(10-26-2019, 11:04 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2019, 07:23 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Help me understand what you mean.
The number of people who smoke in this state and in this country is down, is it not?
Sounds like the tax worked.
No one ever said that the tax would eliminate tobacco use.
And what happens to the funds that the vice tax provides once the number of participants declines?
(10-26-2019, 08:50 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Because the industrial military complex was directly responsible for the melting of the icecaps during the last global thaw?
At what point can this discussion ever become centered? I grew up on a a farm at one of the highest points in Meigs County Ohio. There was an exposed boulder that was my sanctuary. Upon this boulder there are numerous ocean fossils. No man existed when these were placed upon that rock. Can any of you climate change extremest explain this to me? By the same token, we continue to cut down trees, pave roads, put up concrete and buildings. Can any of you climate change deniers explain to how this does not affect our environment? My God why do we continue to let the extreme views and opinions define the scope of the discussion?
You do know that we have more trees today globally than we did 100 years ago, yes? That all that cutting and paving and concrete didn't reduce the trees on Earth a bit?
Tree farms vs forest? Not even an apples to oranges comparison. You're better than that but I'll play along. 100 trees over 10 acres with all the grass, plants, and shrubs compared to 100 pines on one acre plot all in a row with 9 acres of asphalt surrounding it. Yeah surely the same.
(10-26-2019, 09:51 PM)nejagsfan Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2019, 08:38 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Put the tax cuts in the same bill as the carbon tax then.
They pass together.
The Democrats are the ones who are writing that bill.... they don't do tax cuts.... And maybe the dumbest thing I've heard in the whole climate change issue.... Carbon tax is just another tax they want to put on you to get money has nothing to do with saving the environment... Once you understand that you'll get the whole picture....this has nothing to do with saving our planet and everything to do with money...power and greed.... Cut taxes LMAO.... Come on dude you don't honestly believe that to you
Obama cut payroll taxes significantly while he was in office.
It was temporary and they didn't renew it but it was still a cut.
But I think you're at least partially right and this is why I vote Republican. supposing that the Democrats in Congress all just want the new tax without any cut to old taxes: That's why we count on the Republicans in Congress to make sure that the cuts to old taxes are in the bill.
(10-27-2019, 09:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2019, 09:51 PM)nejagsfan Wrote: [ -> ]The Democrats are the ones who are writing that bill.... they don't do tax cuts.... And maybe the dumbest thing I've heard in the whole climate change issue.... Carbon tax is just another tax they want to put on you to get money has nothing to do with saving the environment... Once you understand that you'll get the whole picture....this has nothing to do with saving our planet and everything to do with money...power and greed.... Cut taxes LMAO.... Come on dude you don't honestly believe that to you
Obama cut payroll taxes significantly while he was in office.
It was temporary and they didn't renew it but it was still a cut.
But I think you're at least partially right and this is why I vote Republican. supposing that the Democrats in Congress all just want the new tax without any cut to old taxes: That's why we count on the Republicans in Congress to make sure that the cuts to old taxes are in the bill.
Count on Republicans? Bbbbwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa
(10-27-2019, 09:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 09:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Obama cut payroll taxes significantly while he was in office.
It was temporary and they didn't renew it but it was still a cut.
But I think you're at least partially right and this is why I vote Republican. supposing that the Democrats in Congress all just want the new tax without any cut to old taxes: That's why we count on the Republicans in Congress to make sure that the cuts to old taxes are in the bill.
Count on Republicans? Bbbbwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa
Judging from the last two years, we can count on Republicans to cut taxes, and increase spending.
(10-27-2019, 09:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 09:37 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Obama cut payroll taxes significantly while he was in office.
It was temporary and they didn't renew it but it was still a cut.
But I think you're at least partially right and this is why I vote Republican. supposing that the Democrats in Congress all just want the new tax without any cut to old taxes: That's why we count on the Republicans in Congress to make sure that the cuts to old taxes are in the bill.
