The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Not sure Yahoo is where I would go for investment and business information?
Other CEOs have said the same thing...
Edit.... link is from Bloomberg.... better?
Trump's Tax Promises Undercut by CEO Plans to Help Investors
jamom123
Expert Expediter
From my personal experience it seems to be helping the worker very well. Can't say I know too many CEO'S personally, Obama sure did like to bash wall street and the big investors but coincidentally he got payed 100's of thousands to perform speeches for them after he was president. Odd if you ask me.
Sent from my SM-P605V using EO Forums mobile app
Sent from my SM-P605V using EO Forums mobile app
Bloomberg is better for sure, but the majority clearly say it is a plus. The ones that say it goes to shareholders are still the middle class in many cases via investment or retirement. That's a win for most unless they are unemployed maybe. I see too many winning right now.
This is what you are describing.... Reality.
But The Left really and truly, genuinely and fervently, believe that shareholders (stockholders) are rich old white guys.
You can't just up and spring that on someone. It's like telling someone their whole life is a lie, that "Hey, guess what? You're living in the Matrix!"
Truth has no business on the Internet.
It was simply an article pulled from Yahoo. Does that discredit what the CEO from ADP had to say?
And thanks for the personal concern on where I get investment & business info.
My opinion is the tax cuts disproportionately affect the rich.
Can Trump claim credit for bonus rush?
Left, right, center, middle ..... blue, red, yellow, green ..... lump people wherever .... wherever it's convenient ....
Let me know when wages increase ....
The tax cut provides candidates on both sides of the aisle with useful rhetoric.
A Republican can talk about the supposed bigger paychecks and deductions for the middle class (though I see no workers dancing in the streets today because their paychecks have changed by a significant amount).
A Democrat can talk about how the middle class received pennies compared to the largess gifted to the rich. Pitting the rich against the little guy is a highly-effective strategy that inspires the emotions of jealously and revenge. Studies show that people will vote to take away a benefit form a person they see as undeserving, even if that vote is harmful to one's self. Clever rhetoric can tap into that impulse and motivate people to vote that way on election day.
Trump rallied millions with a similar us-against-them pitch; America against the world, undeserving immigrants vs American workers. A well-spoken candidate can do the very same thing with an undeserving-rich vs. the little guy pitch. Any campaign involving the tax cut will have less to do with the facts and more to do with the emotions the candidates can evoke.
It's also important to note that the majority of people feel financially stressed no matter how much extra money a tax cut provides. Before their tax refunds come, most will tell you they don't have enough money. When the refunds come, they spend it or use it to pay down debt (only to run up more debt later). That will hold true if the refund is $500 or $5000.
If more Americans thought about managing their money and building their wealth instead of living paycheck to paycheck and permanently in debt, the people we elect to office would be more responsible in managing government funds too.
On a side note, when Jesse Ventura was Minnesota Governor, the state had a large surplus on hand. Ventura's leadership inspired the public and prompted the legislature not to spend the money but to return it to the taxpayers. People were delighted to receive checks in the mail when the surplus was given back to the people.
That won't happen at the federal level today because the people we elected have spent us into obscene debt levels. There is no surplus. The national debt does not affect voters on the street because it is an abstract concept. As a politician, Trump is no different from many who have come before to break the bank with long-term debt to provide a short-term benefit to people today. Republicans argue that the tax cut-improved economy will pay for the tax cut. I say that's a crock. It's never been true before. Why should it be true now?
Interest rates are already moving up as bonds are issued to cover the Trump debt. They'll likely move up further and for quite a while. (If you're carrying a variable-rate loan on your truck, refinance now to lock in a fixed rate.)
What money the tax cut provided, interest rates will take away. High interest rates are bad for anyone with a credit card balance and bad for the economy.
A Republican can talk about the supposed bigger paychecks and deductions for the middle class (though I see no workers dancing in the streets today because their paychecks have changed by a significant amount).
A Democrat can talk about how the middle class received pennies compared to the largess gifted to the rich. Pitting the rich against the little guy is a highly-effective strategy that inspires the emotions of jealously and revenge. Studies show that people will vote to take away a benefit form a person they see as undeserving, even if that vote is harmful to one's self. Clever rhetoric can tap into that impulse and motivate people to vote that way on election day.
Trump rallied millions with a similar us-against-them pitch; America against the world, undeserving immigrants vs American workers. A well-spoken candidate can do the very same thing with an undeserving-rich vs. the little guy pitch. Any campaign involving the tax cut will have less to do with the facts and more to do with the emotions the candidates can evoke.
It's also important to note that the majority of people feel financially stressed no matter how much extra money a tax cut provides. Before their tax refunds come, most will tell you they don't have enough money. When the refunds come, they spend it or use it to pay down debt (only to run up more debt later). That will hold true if the refund is $500 or $5000.
If more Americans thought about managing their money and building their wealth instead of living paycheck to paycheck and permanently in debt, the people we elect to office would be more responsible in managing government funds too.
On a side note, when Jesse Ventura was Minnesota Governor, the state had a large surplus on hand. Ventura's leadership inspired the public and prompted the legislature not to spend the money but to return it to the taxpayers. People were delighted to receive checks in the mail when the surplus was given back to the people.
