patrick.net

You could start a business and keep more money in your pocket to grow with. You can keep more money to pay your employees more. YOu can keep more money to hire more employees.
I think you mean he offers nothing for the "gimmie gimmie gimmie" crowd, that wants to sit on their asses and collect a big fat check .

Yeah, they get a big fat goose egg is what they get and NOT the golden variety.

Tenpoundbass says

ou can keep more money to pay your employees more. YOu can keep more money to hire more employees.

You're kidding, right? When a company makes more money, they don't say-hey, we don't need any more people but let's hire a bunch because we've got money burning a hole in our pocket. They KEEP IT FOR THEMSELVES. All it would do is make inequality worse. Period.

How many more years of crap before you'll realize that trickle down DOESN'T WORK??

tatupu70 says

How many more years of crap before you'll realize that trickle down DOESN'T WORK??

No, no, no it works if you just clap, clap, clap and keep clapping. It works you just have to believe it!

One thing that doesn't work: Outsourcing Manfacturing Jobs and replacing them with non-unionized, often temporary, shitty wage no benefit jobs.

Retitled: "Economists who were gobsmacked by Great Recession predict Trump Plan won't help middle class; suggest more H1-Bs, immigration, outsourcing and For-Profit Higher Education like Laurelate University."

One thing that definitely won't help the Middle Class: Automatic Green Cards for foreign students upon obtaining a US STEM degree. Kick that ladder down!

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3089314/it-careers/clinton-wants-to-staple-green-cards-on-stem-grads-diplomas.html

Tenpoundbass says

You can keep more money to pay your employees more

It's pretty simple. If you own a business, the money you pay employees and the salary you pay yourself are before tax expenses that comes out of revenues. You probably aren't going to pay employees more with retained earnings, unless you're sure revenues will go up as much as what you're spending on the additional employees, in which case that pay can simply come out of the increased before tax revenues (caused by adding the employee(s)).

So you're wrong.

The other point may be true to some extent, that is having more profit for yourself to invest in growing your business. But if such an investment would be wise, then taking on debt for that growth would make sense too. And by the way, paying off debt and interest on the debt are both before tax expenses as well.

But don't change now. There's no reason to suddenly start basing your opinions on reality.

Ironman says

Really???

Trump's plan will increase the debt $2.55 Trillion over 10 years, where Obama increased the debt $10 Trillion over 8 years.

That will less for your grandchildren to pay off...

WINNING!!

Thanks for never ceasing to amaze me. I imagine you're still trying to figure out why everyone thinks the line--this one goes to 11--is funny.

Ironman says

you don't understand... typical...

I understand that you have no clue as to the difference between deficit and debt. And, therefore, are not capable of drawing any conclusions.

Ironman says

Nope, you're that guy that thinks a deficit is GREAT... Do you reward your wife every time she overdrafts the checkbook?

BTW, would you like to dispute the FACT that the debt increased $10 Billion under Obama?

Would you like to dispute the fact that the DEFICIT was reduced by 2/3 under Obama?

Trump's plan says, yes we already can't pay our bills as it is, but let's start working fewer hours so we'll have less money to pay our bills. But let's continue to spend the same (or more).

Depends on their definition of "nothing". If "Jobs" is nothing and "handouts" are something, than that statement is very accurate.

Ironman says

BTW, would you like to dispute the FACT that the debt increased $10 TRILLION under Obama?

AND we can just ignore the fact that he came into office inheriting the Bush recession, wars, and tax cuts. That had nothing to do with it at all.

It really is unbelievable how either A. stupid. or B Big of a liar you are.

Ironman says

National debt was $9 Trillion in 2008, when your boy took office, fast forward now 8 years later it's over $19 Trillion. If you understood math, you see the issue.

Care to disprove that?

Not surprising, given that he inherited what could have turned into the great depression part 2.

It is kind of economic given, that deficits will rise.

NOW if we can stop dumb cunts like you from giving Drumpf a victory, it is time to raise taxes on the rich, allow a hell of a lot of skilled immigration, and get the economy growing.

