophole is unjust, then of course it
>> should be eliminated. Should you be able to deduct mortgage interest,
>> but not the interest on a car you need to get to work? Is your
>> mortgage deduction a just loophole? In any event, why worry so much
>> about corporate profits, and tax the cash when it makes its way into
>> the pocket of an individual? Your hatred of corporations is emotional,
>> not logical. Personally, I have a greater problem with corporate
>> taxation than individual -- not because of any empathy for
>> corporations, but because corporations generate the paychecks, goods,
>> and services we all depend on. They understand that from Sweden to
>> Switzerland and Taiwan to Thailand, so what is your problem?
>>
>What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
>favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
>what works and what doesn't.

What I described is, and has been for years, the derivation of
economic thought all over the world -- including your socialist idols,
Sweden and Denmark, both 22%, to the economic power houses of Asia,
South Korea 24% and China 25%. At 39.5% how could US corporations be
expected to compete with their foreign rivals? To quote Thomas
Friedman, The World Is Flat. If he is correct, we were digging a very
deep hole for ourselves with our insane corporate tax policy.
islander
2018-09-18 01:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/17/2018 12:43 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:59:17 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/2018 11:29 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:31:13 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/16/2018 1:18 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 10:58 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>>>>>>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>>>>>>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>>>>>>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>>>>>>>>> spree.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>>>>>>>>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>>>>>>>>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Great motive. Lousy results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Be patient. These things don't happen overnight. There is a reason the
>>>>>>> countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
>>>>>>> lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
>>>>>>> something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
>>>>>>> control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
>>>>>>> to go back to 35%?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, and ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
>>>>>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
>>>>>> made any significant gains since 1973.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
>>>>>>> rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
>>>>>>> lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
>>>>>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually a continuation of a 9 year trend that started in 2010. Guess
>>>>>> which administration had a similar trend? The Clinton administration
>>>>>> and they did it without tax cuts. See BLS statistics that go back to 1972.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
>>>>>>> foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
>>>>>>> overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
>>>>>>> majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
>>>>>>> would make a sizable investment in the United States."
>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>>>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>>>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>>>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>>>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>>>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>>>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>>>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>>>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>>>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>>>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>>>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>>>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>>>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>>>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>>>>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>>>>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>>>>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>>>>
>>>> We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
>>>> against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
>>>> for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
>>>> Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
>>>> community through tax law is much more important to me than the
>>>> corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
>>>> that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
>>>> something that Republicans avoid like the plague?
>>>>
>>>> Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
>>>> the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
>>>> burden anyway.
>>>
>>> I suspect that your loophole is another man's reasonable adjustment,
>>> but if what you refer to as a loophole is unjust, then of course it
>>> should be eliminated. Should you be able to deduct mortgage interest,
>>> but not the interest on a car you need to get to work? Is your
>>> mortgage deduction a just loophole? In any event, why worry so much
>>> about corporate profits, and tax the cash when it makes its way into
>>> the pocket of an individual? Your hatred of corporations is emotional,
>>> not logical. Personally, I have a greater problem with corporate
>>> taxation than individual -- not because of any empathy for
>>> corporations, but because corporations generate the paychecks, goods,
>>> and services we all depend on. They understand that from Sweden to
>>> Switzerland and Taiwan to Thailand, so what is your problem?
>>>
>> What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
>> favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
>> what works and what doesn't.
>
> What I described is, and has been for years, the derivation of
> economic thought all over the world -- including your socialist idols,
> Sweden and Denmark, both 22%, to the economic power houses of Asia,
> South Korea 24% and China 25%. At 39.5% how could US corporations be
> expected to compete with their foreign rivals? To quote Thomas
> Friedman, The World Is Flat. If he is correct, we were digging a very
> deep hole for ourselves with our insane corporate tax policy.
>
You seem to have a comprehension problem. No matter how many times I
have said it, high corporate tax rates penalize small companies. I
think it is fine to drop the corporate tax rate, but only if you close
