Current events discussion

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

What? You are talking about free trade agreements. What do either of those have to do with the corporate tax rates. Furthermore....those trade agreements helped REDUCE tariffs....which is the exact OPPOSITE of what Trump is implementing.

Laffer helped orchestrate tax cuts during the Reagan and Trump admins. Both which ended up shooting the deficit upwards. Not exactly paying for itself. But when has honesty been a thing with some of these ghouls? Corporate tax cuts never trickle down as they claim. Once again....if economic expansion is the overall goal.....then cuts to the consumer class are where you want to focus. But it's always been about expediting the oligarchy. Elite ruling class and a shrinking middle class is what trickle down economics has brought us in practice.

First off, you need to let go of the obsession with Trump. We were discussing supply side economics and whether or not they work, not Trump's tariffs. I get it, Trump riles you guys up and Trump and the liberal media like to throw fuel on that fire to keep you guys seeing red. Trump clearly isn't a "supply-side" guy since he's enacting tariffs. I don't think there is a single supply-side economist that isn't also a free-market guy.

Tariffs, or lack there of, function just like a corporate tax. It doesn't matter if the tax is a tax on corporate profits or tax on the item itself, it's just a cost that goes to the gov't. For example, car seats Ford imported from Mexico were no longer taxed when NAFTA was passed - that's a tax that a corporation no longer paid. It doesn't matter if it's a tax on profits or goods, the corporation no longer cuts a check to the gov't. Clinton enacted 2 massive corporate tax cuts and the economy boomed - aka supply-side policies effectively growing an economy (actually several economies since our trade partners also benefited).

You can't draw any conclusions about Reaganonomics due to the numerous moving parts. Reagan cut tax rates, but also increased spending dramatically, so we have 2 variables. Furthermore, the Fed reduced rates dramatically and oil prices came down dramatically, so we have a total of 4 significant variables that moved in significant amounts.

Saying corporate tax cuts never trickle down is just ridiculous. Corporations are businesses and they will do any number of things with a tax cut, depending on what they feel makes the most sense. They can expand operations, purchase smaller companies (ie a supplier), diversify, buy back stocks, pay a dividend, bank the cash, invest the cash and so forth. The corporation is going to make a business decision and some of those decisions do trickle down into the greater economy.

Of course it's an Oligarchy, that's what everything trends to including socialism and communism. What "you guys" fail to realize is those in power are those in power and therefore are dispositioned to win and I'd say by definition pay little if any taxes; hell they are often net tax beneficiaries. Cut taxes to the lower classes and you increase demand, which will result in suppliers increasing prices and the Oligarchy still ends up with your tax cut in their pocket; you just feel better about it.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

You know, if the U.S. puts in more everything than all other countries why don't we just pull back? You want to fight us on securing your borders, screw you, you can pay your fare share now. We will pull back to what other countries pay in. You want to retaliate with tariffs, eat ***, we will pull back 75% of our military protection of your country. Wanna keep it up... you can go at it alone.

I don't know if that works that well with Canada, we kinda need each other for defense. OTOH, Mexico has a nice chokepoint where they could have stopped mass migration into America, but they looked at it like "not our problem, it's America's problem." and that IMHO is just uncool from a major trade partner. I suppose Sleepy Joe could have woken from one of his naps and asked Mexico to shut down their southern border, but instead Biden shouted "Come one, Come all!"

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

So it looks like the USSC ruled against Trump/DOGE's attempts to freeze $2B in foreign aid. So that tells me a couple things. One Trump isn't a dictator and never could have been one. Two, the USSC isn't going to just roll over for Trump. Hopefully DOGE continues it's work exposing stupid spending programs. I have a buddy

Hopefully, Trump can reallocate these funds to other foreign aid programs. I assume that's what he'll try next and we'll go thru this song and dance again. I assume the the budget passed by Congress doesn't drill down to "$10m for transexual frog studies in Paraguay." Trump was able reallocate defense funds for the wall during his first term, so hopefully that flexibility extends USAID and other stupidity.

 

[stocker08 10+ year member]

First off, you need to let go of the obsession with Trump. We were discussing supply side economics and whether or not they work, not Trump's tariffs. I get it, Trump riles you guys up and Trump and the liberal media like to throw fuel on that fire to keep you guys seeing red. Trump clearly isn't a "supply-side" guy since he's enacting tariffs. I don't think there is a single supply-side economist that isn't also a free-market guy.