Ironman says

Would you like to dispute that Obama's deficit (currently around $630 Billion)

Yes. The current deficit is:

https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

It is kind of economic given, that deficits will rise.

Excuses, excuses-the first 1 or 2 years maybe. but not after that. He is still running some of the highest deficits in history.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

NOW if we can stop dumb cunts like you from giving Drumpf a victory, it is time to raise taxes on the rich, allow a hell of a lot of skilled immigration, and get the economy growing.

Sigh, being that you are a college professor with a lifelong pension from taxpayers, who will never lose his job to outsourcing and bought a few shacks in PHoenix-that is rich.

In many companies hiring managers are only allowed to hire from the big outsourcing companies-even though they can find cheaper qualified Americans in their location. Back in the y2k or dotcom days day, yeah local talent was expensive. Not now- I cna find a hundred qualified people if I put up a job posting right now at very reasonable prices, much cheaper than what the big outsourcing companies quote-but no they want managed services.

But no arrogant democrats like you who think you are all so elite and intelligent don't care about Americans and only immigrants. if there is truly a need-yes bring in immigrants. But not for normal jobs like coding for an application that ahs been around for decades. Please-there is a reason nobody wants to get into IT anymore-and now it is happening in other areas like R&D etc.

How did this happen-the dems becoming uncaring, 1% lovers? You reduce tax to some wealthy guy -evil, evil, evil- but hey lets bring in unlimited immigration, legal and illegal and have them compete against the common man and his job-pure as driven snow. All the while safe in your tax payer funded gumbnt job or welfare and do nothing.

No wonder in countries where the common man had enough, rioted and took over-they usually killed the liberals first-because of their stupid kumbayah policies.

lostand confused says

How did this happen-the dems becoming uncaring, 1% lovers?

They didn't. The US population just decided not to elect them anymore. Look at the voting record on NAFTA. It wasn't Dems that voted for it unanimously--that would be Reps. The majority of Dems in the House voted AGAINST NAFTA. Stop voting for so many of the Reps and you might have more laws that you like.

tatupu70 says

It wasn't Dems that voted for it unanimously--that would be Reps. The majority of Dems in the House voted AGAINST NAFTA. Stop voting for so many of the Reps and you might have more laws that you like.

if Clinton didn't push for it-it wouldn't have happened. Now another dem OBama is pushing frantically for the TPP-the one CLinton called the gold standard of trade deals. Yeah right, they care for the little people.

lostand confused says

if Clinton didn't push for it-it wouldn't have happened

Sure---there are Dems that are for free trade. And there are some Reps that are against it. But, it is still 100% true that, in general, Dems are AGAINST unmitigated free trade and Reps are FOR it.

tatupu70 says

in general, Dems are AGAINST unmitigated free trade and Reps are FOR it.

So the obvious solution for this election cycle is to elect democratic congressmen who are closer to Bernie in willingness to support workers and the people, and to elect Trump as POTUS. Best of both worlds! Unless you'd like to argue that the Clintons would somehow reign in destructive free trade and H1B job displacement and rampant immigration of people that hate us. That's going to be a really tough sell, though!

Economists say Clinton's tax plan offers nothing for anyone except Clinton Foundation Donors and $350,000-per-speech-givers-to-Goldman-Sachs (as well as Goldman Sachs Execs and other literal financial parasites draining the blood of the American working/middle class).

Quigley says

So the obvious solution for this election cycle is to elect democratic congressmen who are closer to Bernie in willingness to support workers and the people, and to elect Trump as POTUS. Best of both worlds! Unless you'd like to argue that the Clintons would somehow reign in destructive free trade and H1B job displacement and rampant immigration of people that hate us. That's going to be a really tough sell, though!

If you're voting only on trade, then I agree.

tatupu70 says

Sure---there are Dems that are for free trade. And there are some Reps that are against it. But, it is still 100% true that, in general, Dems are AGAINST unmitigated free trade and Reps are FOR it.

That is not history. The biggest transformative trade deal-NAFTA- is there only because of the Clintons. The tPP is ahead-and negotiated in secret by the const scholar-only because of the Clintons and Obama.