the loopholes.
El Castor
2018-09-18 06:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:16:57 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 9/17/2018 12:43 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 06:59:17 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/16/2018 11:29 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:31:13 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/16/2018 1:18 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:04:05 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 10:58 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>>>>>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>>>>>>>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>>>>>>>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>>>>>>>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>>>>>>>>>> spree.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>>>>>>>>>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>>>>>>>>>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Great motive. Lousy results.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Be patient. These things don't happen overnight. There is a reason the
>>>>>>>> countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
>>>>>>>> lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
>>>>>>>> something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
>>>>>>>> control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
>>>>>>>> to go back to 35%?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, and ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
>>>>>>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet when adjusted for inflation, wages are still stagnant and have not
>>>>>>> made any significant gains since 1973.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
>>>>>>>> rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
>>>>>>>> lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
>>>>>>>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually a continuation of a 9 year trend that started in 2010. Guess
>>>>>>> which administration had a similar trend? The Clinton administration
>>>>>>> and they did it without tax cuts. See BLS statistics that go back to 1972.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
>>>>>>>> foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
>>>>>>>> overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
>>>>>>>> majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
>>>>>>>> would make a sizable investment in the United States."
>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a reason that there has been a bump in Apple share price. They
>>>>>>> are using the money to purchase their own shares and to increase
>>>>>>> dividends to investors. Meanwhile they are using the tax code to spread
>>>>>>> the tax that they pay on the repatriated money over 8 years. To be
>>>>>>> fair, Apple has announced plans to expand their customer support
>>>>>>> operations (a good thing) and most of their planned increases in
>>>>>>> personnel will not be in US manufacturing, but in customer support
>>>>>>> scattered around the country. Tim Cook seems to be focusing, not on new
>>>>>>> technology, but on broadening the companies penetration into service
>>>>>>> related markets. This is the same strategy that IBM used 50 years ago
>>>>>>> that won them markets in the business world, but blinded them to what
>>>>>>> was happening in the personal computer market. It was only a small
>>>>>>> project under Don Estridge in their Boca Raton facility coupled with an
>>>>>>> operating system from Microsoft that saved their bacon. Tim Cook is not
>>>>>>> stupid, but he knows how to pump up share prices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, would you support a restoration of the 35% corporate tax? Maybe
>>>>>> 40% or 50%? What would suit you? Perhaps some of those evil
>>>>>> corporations should be nationalized and run in the best interests of
>>>>>> their workers and the people they serve? Why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>> We have been through this before. A high corporate tax discriminates
>>>>> against small businesses that don't have the resources to lobby Congress
>>>>> for loopholes or to even find the loopholes that might apply to them.
>>>>> Closing these loopholes and eliminating the tampering with the business
>>>>> community through tax law is much more important to me than the
>>>>> corporate tax rate. Frankly, I could write a book about all the breaks
>>>>> that the real estate and financial industries get. Why is that reform
>>>>> something that Republicans avoid like the plague?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not leave the corporate tax rate where it is and simply eliminate
>>>>> the loopholes? As it stands, individuals shoulder most of the tax
>>>>> burden anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that your loophole is another man's reasonable adjustment,
>>>> but if what you refer to as a loophole is unjust, then of course it
>>>> should be eliminated. Should you be able to deduct mortgage interest,
>>>> but not the interest on a car you need to get to work? Is your
>>>> mortgage deduction a just loophole? In any event, why worry so much
>>>> about corporate profits, and tax the cash when it makes its way into
>>>> the pocket of an individual? Your hatred of corporations is emotional,
>>>> not logical. Personally, I have a greater problem with corporate
>>>> taxation than individual -- not because of any empathy for
>>>> corporations, but because corporations generate the paychecks, goods,
>>>> and services we all depend on. They understand that from Sweden to
>>>> Switzerland and Taiwan to Thailand, so what is your problem?
>>>>
>>> What you are describing is a preference for supply-side economics. I
>>> favor demand-side economics. No hatred or emotion. Simply observing
>>> what works and what doesn't.
>>
>> What I described is, and has been for years, the derivation of
>> economic thought all over the world -- including your socialist idols,
>> Sweden and Denmark, both 22%, to the economic power houses of Asia,
>> South Korea 24% and China 25%. At 39.5% how could US corporations be
>> expected to compete with their foreign rivals? To quote Thomas
>> Friedman, The World Is Flat. If he is correct, we were digging a very
>> deep hole for ourselves with our insane corporate tax policy.
>>
>You seem to have a comprehension problem. No matter how many times I
>have said it, high corporate tax rates penalize small companies. I
>think it is fine to drop the corporate tax rate, but only if you close
>the loopholes.

How many times must I point out that Large corporations of course have
been paying less than 39.5% because they were forced by your idiotic
left wing corporate taxation to earn overseas, pay taxes overseas, and
invest and retain trillions overseas -- lest it be taxed if it was
returned.

