291d
@averagejoe1 saidoh stop, you're gonna make me cry.
https://reason.com/2024/03/14/bidens-proposed-corporate-tax-hike-will-punish-the-average-american/
So MANY reasons, how about restricting corporations investing more in the company. Do y'all REALLY think Biden has the best minds when it comes to economics?
won't someone think of the poor workers? if companies have low taxes they will invest in better work conditions, better wages better everything. Fact proven by... let me check my sources real quick... none of the corporations in all of history.
trump gave them tax cuts, GM and at&t fired workers anyway.
I can understand religious people. A lack of evidence to the contrary could excuse people believing in God, or Thor or Shiva.
You imbeciles HAVE evidence trickle down economics doesn;'t work, you have evidence Trump is a moron you have evidence the billionaires will never do the right thing unless forced.
What's your excuse?
@zahlanzi saidYou speak with forked tongue on para 1 above. Secondly, as you llibs like to say, "..your party was in charge for 4 years and did not do anything to 'get what you want", as implied in para 1. The corps have broken no laws regarding wages, and employees voluntarily work there without seeking other employment. I do not see your beef.
oh stop, you're gonna make me cry.
won't someone think of the poor workers? if companies have low taxes they will invest in better work conditions, better wages better everything. Fact proven by... let me check my sources real quick... none of the corporations in all of history.
trump gave them tax cuts, GM and at&t fired workers anyway.
I can understand religious ...[text shortened]... ou have evidence the billionaires will never do the right thing unless forced.
What's your excuse?
Corps most certainly DO invest in better work conditions, and in profit-making conditions. Yes, so they can make money for their shareholders. I assume you are a shareholder of some sort, you should be glad. Or, hey, sell your shares and buy some other stock. You are a big boy. And tell your uncle Charlie to find a higher paying job. Tell him to hurry, because bean-counters at corps are likely to hire mexicans left and right who will work for peanuts. Gotta grow up, man.
Or, OR, you can petition the corp to let the employees into the Board Room to make corporate decisions, all one big happy family.
Wheew.
Edit: Could it be that your are projecting your 25% poverty stricken in Romania? Which country are you writing about? Ours seems to be doing fine, many available jobs.
291d
@averagejoe1 saidOkay, AJ, let me ask you:
https://reason.com/2024/03/14/bidens-proposed-corporate-tax-hike-will-punish-the-average-american/
So MANY reasons, how about restricting corporations investing more in the company. Do y'all REALLY think Biden has the best minds when it comes to economics?
You are in charge of the Internal Revenue Code and you must raise an extra Trillion dollars a year. Otherwise, you're fired.
What do you do?
Go.
@sh76 saidEasy. Reduce spending. Have you seen Biden's latest plan of spending?
Okay, AJ, let me ask you:
You are in charge of the Internal Revenue Code and you must raise an extra Trillion dollars a year. Otherwise, you're fired.
What do you do?
Go.
It is either that, or apply the rule of Baby Face Nelson, who said 'Why do I rob banks? Because that is where the money is!' So, y'all favor the second choice,which is to tax the rich. Surely you have seen that the money of billionaires is a drop in the bucket, a spit in the ocean. It will not even dent the costs of running our government. We could start with Biden paying the taxes which he has avoided on the $20M that he got from China, et al. Note that the crooked govt is trying to let, or has let, the Statute of Limitations expire. Total corruptness..So, you want to let him do that at the same time he is fleeing the rich.
Would you agree to just stop the spending? Tell people we are slashing free-money programs, some of which pay out more than someone would make working?
@averagejoe1 saidReducing spending by an amount necessary to close the federal budget deficit is impossible. Just mandatory spending and interest on the debt expenses are more than we collect in taxes.
Easy. Reduce spending. Have you seen Biden's latest plan of spending?
It is either that, or apply the rule of Baby Face Nelson, who said 'Why do I rob banks? Because that is where the money is!' So, y'all favor the second choice. Surely you have seen that the money of billionaires is a drop in the bucket, a spit in the ocean. It will not even dent the costs of ...[text shortened]... ple we are slashing free-money programs, some of which pay out more than someone would make working?
But fine, let's say we slash spending. So we only have to raise an additional $500 billion per year, not a trillion.
So let's change the assignment. You have to raise another $500 billion per year or you're fired.
Go.
291d
@sh76 saidGet rid of agencies starting with useless DOE (edu), and welfare dole out programs. DOE alone is about 100M a year. 100m here, 100M there can add up to $500B soon enough.
