Rubio admits GOP tax cut is a bust:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) voted in favor of the Republican Party’s massive tax cut late last year — but now he says that there’s little evidence that handing out big breaks to corporations has significantly trickled down to American workers.

Talking with The Economist, Rubio criticizes his party for believing that large corporate tax cuts will inevitably produce windfalls for workers in the United States — and he says that so far, we haven’t seen very many corporations using their additional money to invest in their employees.

“There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers,” Rubio tells the publication. “In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.”

Rubio also hinted that neither the GOP’s tax cut plan nor Trump’s protectionism will do much to help workers who are seeing more and more jobs disappear thanks to automation and technology.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/ru...-evidence-moneys-poured-back-american-worker/

Somebody, please give little Marco a tissue to cry in ... again ... :lol:

Barnacle said:

Somebody, please give little Marco a tissue to cry in ... again ... :lol:

Click to expand...

I would guess that he knows a whole lot more about this than you would ever hope to.

Floridafan said:

I would guess that he knows a whole lot more about this than you would ever hope to.

Click to expand...

Yeah, right, my man ...

Floridafan said:

I would guess that he knows a whole lot more about this than you would ever hope to.

Click to expand...

rubio knows a lot about losing massively to trump and whining about it. his views on the tax cuts? lol

rubio is the same guy the left continuously mocked time and time again. so to see "moderates" (lefties) take his side is funny.

Floridafan said:

I would guess that he knows a whole lot more about this than you would ever hope to.

Click to expand...

Well given that he voted for the plan he's a little late to the party. He apparently only now waking up to realities that virtually all Democrats have understood for a few decades.

biglawnmower said:

rubio is the same guy the left continuously mocked time and time again. so to see "moderates" (lefties) take his side is funny.

Click to expand...

We're not taking his side, he's taking ours because while he's a stupid stupid man, he's still not as stupid as Trump supporters are.

biglawnmower said:

rubio knows a lot about losing massively to trump and whining about it. his views on the tax cuts? lol

rubio is the same guy the left continuously mocked time and time again. so to see "moderates" (lefties) take his side is funny.

Click to expand...

Like him or not, you can't dismiss his comments. He is totally correct!

Barnacle said:

Yeah, right, my man ...

Click to expand...

You think you are an expert, sitting behind your keyboard all day?

Rubio admits GOP tax cut is a bust:

Click to expand...

MrWonka said:

We're not taking his side, he's taking ours because while he's a stupid stupid man, he's still not as stupid as Trump supporters are.

Click to expand...

yea thats gonna get your side a win. calling an entire group of people stupid. obama invaded countless countries, lied constantly, drone civilians, and i dont think all his supporters are stupid.

just shows your lack of maturity.

get over it. find someone to run in 2024 that will actually win

What Rubio has not communicated or potentially understands is

Business's will not provide more compensation to workers than it has to in order to have people work for them. If they could pay $40 000 a year then they will pay just $40 000 a year if that is what it took to attract the staff they want. If it required $45 000 and they could afford it, then they would pay it. But if it only took $35 000 they would gladly just pay that amount.

As for the corporate tax cuts.

The real goal and expectation is not that business's would just let that money go directly to workers. That would be idiotic and not in the interests of shareholders. What it could do it encourage other business's to start up or expand in operations as the increase after tax profits could encourage more companies to operate as to take a slice of the increased profits. Higher profits in a dynamic economy would generally cause new business's to open up to get some of those profits. The increased business activity, would require more labour, increasing the competition for workers, leading to higher wages and compensation. That said for the above to occur would take longer than just 6-9 months to start. More likely 1-2 years at the earliest. Companies would want to see proof of higher profits, in sectors they are interested in, before taking the jump to invest

biglawnmower said:

yea that's gonna get your side a win. calling an entire group of people stupid.

Click to expand...

Why not? That's verbatim what Trump did. He just tried to make sure that the people he was calling idiots only made up 49% of the population, and made sure the insecure people he was calling smart were closer to 51% in the states he needed to win. It worked once because Democrats were overconfident, and winning the white house three terms in a row is hard.

biglawnmower said:

obama invaded countless countries,

Click to expand...