Here is but one example of a contortion (not a loophole, a financial
contortion) they were forced to contrive.
"IMF explains “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax avoidance"
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1026675.shtml

Islander, you are the one with the comprehension problem. Wake up and
admit that you are wrong.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-09-18 15:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/17/2018 11:08 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:16:57 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

{snip}

>> You seem to have a comprehension problem. No matter how many times I
>> have said it, high corporate tax rates penalize small companies. I
>> think it is fine to drop the corporate tax rate, but only if you close
>> the loopholes.
>
> How many times must I point out that Large corporations of course have
> been paying less than 39.5% because they were forced by your idiotic
> left wing corporate taxation to earn overseas, pay taxes overseas, and
> invest and retain trillions overseas -- lest it be taxed if it was
> returned.

Yes, but that doesn't address islander's point. It's good that we have
a lower tax rate to get more profits repatriated. But, the net effect
is still a loss of revenue. If loopholes were closed, you could have a
revenue neutral net effect.
El Castor
2018-09-18 19:35:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:07:31 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<***@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 9/17/2018 11:08 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:16:57 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>{snip}
>
>>> You seem to have a comprehension problem. No matter how many times I
>>> have said it, high corporate tax rates penalize small companies. I
>>> think it is fine to drop the corporate tax rate, but only if you close
>>> the loopholes.
>>
>> How many times must I point out that Large corporations of course have
>> been paying less than 39.5% because they were forced by your idiotic
>> left wing corporate taxation to earn overseas, pay taxes overseas, and
>> invest and retain trillions overseas -- lest it be taxed if it was
>> returned.
>
>Yes, but that doesn't address islander's point. It's good that we have
>a lower tax rate to get more profits repatriated. But, the net effect
>is still a loss of revenue. If loopholes were closed, you could have a
>revenue neutral net effect.

So identify unjust and inequitable loopholes, and close them, but do
not impose the highest corporate tax rate in the world on US
corporations, forcing them to earn and invest overseas -- which is
exactly what our ill begotten tax system did.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-09-16 15:42:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/15/2018 10:58 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> {snip}
>>>>
>>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>>> spree.
>>>>
>>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>>
>>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>>
>> Great motive. Lousy results.
>
> Be patient. These things don't happen overnight.

I think a good time to check back is two years fro now during the 2020
campaign.

> There is a reason the
> countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
> lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
> something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
> control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
> to go back to 35%?

No and no. But, I hope loopholes will be closed this time.

> Oh, and ...

... how will the jobs picture look after the negative effect of the debt
kicks in?

> "U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07
>
> "In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
> rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
> lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07
>
> "SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
> foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
> overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
> majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
> would make a sizable investment in the United States."
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
>
El Castor
2018-09-16 20:13:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 08:42:28 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
<***@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On 9/15/2018 10:58 PM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:06:35 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/15/2018 1:02 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 12:01:21 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/15/2018 11:28 AM, El Castor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> {snip}
>>>>>
>>>>>> On that I think we can agree. If Trump pulls this off -- the Supreme
>>>>>> Court and his tax reform will in and of themselves be more important
>>>>>> (in my opinion) than anything accomplished by Obama in 8 years -- and
>>>>>> that includes his undeserved Nobel prize and $19 trillion spending
>>>>>> spree.
>>>>>
>>>>> The deficit's up thanks to the tax "reform."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-13/u-s-budget-deficit-swells-to-898-billion-topping-forecast
>>>>
>>>> That was inevitable. But, the motive behind corporate tax cuts is that
>>>> in time an increased growth rate combined with greater domestic
>>>> investment and employment will more than make up the difference.
>>>
>>> Great motive. Lousy results.
>>
>> Be patient. These things don't happen overnight.
>
>I think a good time to check back is two years fro now during the 2020
>campaign.
>
>> There is a reason the
>> countries I listed (and many others I didn't list) have been steadily
>> lowering (not raising) their corporate tax rate. Perhaps they know
>> something you don't know, or don't want to know? If Democrats regain
>> control of the government, would you want and expect the federal rate
>> to go back to 35%?
>
>No and no. But, I hope loopholes will be closed this time.
>
>> Oh, and ...
>
>... how will the jobs picture look after the negative effect of the debt
>kicks in?

We shall see.

