• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where companies' new tax savings will likely go

It is simply a difference in how each view the role of government.

Republicans would rather people keep the money they earn so that they can decide what is best for themselves.

Democrats would rather make those choices for you by taking your money through taxes and issuing out services as a government program.

I lean more to the Republican side of thinking because I think individuals have a better understanding of their needs then some politician that has never met them or in many cases never even been to their state.

I will concede the clean air and water part though. I agree more with Democrats on environmental issues except when they take it to the extreme.

I think that is just the Republican line. I doubt they really roll that way because Republicans are pretty quick to impose their will on others when given half the chance. Abortion bans, sex bans, lots of cops, big walls along the borders, huge military, etc. They have no trouble spending your money. In fact, most of our deficits are the result of GOP administrations. See Reagan, Bush and now Trump.
 
I think that is just the Republican line. I doubt they really roll that way because Republicans are pretty quick to impose their will on others when given half the chance. Abortion bans, sex bans, lots of cops, big walls along the borders, huge military, etc. They have no trouble spending your money. In fact, most of our deficits are the result of GOP administrations. See Reagan, Bush and now Trump.

Deficits are created by spending more than you bring in. While true that Republicans contributed by cutting taxes, Democrat spending plays a major role in that as well. Acting like the results are simply due to one party is simply partisan BS.
 
I think that is just the Republican line. I doubt they really roll that way because Republicans are pretty quick to impose their will on others when given half the chance. Abortion bans, sex bans, lots of cops, big walls along the borders, huge military, etc. They have no trouble spending your money. In fact, most of our deficits are the result of GOP administrations. See Reagan, Bush and now Trump.

Obama added as much to the deficit as all other Presidents combined.
 
Obama added as much to the deficit as all other Presidents combined.

Obama was handed a mess, thanks to Bush starting two unfunded wars and presiding over a housing bust. If anything, Obama's first three budget years were spent bailing out the country from the rocks the Republicans steered the ship into. If you bother to look, you'll notice, Obama's deficit spending fell way off after those first few years.
 
raising wages is a bad thing?

and from the 'related link'

Sixty-five percent of companies responding to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey say they would use at least some of the repatriated cash to pay down debt.

65%, not all and 'use SOME of it'

Meanwhile the headline says: "Here's what America's biggest companies plan to do with all that cash coming back to the US" As if they ****ing really knew.

Talk about misleading and lying. So sick of this ****.
 

The problem with your chart and your assumption is the assumption that business does nothing with profits except fill up wine glasses. They don't. Profits are used to expand, seek new markets, or distribute to stockholders. In any event, those profits return to the market or to the stockholders, who pay taxes on the already taxed dividends. Or it's held in reserve, a bank, who then uses the money to make loans, either to consumers to buy cars or houses, or to enable business to expand.
 
Last edited:
Obama was handed a mess, thanks to Bush starting two unfunded wars and presiding over a housing bust. If anything, Obama's first three budget years were spent bailing out the country from the rocks the Republicans steered the ship into. If you bother to look, you'll notice, Obama's deficit spending fell way off after those first few years.

We have one President at a time, and each is responsible for the spending on his watch. As I said, Obama added as much to the deficit as all other Presidents combined.
 
We have one President at a time, and each is responsible for the spending on his watch. As I said, Obama added as much to the deficit as all other Presidents combined.
No. We have Republican Presidents who inherit a good, strong economy and drive the country into a ditch, as was done by W Bush. Trump is going to do the same thing.

Blaming Obama for the mess he inherited is part of the script played out by those with short memories.
 
We have one President at a time, and each is responsible for the spending on his watch. As I said, Obama added as much to the deficit as all other Presidents combined.

I think you mean debt, not deficit. But either way your point is correct.
 
No. We have Republican Presidents who inherit a good, strong economy and drive the country into a ditch, as was done by W Bush. Trump is going to do the same thing.

Blaming Obama for the mess he inherited is part of the script played out by those with short memories.