Reducing spending by an amount necessary to close the federal budget deficit is impossible. Just mandatory spending and interest on the debt expenses are more than we collect in taxes.
But fine, let's say we slash spending. So we only have to raise an additional $500 billion per year, not a trillion.
So let's change the assignment. You have to raise another $500 billion per year or you're fired.
Go.
One of the holes in lib arguments is that they want to implement an idea that will 'go for 10 years', as if there would be NO SURPRISES that would be beging for more money. Is that when, since you would have bled the rich dry, that you will go after raising the middle class taxes? Or will you say, that , No AvJoe, the 10 year program will make us all whole again??!?!??! haha
@averagejoe1 saidSo, your plan is to get 1/5 of the way there by making college inaccessible for half of the people?
Get rid of agencies starting with useless DOE (edu), and welfare dole out programs. DOE alone is about 100M a year. 100m here, 100M there can add up to $500B soon enough.
One of the holes in lib arguments is that they want to implement an idea that will 'go for 10 years', as if there would be NO SURPRISES that would be beging for more money. Is that when, since you ...[text shortened]... ? Or will you say, that , No AvJoe, the 10 year program will make us all whole again??!?!??! haha
Well, the best I can say is that at least you've started to answer the question.
291d
@sh76 saidThis country has many sources of tuition loans. I got one myself, and paid it off in 5 years. The only requirement is good grades and scoring well on the LSAT. So I dpn't get you there, unless you are of the camp who wants college to be 'free'. Can you imagine the influx of losers who slide in, so that they can not have to enter the business world just yet? Total waste.
So, your plan is to get 1/5 of the way there by making college inaccessible for half of the people?
Well, the best I can say is that at least you've started to answer the question.
So college is not admissable for those who belong there. Planning, SH76. Making choices. Not that hard.
@AverageJoe1
I am off to play golf while I can still afford it, I may be one of the first group that Biden comes after. OPM. 'Other Peoples' Money'. I am sure you are familiar with it.
You know, I want to send my child to a $80T / year college. If you take some of my money to pay for other college kids, I wont be able to afford my college choice.. Your thinking is hat we are all one big happy family. Naaaa, too many bad eggs, I pass
291d
@averagejoe1 saidEven forgetting grants, without Stafford loans subsidized by the Education Department you want to shut down (by the way, the DOE is the Department of Energy, not Education), paying for college is very difficult for many people.
This country has many sources of tuition loans. I got one myself, and paid it off in 5 years. The only requirement is good grades and scoring well on the LSAT. So I dpn't get you there, unless you are of the camp who wants college to be 'free'. Can you imagine the influx of losers who slide in, so that they can not have to enter the business world just yet? Total was ...[text shortened]... llege is not admissable for those who belong there. Planning, SH76. Making choices. Not that hard.
291d
@AverageJoe1
Here is what companies did with the Trump tax bribe, two trillion lost to the government but all they did was stock buy backs, no new jobs, no new factories, just making their bottom line better for them, screw the workers in the US.
https://apnews.com/article/438fae12f9204b1fbd8e8b1985ae554f
291d
@sh76 saidhave you ever considered what it would be like if everyone was college educated?
So, your plan is to get 1/5 of the way there by making college inaccessible for half of the people?
Well, the best I can say is that at least you've started to answer the question.
where would the jobs come from?
@sh76 saidI guess you missed the (edu) AJ included
Even forgetting grants, without Stafford loans subsidized by the Education Department you want to shut down (by the way, the DOE is the Department of Energy, not Education), paying for college is very difficult for many people.
a disingenuous lib tactic
291d
@Mott-The-Hoople
Since you never attended college you wouldn't like to know what it is like being in debt for two hundred thousand and their pay less than 100 thou if they are lucky, 50K more like it. That is more like making a buck an hour in 1960.
291d
@sh76 saidYes, easier for some than others. Why say such a statement? Of course it is. Some people buy a Mercedes, some a two-door Ford. Do you want to rectify that, too???? My neighbor has 6 kids, I have one. He will have a much harder time getting his kids through college. I would attribute his problem to poor planning. The govt (your savior) has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Even forgetting grants, without Stafford loans subsidized by the Education Department you want to shut down (by the way, the DOE is the Department of Energy, not Education), paying for college is very difficult for many people.
So what are you libs getting at when you make such statements? Do you want a line item on income tax return that says ""$500 to universal college agency"". My cousin Vinny does not have kids. Should he pay? So, he will pay and watch his neighbors kids get free college, and support their dad the rest of his life. Vinny will be supported by no one.
You sure you want to have a discussion like this?