>> "U.S. adds 201,000 jobs as worker wages accelerate to nine-year high"
>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-adds-201000-jobs-as-wage-growth-accelerates-to-nine-year-high-2018-09-07
>>
>> "In August, the black unemployment rate fell to 6.3%, continuing the
>> rapid descent from the 16.8% peak shortly after the recession, and the
>> lowest ever after the 5.9% rate in May."
>> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/black-unemployment-falls-to-second-lowest-on-record-2018-09-07
>>
>> "SAN FRANCISCO — Apple, which had long deferred paying taxes on its
>> foreign earnings and had become synonymous with hoarding money
>> overseas, unveiled plans on Wednesday that would bring back the vast
>> majority of the $252 billion in cash that it held abroad and said it
>> would make a sizable investment in the United States."
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html
>>
b***@gmail.com
2018-09-13 20:47:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 12:56:48 AM UTC-7, El Castor wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:

> >Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
> >recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
> >steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
> >regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
> >$1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
> >increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
> >premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
>
> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>
> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
> White House..
>

Reagan's deficit was 3X while Obama's was 2X. Trump is on track to match Reagan or worse. But I still like the guy and will vote for him. I went to the VA today for a blood lab test and they had a horrible picture of Trump on the wall with a very mean look. There are plenty of pictures of a smiling Trump. I'm wondering why they didn't pick one of those.
El Castor
2018-09-14 06:20:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:47:29 -0700 (PDT), ***@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 12:56:48 AM UTC-7, El Castor wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:00:22 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>> >Did you look at the FRED graph? Yes, there was a drop in GDP, but the
>> >recovery was consistent with the growth curve after 2010 - slow, but
>> >steady progress. There is no indication that the Trump tax and
>> >regulation cuts have had any significant impact on that despite pumping
>> >$1T in deficit spending back into the economy. Is it worth the
>> >increased debt? If so, you should be able to cite data supporting the
>> >premise that Trump made a difference worth the cost. Can you?
>>
>> I believed long before I ever heard of Trump that the US system of
>> corporate taxation was insane -- and could only damage our economy. I
>> was a big supporter of Trump's corporate tax cuts. If you don't agree,
>> I could care less. I am still a big supporter. I can tell you that
>> every other country in the world, socialist and otherwise, does agree
>> with me -- as evidenced by their corporate tax policies.
>>
>> As for deficits, a modest amount is just fine. Clearly a trillion is
>> too much, although I would hope that the stimulation derived from
>> Trump's corporate tax cuts will reduce that amount. We shall see. I
>> appreciate your concern about the 2019 projection, but frankly I am
>> baffled by your lack of concern over Obama's $19 trillion in deficits.
>> And no, he wasn't compelled to do it by discredited Keynesian
>> economics -- he was compelled by a liberal love of taxing and spending
>> -- a love which you apparently share, as long as a Democrat is in the
>> White House..
>>
>
>Reagan's deficit was 3X while Obama's was 2X. Trump is on track to match Reagan or worse. But I still like the guy and will vote for him. I went to the VA today for a blood lab test and they had a horrible picture of Trump on the wall with a very mean look. There are plenty of pictures of a smiling Trump. I'm wondering why they didn't pick one of those.
>
I think we both know why. )-8
me
2018-09-11 23:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
We have been artificially proping up the economy for years. The Fed just creates money from nothing and hands it to government and crony capitalists.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-09-12 01:40:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/11/2018 12:29 PM, islander wrote:
> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B or
> an increase of 1.8%.  Compare that with economic performance during the
> Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a rate of
> 3% per year.  In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of
> approximately $1T?  Are we artificially propping up the economy?
> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

GDP grew by 4.2% in the second quarter of 2018
(https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product). GDP grew by a
cumulative annual average rate of less than 2% under Obama.

That being said, I do expect GDP performance under Trump to be no better
in the long term than under Obama. The current spike will likely come
down due to inflation and interest rate pressure, the latter being
partially driven by increased debt thanks to the tax cut.
islander
2018-09-12 14:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/11/2018 6:40 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 9/11/2018 12:29 PM, islander wrote:
>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B
>> or an increase of 1.8%.  Compare that with economic performance during
>> the Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a
>> rate of 3% per year.  In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue
>> loss of approximately $1T?  Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>
> GDP grew by 4.2% in the second quarter of 2018
> (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product).  GDP grew by a
> cumulative annual average rate of less than 2% under Obama.
>
> That being said, I do expect GDP performance under Trump to be no better
> in the long term than under Obama.  The current spike will likely come
> down due to inflation and interest rate pressure, the latter being
> partially driven by increased debt thanks to the tax cut.

You cannot read much into quarterly rates. The Obama administration
exceeded the 4.2% claimed by Trump three times during his
administration. Further, Obama inherited the big negative in 2009 while
Trump inherited 7 years of growth.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth [click on the 10Y
scale].

