I'm not sure the relevance of any of this? The way we have structured our economy, we have given the wealthy the ability to destroy the economy which affects everyone else (see 2008). So when the market drops, the people that don't own stocks still get hurt because their jobs get slashed/etc. We did a mass giveaway to the wealthy in the tax cut which was used to buy back stocks and artificially raise stock prices while not creating new jobs or raising wages. So we created a system that when things go up, it largely goes to the wealthy. But when things go down, the pain is spread to everyone. This is why we see virtually all new wealth created in society goes to the already-wealthy
You posted a misleading screenshot that caused a bunch of useless back and forth. Ask yourself how did that screenshot help you in whatever point you we’re trying to make? I still don’t know what point you we’re making.
No - I think very few jobs have been created *because* of the tax cuts. The pace of job growth did not increase at all post-tax-cuts - it was the same trajectory we've been on for about 6 or 7 years. Businesses are cash-rich already - if there was demand for their products, they didn't need tax cuts to fund growth. It's not that complicated - strong economies don't need more stimulus. All that does is generate inflation, which then forces the Fed to act. On a side note, you read a statement that said the tax cuts did not lead to more jobs, and interpreted that as someone saying no new jobs were created since a tax cut. The fact that you don't seem to understand the basic idea of cause and effect is disturbing, to say the least.
Seems many if not most companies used the corporate tax break to buy back stock... very little in the way of increased jobs or higher wages.
The bullshit rhetoeric being spouted by both sides in this thread is microcosm of our national debate... No wonder we can't get things done. People refuse to admit the overly obvious if it goes against their ideals. The conservatives with their heads in the sand on the economy and economic outlook, and the progressives with their pipe dreams of socialism with absolutely no feasible ways to pay for any of it.
It isn't misleading at all. SNAP may utilize 93% of it's funding but their funding is being filtered at both the federal and the state levels before it passes to them. There are multiple layers of overhead on governemt programs like SNAP, and that is exactly what is wrong with the model. By design, big government simply cannot be a good steward of our tax dollars. The bigger the government gets, the more overhead, and the more overhead, the bigger the government is required to manage it. Our founding fathers knew this first hand, that is why they made state's rights a priority. The federal government is doing far more than it was designed to do.
What pipe dreams are progressives advocating in this thread. And you are part of the problem thinking all progressives want socialism.
The falsehood in that claim implies that only 6.7% own stocks - false conclusion. Rockets scored 100 pts and half of that was Harden's. Can we conclude that he took 50% of the shots? 54% of Families own stock - the top 20% just happens to own most of the shares.
Really? The post is only 4 pages long, and my reply at the top of page 3 is kinda hard to miss due to the length... http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php...for-nothing-trump.295154/page-3#post-12126257 Also, nearly every progressive is calling for more government - and I've shown in pretty much every one of my replies why that is a bad idea. Tl;DR version: The government doesn't do anything efficiently or quickly Thinking the government can lead the "Green New Deal" (an initiative that must be technologically driven) is laughable Raising minimum wage will insure one thing, rapid obsolescence of said positions Free college for all won't change apathy and irresponsible behavior There are jobs, Americans just don't want them Bigger government is what got us here, and both sides are guilty of it post 9/11. More government will not fix the issues we have, it will compound them. You can't spend your way out of debt, it has never and will never work... and we have some serious crap that will hit the fan by 2040 if we don't get our debt, and our policies under control, mainly job loss due to automation, and the Social Security house of cards.
How so? The economy is not a measured by the way money is distributed. If you think that the days of the past will return, I'm sorry to break it to you but it will never happen again. The world has equalized far too much, and American labor just isn't that precious or valued by companies. And to your point, money is funneled to the top 1%. Do you think that will change?
You are contradicting yourself here. When business decide to save and spend less, it means they are cutting labor and thus payroll taxes go down (along with income tax).
No, I'm not. When companies received their tax cuts, some had major plans for expansion but put those plans on hold because of the gloomy economic forecasts. Instead, they can use those funds to help weather the storm. It is no different than taking your tax refund and putting it into your savings instead of spending it, just in case you have a major life event that eats into your savings. Financial responsibility, what a concept. Trump's tax cuts are not why we are heading into a recession, they aren't big enough at this point... They could help slow it though if businesses prepared. The tax revenue from saved jobs could far outweigh the cost of those tax cuts.
