How will tax cuts for the wealthy benefit all Americans ? (Page 18): If cutting taxes increased revenue growth democrats would be the ones doing it. Cutting taxes decreases...

PeterS

Nickolai wrote:

They called it starving the beast they substituted tax and spend for barrow and spend and the later is the worst In the long run

If cutting taxes increased revenue growth democrats would be the ones doing it. Cutting taxes decreases revenue--that's precisely what they are designed to do and no surprise--that's exactly what they do. They did it under Reagan, under Bush, and the will do it under a Trump tax cut too. And yes, this is just going to lead to more borrow and spend, spending which they will naturally blame on the democrats.

Nickolai

PeterS wrote:

Yeah, the step where unions created the country that many of those who v**ed for Trump thought our greatest period in history. There is nothing "great" about working at a job and earning a poverty wage--not when many still remember when they could go to work at a 40 hour job and make a living sufficient to raise their families. Your right to be poor states won't deliver that. They never have and they never will...

I raised my family on a single income in California but then those days a high school grad could find a manufacturing or construction job and it would be a union job with some health insurance and when the kid got a belly ach doctor would put em in the hospital and take their appendix out. When my appendix burst at age 12 from the lack of health care I lay on the couch in the 16 foot trailer that my mom dad and two sisters lived for 12 hrs. before a doctor could be found that would come because we had only public t***sportation to get around and another 8 hrs before I went under knife in the county hospital at LA tax payers expense. My union allowed me the dignity of providing health care for my wife and two daughters and on a single income and to purchase a home that 30 years later could barrow from the equity in the home to start my own business. Those day's are long gone and we are back where we started

Richard94611

If you think giving a Walmart employee to be a worthwhile expenditure of your time, why don't you do it? I would prefer spending time trying to pressure Walmart into paying its employees a living wage so the rest of us don't have to subsidize the company by providing food stamps and medical care.

Super Dave wrote:

Did you see how much more they would have spent if all of the employees were unemployed?

You can piss and moan that Walmart isn't holding up the entire economy on it's own, or you can do something about it.. Why don't you take just one of those employees and give them a better job?

Richard94611

Telling these ignorant conservative deniers facts such as you have described doesn't matter to them. They are impervious to facts, and they want simple answers to all questions. They cannot admit that existence is complex.

Nickolai wrote:

I raised my family on a single income in Californi... (show quote)

Nickolai

Glaucon wrote:

You missed the point entirely. The Democrats have been home to unions and the Republicans have made every possible effort destroy them. Guess why Unions favored Democrats. The support for Unions by Democrats has weakened as have unions and, along with it, the economic well being of the middle class.

The Democratic party was known as the party of the working man in the 1930's, 40 years later George McGovern was defeated in a landslide by Richard Nixon and that was the day progressive-ism died in the US Business began reeling the nation back in fueling the politicians to favor business over labor forcing the democrats to follow suit and by the 1980's the Democratic party stood silent while Republicans butchered the unions. They had labors v**es and money because labor had no choice and they ( the dem's ) wanted a share of the business larges

Nickolai

Voice of Reason wrote:

The two main things I've seen unions do are:

1. Require 3 or more 'workers' to do a one-person job. You see this all the time with union DOT workers, one guy working and 2-10 guys watching him.
2. Prevent those who should be fired from getting fired.

My union never did that the employer had the right to fire any employee that did not produce. Slackers were the first to be fired and quickly. I worked 26 years as an employee and 20 years as an employer the last 8 years as a non union employer because the big developers successfully busted the unions that I was signatory to Carpenters and Painters unions

Nickolai

Super Dave wrote:

You Progressives/Socialists really are unfazed by free market facts, aren't you?

If Socialism really worked the USA would be gone and the USSR would still be here. We defeated the Evil Empire with free market economics. The arms race broke their back because of the inefficiency of Socialism vs. Freedom.