Count on Republicans? Bbbbwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa
For once I see your point.
(10-27-2019, 09:52 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 09:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Count on Republicans? Bbbbwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa
Judging from the last two years, we can count on Republicans to cut taxes, and increase spending.
Yep, halfway is backwards.
(10-27-2019, 09:52 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 09:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Count on Republicans? Bbbbwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa
Judging from the last two years, we can count on Republicans to cut taxes, and increase spending.
2 years? When did Coolidge leave office?
That's a good point. Trump has only increased spending for the top 1 percent.
(10-27-2019, 11:06 AM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]That's a good point. Trump has only increased spending for the top 1 percent.
3% plus wage growth. Try again.
Not sure what that has to do with government spending. What percentage of what you read do you understand.?
(10-27-2019, 08:33 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure what that has to do with government spending. What percentage of what you read do you understand.?
Ewwww…. I can't believe my Ears... That's a lot of hostility at the end of the 45 seconds... A lot ah anger!
In reference to the above post, I took your assertion that "Trump has only increased spending on the 1%" To be a rhetorical device invoking the class warfare fallacy. I assume that you weren't talking about fiscal policy in general because almost all sectors of discretionary non-defense spending have increased over the last 3 plus years. I took the opportunity to point out that under Trumps trade/economic policies we have actually seen a growth in terms of real wealth an average wages throughout the income spectrum specifically the working class.
If there was a more specific line item of fiscal policy that you were pointing out then please, feel free to make a more specific assertion. I would be perfectly happy to discuss it with you. In the meantime, casual digs at my or anyone else's intelligence just expose your own lack of depth as a poster. In other words @#$^ PLEASE!
(10-27-2019, 10:13 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 08:33 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure what that has to do with government spending. What percentage of what you read do you understand.?
Ewwww…. I can't believe my Ears... That's a lot of hostility at the end of the 45 seconds... A lot ah anger!
In reference to the above post, I took your assertion that "Trump has only increased spending on the 1%" To be a rhetorical device invoking the class warfare fallacy. I assume that you weren't talking about fiscal policy in general because almost all sectors of discretionary non-defense spending have increased over the last 3 plus years. I took the opportunity to point out that under Trumps trade/economic policies we have actually seen a growth in terms of real wealth an average wages throughout the income spectrum specifically the working class.
If there was a more specific line item of fiscal policy that you were pointing out then please, feel free to make a more specific assertion. I would be perfectly happy to discuss it with you. In the meantime, casual digs at my or anyone else's intelligence just expose your own lack of depth as a poster. In other words @#$^ PLEASE!
In other words, you didn't understand what you were reading. So why post?
(10-27-2019, 10:16 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 10:13 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Ewwww…. I can't believe my Ears... That's a lot of hostility at the end of the 45 seconds... A lot ah anger!
In reference to the above post, I took your assertion that "Trump has only increased spending on the 1%" To be a rhetorical device invoking the class warfare fallacy. I assume that you weren't talking about fiscal policy in general because almost all sectors of discretionary non-defense spending have increased over the last 3 plus years. I took the opportunity to point out that under Trumps trade/economic policies we have actually seen a growth in terms of real wealth an average wages throughout the income spectrum specifically the working class.
If there was a more specific line item of fiscal policy that you were pointing out then please, feel free to make a more specific assertion. I would be perfectly happy to discuss it with you. In the meantime, casual digs at my or anyone else's intelligence just expose your own lack of depth as a poster. In other words @#$^ PLEASE!
In other words, you didn't understand what you were reading. So why post?
There's nothing to understand. It's a Hodge podge rhetorical ideological talking point with no frame of reference, supporting evidence, or clarity. For the most part you radical lefties are like pull string dolls. Whenever you feel backed into a corner "one percent" or some such thing. In the future, if you want to try and have a more productive conversation, I am going to have to ask you to please at least try to make some kind of sense, even when making blind defensive swipes.