All Presidents play the hands they are dealt.
 
raising wages is a bad thing?

and from the 'related link'



65%, not all and 'use SOME of it'

Meanwhile the headline says: "Here's what America's biggest companies plan to do with all that cash coming back to the US" As if they ****ing really knew.

Talk about misleading and lying. So sick of this ****.

If you want to believe the GOP tax bill was crafted for the express benefit of the middle class, by all means do so.

No one can force a horse to drink the water.
 
If you want to believe the GOP tax bill was crafted for the express benefit of the middle class, by all means do so.

No one can force a horse to drink the water.

I didn't say that, nor am I naive enough to think it. But it does in fact benefit many middle class workers. Sure it benefits corporations more, but that doesn't take that away. I'm guessing if it benefits the wealthy or corporations, it shouldn't be done at all, regardless of who else it also benefits. To hell with them, right?
 
If you want to believe the GOP tax bill was crafted for the express benefit of the middle class, by all means do so.

No one can force a horse to drink the water.

Any tax cut will greatly benefit top earners because that's where the taxes are.
 
Those who can't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. History has shown us what happens with regressive tax cuts and yet so many trumpet the same inane napkin philosophy as if it is gospel. When will they figure out that reality and what you want to be true are not always the same.
 
I didn't say that, nor am I naive enough to think it. But it does in fact benefit many middle class workers. Sure it benefits corporations more, but that doesn't take that away. I'm guessing if it benefits the wealthy or corporations, it shouldn't be done at all, regardless of who else it also benefits. To hell with them, right?

You'll spend that chump change trying to keep up with rising Trumpcare premiums.
 
You'll spend that chump change trying to keep up with rising Trumpcare premiums.

And another elitist comment. That 'chump change' can mean a lot to people. You're very lucky not to need it.
 
And another elitist comment. That 'chump change' can mean a lot to people. You're very lucky not to need it.

In the GOP grand scheme of things, they're giving you a token while the preponderance of tax cuts will accrue to the already wealthy who certainly don't need it.

Why you cannot see what is plainly in front of you is beyond me. Seems to me you don't need the money that much either.

5 times Republicans admitted they work for rich donors
 
In the GOP grand scheme of things, they're giving you a token while the preponderance of tax cuts will accrue to the already wealthy who certainly don't need it.

Why you cannot see what is plainly in front of you is beyond me. Seems to me you don't need the money that much either.

5 times Republicans admitted they work for rich donors

The preponderance of tax cuts accrue to the top earners because that's where the taxes are. It's just arithmetic. I opposed this tax cut, but your argument against it is unsound.
 
The preponderance of tax cuts accrue to the top earners because that's where the taxes are. It's just arithmetic. I opposed this tax cut, but your argument against it is unsound.

When the wealthy are already paying less percent in taxes than the middle and lower class, as Warren Buffet, pointed out, something is wrong. And now - giving them more tax cuts - something is really, really wrong.
 
When the wealthy are already paying less percent in taxes than the middle and lower class, as Warren Buffet, pointed out, something is wrong. And now - giving them more tax cuts - something is really, really wrong.

The "lower class" pays no federal income tax.
 
The problem with your chart and your assumption is the assumption that business does nothing with profits except fill up wine glasses. They don't. Profits are used to expand, seek new markets, or distribute to stockholders. In any event, those profits return to the market or to the stockholders, who pay taxes on the already taxed dividends. Or it's held in reserve, a bank, who then uses the money to make loans, either to consumers to buy cars or houses, or to enable business to expand.

It is demand that drives expansion and job growth. I agree with most tax cuts to the middle class because it helps drive the demand. However, the tax cuts to corporations are unnecessary as they have seen record profits in recent years while middle class jobs/pay has stagnated.
 
The bottom 60% account for 2% of the federal income tax. Whatever happened to paying a fair share?

What is their share of national income?
 
And another elitist comment. That 'chump change' can mean a lot to people. You're very lucky not to need it.

I wonder how many will still feel that way when they're told the get no social security as a result?
 
I wonder how many will still feel that way when they're told the get no social security as a result?

I doubt that's going to happen. It's been 'brought to the table' through several administrations and they don't touch it.
 
Back
Top Bottom