Trump to Intelligence Community: "You're Idiots"
- Thread starter Ace of Knights
- Start date
The 1100 people at Carrier that still have jobs seem pretty happy. Obama didn't care about them.
So now you're in favor of bailouts? Makes sense, Bush was. Hundreds at Carrier are still losing their jobs by the way.
Oh, there absolutely were chemical weapons in Iraq and Saddam absolutely was pursuing yellowcake. He was also actively blocking inspections in violation of sanctions. We also announced well in advance that we were going in and, duh, he moved the weapons. I don't even have to have CBRN community inside knowledge to know all of this.
That wasn't my point. My point is that many of the same people who lambast the "cooked intel" that got us into Iraq as being an orchestrated lie from the Bush administration are now coming out and extolling the integrity and non-partisanship of the same intel agencies.
In exchange for downsizing its move south of the border, United Technologies would receive $7 million in tax credits from Indiana, to be paid in$700,000 installmentseach year for a decade. Carrier, meanwhile, agreed to invest $16 million in its Indiana operation. United Technologies still plans to send 700 factory jobs from Huntington, Ind., to Monterrey, Mexico.
If 800 jobs are retained due to $700k per year in credits, each job has to make up for that credit with at least $875 in taxes owed per year. All of these jobs need to pay at least $19k annually to break even (assuming standard deduction and single filing). I didn't see any published number about what the jobs would pay but it would almost assuredly be higher than $19k which is not far from minimum wage. This rough calculation does not even include payroll taxes.
Put simply, if I pay a company $700k per year to stay but by staying I receive >$700k in taxes. How is that a bailout?
You're right, it was more of a shakedown, or as Sarah Palin stated crony capitalism. A defense company just took money from Indiana taxpayers and is still sending jobs to Mexico.
Two facts: we live in a Republic, not a direct democracy, and Trump won 84% of all counties in the country.
But please, continue crying about how we should further marginalize people who don't live on the coast. It went so well for you guys this election.![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Once again, you don't understand...
He provided you with facts. Facts that are a direct contradiction to what you wrote, and what you believe is true. You believe made up shit with no factual evidence to support you. All of these recent stories about "Fake News" and believing bullshit are aimed directly at you. Stop believing shit that isn't true, moron.
Im curious as to what you think 85 said wasnt factual? Was it the part about us being a republic, not a democracy, or that trump won 84% of the counties in the country? Of course what MACH wrote were facts as well, but that doesnt take away from what 85 wrote.
I think youve been taking in too much "fake news" from your left wing blogs.
"I'm still convinced that there were WMD's either in development or developed in Iraq"
"the majority of this country outside of LA and NYC does not think like you. "
Your mixing multiple arguments to obfuscate the point. So let's break it down.
1. They took money from Indiana taxpayers to keep 800 jobs.
2. They sent jobs to Mexico.
These are mutually exclusive. In point 1, Indiana taxpayers provided funds to keep 800 jobs but will receive more in return through income taxes of those 800 jobs. In point 2, they sent other jobs to Mexico. Point 2 does not invalidate the positive of point 1.
There's a Fortune article that took a deeper look into the Carrier deal. The article states that the $700k annual subsidy will generate $9.8 million in government revenue. That's my point; the government gave up $700k to keep $9.8 million (in addition to not paying unemployment for those 800 people).
I do agree it's crony capitalism because it's a targeted tax break. But if the tax break is across the board, which is what I think Trump will do, then it's not crony capitalism and is just a shift in economic policy.
http://fortune.com/2016/12/13/trumps-carrier-deal/
THIS IS THE WATERCOOLER, OBFUSCATING IS WHAT WE DO!!.
I agree with what you've said, though I think lowering the corporate tax rate will be difficult. It's clearly to high, but would require changes in spending. DC doesn't like that. Trump doesn't like that.
This Election will never end, the American people are burnt out over a new controversy every week
How do you come to the conclusion that corporate taxes are too high when corporations at pulling in record profits and stocks are at record highs now?
The DJIA has gone up 10% since the election. That's not because of Obama, it's because of taxes and regulations dropping under Trump. We're going to see what real growth should look like.
Maybe because the socialist complacent nancies to the north of us have a much lower tax rate than we do? Maybe because corporate investment is at 20 year lows due to regulation and tax policy?
Maybe because stocks are only being pushed higher by the continued policy of ultra cheap money and the Fed artificially keeping interest rates absurdly low?
God damn, I would keel over if you EVER stop to read up on how business and investment actually works, and stop getting your talking points from the HuffPo "business" section
A combination of what Bob and 85 said. In addition, we shouldn't penalize companies for doing well, or individuals for that matter. That's another story however.
