Should, more likely to and implied
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2957362]Tooms, I wish I had more spare time to reply to your posts, honestly, but I don't right now. I have no problem with minimum wage increases, as long as they occur at the state and local level, and yes, I believe they increase wages for lower income workers. That's a good thing as long as it doesn't significantly lower employment. It doesn't make sense to set a federal minimum wage, which likely would be too low for San Francisco and too high for Jackson, Mississippi. However, increases in the minimum wage do not push up the median wage or average wage significantly, which is what I've quoted here.
Anything written on the TCJA in 2017, before the corporate tax cuts even took effect, is irrelevant.
I have not read the paper that's the subject of the "Equitable Growth" piece, but have scanned it. The first highlight the lead author mentions in his blog is "The tax cuts led to efficiency gains in the economy, as firms receiving larger tax cuts were[b] more likely to [/b]increase their investment, labor demand, and profits. " Combine that with the NBER paper, and[b] I'd ask why on God's Green Earth wouldn't you want to lower the federal corporate rate from 35%? The government ends up with more revenues in the medium to long term. An increase in investment and labor demand cited in your paper means more jobs and higher wages.[/b] The shareholders, like you indirectly, have higher profits, the majority of which they'll re-invest in the business. And consumers pay lower prices.
As to their conclusions, they're not necessarily inconsistent with the NBER paper. In the early years, there is a big drop off in the revenues from the corporate tax. In the short term, it wouldn't surprise me if a significant part of the tax savings went to higher dividends, buybacks and into the CEOs' pockets. But with time the firms ramp up their investments, hire more people, and pay more payroll taxes. [B]The dividend payout ratio for the S&P 500 has gone from 46% in 2017 before the corporate tax rate took effect to 36% this year. That means the percent of profits the S&P 500 companies reinvested has gone from 54% to 64%. With time you have seen and will see more benefits accrue to lower wage employees (and consumers I'd add) as a result of the corporate cut, as implied by figure 9 in the NBER paper.[/b]
[B]The economy during Biden's term is reaping the benefits from the corporate tax cut, more so than during Trump's term. Go back and look at Figure 9 in the NBER paper. [/b]The incremental employment taxes (which are a reflection of the level of employment and wages) have risen to around 12% of what corporate tax revenues would have been without the TCJA. That's up from 0% at 1/1/2018. And revenues from the corporate tax are forecasted to be higher than they would have been without the cut in 2028.
I don't see how anyone can argue that the USA corporate rate should not have been cut, especially considering that with the state income taxes added on, the US was the highest in the developed world. And I believe most knowledgeable Democrats agree with me. The Obama administration wanted to drop the federal corporate rate to 28%. That's what Harris and Biden have proposed too, 28%. The only people who want to go back to 35% are those on the far left of your party.[/QUOTE]Well, I don't think I have been arguing in favor of keeping the corporate tax rate anywhere exactly. Or any other detail as a stand alone. The point is everything depends on policy AND stewardship, there is no one or two magic panacea moves to achieve economic success as in "tax cuts and smaller government. ".
I see your "more likely to" quote or personal assessment here mirrors your "should" qualifier in your earlier post that included that NBER link.
Time and time again Supply-Side / Trickle-Down Repubs have sold us their agenda that way. "Should happen", "more likely to happen" and "implied" is precisely the way Supply-Side / Trickle-Down Repubs pitch their policy plans, sell them to the American people and then, once passed, March the country directly into the next Coolidge / Hoover Great Depression, Reagan Great Recession and so on. It sounds so easy and nice, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, even a cursory review of Dem vs Repub economic results solves any mystery about what ACTUALLY HAPPENS when they get their way vs the Dem alternative Repubs work so hard to denigrate and demonize.
Case in point on your question about a 35% corporate tax rate:
[B]History of taxation in the United States[/B]
[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States[/URL]#text=It%20 slowly%20 increased%20 to%2039.6,lowered%20 to%2021%25%20 in%202018.
[QUOTE]The United States' corporate tax rate was at its highest, 52.8 percent, in 1968 and 1969. [B]The top rate was hiked last in 1993 to 35 percent.[/b] Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the rate adjusted to 21 percent.[/QUOTE]Hiked to 35% in 1993 by Bill Clinton and his Dems without one single vote from a Repub because, according to them, it was so opposite to Ronald "Great Recession With 10%+ Unemplyment Rate For Ten Consecutive Months In His 2nd and 3rd Year In Office" Reagan. They ASSURED us that rate would destroy the USA Economy and Capitalism as the world knew and loved it, blood flowing in the streets, death and destruction everywhere, we're all going to die so run for your lives!