The Soviet Union was not socialist it was state capitalism in stead of being run by private individuals it was run by the state and the system was not c*******m as our rulers wanted us to believe it was Stalinism. I predicted when the Soviet Union collapsed that capitalism would collapse for the second time in my life with in 20 years it only took 16 years 2008 but was saved from another great depression by the Federal Reserve

Nickolai

rich boise wrote:

Socialism actually is a good system. Everyone's needs met etc. The only problem is it does not work with people!

It has been working nicely in northern Europe and Scandinavia

Richard94611

Nikolai, you're confusing them with facts.

Nickolai wrote:

It has been working nicely in northern Europe and Scandinavia

Nickolai

Super Dave wrote:

Starting when?

In 8 years, Obama dramatically increased food stamps and other welfare expenses, and (not exactly surprisingly) just about doubled the deficit. The VA is broken, healthcare costs have skyrocketed, the economy is near stagnant, labor participation has skyrocketed, the infrastructure is worse, the military is less well funded.

When does this Progressive Utopia begin?

Yeah aint capitalism great progressive-ism died politically in1972 when the new deal coalition collapsed

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

PeterS wrote:

If cutting taxes increased revenue growth democrats would be the ones doing it. Cutting taxes decreases revenue--that's precisely what they are designed to do and no surprise--that's exactly what they do. They did it under Reagan, under Bush, and the will do it under a Trump tax cut too. And yes, this is just going to lead to more borrow and spend, spending which they will naturally blame on the democrats.

Hey Rocketsurgeon...

Remember when Obama extended the Bush tax cuts to avoid the tax increase because he didn't want the economy to tank just before the midterm e******n?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html

Nickolai

Super Dave wrote:

You keep telling yourself that.

It's history man, don't you read history books ? Or do you just regurgitate what you read on wing nut sites. I read that s**t too but don't take it seriously

Nickolai

Super Dave wrote:

For goodness sake.. At some point you have to blame Obama for Obama's actions.

Bush didn't have a GOP Congress to work with. That's the nature of government, unless 1 party really screw's the pooch.

Bush had six years of both houses of Congress

PeterS

Super Dave wrote:

Did you see how much more they would have spent if all of the employees were unemployed?

You can piss and moan that Walmart isn't holding up the entire economy on it's own, or you can do something about it.. Why don't you take just one of those employees and give them a better job?

There was a time when GM was the largest employer in this country providing a middle income job to every person who worked in their factories. Today Walmart is our largest employer and one could work three of their jobs and still not be middle income. Republicans have spent decades trying to destroy unions in this country and in doing so you have destroyed the principle force that drives up wages. Couple that with your attempt to destroy minimum wage and only at full employment is there now enough of a labor shortage to drive up wages. The problem with that is that any time an economy reaches full employment it's at the end of a business cycle and the ensuing recession destroys any gains that may have been made.

It's not that Walmart doesn't hold up their end but that conservatives don't hold up their end and would rather see a Walmart as our largest employer than a GM. You guys have worked against the middle class in this country for decades and you continue to do it now. We have a middle class in this country only because of unions and it's no surprise that as unions have disappeared so has the middle class.

As for hiring Walmart workers it isn't hard to create a business model that provides a living wage. Sam Walton did and it wasn't until he turned it over to his children that Walmart turned into what it was today. I got my MBA in 83 and Walmart was regarded as one of the best employers in the nation paying associates a decent wage and offering honest to god stock options. The result is that when you walked into a Walmart in the 80's you would have Walmart workers falling all over themselves trying to help you. Today if you ask for help they look right through you as if you weren't even there. You get what you pay for and in Walmart it isn't service.

That's the world you've worked so hard to bring into futrition. Your loathing of unions has brought the middle class in this country to its knees. And you think Trump can change that? Hell, he won't even bring back his own businesses to this country--what makes you think he can bring anyone elses...

Nickolai

Voice of Reason wrote:

That's true. It's also why the founders designed our government to protect the rights of the people. It was never meant to provide our needs.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.