Tariffs, or lack there of, function just like a corporate tax. It doesn't matter if the tax is a tax on corporate profits or tax on the item itself, it's just a cost that goes to the gov't. For example, car seats Ford imported from Mexico were no longer taxed when NAFTA was passed - that's a tax that a corporation no longer paid. It doesn't matter if it's a tax on profits or goods, the corporation no longer cuts a check to the gov't. Clinton enacted 2 massive corporate tax cuts and the economy boomed - aka supply-side policies effectively growing an economy (actually several economies since our trade partners also benefited).

You can't draw any conclusions about Reaganonomics due to the numerous moving parts. Reagan cut tax rates, but also increased spending dramatically, so we have 2 variables. Furthermore, the Fed reduced rates dramatically and oil prices came down dramatically, so we have a total of 4 significant variables that moved in significant amounts.

Saying corporate tax cuts never trickle down is just ridiculous. Corporations are businesses and they will do any number of things with a tax cut, depending on what they feel makes the most sense. They can expand operations, purchase smaller companies (ie a supplier), diversify, buy back stocks, pay a dividend, bank the cash, invest the cash and so forth. The corporation is going to make a business decision and some of those decisions do trickle down into the greater economy.

Of course it's an Oligarchy, that's what everything trends to including socialism and communism. What "you guys" fail to realize is those in power are those in power and therefore are dispositioned to win and I'd say by definition pay little if any taxes; hell they are often net tax beneficiaries. Cut taxes to the lower classes and you increase demand, which will result in suppliers increasing prices and the Oligarchy still ends up with your tax cut in their pocket; you just feel better about it.

We're talking about (and you're defending) Trump scamming the country through his repeated tax cuts to corporate interests and the highest earners.

Newsflash....YOU brought up NAFTA. That has nothing to do with corporate tax rates.....so I have no idea why you'd bring that up and then get defensive about tariffs being mentioned. Those are two related items. Tariffs are a COST. COSTS get passed onto the consumers in terms of product pricing. Taxes are paid on INCOME. Eliminating tariffs are not a tax cut....no matter how many times you say so. Furthermore....the 90s were a prosperous period due to the tech boom. Trying to claim that it has something to do with "supply side economics" is misguided at best. If that were the case.....why didn't Reagan's corporate tax cuts have much of an impact other than causing the deficit to explode?

Ok, fine. Sometimes companies may do some things that benefit the working class when they get tax cuts. Rare. As we saw with the first round of Trump corporate tax cuts.....massive bonuses to CEOs, RECORD stock buybacks, and big increases to corporate capital accounts. If the goal is to increase economic output, then corporate tax cuts are a completely incompetent way to achieve that goal, as I've mentioned multiple times already. It's just a lie that keeps getting trotted out despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Yes, the wealthy are already in power. Hello, Trump and Musk are billionaires who are currently gutting the country for their own benefit. lol. Muck is literally giving himself billions of dollars in new government contract on top of the ones he already has. Talk about corporate welfare. No better example than Tesla.

And lol at saying that tax cuts to the lower classes will increase demand. Glad you're finally catching up. That's what makes them more effective at growing the economy. Increased demand leads to more investment and hiring to meet said demand. Companies don't do those things for the hell of it.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

If the goal is to increase economic output, then corporate tax cuts are a completely incompetent way to achieve that goal, as I've mentioned multiple times already. It's just a lie that keeps getting trotted out despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Over taxing corporations will hurt everyone down the line. CEO's and Executives are going to continue to make their salaries no matter what kind of taxing is being done to the corporations. So who suffers? Everyone below them. From lower wages to higher prices to layoffs...

Yes, the wealthy are already in power. Hello, Trump and Musk are billionaires who are currently gutting the country for their own benefit. lol. Muck is literally giving himself billions of dollars in new government contract on top of the ones he already has. Talk about corporate welfare. No better example than Tesla.

Trump isn't a government employee... how can HE literally give himself billions of dollars in new government contracts? Do you hear yourself?

Also... what is "their benefit"?

And lol at saying that tax cuts to the lower classes will increase demand. Glad you're finally catching up. That's what makes them more effective at growing the economy. Increased demand leads to more investment and hiring to meet said demand. Companies don't do those things for the hell of it.

