Why republicans are unfit to govern in just 1 chart

Renae · Oct 5, 2015

Redress said:
OpenOffice > Microsoft Office. Just sayin'.

Oh dear yes, I HATE MS Office with a passion. Open Office for the win.

The Penguin · Oct 5, 2015

Anytime the private sector keeps more of what they earn it is a good thing

According to whom? Don't you just love how Conservatives spout out rhetoric and nonsense as if it was fact? No, a business keeping money isn't good for anyone, even the business, because they do nothing with it. They don't pass it on to their employees in the form of wage increase (and haven't for the last 35 years with the exception being from 1993-2001), they don't "re-invest" like you say they would. There's no need for them to expand when there's no demand thanks to depressed wages that they caused. So instead, they just pay the money in dividends which largely benefits the majority shareholders who are also the Board of Directors. So you cheer and jump up and down because the stock price went up a couple bucks which means your 401k portfolio (if you're one of 50% of American workers who have one) ticked up slightly, yet those who own the majority share of stocks saw their personal wealth increase exponentially.

So how's that good for the economy, again? And don't say "because they spend more"...we already know that isn't the case.

Conservative · Oct 6, 2015

The Penguin said:
According to whom? Don't you just love how Conservatives spout out rhetoric and nonsense as if it was fact? No, a business keeping money isn't good for anyone, even the business, because they do nothing with it. They don't pass it on to their employees in the form of wage increase (and haven't for the last 35 years with the exception being from 1993-2001), they don't "re-invest" like you say they would. There's no need for them to expand when there's no demand thanks to depressed wages that they caused. So instead, they just pay the money in dividends which largely benefits the majority shareholders who are also the Board of Directors. So you cheer and jump up and down because the stock price went up a couple bucks which means your 401k portfolio (if you're one of 50% of American workers who have one) ticked up slightly, yet those who own the majority share of stocks saw their personal wealth increase exponentially.

So how's that good for the economy, again? And don't say "because they spend more"...we already know that isn't the case.

So exactly what do they do with the money they make? Where do you think investment capital comes from, dividends on stock, expansion. Do they bury the money in the back yard? if it goes to the bank isn't that what the banks used to loan money? Any idea what corporations and businesses pay in taxes and if they didn't make money would they pay any taxes? How about charitable giving?

You seem to lack an understanding of profit and the fact that profit is what drives the U.S. economy creating jobs, creating wealth, creating investment capital

The Penguin · Oct 6, 2015

Conservative said:
So exactly what do they do with the money they make?

Two things: They stash it overseas in foreign bank accounts, or they pass it to the shareholders by way of dividends. The thing they don't do is "re-invest" (whatever that means), or more importantly, raise wages.

Where do you think investment capital comes from, dividends on stock, expansion.

LOL! Well, then why are we not seeing business expand? The answer is that there's no reason for them to. Do you think businesses grow just because? They don't. Businesses only grow when there is demand. Businesses only expand to meet demand. Dividends on stock benefit no one other than the majority shareholders who see the lion's share of benefits from stock dividends. And who are the majority shareholders, normally? The Board of Directors...so those people have no incentive to do anything other than suck up the profits and not share it with the employees who earned it. This is precisely why trickle-down economics is hokum bunkum nonsense.

if it goes to the bank isn't that what the banks used to loan money?

Hahahaha! No....banks don't loan it out. They have no incentive to either. Furthermore, what you're saying is that rather than take the profits and directly give it to the workers in the form of higher wages, you are content to put that money in a bank who then loans it out to those same workers, only charges them an interest rate so they make money, and the corporation makes money on the interest in the savings. The only party that doesn't make money is the consumer...they get debt. So what you want to do is force consumers to borrow instead of get raises. So all you're doing is increasing the wealth of the big banks who then take that profit, stash it offshore, or pay it in dividends. So instead, corporations should take that money and give it to their employees so they can go and spend it in the consumer economy without having to take out a loan to do so. And if they don't do that, then tax the holy heck out of it.

Any idea what corporations and businesses pay in taxes and if they didn't make money would they pay any taxes?

The average effective tax rate for business is 12.9%. The average effective tax rate for individuals is 17.6%. So businesses pay less in taxes than individuals.