The real question, IMV, is whether the increased debt produced by the
tax cuts are worth it. It is one thing to pump additional money into
the economy when you are in the depths of a recession and quite another
thing to do the same thing when the economy is doing well. GW Bush made
this mistake with his tax cuts and it seems to me that Trump is making
the same mistake.
me
2018-09-12 15:18:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The real important decisions are not made by Congress or the President or We, The People. They are made by unelected bankers because democracy has failed. You can find out more here:
http://www.endit.info/Tragedy1.shtml
http://www.endit.info/Tragedy2.shtml

The Fed is the ultimate ‘control board’.
b***@gmail.com
2018-09-12 16:18:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 7:46:23 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
> On 9/11/2018 6:40 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > On 9/11/2018 12:29 PM, islander wrote:
> >> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B
> >> or an increase of 1.8%.  Compare that with economic performance during
> >> the Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a
> >> rate of 3% per year.  In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue
> >> loss of approximately $1T?  Are we artificially propping up the economy?
> >> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
> >
> > GDP grew by 4.2% in the second quarter of 2018
> > (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product).  GDP grew by a
> > cumulative annual average rate of less than 2% under Obama.
> >
> > That being said, I do expect GDP performance under Trump to be no better
> > in the long term than under Obama.  The current spike will likely come
> > down due to inflation and interest rate pressure, the latter being
> > partially driven by increased debt thanks to the tax cut.
>
> You cannot read much into quarterly rates. The Obama administration
> exceeded the 4.2% claimed by Trump three times during his
> administration. Further, Obama inherited the big negative in 2009 while
> Trump inherited 7 years of growth.
> https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth [click on the 10Y
> scale].
>
> The real question, IMV, is whether the increased debt produced by the
> tax cuts are worth it. It is one thing to pump additional money into
> the economy when you are in the depths of a recession and quite another
> thing to do the same thing when the economy is doing well. GW Bush made
> this mistake with his tax cuts and it seems to me that Trump is making
> the same mistake.

Well, Reagan tripled the debt from 768 billion to 2.1 trillion while maintaining a 3.6% GDP growth rate. Was that worth it? The stock market was roaring. Wish I had bought Amazon back then. So, if Trump triples the debt like Reagan did, it will only be 66 Trillion by the time he leaves office. If interest rates stay low at 1%, it will only cost 660 billion in interest which is about the same as the military budget. That should be a piece of cake. But if interest rates rise to say 4%, the service cost of the debt will be 2.6 trillion which is about half the federal budget. I have to do some thinking to figure out how that would work out.
me
2018-09-12 17:17:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:18:26 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 7:46:23 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
> > On 9/11/2018 6:40 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > > On 9/11/2018 12:29 PM, islander wrote:
> > >> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B
> > >> or an increase of 1.8%.  Compare that with economic performance during
> > >> the Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a
> > >> rate of 3% per year.  In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue
> > >> loss of approximately $1T?  Are we artificially propping up the economy?
> > >> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
> > >
> > > GDP grew by 4.2% in the second quarter of 2018
> > > (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product).  GDP grew by a
> > > cumulative annual average rate of less than 2% under Obama.
> > >
> > > That being said, I do expect GDP performance under Trump to be no better
> > > in the long term than under Obama.  The current spike will likely come
> > > down due to inflation and interest rate pressure, the latter being
> > > partially driven by increased debt thanks to the tax cut.
> >
> > You cannot read much into quarterly rates. The Obama administration
> > exceeded the 4.2% claimed by Trump three times during his
> > administration. Further, Obama inherited the big negative in 2009 while
> > Trump inherited 7 years of growth.
> > https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth [click on the 10Y
> > scale].
> >
> > The real question, IMV, is whether the increased debt produced by the
> > tax cuts are worth it. It is one thing to pump additional money into
> > the economy when you are in the depths of a recession and quite another
> > thing to do the same thing when the economy is doing well. GW Bush made
> > this mistake with his tax cuts and it seems to me that Trump is making
> > the same mistake.
>
> Well, Reagan tripled the debt from 768 billion to 2.1 trillion while maintaining a 3.6% GDP growth rate. Was that worth it? The stock market was roaring. Wish I had bought Amazon back then. So, if Trump triples the debt like Reagan did, it will only be 66 Trillion by the time he leaves office. If interest rates stay low at 1%, it will only cost 660 billion in interest which is about the same as the military budget. That should be a piece of cake. But if interest rates rise to say 4%, the service cost of the debt will be 2.6 trillion which is about half the federal budget. I have to do some thinking to figure out how that would work out.

