================
Let me handle this:
All your 4 theories are WRONG! The stats you displayed are fabricated, to justify the liberal narratives of raising taxes. Those 4 theories you've provided are the opposite of job growth and business growth. It leads to depression and insolvency of the companies that finally lead to bankruptcy of the countries engage in high taxes like the socialist 3rd world. All the countries of South of the border are bankrupt as a result of these stupidies and greed of the socialist leader. Yours is under Socialism.

1. What you've presented do not lead to economic growth, but the opposite is true.
Your theory is wrong.
Why? When corporate taxes are lowered, the corporate businesses therefore realize higher income. Income earned are used to create more businesses. As businesses expands, revenue expands. Higher labor force are needed and hired. When labor contracts, due to demands, therefore more competition, higher salary are offered to the most competitive ones.

2. Does not lead to income growth. Again that is wrong.
Here is the correct one.
Cutting off tax rates allowed company to retain more income profits which are used for expansion of the businesses. Expansion of business means more business activities create revenue that generates income. adding growth to the economy.

3. Does not lead to wage growth, wrong.
Here is the correct one.
When there many business expansion, more labor force are needed. Short supply of labor means higher salaries are offered to obtain the labor force needed in the business expansion. In 2018-2019, a 3% to 5% wage increases was realized to every worker in the US.
4. Does not lead to job creation Wrong.
Here is the correct one.
When corporate profits expands due to lower tax rates, the tendency of the business is expansion. Higher revenue provides the businesses more capital to expand. Expansion means more business that will earn revenue and thus create more jobs.

Lower overhead costs, allow all business to grow and expands, create job growth, create more revenue. Therefore they pay more taxes due from their earnings. When more people work, they pay also to the IRS their income tax, SS and Medicare taxes. That is how business enterprise grow over the years. What I've provided are the theories of free market economy. The Capitalistic venture of freedom. That was how America became the richest and most geneous country in the world.

So t***handlies, how do you feel about unions? You whinny l*****ts always complain about Conservatives not supporting unions. You demand that American wages be held unnaturally high, under union contract. Unions pay an enormous share of campaign contributions to the DNC and Democrat candidates. And a large portion of Democrat e*****rs in the General E******n are members of the Teacher's Union. THAT is not capitalism allowing wages to find a sustainable level. And it contributes greatly to the wage differences with China and Japan. Now suddenly you are all gung ho for Capitalism and berate me for seeking a solution to the tremendous trade imbalance with China. You need to find a story and stick with it. Are you a Capitalist or a socialist? You are as bad as F*****t Pete, changing your tune to fit the narrative.

I am happy to pay more for an American-made product that is of higher quality. But American factories have been driven out of business by low-cost imports. So I have no choice but to buy imported junk. I am thrilled that Trump's tariffs are reopening American factories. And workers who have new jobs are happy too. You can twist it any way you want if it makes you feel better. But we know the t***h.

"People who are getting the many jobs that are returning to America".

Japan and then China have been stealing factory jobs from America since the 1970s. That's because they pay their workers 25 cents on the dollar compared with America's union wages. America's factories have collapsed as a result. At the beginning of the 20th century, Bethlehem Steel was the largest steel producer in the world. They are now bankrupt, thanks to Japanese steel dumping. US Steel, the world's second largest steel producer, stayed afloat by buying Marathon Oil decades ago. America's auto industry was also decimated by imports. America imports 75 Japanese cars for every ONE American car shipped to Japan. Detroit was once a thriving city, thanks to auto manufacturing. It now has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. China got into the act years later, but now dumps ship loads of cheap junk on our shores. Walmart is loaded primarily with Chinese goods. Those goods were once "made in America". China not only puts tariffs on American goods, they outright BAN many American goods. America's trade balance with China is nearly 5 to 1 in favor of China. The only two items that trade well to China are food and pharmaceuticals. This means that China has very little leverage in a tariff battle. They have no choice but to cave in to US demands on trade.

Adding tariffs on imported goods naturally increases the prices of goods, but it paves the way for sale of more American-made goods. And those sales gains result in more factory production here at home and more jobs for America's middle-class workers. For all those who are huffing and puffing about higher prices, I say "shame on you" for not caring about jobs for American workers. You are truly selfish!

Jesus was asked this same question in Luke 10:25-37;

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Sorry, t***hiness, I already had this posted when I saw you had pointed it out. I let it stand...it won't hurt anything and maybe some will read it. That for sure wouldn't hurt anything!

Just for the newbies to this "C*****e C****e Alarmism" here is the main groups argument on said topic. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm merely relaying the info here. And, notice the date on the topic of the article.

February 27, 2012 at 10:32am

In their recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “No Need to Panic About G****l W*****g,” a group of sixteen world-renowned scientists decry the unscientific alarmism over “g****l w*****g,” citing numerous inconvenient facts that dispute g****l w*****g claims. Here is a video interview with signatory William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University:

https://youtu.be/2cR3KjXRlKk

Their message to policymakers?

There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. . . . Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

This statement follows up on the public resignation of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society (APS) in which he states:

I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: G****l w*****g is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of g****l w*****g is incontrovertible?

The group of scientists note the following facts that refute climate alarmist claims:

1. The lack of g****l w*****g for well over 10 years now: (again, the article was written in 2012)

This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC) began issuing projections–suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

2. CO2 is not a pollutant: (read that again newbies, CO2 is NOT a POLLUTANT)

CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

3. The smear campaigns by the warming establishment are outrageous:

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the Journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of c*****e c****es over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

4. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before–for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

The scientists then address the key issue of why there is so much intolerance and corruption among global-warming proponents, and the answer they give is sadly, “Follow the money.” (once again here newbies, the same old answer, follow the money....t....)

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Link here to full article: http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/global-warming-h**x-leading-scientists-debunk-climate-alarmism

My add on...t... And all the while that the c*****e c****e alarmists bang their drums about some unknown and unexplained worldwide threat they feel compelled to address, they totally ignore that there are three separate components here that their small minds can't quite grasp.

1) - Humans emit CO2 - that's Carbon Dioxide, or the fizz in your soda pop, a lot of fire extinguishers have it, trees and plants breath it, we emit it. So, humans and plant life are inextricably linked and can't do without each others emissions. This c*****e c****e argument is like saying that if we stop ALL trees from breathing and emitting oxygen and nitrogen, the human race will be able to breathe easier. See how your argument is approaching the absurd now newbies..??

2) - The internal combustion engine, gas, diesel or natural gas - all emit CO1, or carbon MONoxide. They DO NOT emit Carbon Dioxide in any way shape or form. And what is carbon MONoxide..?? Another form of carbon emission THAT BREAKS DOWN OVER TIME. When the carbon MONoxide from vehicle emissions hits the dirt or sand on the side of the road it breaks down into - guess here -..... carbon and oxide. This is the reason there is a grey powder on the side of the road along the barditches in bigger cities. Its CARBON and OXIDE showing up in its natural form. And what are humans..?? We are carbon based creatures. It is not harmful to us in the least. Sure, if you breath carbon MONoxide in large enough quantities over a short period of time it will K**L YOU..!! This is how some people commit suicide. Duct tape a garden hose to the exhaust of their car, put the end in the cabin and start the car and set inside. Presto, quick death.

3) - None of the c*****e c****e alarmists realize that coal fired power plants emit - Carbon MONoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitric acid, and..... carbon dust. They do NOT and WILL NOT EVER emit Carbon Dioxide. So, please newbies, can the squawk about all this CO2... Without it trees and plant life CANNOT exist, which in turn would GUARANTEE the human race COULD NOT exist...

Get it right for once..