There are billions of dollars parked in foreign countries that US companies can't bring back due to getting dinged with a 35% tAx if they do.
It's very simple then: lower the corporation tax to 15% and lower the repatriation tax to 5% to initially bring that money back, assuming it's done in a time widow and it goes to investment objectives put forth.
It's very simple then: lower the corporation tax to 15% and lower the repatriation tax to 5% to initially bring that money back, assuming it's done in a time widow and it goes to investment objectives put forth.
It already happened the night of the election when every on Wall St jumped off the "Hillary plan" and bought into the "Trump" one.
So, the guy who hasn't served a day, has absolutely no power at all, and hasn't done a thing except tweet, is responsible for the current growth, and not the President for the last 8 years who has presided over steady growth since he inherited the worst depression since the 1930s?
...and you guys still wonder why I call you idiots?
The problem, is we have 35+ years of actual evidence to prove you wrong, and nothing to prove you right. This is another case of you believing something without any evidence to support you.
Corporate investment is at 20 year lows because of regulation and tax policy? Source? Supporting evidence? Shit, I'd even settle for a Breitbart article...
Our economy is in the best shape it has ever been in, and yes it is partially due to cheap money from the Fed.
The problem, is NONE OF THE MONEY IS TRICKLING DOWN like Republicans have been telling us for the last 40 years. We already cut corporate taxes and taxes for the rich, and we've been handing them free money for years, and they are reaping the benefits of record profits and record stock prices...
And your solution is to cut their taxes more, because they are only holding on to their record profits because of poor tax policies and regulations?
Bitch, please.
So, the guy who hasn't served a day, has absolutely no power at all, and hasn't done a thing except tweet, is responsible for the current growth, and not the President for the last 8 years who has presided over steady growth since he inherited the worst depression since the 1930s?
...and you guys still wonder why I call you idiots?
Yes. You're really giving Obama credit for the 10% growth since election day? The DJIA should be at 100,000 if Obama's policies created 10% growth month over month.
He's an absolute imbecile. Arguing over this stuff is like arguing with a petulant hipster child.
The jump is related to the optimism, but there is still a lot of concern about Trump actually implementing his stated plans. Some would be harmful to the economy. He's hiring some pretty successful business minds, who I hope will help keep him in line.
There's two components that set the market price. The first is fundamentals which are earnings growth and other quantifiable measures. The second is speculation and that is based on feeling. The FED discusses raising interest rates, the market drops; Trump wins the presidency, the market goes up. These are reactions from investors who are speculating on the future. Is Trump responsible for the post election run? Yes, but only because investors are reacting to what they feel will be a pro business president. If Trump doesn't enact pro business policies, the speculation will diminish and return back to normal levels of speculation.
So, the guy who hasn't served a day, has absolutely no power at all, and hasn't done a thing except tweet, is responsible for the current growth, and not the President for the last 8 years who has presided over steady growth since he inherited the worst depression since the 1930s?
...and you guys still wonder why I call you idiots?
The President has very little to do with the short/medium term movements of the stock market.
Since you have produced another steaming pile or rambling nonsense, i'll have to respond by bullet points:
- A 2 second Google search produced everything you'd need to know about companies hoarding cash and not investing. How's the frigging NYT for you? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/magazine/why-are-corporations-hoarding-trillions.html?_r=0
- US Companies are sitting on nearly $1.6 TRILLION in cash. Google alone has nearly $100B in the bank; Apple has nearly $110B. These are large examples, but every sized company is generally choosing to save and hoard cash than reinvest that into a new enterprise, new product, expanded operations, new technology, etc etc etc
- hy? Are they just being "good savers"? No. They're doing this because 1.) economic growth is anemic at 2% or less 2.) regulations to enter new market segments is prohibitively expensive and 3.) they very well may find it better to invest in foreign enterprises where the corporate tax rate is not a staggering 35% as it is here.
- Absolutely no fact on earth supports your idiotic claim that "the economy is in the best shape its ever been!". None. You are inventing facts out of pure fiction.
- Herere some facts: we are still running deficits in the range of $500B annually, something we had never even done in our history until 2009. GDP Growth is anemic - it averages 2% or less under Obama. Prior to the recession we were averaging right around 3% and in past years, coming out of economic downturns, we could easily expect 4-6% annual growth as we did in the 80's. We have record number of people who have completed exited the labor force.