You might find this interesting:
https://wealth-wave.com/reports/WSC/rwr-cycles-content/?xcode=XWSCU701&promo=PWSCU700
islander
2018-09-12 17:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/12/2018 9:18 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 7:46:23 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
>> On 9/11/2018 6:40 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2018 12:29 PM, islander wrote:
>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of $371B
>>>> or an increase of 1.8%.  Compare that with economic performance during
>>>> the Obama Administration where economic performance increased at a
>>>> rate of 3% per year.  In a $20T economy, was it worth the tax revenue
>>>> loss of approximately $1T?  Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>
>>> GDP grew by 4.2% in the second quarter of 2018
>>> (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product).  GDP grew by a
>>> cumulative annual average rate of less than 2% under Obama.
>>>
>>> That being said, I do expect GDP performance under Trump to be no better
>>> in the long term than under Obama.  The current spike will likely come
>>> down due to inflation and interest rate pressure, the latter being
>>> partially driven by increased debt thanks to the tax cut.
>>
>> You cannot read much into quarterly rates. The Obama administration
>> exceeded the 4.2% claimed by Trump three times during his
>> administration. Further, Obama inherited the big negative in 2009 while
>> Trump inherited 7 years of growth.
>> https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth [click on the 10Y
>> scale].
>>
>> The real question, IMV, is whether the increased debt produced by the
>> tax cuts are worth it. It is one thing to pump additional money into
>> the economy when you are in the depths of a recession and quite another
>> thing to do the same thing when the economy is doing well. GW Bush made
>> this mistake with his tax cuts and it seems to me that Trump is making
>> the same mistake.
>
> Well, Reagan tripled the debt from 768 billion to 2.1 trillion while maintaining a 3.6% GDP growth rate. Was that worth it? The stock market was roaring. Wish I had bought Amazon back then. So, if Trump triples the debt like Reagan did, it will only be 66 Trillion by the time he leaves office. If interest rates stay low at 1%, it will only cost 660 billion in interest which is about the same as the military budget. That should be a piece of cake. But if interest rates rise to say 4%, the service cost of the debt will be 2.6 trillion which is about half the federal budget. I have to do some thinking to figure out how that would work out.
>
>
Buying Amazon during the Reagan administration would have been quite an
accomplishment! Amazon was not founded until 1994 and did not go public
until 1997.

As to the national debt, under the Obama administration while interest
rates were low, we paid off high interest obligations and purchased long
term low interest notes. That was intended to smooth any transition to
higher interest rates, at least for existing debt. The increased debt
in the Trump administration budget has to be covered with new notes
which will necessarily have higher interest rates. But then Trump seems
to feel that financial obligations are negotiable. That may have worked
for him when he could declare bankruptcy in his real estate dealings,
but I doubt that anyone wants the US to go bankrupt. We don't have a
sugar daddy in Russia to lend to us when the rest of the world decides
that we are not a very reliable debtor.

The most serious question is what can we afford? The debt/gdp ratio is
often used as a measure of economic risk and it reached a peak of 120%
at the end of WWII. That debt/gdp ratio decreased until the Reagan
presidency who cut taxes and increased borrowing (and not even in a time
of war). It declined again under the Clinton administration, but the
Great Recession required a new surge in economic stimulus coupled with
poor tax revenue under the Obama administration. That stabilized at
just over 100% in 2014, but is now increasing again. Reducing taxes is
making this worse. It appears that Trump is attempting to fluff up the
economy at a time when we should be putting money in the bank or at
least paying down debt. That will not serve us well in the next
economic downturn.
b***@gmail.com
2018-09-12 22:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 10:31:46 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
> On 9/12/2018 9:18 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Well, Reagan tripled the debt from 768 billion to 2.1 trillion while maintaining a 3.6% GDP growth rate. Was that worth it? The stock market was roaring. Wish I had bought Amazon back then. So, if Trump triples the debt like Reagan did, it will only be 66 Trillion by the time he leaves office. If interest rates stay low at 1%, it will only cost 660 billion in interest which is about the same as the military budget. That should be a piece of cake. But if interest rates rise to say 4%, the service cost of the debt will be 2.6 trillion which is about half the federal budget. I have to do some thinking to figure out how that would work out.
> >
> >
> Buying Amazon during the Reagan administration would have been quite an
> accomplishment! Amazon was not founded until 1994 and did not go public
> until 1997.
>

Yes, I know. But I bought Wal-Mart stores in 1979 for 15 cents a share and made 100K plus in the next 15 years. Amazon is just a hobby. I like watching the price change a few dollars per minute and visually how much whisky I can buy at the end of the day. It's all economics. I go dry a couple times a week.