Which of course happened because Repubs are such economic experts and "better at handling the economy than Dems", right? Lololol. Absolutely NOT right.
Even despite Nude Grinbitch and his fellow Repubs' repeated efforts to crash the USA Economy, close down the government and undermine the immediate upward and positive trajectory from the Reagan / Bush "It's the economy, Stupid" underperformance to historic Dem economic expansion, growth and jobs creation just to prove their idiotic 1993 argument against it right, what immediately followed were the gains mentioned earlier in this sentence PLUS a budget surplus.
And that upward trajectory of gains and positive results began no later than mid 1994, long before Nude Grinbitch and his fellow Repubs won the November 1994 midterms because they had so effectively denigrated and demonized that Clinton / Dem economic stimulation recovery legislation and the tax rates in it.
Contrast that to the 1 million fewer jobs created in the next 2-3 years after the lowered rate under Trump, still showing no signs of that promised "greatest job president God ever created" and "maybe 6% GDP Growth rate" from it six years afterwards for the Trillions Trump added to the deficit to enjoy it.
In light of that prime but not the only historical example and all available evidence and easily observable reality, I would argue that the increased business investments by the S&P 500 companies were in response to and Biden's economy reaped the rewards of those 2018 and 2019 minimum wage increases mostly in Blue Cities and Blue States way above any piddling corporate tax rate cut on any metric by Repubs.
Those companies increased investment because greater demand for their product and services required them to do so. In the absence of greater demand, there is no other reason for them to do that simply because a Repub put extra money in the CEOs' pockets.
In short, Dem Demand-Side wins the day, never Repub Supply-Side.
When ChatGPT, just doesn't want to play ball...
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2957362]Tooms, I wish I had more spare time to reply to your posts, honestly, but I don't right now. I have no problem with minimum wage increases, as long as they occur at the state and local level, ...
...
[/QUOTE]Hmmm.....Why is that I wonder? Is your AI ChatGPT, holding out for higher wages and refusing to tell you the answers? (...kkkk!)
A "Terminator" + A Bush = A Harris/Walz WIN?
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2957242]The high-profile Repub endorsements of Harris just keep flowing in:
[B]Arnold Schwarzenegger says he's voting for Kamala Harris in rare endorsements for former California governor.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/arnold-schwarzenegger-kamala-harris-endorsement-president/[/URL][/QUOTE]
From the "Terminator" to the Bush's, it seem more and more Repubs, are following that Liz Cheney permission structure and endorsing Harris for the WIN! The latest comes from, [i]"conservative royalty",[/i] a Bush, no less!
[QUOTE=The Daily Beast]Barbara Bush, 42, told People in a statement that it was inspiring to join friends and meet voters with the Harris-Walz campaign in Pennsylvania over the weekend, revealing that [b]she'd gone as far as campaigning for the Democratic ticket.[/b] Shes long supported progressive causes, but its the first time the conservative family scion has outright endorsed for a Democratic presidential candidate.
[URL]candidate.https://www.thedailybeast.com/george-w-bushs-daughter-barbara-issues-shock-endorsement-of-kamala-harris/[/URL][/QUOTE]
While Barbara Bush's, endorsement is not quite the same her father's, I'm willing to consider it, a G.W. Bush endorsement-adjacent, since he's probably not going to come out with one. But on the plus side, I hear the rest of the family (the women anyways) are voting for Harris/Walz.
You said Hitler. Of course, everyone knows Trump is a Fascist.
[QUOTE=AxelHeyst;2957380]BS:
Fact! [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO0fglSeaYc&t=16s[/URL].
I don't know BKK BOB, maybe this video has been altered and did not really happen. Maybe it is right wing propaganda. HAHAHA. So, don't give us any more BS about Mamala's "joyful" campaign. Mamala is going down!
P.S. And did any of you lefties see Clinton talking about the Hamas War? Not Kunnt Clinton, Billy Boy, the last liberal president of the USA. Here is a direct quote of what Bill said out on the stump:
"I understand why young Palestinians and Arab Americans here in Michigan think too many people have died. I get that," he continued, adding that it was difficult to assess "how many (deaths) is enough to punish them (Hamas) for the terrible thing they did? The people there were the most pro-friendship with Palestine, the most pro-two-state solution of any of the Israeli community, were the ones right next to Gaza, and Hamas butchered them," Clinton lamented, referring to the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack on southern Israel in which Hamas killed 1,200 people and kidnapped 250 others..[/QUOTE]Where is the part where Harris calls Trump "a Hitler"? That was the historical figure you cited and said Harris called him that or compared him to Hitler when, as I clearly pointed out and proved, only Trump's VP pick, JayDee Vance, compared Trump to Hitler.