- We cut taxes? Jesus....wrong again. There has been no major corporate tax reform in YEARS. We cut taxes for the rich? You must not read, ever, since we actually raised taxes in those evil rich people just 3 years ago. It was part of the bargain for the Republican's Budget Control Act, largely responsible for stabilizing deficits. Not to mention Obamacare contained no less than 6 surtaxes that apply ONLY to wealthy people. Again, you don't read, you just regurgitate HuffPo talking points.
- It's not surprising, but you can't tell the difference between a super wealthy individual, and a corporation. Of course you view them one in the same, but they're very different. Your desire to punitively punish corporations with even higher taxes is asinine, not supported by economists with a brain, and would be extremely harmful to the economy.
Once again, you've commented on something that you have no knowledge about.
First, your article proves my point. Corporations are hoarding cash, not investing it. There is no argument against that. But, why? You claim because of taxes and regulation, which is absurd. That article gives many possible reasons. There is absolutely nothing to prove your theory that it is because of taxes and regulation. It is one possible theory, among many.
You have a serious Chicken and Egg complex here. Corporations are saving, and not investing, because economic growth is anemic at 2%? Economic growth is only at 2% because they are saving, and not investing. How much more do you need to see before you finally realize that the Supply Side theory is failing right in front of you? The money isn't being invested in new technology. It isn't being invested training employees, or increasing employee wages or benefits. It isn't being used for employee pensions or retirement. It is sitting there, stagnating.
So, while we have record profits, record GDP, record stock prices, and record income for those at the top, the vast majority of Americans are waiting for their trickle...and the economy waits for the big boost it needs from the vast majority of Americans. The money is already in our economy. It is there, sitting and waiting.
But it isn't being used because corporations don't want to be taxed? No. It isn't being used because corporations don't want to spend it on anything at all.
"- Absolutely no fact on earth supports your idiotic claim that "the economy is in the best shape its ever been!". None. You are inventing facts out of pure fiction."
Nonsense. GDP per capita is at record highs. Stock prices are at record highs. Corporate profits are at record highs. What more facts do you need?
"- Herere some facts: we are still running deficits in the range of $500B annually, something we had never even done in our history until 2009. GDP Growth is anemic - it averages 2% or less under Obama. Prior to the recession we were averaging right around 3% and in past years, coming out of economic downturns, we could easily expect 4-6% annual growth as we did in the 80's. We have record number of people who have completed exited the labor force."
When Obama became President, he inherited negative GDP growth, and a $1.4 Trillion deficit. That deficit is roughly a third of what it was, at 2.4% of GDP.
2.4% of GDP is a lower deficit than every recent President except Bill Clinton. Every year of Reagan and GHW Bush was higher, and GW Bush left us with the worst since WWII, a whopping 9.8%. So, yes, our deficits have been worse in our history. In fact, they were worse for almost every year of the last three Republican Presidents.
You have a serious Chicken and Egg complex here. Corporations are saving, and not investing, because economic growth is anemic at 2%? Economic growth is only at 2% because they are saving, and not investing. How much more do you need to see before you finally realize that the Supply Side theory is failing right in front of you? The money isn't being invested in new technology. It isn't being invested training employees, or increasing employee wages or benefits. It isn't being used for employee pensions or retirement. It is sitting there, stagnating.
So, while we have record profits, record GDP, record stock prices, and record income for those at the top, the vast majority of Americans are waiting for their trickle...and the economy waits for the big boost it needs from the vast majority of Americans. The money is already in our economy. It is there, sitting and waiting.
But it isn't being used because corporations don't want to be taxed? No. It isn't being used because corporations don't want to spend it on anything at all.
"- Absolutely no fact on earth supports your idiotic claim that "the economy is in the best shape its ever been!". None. You are inventing facts out of pure fiction."
Nonsense. GDP per capita is at record highs. Stock prices are at record highs. Corporate profits are at record highs. What more facts do you need?
"- Herere some facts: we are still running deficits in the range of $500B annually, something we had never even done in our history until 2009. GDP Growth is anemic - it averages 2% or less under Obama. Prior to the recession we were averaging right around 3% and in past years, coming out of economic downturns, we could easily expect 4-6% annual growth as we did in the 80's. We have record number of people who have completed exited the labor force."
When Obama became President, he inherited negative GDP growth, and a $1.4 Trillion deficit. That deficit is roughly a third of what it was, at 2.4% of GDP.
2.4% of GDP is a lower deficit than every recent President except Bill Clinton. Every year of Reagan and GHW Bush was higher, and GW Bush left us with the worst since WWII, a whopping 9.8%. So, yes, our deficits have been worse in our history. In fact, they were worse for almost every year of the last three Republican Presidents.
