Old economic standby not working.

Just another tidbit from Robert Reich:

Your daily reminder that Trump’s 2017 tax cut was an utter failure, and he told a spate of bold-faced lies to the American people in order to get it passed. For instance:
— Trump claimed that the tax cut would boost the average U.S. household income by $4,000 a year. In reality, companies gave workers one-time bonuses that amounted to only two cents per hour on average, a far cry from a $4,000 boost.
— Trump also claimed that the tax cut would be a boon for “the plumbers, the cops, the teachers, the truck drivers, the pipe fitters” of America. Instead, the richest five percent of Americans received almost half of the benefits last year, while the bottom 60 percent received a measly 14 percent of the benefits.
— Trump declared that the tax law would “eliminate tax breaks and complex loopholes”. This was perhaps his most laughably false promise: corporations paid their lowest effective tax rate in decades, a mere 11.3 percent.
Far from being a boon for average workers, Trump’s tax cut was a massive handout to the wealthy and corporations — and, of course, none of those benefits are trickling down. It is far past time to rein in this unbridled corporate greed and ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share like everyone else.
 
Another conservative think tank that reminds me of the old adage "figures don't lie, but liars do figure"... here's why Heritage plays into people with mind sets like yours: https://www.factcheck.org/2014/01/bachmann-botches-poverty-stats/

And the Heritage Foundation's reputation is less than stellar: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ion-and-the-death-of-republican-ideas/279955/

https://www.salon.com/2013/10/20/the_heritage_foundation_has_always_been_full_of_hacks/

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heritage_Foundation

What's really pathetic is that guys like you NEVER raise an eyebrow about corporate welfare or massive tax breaks for rich folk that don't need them and subsequently don't deliver promised jobs. Whose taxes do you think covers that in the national coffers, son?

No, just something with which you disagree and for which you use as an excuse.

Typical left winger thinking if he disagrees with something it is automatically wrong.

You're nothing more than an arrogant asshole. That's also typical among left wingers.
 
Like it worked so well on Wall St. in the last 30 years? Puh-leeze! If social security and all pensions were wholly dependent on Wall St., there'd be a LOT of people in pretty bad shape now.

We haven't let Wall Street face the consequences of its recklessness on its own. We've bailed them out every time, and as a result, they keep putting the rest of us at risk.

Stop bailing them out, and things will work out much better in the long run.

Most major market bubbles and crashes are a direct result of government favoring big banks. Bailouts or the potential for a bailout distorts the risk assessments of the financial sector. Why be careful if you know the government has your back?
 
so when the news says that unemployment is at a fifty year low, you just figure its fake news?.....and the stock market is really down since he got elected, but nobody noticed?......just this week the not-fake news said that our county had the lowest unemployment in Michigan.......2.2%.......even you could get a job here if you weren't afraid to work.........

:thumbsup:
 
Just another tidbit from Robert Reich:

Robert Reich??? The man is a blithering idiot. Nothing the man said is fact based. It's mostly emotional based like most leftist ideas.

Nothing says moron better than arguments like "trickle up" or one's that argue for higher taxation. Redistribution schemes are for morons who have learned nothing from history.

I am amused by the notion that allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a bad idea.

:smh:
 
No, just something with which you disagree and for which you use as an excuse.

Typical left winger thinking if he disagrees with something it is automatically wrong.

You're nothing more than an arrogant asshole. That's also typical among left wingers.

:thumbsup:
 
We haven't let Wall Street face the consequences of its recklessness on its own. We've bailed them out every time, and as a result, they keep putting the rest of us at risk.

How does Wall Street place anyone at risk? Were they forced to invest in stocks???

Stop bailing them out, and things will work out much better in the long run.

Wall Street cannot be bailed out. It is a system. But I agree that the banks who play it loose should be allowed to fail and not be bailed out.

Most major market bubbles and crashes are a direct result of government favoring big banks.

Not true at all; the last one was due to Government demanding people who can't afford loans to get them. Then the idiots in the banks marketed the securities and got in a lot of hot water selling junk.

Bailouts or the potential for a bailout distorts the risk assessments of the financial sector. Why be careful if you know the government has your back?

Agreed.
 