Not Harris and not Walz.
Harris only answered a question about whether or not Trump is a Fascist and, well, she had to answer truthfully as was verified by top Trump Administration officials who worked closely with him and knew him well.
I posted this already and think it is a much better video representation of Harris answering that question the only way any truthful person can than the video you linked for it:
[URL]https://crooksandliars.com/2024/10/jake-tapper-trolls-gop-leaders-feigned[/URL]
What will happen on election night?
The description of this worthwhile video:
With less than a week to go, there's a lot of uncertainty with how this election will end. (Former Republican Party campaign strategist) Steve Schmidt sits down with award-winning writer and journalist Steven Beschloss to discuss the final week of the campaign and the future of America:
[URL]https://youtu.be/hE-ikR9dlo8?si=uyu4wx6V9ELKLWGJ[/URL]
I have never watched or heard either of these guys' blogs before. I knew who Steve Schmidt was, of course. But that is about it. I know he worked hard to sell us Sarah Palin. So now he is obviously trying to atone for the damage and harm he inflicted on the country in his previous career.
Translation: WTF is that numbskull Trump talking about? LOL.
And if he thinks that #2 Trump campaign promise is unworkable and unnecessary nonsense, imagine what he thinks of Trump's #1 campaign promise to "close down the borders"!
LOL. As if Trump's Pandemic closures with empty streets, empty grocery market shelves and closed down restaurants for lack of staff wasn't bad enough. I'm sure this CEO can't wait to see what horrors Trump's border closure will do the the USA economy.
[B]Exxon CEO on election: Unsure 'how drill, baby, drill translates into policy'.[/B]
[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/01/exxon-ceo-says-us-election-wont-affect-oil-production.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]
[QUOTE]"Im not sure how drill, baby, drill translates into policy, Woods told CNBCs Squawk Box Friday after the largest U.S. oil and gas company reported third-quarter results.
Woods said U.S. shale production does not face constraints from external restrictions. The U.S. has produced record amounts of oil and gas during the Biden administration.[/QUOTE]
Will the real Bangkok (BKK) Bob "Slim Shady" please stand up?
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2957520]Where is the part where Harris calls Trump "a Hitler"? That was the historical figure you cited and said Harris called him that or compared him to Hitler when, as I clearly pointed out and proved, only Trump's VP pick, JayDee Vance, compared Trump to Hitler.
Not Harris and not Walz.
Harris only answered a question about whether or not Trump is a Fascist and, well, she had to answer truthfully as was verified by top Trump Administration officials who worked closely with him and knew him well.
I posted this already and think it is a much better video representation of Harris answering that question the only way any truthful person can than the video you linked for it:
[URL]https://crooksandliars.com/2024/10/jake-tapper-trolls-gop-leaders-feigned[/URL][/QUOTE] If this isn't a case of, [i][b]"...the Bangkok pot, calling the Bangkok kettle, black" (...kkkk!)[/b][/i]
[i][list]I'll never understood the need for hypocrite wingers, to pontificate about MAGA and [b]"woke"[/b] culture-wars nonsense, then turn-around and trifle in hypocritical name-calling, especially when they themselves (with all due respect you EihTooms), can be considered the [i][b]"OG Batty Bangkok Bobs (BBB)" (...kkkk!),[/b][/i] who've spent an inordinate amount of time mongering in Thailand, under a different "Slim Shady" nom de guerre, as it were. But that's wingers for you![/list][list]So will the real Bangkok (BKK) Bob "Slim Shady" please stand up?[/list][/i]But back to Trump is a fascist argument, and who said what. Yes, you have correctly, posted many times already, that Veep Harris, was only answering the question w/r to the General Milley's comments about him saying Trump is "fascist to the core". As MAGA tries to turn it into something it's NOT!
It is clear, that in the final days and home stretch to Nov 5th, the MAGA hordes are desperately trying to find anything to pin on Veep Harris, to be seen as detrimental, to what is a brilliantly and masterfully crafted campaign.
[b]Even a MAGA faithful,[/b] had to admit he was seeing a not just a campaign, but a [i][b]"Big Movement"[/b][/i] at play, with the Harris/Walz rallies, when he was taken to one, by Jordan Klepper of the Daily Show.
Meanwhile, all the time, bending over backwards to "sane washing", the "garbage" that comes outta Trump's mouth. But make no mistake about it, the DAMAGE IS DONE, that racist joke/comment about "Puerto Rico", is the final nail in the coffin for Trump.
