NBC: Tax cuts don't spur economic growth

[White_Unifier]

Meanwhile Russia, with 1/8th the GDP, is rolling over us.

Shootin' wars ain't the only way to dominate.

And look at little Singapore. A country should rely on trade and soft power as much as military clout to protect itself. it's kind of hard for an enemy to bomb you when much of its own population is living and thriving within your borders. I can't imagine the family back home would be thrilled to learn than your compatriots are being bombed abroad.

Given how so many countries are so debt-ridden now, why not reduce redundancies and create an international police force of a maximum of a hundred thousand well-trained and equipped men. Maybe structure it as a kind of marine corps with access to small-scale nuclear weapons too.

If any country wants to supplement it with its own national force, by all means. But many countries in the world (and especially much poorer ones) would probably be happy to pay into such a force as a way to save money for their people.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

And look at little Singapore. A country should rely on trade and soft power as much as military clout to protect itself. it's kind of hard for an enemy to bomb you when much of its own population is living and thriving within your borders. I can't imagine the family back home would be thrilled to learn than your compatriots are being bombed abroad.

Given how so many countries are so debt-ridden now, why not reduce redundancies and create an international police force of a maximum of a hundred thousand well-trained and equipped men. Maybe structure it as a kind of marine corps with access to small-scale nuclear weapons too.

If any country wants to supplement it with its own national force, by all means. But many countries in the world (and especially much poorer ones) would probably be happy to pay into such a force as a way to save money for their people.

Nice idea, and one I used to believe in. Now I realize it'd be useless, mired in politics, and either never deployed (hence worthless) or tainted by the "when, where, and why" of deployment.

 

[White_Unifier]

Nice idea, and one I used to believe in. Now I realize it'd be useless, mired in politics, and either never deployed (hence worthless) or tainted by the "when, where, and why" of deployment.

Of course its rules would need to be clearly defined. For example, it might be set to automatically attack any government that violates international law but would not deploy for any other purpose. For that, a state would need to establish its own force.

 

[Cannuck]

Not all of the money goes to serving us. Much of it goes to servicing the debt. This means that when lowering taxes, we need to consider not only the cost of services but the cost of interest on debt too.

You can't cut debt repayment. You can cut services. You just have to be willing to put up with the whining from the pigs at the trough.

 

[mentalfloss]

Funny, the US just had tax cuts, record tax collections, record employment ( especially amoungst some minorities) and GDP appears to be on the RISE

So, this is just another fake nudes thread.. no naked truth exposed here.

My apologies for bursting your fragile conbot bubble but GDP growth has been lower under Trump than Obama.

And he wasn't handed a recession by the previous, incompetent, Republican government.

 

[mentalfloss]

Why the Trump tax cuts are flopping

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-cuts-flopping-181953692.html

 

[taxslave]

Republicans don't understand: Tax cuts don't spur economic growth

In decades past, there was bipartisan support for policies that laid the basis for a long period of broadly shared prosperity. Unfortunately, this consensus seems to have been replaced by the narrow-minded greed of the very rich and, insofar as they can continue to get their way, the story is not likely to end well.

Take, for instance, the Republican tax plan, which passed in December and contained a potpourri of tax breaks for special interest groups and high-income households. Its centerpiece was a large cut in the corporate income tax; the plan lowered the rate from 35 percent to 21 percent.

The Trump administration claimed that this cut, coupled with various sweeteners like full expensing of new investments, would set off an investment boom. According to the administration, U.S. companies would bring back factories from overseas and foreign companies would rush to take advantage of low U.S. taxes, and this surge in investment would lead to more jobs and higher productivity growth, eventually translating into higher wages for workers.

It’s a nice story, but there is little reason to believe that things will pan out as advertised.

Republicans don't understand: Tax cuts don't spur economic growth

Some leftard makes a stupid comment, another stupid leftard quotes him so it becomes fact. In the real world of course we know this is not true. Lower taxes means more descretionary spending in the hands of consumers which creates more employment and more taxpayers. The key of course is to cut government spending and force governments to live within their revenues.