How does Wall Street place anyone at risk? Were they forced to invest in stocks???

If Wall Street increases the amount of risks it takes with speculative trading, that affects far more than just investors when a fall occurs. For example, if you work for a company that is publicly traded, it doesn't matter if you invest in your 401k or not as to whether a market crash can affect your job and quality of life. If your company's stock drops dramatically, you might get laid off, regardless of whether you invested or not.

Wall Street cannot be bailed out. It is a system. But I agree that the banks who play it loose should be allowed to fail and not be bailed out.

Not true at all; the last one was due to Government demanding people who can't afford loans to get them. Then the idiots in the banks marketed the securities and got in a lot of hot water selling junk.

That was part of it, but another part of the reason why they took a lot of risks with things like CDOs is because of the history of bailouts we've had. When the S&L crisis happened, for example, there were bailouts. There have been multiple market crashes where the government has bailed out many of the banks that have taken huge losses.
 
If Wall Street increases the amount of risks it takes with speculative trading, that affects far more than just investors when a fall occurs.

Once again; who is forcing anyone to invest in stocks?

For example, if you work for a company that is publicly traded, it doesn't matter if you invest in your 401k or not as to whether a market crash can affect your job and quality of life. If your company's stock drops dramatically, you might get laid off, regardless of whether you invested or not.

The performance of a stock has nothing to do with corporate performance. If a company is doing well, how their stock performs doesn't change that.

That was part of it, but another part of the reason why they took a lot of risks with things like CDOs is because of the history of bailouts we've had.

Wrong; the CDO's were3 created as a money scheme that sucked a lot of greedy investors in. It had nothing to do with them believing that they might need a bail out. But yes, it might increase the likelihood of risk if one believes there will be a bailout. But it is never guaranteed.

When the S&L crisis happened, for example, there were bailouts. There have been multiple market crashes where the government has bailed out many of the banks that have taken huge losses.

I can't argue that. But I seriously doubt investment banks plan to need bailouts. ;)
 
so when the news says that unemployment is at a fifty year low, you just figure its fake news?.....and the stock market is really down since he got elected, but nobody noticed?......just this week the not-fake news said that our county had the lowest unemployment in Michigan.......2.2%.......even you could get a job here if you weren't afraid to work.........

Changed the subject didn't you? can you understand a trajectory on a graph? The trajectory is the same as when Trump took over. He did nothing to improve it at all. What did he do? Economists agree the tax cut was a big nothing. It sold to people who are not smart about economics, like you. Trump talks about the stock market over and over. What did he do to cause it. he took credit for it from day one. it fools the uneducated. Since over 80 percnt of stocks are owned by the rich,, you can see it as an indicator of the wealth gap.
Why would i be afraid to work? That made sense to you?
 
Once again; who is forcing anyone to invest in stocks?

You're missing my point here. Any company publicly traded is affected by Wall Street trends overall. That means any employee of a publicly traded company can be affected by said trends.

The performance of a stock has nothing to do with corporate performance. If a company is doing well, how their stock performs doesn't change that.

That depends. Yes, a company can do well business-wise even if its stock isn't doing well, but the way most publicly traded companies are run involves some level of accounting for stock performance. These 2 measures of performance can compensate for each other, but they also can limit each other.

In a broader sense, how the stock market is currently faring affects overall investment habits. If the market is up, there's more potential for business expansion. So, a company that may not be doing well on the business side of things might get some relief through investment if the stock is doing well.

On the other side of things, if the stock market is down, even a company that is doing well on the business side will typically have a limited amount of time before performance drops. Many of a business's customers might start to buy less of their product, for example.

Wrong; the CDO's were3 created as a money scheme that sucked a lot of greedy investors in. It had nothing to do with them believing that they might need a bail out. But yes, it might increase the likelihood of risk if one believes there will be a bailout. But it is never guaranteed.

I can't argue that. But I seriously doubt investment banks plan to need bailouts. ;)

I should clarify. I'm not saying that a bailout is what Wall Street primarily bases its decisions on. I'm saying that knowing a bailout is highly likely in the worst case scenario makes risk taking much easier to stomach. Wall Street would be far more conservative overall with a clear indication that no more bailouts would occur in the future.
 