How about charitable giv

The totality of all charitable giving in the US is $315B. That includes donations to things like the NYC Ballet (which I've never heard of as feeding one hungry person), or tithing to the Mormon Church (which isn't a charity). Medicaid's budget alone is $475B. So the totality of all charitable giving isn't even enough to cover Medicaid's budget. Charitable giving is a scam. It's something businesses and rich people use to avoid paying taxes. Frankly, I think we should end it completely. Or at least set a cap so that way the Koch Brothers can't reduce their tax liability by giving millions to the NYC Ballet, where tickets are so expensive, most people can't even go to enjoy it.

You seem to lack an understanding of profit and the fact that profit is what drives the U.S. economy

DEMAND drives the economy. Profits are a consequence of demand. That's why the economy does terribly whenever we enact supply-side economics. You people just don't want to learn from your mistakes.

Conservative · Oct 6, 2015

The Penguin;1065110112]Two things: They stash it overseas in foreign bank accounts, or they pass it to the shareholders by way of dividends. The thing they don't do is "re-invest" (whatever that means), or more importantly, raise wages.

Really? Prove it. We have a 17.5 TRILLION dollar economy so tell me how much money is being "stashed" overseas? If they pass it on to shareholders as dividends what do those shareholders do with the money? didn't the shareholders invest their own money to buy stock in the company?

LOL! Well, then why are we not seeing business expand? The answer is that there's no reason for them to. Do you think businesses grow just because? They don't. Businesses only grow when there is demand. Businesses only expand to meet demand. Dividends on stock benefit no one other than the majority shareholders who see the lion's share of benefits from stock dividends. And who are the majority shareholders, normally? The Board of Directors...so those people have no incentive to do anything other than suck up the profits and not share it with the employees who earned it. This is precisely why trickle-down economics is hokum bunkum nonsense.

Businesses will expand when their is incentive to do so. You didn't answer the question, where does the money go that U.S. companies put into U.S. banks? You really have a distorted and biased view of U.S. business. Where did that come from? "Sucking up profits?" where do those profits go?

Hahahaha! No....banks don't loan it out. They have no incentive to either. Furthermore, what you're saying is that rather than take the profits and directly give it to the workers in the form of higher wages, you are content to put that money in a bank who then loans it out to those same workers, only charges them an interest rate so they make money, and the corporation makes money on the interest in teh savings. The only party that doesn't make money is the consumer...they get debt. So what you want to do is force consumers to borrow instead of get raises. So all you're doing is increasing the wealth of the big banks who then take that profit, stash it offshore, or pay it in dividends. That's why your belief system is dumb.

So banks don't loan money? No home loans, no business loans, no personal loans? Do banks print money? What is your solution, nationalize all businesses and put the American worker on an allowance from the Federal govt?

The average effective tax rate for business is 12.9%. The average effective tax rate for individuals is 17.6%. So businesses pay less in taxes than individuals.

So what? There are business taxes that go to the state and local governments as well as all employees pay taxes as well. You look no further than actual company taxes, not the multiplier effect plus you never look at how the tax dollars are spent

The totality of all charitable giving in the US is $315B. That includes donations to things like the NYC Ballet (which I've never heard of as feeding one hungry person), or tithing to the Mormon Church (which isn't a charity). Medicaid's budget alone is $475B. So the totality of all charitable giving isn't even enough to cover Medicaid's budget. Charitable giving is a scam. It's something businesses and rich people use to avoid paying taxes. Frankly, I think we should end it completely. Or at least set a cap so that way the Koch Brothers can't reduce their tax liability by giving millions to the NYC Ballet, where tickets are so expensive, most people can't even go to enjoy it.

So now you want to determine where corporate donations go? You think ballet people spend, save, or invest money? You don't think the Mormon Church benefits people? Charitable giving is only a scam in your world, what the true scam is Federal govt. spending in the name of compassion that just generates dependence. Why is it always the Koch Brothers but not the liberal elite, Hollywood elite spending their money?

[

I]DEMAND[/I] drives the economy. Profits are a consequence of demand. That's why the economy does terribly whenever we enact supply-side economics. You people just don't want to learn from your mistakes.

