The Marjorie Greene Thread

JD SMITH quote:
“More taxes equals more government spending. Period”

Well, Duh. If the govt takes in more money, they spend more.

How many decades does trickle down have to obviously fail before its acknowledged as a failure by the small handful of oligarchs that still think it works?


New analysis and economic research seeks answers for why all six presidents who presided over the fastest periods of U.S. job growth were Democrats, while recent Republicans including both Bushes and Donald Trump saw the least expansion. A New York Times analysis released Tuesday, which draws from vast research, asks the question, “Why has the U.S. economy fared so much better under Democratic presidents than Republicans?” The authors noted that GOP presidents in the past several decades have run up larger deficits than Democrats and party control of Congress has shown minimal impact on growth.

Some economists remain unsure about pinpointing exact factors. But the analysis concludes that Democrats have been more pragmatic and “more willing to heed economic and historical lessons” about strengthening economies, while Republicans have clung to “magical” tax cut and deregulation theories in times of crisis.

Statistically speaking, Democratic presidents have overseen far more growth than their Republican counterparts in every economic indicator. The annual growth rate of nonfarm jobs increased by 2.8 percentage points under Democratic presidents elected since 1933, compared to just 1 percent under GOP presidents during the same time period. Similarly, America’s GDP grew annually at 4.6 percent under Democrats, compared to 2.4 percent under Republicans.

“The gap also exists if you assume that a president’s policies affect the economy with a lag and don’t start his economic clock until months after he takes office. Virtually any reasonable look at the data shows a big Democratic advantage,” the Times analysts wrote.

I’m sure if you ignore reality and derive your data from old copies of Ayn Rand it all makes sense. As Kellyanne Connway said, Republicans deal in alternative facts.


Yep, once upon a time, when Lindsey Graham acted somewhat reasonably, he said “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” Once he figured out that wasn’t quite true, boy, did he hop on that angry white guy train!

(white guy train, Lindsey Graham, get it? Get it?)


So you think those massive margins in pharmaceuticals are going towards R&D? :joy: No no, the CDC subsidizes big Pharma by researching everything before it’s profitable to do so. All that money is going towards TV commercials for real serious ailments like restless leg syndrome and to line investors’/executives’ pockets.


How do you explain corporate welfare like subsidies and tariffs in addition to tax breaks that artificially prop up industries that would otherwise not exist? Is that not a handout and going against the free market by picking winners and losers?


Plus the reason they put that money into R&D is…guess what…they don’t have to pay taxes on it. That’s how Amazon and Big Pharma get away with paying zero taxes. Corporatist wet dream, literally corroding the country from within.

It’s about WHO gets free stuff. @QuaSaShao likes to complain about free stuff all the time, but has no problem when big pharma and Mobil CEOs get free money for nothing and chicks for free.


Convince me less taxes results in more money for R&D - business expenses are tax deductible, and one of the arguments for higher corporate tax rates are to increase investment (if you invest in the company, you don’t pay taxes on said money, but if you take the money as profit, you pay taxes on it).


That’s a almost meaningless stat - yea, but the top 20% pay like 80-85% of the taxes, so any break in tax rates beyond bringing up the 0-super low brackets are going to accrue more there.

1 Like
1 Like

Were all those jobs that Trump had going b4 covid misinformation as well? You think there’s no link between lower corporate tax rates and actual real jobs? :ponder:

Trump takes credit for a robust economy inherited from Obama, predictably wrecks it and leaves the economy in ruins, blames (Covid/Chinese/Liberal Boogieman/Identity Politics/Anyone but himself).

Actual real job growth # under Trump are terrible. #factsmatter

If anyone believes there is a link between absurdly and immorally low corporate tax rates and job growth, they’re pushing an idea most won’t agree with and need to prove that themselves, not shift the burden of proof. There’s about as much proof of that as there is Jewish space laser beams.


Don’t forget the booming economy inherited from non-space lasers Obama (remember when birtherism was all the rage?). Also deregulation, have you considered deregulation?

add: @McNulty you got it in just before me!


Great minds!

I think I must have missed some ahem, dialogue while at work. What now? And I have that guy on ignore, so whatever.

I will refer you to John Tamny and you all can read his opinion on corporate taxation.

John Tamny

Replying to
Ideally there’s no corp tax simply because as taxpaying entities corps are a fiction. Their shareholders pay the taxes. As for whether cities should be offering tax deals, I’ll turn it back to you: is a flat tax not the govt picking winners? It means small pay little, big a lot.
10:45 AM · Nov 16, 2018·Twitter Web Client

If he doesn’t mention inheriting a good economy, or the short term economic benefits of deregulation, then I refer you to my last post…


Well, I’m tired. Long day, and I can’t decide if you’re taking the piss or not. I’ll refer you to Tamny’s book and then get on with my nap.


JDSmith: (not making an argument but pasting somenone else’s quote instead): “Ideally there’s no corp tax simply because as taxpaying entities corps are a fiction”

Corporations have been paying taxes for many many years now until just recently, so they’re obviously not a fiction.

Some guy named Tammy via JDSmith: Their shareholders pay the taxes.

Shareholdhers paying taxes does not mean corporations shouldn’t pay taxes. (In fact, corporations Are people per RW SCOTUS, remember). Tu quoque fallacy

Tammy/Smith: As for whether cities should be offering tax deals, I’ll turn it back to you: is a flat tax not the govt picking winners?

This is illogical.

So hard to get a straight answer these days.

1 Like

It’s close enough to no link to just call it no link. ;D Or do you think companies hire more people because they have money burning a hole in their pocket, vs hiring them because they need them?


The stockmarket rallied after he won because investors believed the tax cuts were coming and they’d be good for the economy.

People thought it would crash if he got elected because he’s so fickle and uncertainty is bad for businesses, but it didn’t pan out.

I hate to defend that imbecile, but that’s what happened.

The only reason I can fathom so many people are so clueless about economics is because of disinformation.

Because even the most rudimentary understanding of economics leads you to a point where people are only motivated to hire when there’s demand, and the demand comes when you put disposable income in the pockets of the workforce.