Changed the subject didn't you?

no....I did not.....just pointing out two of the things you ignored in my post.....sorry to make you look like a mindless twit by pointing that out........actually that isn't true......it never bothers me when I make you look like a mindless twit.....

Why would i be afraid to work? That made sense to you?
no.....nothing about you lib'ruls makes sense to anyone..........but obviously if you're still unemployed in today's market you must be afraid to work.....
 
no....I did not.....just pointing out two of the things you ignored in my post.....sorry to make you look like a mindless twit by pointing that out........actually that isn't true......it never bothers me when I make you look like a mindless twit.....


no.....nothing about you lib'ruls makes sense to anyone..........but obviously if you're still unemployed in today's market you must be afraid to work.....

You make claims with no knowledge about me. Why do you do that? Make sense you make posts without knowledge repeatedly.
 
You make claims with no knowledge about me. Why do you do that? Make sense you make posts without knowledge repeatedly.

????....did you think there are people here who don't already know how stupid you are?.........if you wanted to pull that off you should never have posted.......
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Another conservative think tank that reminds me of the old adage "figures don't lie, but liars do figure"... here's why Heritage plays into people with mind sets like yours: https://www.factcheck.org/2014/01/ba...poverty-stats/

And the Heritage Foundation's reputation is less than stellar: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-ideas/279955/

https://www.salon.com/2013/10/20/the...full_of_hacks/

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...age_Foundation

What's really pathetic is that guys like you NEVER raise an eyebrow about corporate welfare or massive tax breaks for rich folk that don't need them and subsequently don't deliver promised jobs. Whose taxes do you think covers that in the national coffers, son?




No, just something with which you disagree and for which you use as an excuse.

Typical left winger thinking if he disagrees with something it is automatically wrong.

You're nothing more than an arrogant asshole. That's also typical among left wingers.

translation: CFM cannot logically contradict or disprove the FACTS in my links, nor can he honestly answer my ending question. So in typical right wing wonk fashion, he just blows smoke and accusations. Typical.
The OP stands valid.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
My man, "reaganomics, trickle down" and the like hasn't worked out for the average honest working man for 30 years! A matter of fact, a matter of history … https://www.insidesources.com/reagan...ilure-workers/


we've never tried reaganomics.........it had two parts.....cutting taxes and cutting spending.........Tip O'Neil and the demmycunts wouldn't agree to the spending cuts.......

Either you are in denial, willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant of the facts: for your education...especially the last paragraph: https://news.gallup.com/vault/211076/spending-cuts-popular-reagan-1981-budget.aspx
 
Either you are in denial, willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant of the facts: for your education...especially the last paragraph: https://news.gallup.com/vault/211076/spending-cuts-popular-reagan-1981-budget.aspx

Moron:

In 1982, Reagan agreed to increase some excise taxes on a promise from House Speaker Tip O'Neill that every dollar increase in tax revenue would be matched by 3 dollars in spending cuts. Famously, O'Neill reneged. When later asked again to raise some taxes, Reagan would reply, “I'm still waiting for those spending cuts.”
 
You're missing my point here. Any company publicly traded is affected by Wall Street trends overall. That means any employee of a publicly traded company can be affected by said trends.



That depends. Yes, a company can do well business-wise even if its stock isn't doing well, but the way most publicly traded companies are run involves some level of accounting for stock performance. These 2 measures of performance can compensate for each other, but they also can limit each other.

In a broader sense, how the stock market is currently faring affects overall investment habits. If the market is up, there's more potential for business expansion. So, a company that may not be doing well on the business side of things might get some relief through investment if the stock is doing well.

On the other side of things, if the stock market is down, even a company that is doing well on the business side will typically have a limited amount of time before performance drops. Many of a business's customers might start to buy less of their product, for example.



I should clarify. I'm not saying that a bailout is what Wall Street primarily bases its decisions on. I'm saying that knowing a bailout is highly likely in the worst case scenario makes risk taking much easier to stomach. Wall Street would be far more conservative overall with a clear indication that no more bailouts would occur in the future.

Thank you for a basic explanation that is not bogged down in economic jargon. That others on this board are too stubborn to acknowledge what you say in light of history is a credit to your perseverance.
 
Back
Top