> As to the national debt, under the Obama administration while interest
> rates were low, we paid off high interest obligations and purchased long
> term low interest notes. That was intended to smooth any transition to
> higher interest rates, at least for existing debt. The increased debt
> in the Trump administration budget has to be covered with new notes
> which will necessarily have higher interest rates. But then Trump seems
> to feel that financial obligations are negotiable. That may have worked
> for him when he could declare bankruptcy in his real estate dealings,
> but I doubt that anyone wants the US to go bankrupt. We don't have a
> sugar daddy in Russia to lend to us when the rest of the world decides
> that we are not a very reliable debtor.
>
> The most serious question is what can we afford? The debt/gdp ratio is
> often used as a measure of economic risk and it reached a peak of 120%
> at the end of WWII. That debt/gdp ratio decreased until the Reagan
> presidency who cut taxes and increased borrowing (and not even in a time
> of war). It declined again under the Clinton administration, but the
> Great Recession required a new surge in economic stimulus coupled with
> poor tax revenue under the Obama administration. That stabilized at
> just over 100% in 2014, but is now increasing again. Reducing taxes is
> making this worse. It appears that Trump is attempting to fluff up the
> economy at a time when we should be putting money in the bank or at
> least paying down debt. That will not serve us well in the next
> economic downturn.
El Castor
2018-09-13 07:30:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 15:31:44 -0700 (PDT), ***@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 10:31:46 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
>> On 9/12/2018 9:18 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, Reagan tripled the debt from 768 billion to 2.1 trillion while maintaining a 3.6% GDP growth rate. Was that worth it? The stock market was roaring. Wish I had bought Amazon back then. So, if Trump triples the debt like Reagan did, it will only be 66 Trillion by the time he leaves office. If interest rates stay low at 1%, it will only cost 660 billion in interest which is about the same as the military budget. That should be a piece of cake. But if interest rates rise to say 4%, the service cost of the debt will be 2.6 trillion which is about half the federal budget. I have to do some thinking to figure out how that would work out.
>> >
>> >
>> Buying Amazon during the Reagan administration would have been quite an
>> accomplishment! Amazon was not founded until 1994 and did not go public
>> until 1997.
>>
>
>Yes, I know. But I bought Wal-Mart stores in 1979 for 15 cents a share and made 100K plus in the next 15 years. Amazon is just a hobby. I like watching the price change a few dollars per minute and visually how much whisky I can buy at the end of the day. It's all economics. I go dry a couple times a week.
>
I started investing in the stock market when I was in college. Worked
in a sheet metal factory one summer, and talked to my not real
sophisticated co-workers about it. One day, one of my friends at work
asked me how much I had won the previous day. I learned more from that
question than he did. I have become a firm believer in getting rich
slowly. (-8

>> As to the national debt, under the Obama administration while interest
>> rates were low, we paid off high interest obligations and purchased long
>> term low interest notes. That was intended to smooth any transition to
>> higher interest rates, at least for existing debt. The increased debt
>> in the Trump administration budget has to be covered with new notes
>> which will necessarily have higher interest rates. But then Trump seems
>> to feel that financial obligations are negotiable. That may have worked
>> for him when he could declare bankruptcy in his real estate dealings,
>> but I doubt that anyone wants the US to go bankrupt. We don't have a
>> sugar daddy in Russia to lend to us when the rest of the world decides
>> that we are not a very reliable debtor.
>>
>> The most serious question is what can we afford? The debt/gdp ratio is
>> often used as a measure of economic risk and it reached a peak of 120%
>> at the end of WWII. That debt/gdp ratio decreased until the Reagan
>> presidency who cut taxes and increased borrowing (and not even in a time
>> of war). It declined again under the Clinton administration, but the
>> Great Recession required a new surge in economic stimulus coupled with
>> poor tax revenue under the Obama administration. That stabilized at
>> just over 100% in 2014, but is now increasing again. Reducing taxes is
>> making this worse. It appears that Trump is attempting to fluff up the
>> economy at a time when we should be putting money in the bank or at
>> least paying down debt. That will not serve us well in the next
>> economic downturn.
>
>
b***@gmail.com
2018-09-13 16:12:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 10:31:46 AM UTC-7, islander wrote:
> On 9/12/2018 9:18 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Well, Reagan tripled the debt from 768 billion to 2.1 trillion while maintaining a 3.6% GDP growth rate. Was that worth it? The stock market was roaring. Wish I had bought Amazon back then. So, if Trump triples the debt like Reagan did, it will only be 66 Trillion by the time he leaves office. If interest rates stay low at 1%, it will only cost 660 billion in interest which is about the same as the military budget. That should be a piece of cake. But if interest rates rise to say 4%, the service cost of the debt will be 2.6 trillion which is about half the federal budget. I have to do some thinking to figure out how that would work out.
> >
> >
> Buying Amazon during the Reagan administration would have been quite an
> accomplishment! Amazon was not founded until 1994 and did not go public
> until 1997.
>

