posted by Heretic

... bleeting "fake news" every time one of those reports came out, but during Trump's tenure, how many stories were made out of leaks saying that when it came to briefings, meetings and the like, he had the attention span of a small child and regularly needed basic things explained to him?

I'd would guess most, if not all, those stories WERE "fake news".

There are other examples of named sources disputing those claims on record.  But the most glaring was James Comey, under oath, describing Trump as "above average intelligence".  That just doesn't square with all the unverifiable, unnamed sources of the reports you describe.

posted by gut

I'll just say it again, all the POTUS does is give speeches and rubber stamp stuff.  Nothing about what Biden is doing and how he's doing it is different from his predecessors.  Biden just isn't maintaining the fascade, and so everyone is finally seeing behind the curtain.

Because he should be in a home. He barely speaks and doesn’t answer questions when he does. If Trump was President he’d be getting murdered over drone strikes and the border, but instead we get the made up “mean men on horsies” (proven to be fake). Besides the ultra progressives, does anyone who voted for him actually think he’s doing even a mediocre job?

Oh

Gen. McKenzie: "I recommended we keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan." Also says he predicted withdrawing them would cause the Afghan army to collapse and the Taliban taking over. Gen. Milley agrees.

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) September 28, 2021

This administration thinks it's unfair and absurd to suggest that companies will raise prices to offset tax increases.

Jen Psaki: It’s “unfair and absurd” that companies would increase costs for consumers in response to us taxing them more. 😳 pic.twitter.com/rHilrYdj4j

— Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) September 28, 2021

There are literally hundreds of years of concrete evidence that disprove her claim.  The consumer ALWAYS pays.  Always.

I don't think it is economic illiteracy; it is just plain lying. 

posted by ernest_t_bass

There are literally hundreds of years of concrete evidence that disprove her claim.  The consumer ALWAYS pays.  Always.

I always say tax cuts may not trickle down, but tax increases definitely do.

posted by ernest_t_bass

There are literally hundreds of years of concrete evidence that disprove her claim.  The consumer ALWAYS pays.  Always.

This is unfair and absurd.

If a $100 million/yr revenue company typically makes 15% profit (typical) thats $15 million/yr profit.

If they currently take 20% taxes on that profit thats $3 million which is already part of the $85 million in costs the company bean counters figures into their "costs".

If the taxes go to say 40% and therefore $6 million, that extra $3 million will directly go to their "costs" and therefore they will still make $15 million per year and the customer's pricing just went up by at least 3% to cover the $3 million in extra taxes.

On top of that, the company is then only making 14.5% profit and the board will want it to be back at 15% so they will jack the price up antoher 1/2% just for pure profit margin to get back to 15% profit that they have to get to their stockholders/board.

So the consumer is getting a price increase of 3.5% (roughly) on everything they buy to get the government an extra 10-20% from an average company. 

That means everything you spend $$ on is going up by that much immediately, as if inflation hasn't been bad enough this year already.

Not to mention lost sales to companies outside the US they will need to make up for. Which lost sales = the need for less employees. 

posted by justincredible

This is unfair and absurd.

Simple rule of thumb:

a. If tax laws benefit the corporations under the premise of "trickle-down" economics, it will benefit the corporations, but with little to no trickling down.

b. If tax laws go after the corporations because of (a) under the premise of "paying fair share", those losses due to additional taxes will definitely be trickling down to anyone and everyone using whatever service that corporation provides.

Meanwhile all of us who aren't, say, corporate execs or major shareholders are just sitting here wondering if there is any actual scenario where we might actually kinda sorta benefit from anything anyone does, or if every single action actually does lead to a reaction that inevitably fucks us over a bit more than we were previously.

posted by Heretic

Simple rule of thumb:

a. If tax laws benefit the corporations under the premise of "trickle-down" economics, it will benefit the corporations, but with little to no trickling down.

b. If tax laws go after the corporations because of (a) under the premise of "paying fair share", those losses due to additional taxes will definitely be trickling down to anyone and everyone using whatever service that corporation provides.

Meanwhile all of us who aren't, say, corporate execs or major shareholders are just sitting here wondering if there is any actual scenario where we might actually kinda sorta benefit from anything anyone does, or if every single action actually does lead to a reaction that inevitably fucks us over a bit more than we were previously.

Government taxing is not the way to benefit our society.  Just the same, entrusting our future to corporate executives who “just want to be left alone to make things” like some sort of benevolent force is ignorance.  The swamp in the boardroom can be as bad as that in the government buildings.  