If they didn't push/lobby-the bill wouldn't be where it is.

On other policies-if you want more feminazis, SJWs, BLM, murder of cops, riots, fork over more taxes to give to bums-well Clinton is your pick. Enough of this crap. Obamacare is a disaster for anybody who is upper middle class -dems are stealing from the upper middle class-leaving the rich alone and giving to the welfare hordes. At least cut immigration and give them jobs-nope, that is racist.

lostand confused says

The biggest transformative trade deal-NAFTA- is there only because of the Clintons.

True--he had to twist a LOT of the Democratic Congressmen's arms to get it passed. Most of the small number of Dems that voted for it were initially against it until Clinton leaned on them. Clinton was a moderate Republican--the Dems nominated him because they were tired of losing.

Not sure what you are arguing. Clintons don't equal Dems. Hillary is basically a Republican too.

tatupu70 says

Not sure what you are arguing. Clintons don't equal Dems. Hillary is basically a Republican too

Yet many dems willl vote for her. What I am saying is some of the most anti little people acts were brought to us by the dem Presidents-NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagal and now TPP. Obozocare is very anti middle class and so did Obozo's attempt to get rid of the college credit -luckily the middle class revolted and the clown shelved it. He takes money from the rich and so leaves them alone or provides loopholes and screws the middle class in favor of the welfare hordes.

Why anyone would want to vote in another clone of these fools is just odd.

Now having voted for Obozo once, I hold no hopes for trump either. Obozo promised the moon and turned out to be a dog-oh I guess that makes me a racist. But Trump at least is saying he is trying a different way and will give him a chance. if he fails-then he will do what Hilalry is peddling-so no loss.

lostand confused says

Yet many dems willl vote for her. What I am saying is some of the most anti little people acts were brought to us by the dem Presidents-NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagal and now TPP. Obozocare is very anti middle class and so did Obozo's attempt to get rid of the college credit -luckily the middle class revolted and the clown shelved it. He takes money from the rich and so leaves them alone or provides loopholes and screws the middle class in favor of the welfare hordes.

Why anyone would want to vote in another clone of these fools is just odd.

And what I'm saying is that your complaint is that some of the Dem presidents are too conservative. So, why would you want to vote for candidates that are MORE conservative than Clinton or Obama?

We need more common sense and less political bullshit influencing our government. That's why Trump is appealing to many people. He's giving the straight scoop on our nation's woes, attributing the problems to their leftist originators, and not really caring who he offends in the process. Most people aren't in favor of the current climate of political correctness. We need more solutions and fewer rioting whiny bitches demanding handouts. We need pragmatic government, not theoretical Maoism that makes no sense to anyone with common sense. And Hillary is the biggest C.U.N.T. (Cant Understand Normal Thinking) of them all.

Ironman says

source?

tatupu70 says

And what I'm saying is that your complaint is that some of the Dem presidents are too conservative. So, why would you want to vote for candidates that are MORE conservative than Clinton or Obama?

That is not conservative-money-hungry, corrupt leeches. Donald Trump is at least saying he wants to do something for the little people-saying for now. But Hillary claims TPP is the gold standard of trade deals.

lostand confused says

Donald Trump is at least saying he wants to do something for the little people-saying for now

Agreed, but his economic team and tax proposal clearly say otherwise.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

It really is unbelievable how either A. stupid. or B Big of a liar you are.

I still want to know which filthy third world country you are from.

tatupu70 says

Agreed, but his economic team and tax proposal clearly say otherwise

How is it otherwise -the 15% corporate tax rate will put a stop to inversions . The reduction in fines to 10% will allow companies to bring in money.
The simplification of tax code to 12, 25, 33 would be a ground swell. Many people will benefit from the middle tax rates.

Now if only he can repeal the stupid FATCA that the clown OBozo pushed and signed into law and the horrible oBozocare.

Plus he talks about renegotiating trade deals to our benefits-which would be just common sense. You don't trade to make losses. Corporations maybe gaining, but millions and millions of Americans losing jobs and going to welfare is not a gain. What cna they learn and move into that si not being offshored?