(10-27-2019, 10:16 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 10:13 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Ewwww…. I can't believe my Ears... That's a lot of hostility at the end of the 45 seconds... A lot ah anger!
In reference to the above post, I took your assertion that "Trump has only increased spending on the 1%" To be a rhetorical device invoking the class warfare fallacy. I assume that you weren't talking about fiscal policy in general because almost all sectors of discretionary non-defense spending have increased over the last 3 plus years. I took the opportunity to point out that under Trumps trade/economic policies we have actually seen a growth in terms of real wealth an average wages throughout the income spectrum specifically the working class.
If there was a more specific line item of fiscal policy that you were pointing out then please, feel free to make a more specific assertion. I would be perfectly happy to discuss it with you. In the meantime, casual digs at my or anyone else's intelligence just expose your own lack of depth as a poster. In other words @#$^ PLEASE!
In other words, you didn't understand what you were reading. So why post?
I'm pretty sure you have nothing of value to contribute here, just another troll sock.
(10-27-2019, 10:20 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 10:16 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]In other words, you didn't understand what you were reading. So why post?
I'm pretty sure you have nothing of value to contribute here, just another troll sock.
We were discussing whether or not we can count on Republicans to cut taxes, and increase spending. Then jj showed up and changed the subject, and didn't realize he had. Now we are back on topic.
(10-27-2019, 10:35 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 10:20 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty sure you have nothing of value to contribute here, just another troll sock.
We were discussing whether or not we can count on Republicans to cut taxes, and increase spending. Then jj showed up and changed the subject, and didn't realize he had. Now we are back on topic.
Bruh. What you said makes no sense!!!!!
(10-27-2019, 11:38 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 10:35 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]We were discussing whether or not we can count on Republicans to cut taxes, and increase spending. Then jj showed up and changed the subject, and didn't realize he had. Now we are back on topic.
Bruh. What you said makes no sense!!!!!
I don't know what ferocious meant by spending on their own top one percent. All types of people benefit from federal government spending.
But you're trying to give Trump's policies the credit for wage growth.
The trend of wage growth that we have seen started during the last year of Obama's presidency.
I wouldn't give either Trump or Obama credit.
A lot of things have to go right for there to be steady wage growth, not just government policy.
(10-28-2019, 06:52 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2019, 11:38 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Bruh. What you said makes no sense!!!!!
I don't know what ferocious meant by spending on their own top one percent. All types of people benefit from federal government spending.
But you're trying to give Trump's policies the credit for wage growth.
The trend of wage growth that we have seen started during the last year of Obama's presidency.
I wouldn't give either Trump or Obama credit.
A lot of things have to go right for there to be steady wage growth, not just government policy.
In the abstract you are correct, there are a lot of factors. However, many CEOs have stated that a large reason for capital investment has been corporate tax reform.
(10-28-2019, 08:23 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2019, 06:52 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know what ferocious meant by spending on their own top one percent. All types of people benefit from federal government spending.
But you're trying to give Trump's policies the credit for wage growth.
The trend of wage growth that we have seen started during the last year of Obama's presidency.
I wouldn't give either Trump or Obama credit.
A lot of things have to go right for there to be steady wage growth, not just government policy.
In the abstract you are correct, there are a lot of factors. However, many CEOs have stated that a large reason for capital investment has been corporate tax reform.
A CEO is lucky if he fully understands the cause-effect relationships between his own decisions and the success of the business he (or she) is leading.
CEOs are putting out statements crediting these tax cuts just because they want more where that came from.
Wage growth comes from growth in productivity combined with a scarcity of skilled labor. Nobody can snap their fingers and create either condition.
A CEO can make certain investments in technology and training to increase the productivity of their own workforce, but he can not, on his own, lower the unemployment rate to create the scarcity of skilled labor. President Trump reducing certain visas has helped more, but even that only marginally. I'd give the tax cut almost 0 credit - all indications are that most of the corporations just added that new money to the cash pile or issued larger dividends. There is very little evidence that they drove any significant amount of it into tech or training.