Bold-faced lie. Obama invaded zero countries that weren't already invaded by Bush.

biglawnmower said:

lied constantly,

Click to expand...

Another bold-faced lie. Sorry, you can't just keep lying about how other people lie, when it's very clear and obvious who the real liar is.

biglawnmower said:

drone civilians,

Click to expand...

Continued a military strategy that was already in place.

biglawnmower said:

and I don't think all his supporters are stupid.

Click to expand...

Of course not, that's because most of them are ten times more intelligent than you.

Trump supporters said they didn't care if Trump was offensive or abrasive. They liked him because he spoke his mind and told it like it is. They thought he was honest. Well fine, you want me to be perfectly honest. You want me to tell it like it is? Tell you how I really feel? Fine. If you voted for Donald Trump you're either a complete ****ing moron or your disgustingly selfish. Those are your options. If you voted for Trump you ****ed up, and seriously hurt your country. You need to be embarrassed, and you owe your country, and your children an apology for your stupid mistake.

The United States of America is no longer the Leader of the Free World and that is entirely the fault of Trump supporters. I'm sorry that you're a special snowflake that can't handle criticism, but that is the Truth whether you like it or not.

Lord Tammerlain said:

What it could do it encourage another business's to start up or expand in operations as the increase after-tax profits could encourage more companies to operate as to take a slice of the increased profits. Higher profits in a dynamic economy would generally cause the new businesses to open up to get some of those profits. The increased business activity would require more labor, increasing the competition for workers, leading to higher wages and compensation. That said for the above to occur would take longer than just 6-9 months to start. More likely 1-2 years at the earliest. Companies would want to see proof of higher profits, in sectors they are interested in, before taking the jump to invest

Click to expand...

Essentially what you're saying is that there are a whole bunch of potential business owners that are thinking about starting up a business, or current business owners that are thinking about expanding, but they're worried that their business model is too risky and won't work. With limited funds available to them they were more likely to play it safe, but with some extra money laying around they might say **** it and give it a shot.

This is economic bubbles come from. You have a whole bunch of rich assholes with a ton of money burning a hole in their pocket. Since the money is from Tax cuts they feel like they're playing with house money, and decide to throw it at something a ton of risk, but also a ton of reward. Eventually though with a lot of wealthy people doing the same thing all at once a whole bunch of those bad investments fail at the same time, and all of a sudden our economy is in ruin again.

That's what makes supply-side thinking so dangerous. What little new business it has the potential to create is often business that nobody really needs or even wants. Those investments tend to fail at a much higher rate, and when too many fail at the same time it causes a collapse.

Floridafan said:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) voted in favor of the Republican Party’s massive tax cut late last year — but now he says that there’s little evidence that handing out big breaks to corporations has significantly trickled down to American workers.

Talking with The Economist, Rubio criticizes his party for believing that large corporate tax cuts will inevitably produce windfalls for workers in the United States — and he says that so far, we haven’t seen very many corporations using their additional money to invest in their employees.

“There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers,” Rubio tells the publication. “In fact they bought back shares, a few gave out bonuses; there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.”

Rubio also hinted that neither the GOP’s tax cut plan nor Trump’s protectionism will do much to help workers who are seeing more and more jobs disappear thanks to automation and technology.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/ru...-evidence-moneys-poured-back-american-worker/

Click to expand...

It's no secret that I supported Rubio in the 2016 primaries, and I'm still a very big fan. I wish he had not voted in favor of the tax bill, as I fear it will have a bad impact on not only the GOP's future, but his as well. I appreciate his honesty here.

biglawnmower said:

yea thats gonna get your side a win. calling an entire group of people stupid. obama invaded countless countries, lied constantly, drone civilians, and i dont think all his supporters are stupid.

just shows your lack of maturity.

get over it. find someone to run in 2024 that will actually win

Click to expand...

Obama invaded "countless" countries? Oh surely you can count. Or you can name all the countries that Obama invaded and we will count them for you.