 

[Cannuck]

Some leftard makes a stupid comment, another stupid leftard quotes him so it becomes fact.

You mean like, Trump's gonna build a wall and Mexico will pay for it?

 

[mentalfloss]

Or how tax cuts would balance the budget but instead, landed us in a recession under Harper?

 

[pgs]

Or how tax cuts would balance the budget but instead, landed us in a recession under Harper?

Yes we know budgets balance themselves , our illustrious PM told us so .

 

[petros]

Or how tax cuts would balance the budget but instead, landed us in a recession under Harper?

And a tax credit is a subsidy for oil but an incentive for green energy?

Do you two Dippers think they'd pay in cash?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Mexicos-Oil-Dilemma-Continues-In-2018.html

 

[pgs]

And a tax credit is a subsidy for oil but an incentive for green energy?

Do you two Dippers think they'd pay in cash?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Mexicos-Oil-Dilemma-Continues-In-2018.html

What is the difference between a levy and a tax if both go into general revenue ?

 

[Danbones]

Or how tax cuts would balance the budget but instead, landed us in a recession under Harper?

Harper did have a difficult time paying off the previous liebarrel debts...(that are supposed to balance themselves)...which they do...like with greece, when you are at rock bottom and lose everything.

 

[petros]

What is the difference between a levy and a tax if both go into general revenue ?

Love

 

[Bar Sinister]

Harper did have a difficult time paying off the previous liebarrel debts...(that are supposed to balance themselves)...which they do...like with greece, when you are at rock bottom and lose everything.

That is revisionist history. Under Chretien and Martin the national debt as a percentage of GDP dropped from over 70% to about 40%. Harper pushed it up to 85%.

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

 

[Hoid]

The squandering of the Liberals debt pay down was a depressing and discouraging chapter in the National Life.

It is almost enough to make one believe in conspiracy theories.

The Harper government was a disaster.

 

[Vbeacher]

Some leftard makes a stupid comment, another stupid leftard quotes him so it becomes fact. In the real world of course we know this is not true. Lower taxes means more descretionary spending in the hands of consumers which creates more employment and more taxpayers. The key of course is to cut government spending and force governments to live within their revenues.

It's not that simplistic. Tax cuts can help spur discretionary spending, but not THESE tax cuts. These tax cuts will primarily benefit those who already have plenty of discretionary income. So no, they're unlikely to do much, if anything, to spur the economy. But that wasn't their intent. The tax cuts were payback to the Republicans' donor base. Everyone pretty much acknowledges that.

The squandering of the Liberals debt pay down was a depressing and discouraging chapter in the National Life.

Oh? What was it squandered on?

The Harper government was a disaster.

So you're saying if the Liberals had been in charge there wouldn't have been deficits? Yet the Liberals demanded a huge economic incentive program, and tried to take over the government due to the lack. And throughout that massive spending their only complaint was "MORE! MORE! YOU MUST SPEND MORE!"

So you're belief that somehow or other, oh if only your beloved Liberals had been in charge, we'd have not gone into deficit spending is pure fantasy.

That is revisionist history. Under Chretien and Martin the national debt as a percentage of GDP dropped from over 70% to about 40%. Harper pushed it up to 85%.

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

I know you probably don't understand your own cite, but when it refers to Canada's public debt it means ALL government debt from all levels. It's not something that simply represents the feds. The provinces and cities are in there too. And all the provinces were running big deficits through that period.

That is revisionist history. Under Chretien and Martin the national debt as a percentage of GDP dropped from over 70% to about 40%. Harper pushed it up to 85%.

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

I know you probably don't understand your own cite, but when it refers to Canada's public debt it means ALL government debt from all levels. It's not something that simply represents the feds. The provinces and cities are in there too. And all the provinces were running big deficits through that period.

 

[Hoid]

Harper added $150 billion to the National Debt.

Spin it any way you want to.

 

[mentalfloss]

And tied it all up with a cute recession bow!


Conbots hate facts.

 

[White_Unifier]

And tied it all up with a cute recession bow!


Conbots hate facts.

Conbot, Trumptard, Liebarrel. Come on guys, please be a little more original!