Dem ad has right-wing INCEL manosphere in meltdown...
The latest (30 sec) Dem TV ad, with Julia Roberts voice-over, in an that reminds women that their vote is their choice to make and theirs alone, and women can vote differently than their husbands, has Repubs literally losing their minds.
[b]Julia Roberts Reminds Us - Your Vote, Your Choice[/b]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCPck2qDhk[/url]
The message, that women have the autonomy and the right to make their own choices at the ballot box, against the wishes of their Trump/Repub voting husbands, was of course, just sacrilegious, to the right-wing INCEL, manosphere and the likes of Charlie Kirk's and Jessie Walters's, over in MAGA world, who are having a meltdown, that Dems would even suggest Repub conservative women, actually have a right to think for themselves. (...kkkk!)
[u]Underestimate the Women's VOTE, at your peril![/u]
But we've seen this same scenario play out, in the 2020 election and 2022 midterms, where women (both Dems and Repubs) are turning out in record numbers, to fight for their reproductive rights, [b] for themselves[/b], their mothers, their daughters, their sisters and their fellow women and [b]stand against Trump[/b], a chauvinistic, misogynistic, pussy-grabbing felon, who gleefully overturned 'Roe v. Wade' and is a women killer, responsible for the multiple deaths of women bleeding out and dying in parking lots and public bathrooms.
As I've said before come ROEvember, the women's vote, will be the deciding factor and the difference in a Harriz/Walz win!
Puerto Ricans, will have their "Trump paper towel" revenge...
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2957224]At this writing, not much has changed in the typically tightening Poll Consensus 6 days from election day.
The demonstrably Winger-leaning RealClearPolitics' site shows it somewhat similar to most other poll aggregator sites except, predictably, a bit less positive for Harris than other more credible sites that don't pack their Consensus' with dog piles of Repub-paid polls.
Harris is only 0. 6 point in PA away from 270 Electoral College Votes and the win on that demonstrably Winger-leaning RCP site. See screenshots below.
[URL]https://www.realclearpolling.com/elections/president/2024/battleground-states[/URL]
Harris is still a fraction of 1 point in PA away from 270 EC Votes and the win on the standard 538 Site and the 538 Who Is Favored To Win Site.
[URL]https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/[/URL]
[URL]https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/[/URL]
Harris is still ahead in the National Polls and a fraction of 1 point in PA away from 270 EC Votes and the win on the 270 To Win State By State Site.
[URL]https://www.270towin.com/2024-presidential-election-polls/[/URL]
And Harris is still ahead in the National Polls and at 270+ EC Votes on the Race To The White House Site.
[URL]https://www.racetothewh.com/president/polls[/URL]
BTW, this was before the [b]Trump Campaign Rally planned, scripted and telepromptered the "Puerto Rico is a Floating Island of Garbage" insult to the hundreds of thousands of Puerto Rican voters in PA alone, [/b]tried mightily to shift attention to a benign statement by Joe Biden to con the already pronoun-challenged MAGAs into misunderstanding what a possessive apostrophe is, as in "this supporter's. His demonization of", before the massive Biden and now Harris Ground Game does even more from now to election day and before we find out by just how many points the pollsters have been over-sampling likely Trump voters in the past couple of years as they told us they have been doing.[/QUOTE]
[b]900,000 Puerto Ricans Live in Swing States.[/b] Heres How One Is Responding to That Racist Joke.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/900-000-puerto-ricans-live-215336424.html
Inflammatory remarks made by comic Tony Hinchcliffe about Puerto Rico at a Donald Trump rally could resonate deeply with Puerto Rican voters across the U.S., particularly in critical swing states.
[u]Key Battleground Swing States:[/u]
[i][b]Map Shows Puerto Rican Population in Every State,[/b] updated Oct 29th, 2024[/i]
[URL]https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-puerto-rican-population-every-state-1975713[/URL]
State (2020 winning margin | Puerto Rican population)
Pennsylvania (80,555 | 486,213)
Nevada (33,596 | 27,230)
Arizona (10,457 | 64,738)
Michigan (154,188 | 43,381)
Wisconsin (20,608 | 61,437)
Georgia (11,779 | 100,923)
North Carolina (74,483 | 115,449)
[u]Puerto Rican voters, in other interesting election states:[/u]
CT - 4.3% of Connecticut
NY - Over 1 million in NY
FL - 1.2 million in Florida
MS - 4.7% of Massachusetts 326K
This is the other final nail in Trump's coffin, along with the women's vote, that seals the vampire sucking quid's tomb shut.