So what is your solution. This is a free market economy, the best in the world as evidenced by having the most people in the world benefiting from their own drive and initiative. Liberals never learn from theirs, 18.2 trillion in debt doesn't seem to be enough for you. Why is it people like you never offer solutions?

Fenton · Oct 6, 2015

The Penguin said:
Two things: They stash it overseas in foreign bank accounts, or they pass it to the shareholders by way of dividends. The thing they don't do is "re-invest" (whatever that means), or more importantly, raise wages.

LOL! Well, then why are we not seeing business expand? The answer is that there's no reason for them to. Do you think businesses grow just because? They don't. Businesses only grow when there is demand. Businesses only expand to meet demand. Dividends on stock benefit no one other than the majority shareholders who see the lion's share of benefits from stock dividends. And who are the majority shareholders, normally? The Board of Directors...so those people have no incentive to do anything other than suck up the profits and not share it with the employees who earned it. This is precisely why trickle-down economics is hokum bunkum nonsense.

Hahahaha! No....banks don't loan it out. They have no incentive to either. Furthermore, what you're saying is that rather than take the profits and directly give it to the workers in the form of higher wages, you are content to put that money in a bank who then loans it out to those same workers, only charges them an interest rate so they make money, and the corporation makes money on the interest in the savings. The only party that doesn't make money is the consumer...they get debt. So what you want to do is force consumers to borrow instead of get raises. So all you're doing is increasing the wealth of the big banks who then take that profit, stash it offshore, or pay it in dividends. So instead, corporations should take that money and give it to their employees so they can go and spend it in the consumer economy without having to take out a loan to do so. And if they don't do that, then tax the holy heck out of it.

The average effective tax rate for business is 12.9%. The average effective tax rate for individuals is 17.6%. So businesses pay less in taxes than individuals.

The totality of all charitable giving in the US is $315B. That includes donations to things like the NYC Ballet (which I've never heard of as feeding one hungry person), or tithing to the Mormon Church (which isn't a charity). Medicaid's budget alone is $475B. So the totality of all charitable giving isn't even enough to cover Medicaid's budget. Charitable giving is a scam. It's something businesses and rich people use to avoid paying taxes. Frankly, I think we should end it completely. Or at least set a cap so that way the Koch Brothers can't reduce their tax liability by giving millions to the NYC Ballet, where tickets are so expensive, most people can't even go to enjoy it.

DEMAND drives the economy. Profits are a consequence of demand. That's why the economy does terribly whenever we enact supply-side economics. You people just don't want to learn from your mistakes.

The economy has " done terrible " for the last 7 years

Well except in Texas, were we use SUPPLY SIDE economics to provide jobs to all of the economic refugees that have spilled out of blue plague States like California

Saying " demand " is what grows the economy is just typical progressive cart before the horse idiocy.

I

SmartCat · Oct 7, 2015

Vern said:
View attachment 67190494

this pretty much sums it up

That chart may well be accurate. Nevertheless, I would like an essay comparing Republican efforts to obstruct Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to deal with the Great Depression with Republican efforts to obstruct Barack Obama's efforts to deal with the Great Recession.

Conservative · Oct 7, 2015

SmartCat said:
That chart may well be accurate. Nevertheless, I would like an essay comparing Republican efforts to obstruct Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to deal with the Great Depression with Republican efforts to obstruct Barack Obama's efforts to deal with the Great Recession.

There is certainly something to be said about liberals promoting socialism and promoting a double standard which both Roosevelt and Obama have done. Interesting how so many liberals have such a short memory ignoring the treatment Republicans get when they are in the WH. the so called obstruction of Obama's efforts is nothing more than liberal rhetoric as most liberals here cannot get over the fact that Obama has been a complete failure as evidenced by his economic policies and their results. It wasn't Republicans that obstructed Obama but rather Obama's incompetence, lack of leadership skills, and professor mentality.

humbolt · Oct 9, 2015

I'd comment, but just one chart? That's hardly worth a comment. I want lots of charts with lots of colors and stuff. And vitriol. Lots of vitriol right there in the OP. There ain't none of that in the OP, Vern. So I'm not commenting.