I’m pretty sure that a great many in top government roles and a great many executives of large corporations fit the profile of psychopath.  I believe the psychopathic personality is in large part what runs our world.  

posted by Heretic

Simple rule of thumb:

a. If tax laws benefit the corporations under the premise of "trickle-down" economics, it will benefit the corporations, but with little to no trickling down.

b. If tax laws go after the corporations because of (a) under the premise of "paying fair share", those losses due to additional taxes will definitely be trickling down to anyone and everyone using whatever service that corporation provides.

Meanwhile all of us who aren't, say, corporate execs or major shareholders are just sitting here wondering if there is any actual scenario where we might actually kinda sorta benefit from anything anyone does, or if every single action actually does lead to a reaction that inevitably fucks us over a bit more than we were previously.

It’s all about what fucks is the least lol

posted by Heretic

Simple rule of thumb:

a. If tax laws benefit the corporations under the premise of "trickle-down" economics, it will benefit the corporations, but with little to no trickling down.

b. If tax laws go after the corporations because of (a) under the premise of "paying fair share", those losses due to additional taxes will definitely be trickling down to anyone and everyone using whatever service that corporation provides.

Meanwhile all of us who aren't, say, corporate execs or major shareholders are just sitting here wondering if there is any actual scenario where we might actually kinda sorta benefit from anything anyone does, or if every single action actually does lead to a reaction that inevitably fucks us over a bit more than we were previously.

Not actually accurate.  The Trump tax cuts caused thousands of companies to grant significant bonuses to all employees, as well as enabled them to pay retention bonuses during the pandemic.   Additionally, everyone who pays income taxes, paid less income taxes. 

How soon we forget. 

posted by QuakerOats

Not actually accurate.  The Trump tax cuts caused thousands of companies to grant significant bonuses to all employees, as well as enabled them to pay retention bonuses during the pandemic.   Additionally, everyone who pays income taxes, paid less income taxes. 

How soon we forget. 

"thousands"   "significant"   Link?

posted by geeblock

"thousands"   "significant"   Link?

It was a daily occurrence for months ...........in addition to major investments for continued growth.  Sorry you missed it. 

posted by QuakerOats

It was a daily occurrence for months ...........in addition to major investments for continued growth.  Sorry you missed it. 

Major investments went on before and after Trump.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Major investments went on before and after Trump.  

Business confidence soared under Trump; almost all employees got substantial raises and bonuses; investments were massive.  

Take care. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Government taxing is not the way to benefit our society.  Just the same, entrusting our future to corporate executives who “just want to be left alone to make things” like some sort of benevolent force is ignorance.  The swamp in the boardroom can be as bad as that in the government buildings.  

I’m pretty sure that a great many in top government roles and a great many executives of large corporations fit the profile of psychopath.  I believe the psychopathic personality is in large part what runs our world.  

Just saw this tweet and thought it was relevant to your post.

It is disturbing and dangerous...

...that so few can see that the world is run by psychopaths.

— C.J. Bowden (@CJBowden1) September 29, 2021

Ummm…

NEW - CDC implements study on "gun violence" after labeling it a "public health threat," aiming to "craft swift interventions, as they have done to contain the coronavirus pandemic and other national health emergencies." (NPR)

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 29, 2021

posted by justincredible

Just saw this tweet and thought it was relevant to your post.

It is disturbing and dangerous...

...that so few can see that the world is run by psychopaths.

— C.J. Bowden (@CJBowden1) September 29, 2021

I think he’s right  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I think he’s right  

100%

posted by iclfan2

Ummm…

NEW - CDC implements study on "gun violence" after labeling it a "public health threat," aiming to "craft swift interventions, as they have done to contain the coronavirus pandemic and other national health emergencies." (NPR)

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 29, 2021

Which is why the administrative state is more dangerous than the legislative branch. 

Let's go, Brandon!

Using federal law enforcement to go after parents that disagree with your political party. Seems awfully authoritarian… Same FBI that admitted they don’t track leftist (Antifa and BLM) violence.

BREAKING: Attorney General Merrick Garland has instructed the FBI to mobilize against parents who oppose critical race theory in public schools, citing "threats."

The letter follows the National School Board Association's request to classify protests as "domestic terrorism." pic.twitter.com/NhPU03YOYq

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) October 4, 2021