MrWonka said:

Essentially what you're saying is that there are a whole bunch of potential business owners that are thinking about starting up a business, or current business owners that are thinking about expanding, but they're worried that their business model is too risky and won't work. With limited funds available to them they were more likely to play it safe, but with some extra money laying around they might say **** it and give it a shot.

This is economic bubbles come from. You have a whole bunch of rich assholes with a ton of money burning a hole in their pocket. Since the money is from Tax cuts they feel like they're playing with house money, and decide to throw it at something a ton of risk, but also a ton of reward. Eventually though with a lot of wealthy people doing the same thing all at once a whole bunch of those bad investments fail at the same time, and all of a sudden our economy is in ruin again.

That's what makes supply-side thinking so dangerous. What little new business it has the potential to create is often business that nobody really needs or even wants. Those investments tend to fail at a much higher rate, and when too many fail at the same time it causes a collapse.

Click to expand...

Middle out economics should be the preferred way to grow the economy and more and more economist are switching over to it.
Just an off topic note, supply side economics works better with a larger government providing government investments which puts the republicans at odds with their small government stance. Also thou demand side economics works better with a smaller government which puts democrats at odds with themselves.

jdog21 said:

supply side economics works better with a larger government

Click to expand...

Completely false.

jdog21 said:

providing government investments which put the Republicans at odds with their small government stance.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand what supply side is. Government investments are demand side.

jdog21 said:

Also, thou demand-side economics works better with a smaller government which puts Democrats at odds with themselves.

Click to expand...

Completely false. Demand-side works horribly on smaller scales because it makes it way to easy for the wealthy taxpayers who are needed to fund it to move to the next town, country, or state over to avoid them.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you fully understand the difference between supply side and demand side.

MrWonka said:

Completely false.


I'm not sure you understand what supply side is. Government investments are demand side.



Completely false. Demand-side works horribly on smaller scales because it makes it way to easy for the wealthy taxpayers who are needed to fund it to move to the next town, country, or state over to avoid them.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure you fully understand the difference between supply side and demand side.

Click to expand...

You misunderstood the concept let me clarify.

Supply side economics meaning by lowering taxes and decreasing regulation a more free and open market economy. Works better when you have a larger federal government, where more power to have oversight and quickly working agencies can handle the required paperwork. Appling supply side economics and still holding a federalist central government that's low on staffing and funds creates a back log in labor processes that you hoped to speed up when you removed regulations. Also with smaller government you lack the ability to proper over see the economic process, and in turn are unable to properly foretell when businesses are running wild to reigned them in. Also this can be coupled with government investments which yes are demand side in the since they are funded by taxes, but when applied during supply side booms and lowering unemployment, the government can take up bigger projects that can innovate and change our society while forcing the private sector to scramble for employees leading to wage increases.

Demand side policies such as raising minimum wages, big government spending in bailouts and subsidies, and plethora of regulations. Works better when government agencies are kept smaller and reduced in scope and size. This helps offset the greater spending while reducing the burdens of supply side effects of monetary value. Both economic policies have value at different points in time. But the libertarianism and socialism government positions contradict their economic policies which restricts their attended effects.

jdog21 said:

You misunderstood the concept let me clarify.

Supply-side economics meaning by lowering taxes and decreasing regulation a more free and open market economy. Works better when you have a larger federal government,

Click to expand...

No, I got it. You're wrong. Lowering taxes and decreasing regulation works better on a small scale like a size of a town or a city because it makes it easy to steal business from the next town over. If you have lower taxes than the next city over, most businesses will start up in your city and their workers can commute from the other one if they like.

jdog21 said:

where more power to have oversight and quickly working agencies can handle the required paperwork.

Click to expand...

Oversight is harder with bigger government. Paperwork takes longer.

You can't have more power to have oversight when you're decreasing regulations.

jdog21 said:

Demand side policies such as big government spending in bailouts

Click to expand...

Bailouts are supply side.

jdog21 said:

and subsidies,

Click to expand...