If the lower classes have more money due to less taxes they are 100% going to spend more money which WILL increase demand. Lot's more TCL tv's will be bought, that is for sure.

 

[stocker08 10+ year member]

Over taxing corporations will hurt everyone down the line. CEO's and Executives are going to continue to make their salaries no matter what kind of taxing is being done to the corporations. So who suffers? Everyone below them. From lower wages to higher prices to layoffs...

We aren't discussing RAISING taxes on corporations though. We are specifically talking about the benefit of continuing to CUT corporate taxes. Until you are able to figure that out, your argument will continue to be a logical fail.

Trump isn't a government employee... how can HE literally give himself billions of dollars in new government contracts? Do you hear yourself?

Also... what is "their benefit"?

If the lower classes have more money due to less taxes they are 100% going to spend more money which WILL increase demand. Lot's more TCL tv's will be bought, that is for sure.

Trump is cutting high end tax rates for himself and his companies. Musk is the one giving himself government contracts. Did you not read past that first sentence?

Not sure why you and Jimi keep pushing this as a bad thing. Yes, if people have more disposable income, demand for products will increase. Demand for product increases, companies expand operations to meet said demand. Economic expansion is the goal, isn't it? So why cut taxes at the top end? Why cut corporate tax cuts? We all know the answer, and it's not economic expansion, because there is a much more effective way of achieving that goal. No.....this is just Trump and the regressives fleecing the country.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

We aren't discussing RAISING taxes on corporations though. We are specifically talking about the benefit of continuing to CUT corporate taxes. Until you are able to figure that out, your argument will continue to be a logical fail.

Nobody said you were. I made a statement. You seem high strung. Maybe ease up on the Mountain Dew.

Trump is cutting high end tax rates for himself and his companies. Musk is the one giving himself government contracts. Did you not read past that first sentence?

Show the proof of this.

Not sure why you and Jimi keep pushing this as a bad thing.

I didn't say it was.

Yes, if people have more disposable income, demand for products will increase. Demand for product increases, companies expand operations to meet said demand. Economic expansion is the goal, isn't it? So why cut taxes at the top end? Why cut corporate tax cuts? We all know the answer, and it's not economic expansion, because there is a much more effective way of achieving that goal. No.....this is just Trump and the regressives fleecing the country.

Why is it always Trump?

 

[stocker08 10+ year member]

Nobody said you were. I made a statement. You seem high strung. Maybe ease up on the Mountain Dew.

Show the proof of this.

I didn't say it was.

Why is it always Trump?

So you directly responded to something I said with a non sequitur.

Let's forget about the fact that Musk's companies have gotten more than $38 billion in federal government contracts.
Have you heard of the 400 million cyber(fail)truck contract? (https://www.npr.org/2025/02/24/nx-s1-5305269/tesla-state-department-elon-musk-trump)
How about the fact that he's trying to cancel the $2 billion FAA contract with Verizon in order to give it to his own company, Starlink? (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/la...fluence-over-verizon-faa-contract-2025-02-28/)

What do you mean, why is it always Trump?

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

So you directly responded to something I said with a non sequitur.

Let's forget about the fact that Musk's companies have gotten more than $38 billion in federal government contracts.
Have you heard of the 400 million cyber(fail)truck contract? (https://www.npr.org/2025/02/24/nx-s1-5305269/tesla-state-department-elon-musk-trump)
How about the fact that he's trying to cancel the $2 billion FAA contract with Verizon in order to give it to his own company, Starlink? (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/la...fluence-over-verizon-faa-contract-2025-02-28/)

What do you mean, why is it always Trump?

I mean he is all you lefties talk about. And it is 99% always negative. It gets old.

 

[Old_Slapper]

Worth noting that this didn't cause any Q1 under Biden to go negative. Not a single quarter of negative GDP growth under Biden, in fact. I'd tell you to do a little more research.....but the info was all there in the post already.

The post you provided was a post that guy made. The GDP was not at a negative. It rose that much compared to Q3. That guy stated it was a negative for the "shock value."

Here are some government sites that give the actual numbers.

Gross Domestic Product, 4th Quarter and Year 2024 (Advance Estimate) | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024 (October, November, and December), according to the advance estimate released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.

www.bea.gov

GDP Update - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

www.jec.senate.gov

 

[Old_Slapper]

This is what we call "drinking the kool-aid". My god.....lol.