Except Trump , nobody talks about that-the ice queen supports more loss of jobs and more of the same. The choice is clear in this election-you may call them repub policies-but Obama/Hillary/Bill champion them. You may call them dem policies-but Trump champions them.

Bottom line--reducing taxes on the 1% doesn't benefit the little guy. Increasing the deficit doesn't help the little guy. And any tax plan that is approved by Heritage is 100% guaranteed to screw the little guy.

His whole plan is a giant payoff to the 1% and a big middle finger to the lower and middle classes.

He is reducing tax on everybody-that si everybody who pays. I welcome it-maybe the bums can do without sec 8 and the military cna reduce some spending. But am egtting tired of paying. You are in CHicago-seriously the last two year's of property taxes by the all dem gubmnt is what you aspire to. How does that help the little guy?

As Senator, Hillary promised to create 200,000 in Upstate New York. While many of her cronies and donors were given money to develop the region, it lost 25% of manufacturing jobs during her term. The region stagnated, with lost high wage, benefit jobs being replaced with shitty wage, no benefit temp/part time McJobs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-senator-clinton-promised-200000-jobs-in-upstate-new-york-her-efforts-fell-flat/2016/08/07/339d3384-58d2-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html

y. And any tax plan that is approved by Heritage is 100% guaranteed to screw the little guy.

----------

Right. Just like ppACA

lostand confused says

He is reducing tax on everybody-that si everybody who pays. I welcome it-maybe the bums can do without sec 8 and the military cna reduce some spending. But am egtting tired of paying. You are in CHicago-seriously the last two year's of property taxes by the all dem gubmnt is what you aspire to. How does that help the little guy?

If you believe that he is reducing tax on everyone who pays--I've got a bridge to sell you in San Francisco.

But, I'm sure CIC will have no problem with him adding untold $$ to the deficit since it's Trump.

I don't live in the city--my ridiculously high property taxes are due to Reps.

Ironman says

Really? The Shitcago area is managed by Repubs?

Calling it Shitcago instead of Chicago is pure genius. I don't know how you come with this stuff.

But, to answer your question, yes. The board of the county I live in is about 2/3 Rep.

tatupu70 says

Sure---there are Dems that are for free trade. And there are some Reps that are against it. But, it is still 100% true that, in general, Dems are AGAINST unmitigated free trade and Reps are FOR it.

Hillary says free visas for everyone with a tech degree. Outsourcing on steroids.
Trump says we cut outsourcing.

Who's the outsourcer here again Taputu? Not like the candidates keep that a secret...

FortWayne says

Hillary says free visas for everyone with a tech degree. Outsourcing on steroids.

Trump says we cut outsourcing.

Who's the outsourcer here again Taputu? Not like the candidates keep that a secret...

Are you under the impression that I think Hillary is anti-trade?

tatupu70 says

Quigley says

So the obvious solution for this election cycle is to elect democratic congressmen who are closer to Bernie in willingness to support workers and the people, and to elect Trump as POTUS. Best of both worlds! Unless you'd like to argue that the Clintons would somehow reign in destructive free trade and H1B job displacement and rampant immigration of people that hate us. That's going to be a really tough sell, though!

If you're voting only on trade, then I agree.

tatupu70 says

Ironman says

source?

the source is that "Many people are saying that..."

Again, Hillary demonstrated as Senator she cannot create good jobs. Good jobs were lost, and what were replaced were shitty McJobs.

I'll take the guy with no track record and the rhetoric, over the "experienced" failure.

We know for a fact just how destructive Clintons are to our economy. We are still dealing with the fallout from Bill's presidency and he was last elected 20 years ago!
What could possibly be more important than strengthening our economy? Well perhaps defending our borders from enemies and people who hate us. So that's twice as nice for Trump. He might be a big dumb animal like Chris Farley when it comes to politics and peoples' tender feelings about things that are WRONG, but he isn't wrong about the things that really matter.
Bottom line: are you going to vote for a proven disaster like Clinton because Trump said some mean things that hurt your feelings?
Aww, wee lamb!