Subsidies are only demand side when they are given to the poor.

jdog21 said:

and a plethora of regulations.

Click to expand...

Regulations aren't really supply side or demand side, although I guess they're slightly more demand side.

MrWonka said:

No, I got it. You're wrong. Lowering taxes and decreasing regulation works better on a small scale like a size of a town or a city because it makes it easy to steal business from the next town over. If you have lower taxes than the next city over, most businesses will start up in your city and their workers can commute from the other one if they like.


Oversight is harder with bigger government. Paperwork takes longer.

You can't have more power to have oversight when you're decreasing regulations.



Bailouts are supply side.


Subsidies are only demand side when they are given to the poor.


Regulations aren't really supply side or demand side, although I guess they're slightly more demand side.

Click to expand...

Didn't seem to work for Kansas.

Rubio had so much potential.

He actually cares about people. He is smart enough to see layers of ramifications and to see how the party line is at odds with things that are intelligent, responsible, ethical, compassionate, etc.

But he's so darn wobbly. He knows the GOP party line is full of bull, and the party leadership is full of liars who don't give a crap about the people that he tries to convince himself he is serving, but he's a faithful party soldier. Shows glimmers of "profile in courage" moments, but then wobbles back into line like a good little boy.

He needed a more rational party to be part of -- like the GOP from 30 years or 50 years ago. One where he could get a handful more people who were willing to stand up with him to say "hey, this doesn't make sense, let's try it again." He doesn't have what it takes to make a firm stand without back-up, and on the important, rational, responsible issues, he just doesn't get back-up from his party.


There are others in the same boat, Collins, McCain, Flake, Corker, Murkowski ... actually the numbers start adding up if they could all make a stand at once ... but they let themselves get picked off ... they make a flicker of effort toward what they claim to believe in but then say "the party leadership have promised me this concession" and they tell themselves and us that it was the best they could do and it's enough.



And then we have more of these "oh gosh, the party leadership lied again" moments.

tres borrachos said:

It's no secret that I supported Rubio in the 2016 primaries, and I'm still a very big fan. I wish he had not voted in favor of the tax bill, as I fear it will have a bad impact on not only the GOP's future, but his as well. I appreciate his honesty here.

Click to expand...

If Rubio had managed to secure the nomination without flip-flopping too much, he had a very good chance of getting my vote.

He just doesn't seem to have the self-confidence to stick to a position -- or the charisma to pull enough other people in with him to give him the cover he needs? I don't know exactly ... but something's missing. He has a good product but doesn't make the sale, and then backs off. The opposite of Trump whose product is crap but he knows how to get people to line up at the porta-potty to buy it, and when people point out it's feces he just pushes the sale harder.

Amelia said:

If Rubio had managed to secure the nomination without flip-flopping too much, he had a very good chance of getting my vote.

He just doesn't seem to have the self-confidence to stick to a position -- or the charisma to pull enough other people in with him to give him the cover he needs? I don't know exactly ... but something's missing. He has a good product but doesn't make the sale, and then backs off. The opposite of Trump whose product is crap but he knows how to get people to line up at the porta-potty to buy it, and when people point out it's feces he just pushes the sale harder.

Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of charismatic politicians anymore, after Trump and Obama. I'm all for a good old fashioned, well thinking leader. The hell with personality. It doesn't work in that job.

tres borrachos said:

It's no secret that I supported Rubio in the 2016 primaries, and I'm still a very big fan. I wish he had not voted in favor of the tax bill, as I fear it will have a bad impact on not only the GOP's future, but his as well. I appreciate his honesty here.

Click to expand...

Where is the honesty in voting for a tax policy that you (now pretend to?) oppose? I also voted for Rubio in the 2016 primary but, like many politicians he is for all three sides of a given issue yet, under certain circumstances, somewhat against it. The republicants were mostly (if not all) in favor of repealing PPACA right up until they were given the power to do so - at that point the reality of removing billions in "free" federal money flowing into their state/district prevented (enough of) them from taking a shot at the latest golden goose of federal income redistribution programs.