Well that's true but Wal-Mart was around 15 cents a share in 1979. My financial manager bought WalMart in 1979 for 15 cents and made over 6 figures in the next 15 years. His name was Roger Engemann and was ranked number 4 among all US investment advisors.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=4181934&privcapId=108841

"Mr. Roger Engemann is the Chairman at Engemann Asset Management. The firm is a Pasadena-based money management firm, which he founded in 1969. Prior to being Chairman at the firm, Mr. Engemann was also the President and Chief Executive Officer at Engemann. He has over 30 years of investment management experience, with an emphasis on managed accounts. Prior to founding Engemann, Mr. Engemann was a Securities Analyst at Bateman Eichler-Hill Richards. Prior to Bateman,
>

> As to the national debt, under the Obama administration while interest
> rates were low, we paid off high interest obligations and purchased long
> term low interest notes. That was intended to smooth any transition to
> higher interest rates, at least for existing debt. The increased debt
> in the Trump administration budget has to be covered with new notes
> which will necessarily have higher interest rates. But then Trump seems
> to feel that financial obligations are negotiable. That may have worked
> for him when he could declare bankruptcy in his real estate dealings,
> but I doubt that anyone wants the US to go bankrupt. We don't have a
> sugar daddy in Russia to lend to us when the rest of the world decides
> that we are not a very reliable debtor.
>
> The most serious question is what can we afford? The debt/gdp ratio is
> often used as a measure of economic risk and it reached a peak of 120%
> at the end of WWII. That debt/gdp ratio decreased until the Reagan
> presidency who cut taxes and increased borrowing (and not even in a time
> of war). It declined again under the Clinton administration, but the
> Great Recession required a new surge in economic stimulus coupled with
> poor tax revenue under the Obama administration. That stabilized at
> just over 100% in 2014, but is now increasing again. Reducing taxes is
> making this worse. It appears that Trump is attempting to fluff up the
> economy at a time when we should be putting money in the bank or at
> least paying down debt. That will not serve us well in the next
> economic downturn.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-09-12 17:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/12/2018 9:18 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 7:46:23 AM UTC-7, islander
> wrote:
>> On 9/11/2018 6:40 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2018 12:29 PM, islander wrote:
>>>> In the second quarter of 2018, there was an increase in GDP of
>>>> $371B or an increase of 1.8%. Compare that with economic
>>>> performance during the Obama Administration where economic
>>>> performance increased at a rate of 3% per year. In a $20T
>>>> economy, was it worth the tax revenue loss of approximately
>>>> $1T? Are we artificially propping up the economy?
>>>> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
>>>
>>> GDP grew by 4.2% in the second quarter of 2018
>>> (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product). GDP grew
>>> by a cumulative annual average rate of less than 2% under Obama.
>>>
>>> That being said, I do expect GDP performance under Trump to be no
>>> better in the long term than under Obama. The current spike will
>>> likely come down due to inflation and interest rate pressure, the
>>> latter being partially driven by increased debt thanks to the tax
>>> cut.
>>
>> You cannot read much into quarterly rates. The Obama
>> administration exceeded the 4.2% claimed by Trump three times
>> during his administration. Further, Obama inherited the big
>> negative in 2009 while Trump inherited 7 years of growth.
>> https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth [click on the
>> 10Y scale].
>>
>> The real question, IMV, is whether the increased debt produced by
>> the tax cuts are worth it. It is one thing to pump additional
>> money into the economy when you are in the depths of a recession
>> and quite another thing to do the same thing when the economy is
>> doing well. GW Bush made this mistake with his tax cuts and it
>> seems to me that Trump is making the same mistake.
>
> Well, Reagan tripled the debt from 768 billion to 2.1 trillion while
> maintaining a 3.6% GDP growth rate. Was that worth it?

Probably not because the growth rate under Reagan was not greater than
what came before or after (growth rates slowed down in the 2000's).

> The stock
> market was roaring. Wish I had bought Amazon back then. So, if Trump
> triples the debt like Reagan did, it will only be 66 Trillion by the
> time he leaves office. If interest rates stay low at 1%, it will only
> cost 660 billion in interest which is about the same as the military
> budget. That should be a piece of cake. But if interest rates rise to
> say 4%, the service cost of the debt will be 2.6 trillion which is
> about half the federal budget. I have to do some thinking to figure
> out how that would work out.
Loading...