That won't happen at the federal level today because the people we elected have spent us into obscene debt levels. There is no surplus. The national debt does not affect voters on the street because it is an abstract concept. As a politician, Trump is no different from many who have come before to break the bank with long-term debt to provide a short-term benefit to people today. Republicans argue that the tax cut-improved economy will pay for the tax cut. I say that's a crock. It's never been true before. Why should it be true now?
Interest rates are already moving up as bonds are issued to cover the Trump debt. They'll likely move up further and for quite a while. (If you're carrying a variable-rate loan on your truck, refinance now to lock in a fixed rate.)
What money the tax cut provided, interest rates will take away. High interest rates are bad for anyone with a credit card balance and bad for the economy.
Last edited:
Agreed ....
Leaving politics aside, do the cuts make fiscal sense?
I personally was never looking for a tax cut nor did I think it would help our nation as a whole.
Does the deficit matter anymore? Let's add $1T in debt & hopefully we'll make it up somewhere.
Another spendthrift in office....
One thing people need to understand is federal debt is not like personal debt. You can't look at your credit card statement and try and apply the same thoughts and principles to federal debt (of the US or any other country). They are completely different animals. Personal debt generally needs to be paid off, and it's why people go on about the federal debt with, "Our children will have to pay this debt!" But that's silly. We didn't have to pay it off, our parents and grandparents didn't have to pay it off, why would you think paying it off will finally fall to the future children? The government certainly needs to spend less and be a lot less wasteful but it's not the same zero sum game that personal debt is.
The other thing people need to understand is, speaking of animals, there has always been poor people, and there always will be. Class warfare is the stock-in-trade of the liberal, because jealousy, envy and revenge are such primal emotions. They are emotions we are born with as children and are used to aid in survival. It comes from the animal kingdom before people were people. And the notion of rich and poor exists today in most animal species and groups.
There is no way to get rid of poor. The best you can hope for is to punish the rich enough for being rich to where they become poor, too. Throwing money at the poor only results in more poor. We know that to be a stone cold certainty. The War on Poverty has resulted in artificially expanding poverty well beyond the naturally occurring levels.
The other thing people need to understand is, speaking of animals, there has always been poor people, and there always will be. Class warfare is the stock-in-trade of the liberal, because jealousy, envy and revenge are such primal emotions. They are emotions we are born with as children and are used to aid in survival. It comes from the animal kingdom before people were people. And the notion of rich and poor exists today in most animal species and groups.
There is no way to get rid of poor. The best you can hope for is to punish the rich enough for being rich to where they become poor, too. Throwing money at the poor only results in more poor. We know that to be a stone cold certainty. The War on Poverty has resulted in artificially expanding poverty well beyond the naturally occurring levels.
This is what you are describing.... Reality.
But The Left really and truly, genuinely and fervently, believe that shareholders (stockholders) are rich old white guys.
You can't just up and spring that on someone. It's like telling someone their whole life is a lie, that "Hey, guess what? You're living in the Matrix!"
Truth has no business on the Internet.
Exactly. Just following the money. lol. I put the necessary alternative that some find excruciating to look at.
I like the fact that I'm not paying as much in Federal taxes and get to keep more of what I earn. If some say it's just crumbs...so be it. I'll take the crumbs and fill my tank with gas, or pay an extra bill, or spend it on groceries. The only thing wrong with the tax cut is It should have been done across the board.
What a wonderful notion! The federal debt does not need to be paid off. Now free of the idea that the federal debt must be paid off, why not borrow with abandon?
The government can spend not $1 trillion on infrastructure but $5 trillion! While we're at it, lets get Congress on board to increase this debt that does not need to be paid off. With that debt we can build state-of-the-art veterans hospitals, build the wall, build new schools in every school district, quadruple funding for finding the cure for cancer, pay every school teacher and truck driver $250,000 a year, provide $1 million dollars to each citizen and illegal immigrant so he or she can pay for heroic measure to extend one's life by three days, put solar panels on every rooftop, and more! And we can cut taxes too.
Heck, now that we understand the federal debt does not need to be paid off, let's forget about tax cuts. Let's borrow enough to eliminate taxes altogether. Since the only result is a debt that does not need to be paid is more debt that does not need to be paid, let's do this!
Right?
Last edited:
So, even though federal debt is not the same as personal debt and is not the same zero sum game as personal debt, you nevertheless think it is. Sooo, I guess my ridiculous answer to your ridiculous straw man question is the same wording you used.
Right.
Right.
From what I've seen with many from the Fake News media and with their close allies from the Left( including Deep State characters) the onous is on the accused to prove that the allegation is intrue. No responsibility and accountability for one making the charge to provide actual evidence.
The post didn't refer to whether there is or isn't collusion.
A whole bunch of playing footsie but I don't think he did the deed, this time.
I was referring to the fact that he's starting to sound like a stuttering idiot. He doesn't need to mention it 16 times within a 3 minute span ... he looks like a moron.
A whole bunch of playing footsie but I don't think he did the deed, this time.
I was referring to the fact that he's starting to sound like a stuttering idiot. He doesn't need to mention it 16 times within a 3 minute span ... he looks like a moron.