You're honestly lost.
Corporations aren't spending cash because they're big meanies? Hilarious. Hint: that amount of cash to a Corporation really isn't good for them; shareholders get antsy and eventually CEOs come under fire for not finding something for that cash to do. However right now it's widely accepted that sitting on cash is a fine position. Again- BECAUSE economic growth is anemic. A company CEO is not going to fork over huge sums of cash to expand operations or hire people if they don't feel as though the economy is strong enough to support that increased demand. It's really pretty basic economics.
It becomes even more difficult to pull that trigger when you know there will be mazes of complex regulation to deal with, and then your profits will be dinged at 35% if you collect them domestically.
A perfect example is Uber- any of these companies could have bought them 3 times over already by now. They aren't. Why? Because the regulation being imposed on companies like Uber is so outrageous, no company wants to touch it until there's some clarity and sanity applied uniformly.
As to your last point, you conveniently skipped over my point that the deficits have ONLY stabilized due to the Budget Control Act which was essentially forced upon Obama by the R Congress. I know you will utterly fail to recognize this, but it's the truth, and the actual facts.
Corporations aren't spending cash because they're big meanies? Hilarious. Hint: that amount of cash to a Corporation really isn't good for them; shareholders get antsy and eventually CEOs come under fire for not finding something for that cash to do. However right now it's widely accepted that sitting on cash is a fine position. Again- BECAUSE economic growth is anemic. A company CEO is not going to fork over huge sums of cash to expand operations or hire people if they don't feel as though the economy is strong enough to support that increased demand. It's really pretty basic economics.
It becomes even more difficult to pull that trigger when you know there will be mazes of complex regulation to deal with, and then your profits will be dinged at 35% if you collect them domestically.
A perfect example is Uber- any of these companies could have bought them 3 times over already by now. They aren't. Why? Because the regulation being imposed on companies like Uber is so outrageous, no company wants to touch it until there's some clarity and sanity applied uniformly.
As to your last point, you conveniently skipped over my point that the deficits have ONLY stabilized due to the Budget Control Act which was essentially forced upon Obama by the R Congress. I know you will utterly fail to recognize this, but it's the truth, and the actual facts.
Oh look, what was once another decent thread with actual discussion turned into another Chemmie/85 screaming fest. Joy.
I have much respect for you for being open minded to someone who you certainly didn't want to be elected
The first part is the opinion held by many that were actually in iraq. they were smart enough to get them the hell out before the war actually started. the fact remains that they didnt find any. I never denied that.
the second part is 100 percent true. if you cant look at a map and realize that the vast majority of counties in the country not LA and NYC voted for Trump, you simply cannot tell a fact from an opinion. though we already knew that to be true.
I have much respect for you for being open minded to someone who you certainly didn't want to be elected
He works at Ray Jay IIRC. He's loving this more than any of us.
Or he's just discovered Café Masala down the road and is overjoyed at the local upgrade to lunch cuisine.
They actually did find some stores of chemical weapons buried in the desert years later. It even made an off-news cycle. But the Bush administration felt that reopening that issue would be worse than just letting it go by quietly.
Also, a lot of the information surrounding what is found or employed is classified (and quite highly) so we're not going to know about it regardless. Unless someone cc'ed Hillary on the report.
I haven't been, but I'll definitely check it out. Always looking for new options.
So...
They've shipped our manufacturing off to third-world countries to make more profits. They've practically frozen wages for the vast majority of Americans for the last 35+ years. They've cut pensions, health care, and other benefits. They've taken trillions of dollars from the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Government...
while they have record GDP, record profits, record salaries for their executives, and record stock prices...
and we need to cut their taxes and regulations so they will actually let that money finally start trickling down to the vast majority of Americans?
LOL. Like I said earlier: your point would be much easier to believe if it didn't have 35+ years of history to make it so laughable.
I love that you use "they" like corporations are individual living entities.
Also, like the record stock prices and profits don't get distributed. Tell me, what is your 401k invested in? How about your pension?
The healthcare from my fortune 100 corporation didn't start getting cut until Obamacare was forced onto us.
Who do you think suffers worst from overburdensome corporate taxes and regulations? The big corporations? Or the small and medium sized businesses that employ most Americans and the consumers who are overpaying?
Oh, and look to Detroit for a good lesson of trickle down and what happens when you kill an economy through overegulation. The big 3 supported a huge network of suppliers throughout the rust belt. Regulating American carmakers and their suppliers when foreign companies didn't have the same costs destroyed those smaller suppliers, even if the big corporations still managed to survive.
But, fairness, right?
