• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

What is this world coming to?

ark steel

ark steel

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
9,394
Reaction score
6,217
Points
113
When Bill Clinton is calling for lower corporate tax rates?
 
I'd prefer that lying cheating scumbag back in office over the terrorist we have now. And over his fugly commie wife-man, Hitlery.
 
Slick didn't care if you got yours as long as he got his. He is one of a handful of Democrats who understand the Laffer Curve.
Bomma (and probably Hillary) just want to take yours and every dollar you keep is one that ought to go to the government. That's why Bomma's first thought is to stop inversions and get the money rather than adjust to a competitive tax rate.
 
why yes sir i was da first black prezzy
bill20with20a20fro.jpg
 
Ron Burgundy said:
Slick didn't care if you got yours as long as he got his. He is one of a handful of Democrats who understand the Laffer Curve.
Bomma (and probably Hillary) just want to take yours and every dollar you keep is one that ought to go to the government. That's why Bomma's first thought is to stop inversions and get the money rather than adjust to a competitive tax rate.
Click to expand...

I don't know that Bill understood the Laffer Curve any more than the others, but what he did understand is what was best to make HIM look good and he would go along with it. A GOP congress was the best thing to ever happen to him.
 
Clinton had a very high IQ, but he was straight up weaselly. Dems love him, but truth be told he was, well, lets just say far more " take whatever side benefitted him" A lot of his fiscal policy overinflated the market and much of it was risky as hell. I think the statement that the republican congress benefitted him is apt, because it allowed them to pass blame for things he never intended to get through to that inept party.
 
Ron Burgundy said:
That's why Bomma's first thought is to stop inversions and get the money rather than adjust to a competitive tax rate.
Click to expand...

So funny to hear them screaming about "we must do something to stop the inversions!!!" yet aren't even considering the idea that the US tax code is such a piece of ****, the ****** tax codes and requirements of other countries look better.
 
Clinton benefitted from a Congress held by the opposing party. Recent American politics suggest that a divided government - one party holding the executive branch, the other the legislative - yields much better results than single-party domination of both the executive and legislative branches. For example:

  • Reagan held the executive branch while the Democrats held the house. Results? Superior economic growth, increasing Federal revenues, and the longest sustained economic growth in American history.
  • Clinton held the White House, the GOP held Congress. Results? Sustained economic growth, increased Federal revenues, reduction in the annual deficit.
  • Carter held the White House, and the Dems held Congress. Result? Stagflation.
  • Bammy holds the White House, the Dems hold Congress his first 2 years. Result? An economic "recovery" that was a continued recession in all but name only.
  • Bammy holds the White House, and Bammy holds a pen and a cell phone. Result? No real economic growth, declining labor participation, declining wage levels, increasing tax burden, and the oh-so thrilling onset of Bammy care on employers in 2015.
 
madinsomniac said:
Clinton had a very high IQ, but he was straight up weaselly. Dems love him, but truth be told he was, well, lets just say far more " take whatever side benefitted him" A lot of his fiscal policy overinflated the market and much of it was risky as hell. I think the statement that the republican congress benefitted him is apt, because it allowed them to pass blame for things he never intended to get through to that inept party.
Click to expand...
Which Clinton fiscal policies overinflated the market?

All of the conservatives on this board have very high IQs.
 
Obama is for cutting corporate tax rates as well. The sticking point is that he wants to cut tax deductions more, so there is
a contribution to cutting the deficit. The Republicans want tax deduction cuts to be revenue neutral, so this disagreement
has lead to nothing getting done.

The Laffer curve is for simpletons, the economy today is much more complicated than that, particularly with globalization.
With globalization a person could receive a large tax cut in their country, but that person could take the tax proceeds
from the tax cut and invest all that money in a business in another country, creating jobs in that country and a negative
impact in their own.

How many Americans invested in Alibaba recently? Most of those investments will help the Chinese and not Americans.
 
CharlesDavenport said:
Which Clinton fiscal policies overinflated the market?

All of the conservatives on this board have very high IQs.
Click to expand...

Keeping the interest rates low allowing lots of borrowing which allowed a lot of start-up .com's which overinflated everything. But this is, really, a symptom of "not getting in the way", I think, not a specifically planned policy.

Probably the beginning of the housing bubble started back then.

I don't know if any policy was involved, but the shenanigans regarding accounting (Can't remember the name of the accounting firm) happened during his term, IIRC, and only discovered later. I don't know if it was directed SEC "policy" not to look for these things.
 
http://www.verisi.com/resources/us-marginal-tax-rates.htm

How many of you high IQ conservatives can answer this question, without looking at the attached chart?
Were overall tax rates higher for wealthy Americans under Obama or under Reagan? The answer is overall rates were higher under Reagan.

Income tax rates are slightly higher today, but capital gain rates are much lower and the wealthy make much more money from capital gains than they do income.
That's why a lot of CEO pay is in stock options rather than salary.

Overall, today we are close to the lowest rates of the last century. Reagans rate policy pretty much exists today with the added bonus that the capital gain rate has
been dropped much lower. Obama's policies have done very little to rates. If he is a tax and spend liberal, he forgot to tax.

And if you look at Corporate tax contributions, US companies contribute less in taxes as a percentage of GDP than almost any country. The rates seem high, but nobody
pays those rates, they use deductions to limit tax liabilities. I think we should have a flat corporate minimum.
 
21STEELERS21 said:
The Laffer curve is for simpletons, the economy today is much more complicated than that, particularly with globalization.
Click to expand...
Then why is the population growing in the lowest tax states and decreasing in the highest tax states? People vote with their feet.

With globalization a person could receive a large tax cut in their country, but that person could take the tax proceeds
from the tax cut and invest all that money in a business in another country, creating jobs in that country and a negative
impact in their own.
Click to expand...

Capital moves where it is treated the best. John Kerry explains 21's position.

 
I am for the man or woman that is for lowering the corporate tax and means it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top