What are you talking about. This is directly business 101.

You have a corporation that was clearing $1,000,000 per year. Then along came a tax hike. Well you just released your budget goal to clear $1,100,000. for next year. The new tax hike will not allow you to reach that goal. If you don't reach that goal, your investors will not get their financial returns, then decide to sell off their stocks. What would you do? Would you let the investors walk or would you do what was necessary to reach your goal? I bet you would cut operating costs and run a leaner crew. No more performance bonuses and raises.

 

[stocker08 10+ year member]

I mean he is all you lefties talk about. And it is 99% always negative. It gets old.

A) He's the president
B) He's imploding the country
C) The thread title is "Trump being Trump"

What did you expect?

 

[Old_Slapper]

So you directly responded to something I said with a non sequitur.

Let's forget about the fact that Musk's companies have gotten more than $38 billion in federal government contracts.
Have you heard of the 400 million cyber(fail)truck contract? (https://www.npr.org/2025/02/24/nx-s1-5305269/tesla-state-department-elon-musk-trump)
How about the fact that he's trying to cancel the $2 billion FAA contract with Verizon in order to give it to his own company, Starlink? (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/la...fluence-over-verizon-faa-contract-2025-02-28/)

What do you mean, why is it always Trump?

Musk never got the contract, nor did anyone ever say he did. The article, you provided, proves that what I am saying is true. And, if he was offered the contract, it would have been offered to him by Biden, along with the rest of that $38 billion contracts.

As for the FAA debacle. I also feel it would be a conflict of interest. I would like to see the actual reasons/excuses why the Verizon contract was put on hold. Just as if it was a democrat thing, I would like to see all the facts before I start making accusations.

Well, I did a lot of research on it, and it appears the FAA was already going put the contract on hold during the Biden admin. This is because the system, Verizon is using, was not very reliable in the FAA's more remote areas, and it was going to take years to hopefully get the system operating properly. The FAA was the who approached Starlink. Not the other way around. And after that last crash near the Reagan airport, the FAA decided they didn't have years to spare, and they wanted a fix much sooner. Starlink can have the entire system up and running in less than 2 years.

FAA deal with Elon Musk's Starlink raises conflict of interest concerns

The FAA said it is testing a Starlink terminal at its Atlantic City facility and two at "non-safety critical sites" in Alaska.

www.newsweek.com

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/25/business/musk-faa-starlink-contract/index.html

 

[stocker08 10+ year member]

The post you provided was a post that guy made. The GDP was not at a negative. It rose that much compared to Q3. That guy stated it was a negative for the "shock value."

Here are some government sites that give the actual numbers.

Gross Domestic Product, 4th Quarter and Year 2024 (Advance Estimate) | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024 (October, November, and December), according to the advance estimate released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.

www.bea.gov

GDP Update - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

www.jec.senate.gov

It's not just a "post that guy made". It comes directly from the Atlanta GDPNow model....which is typically very accurate. Nothing "shock value" about it. Trump's policies are causing issues. Him and his goons went from talking about how they were going to fix the problems and bring prices down (prior to the election) to now talking about how people are just going to have to deal with the pain. lol.

Not my fault that Trump is taking four straight years of economic growth and messing it up right off the bat.

What are you talking about. This is directly business 101.

You have a corporation that was clearing $1,000,000 per year. Then along came a tax hike. Well you just released your budget goal to clear $1,100,000. for next year. The new tax hike will not allow you to reach that goal. If you don't reach that goal, your investors will not get their financial returns, then decide to sell off their stocks. What would you do? Would you let the investors walk or would you do what was necessary to reach your goal? I bet you would cut operating costs and run a leaner crew. No more performance bonuses and raises.

Did you write this out in crayon before posting? Not only are we talking about the implications of Trump's proposed tax CUT......but even if there were a proposed tax INCREASE......the loose threads being tied together here are laughable at best. Business (negative)101.

 

[Old_Slapper]

A) He's the president
B) He's imploding the country
C) The thread title is "Trump being Trump"

What did you expect?

1. Yes, he is the President.
2. What proof do you have that the country is imploding? Crime is way down, city streets are less chaotic, and the wars are in a cease fire point. Sounds like all is getting better. The only imploding I see are the democrats whenever Trump does something good.
3. You see Trump as a person who can only do bad. Therefore, you will only say bad things about him. Trump being Trump can go two different ways.