4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Corporate taxes should be zero. Because the goal should be to get more corporations operating stateside, and this jobs hiring here.

Workers will go where the jobs are. Unless you're 2nd and 3rd generation whiners complaining about the factory that relocated from your local in 1987 and lamenting the future you could have had.... or you could've ef'ing moved. But I digress.

The point is that "fairness" aside, the best way to endure paying jobs as a matter of public policy is to lubricate the skids for companies to operate here - among which is corporate taxation. Yeah the worker is going to ultimately pay some taxes then, but the reality is that taxes on corps is little different from a tariff. It's passed on to the consumer in higher product costs and the worker in reduced wages.

So you're arguing for corporate tax rates here or against? I can't even tell. And no, companies are going to pass along tariff's in the form of price increases and cost cutting, just like they would corporate taxes. If anything, tariffs are better because the big corporations like Amazon and Walmart can push the pain back down to their suppliers so that they don't have to raise prices. Taxes hit the corporation directly and can not be avoided.

The bigger question is....why do you think Kamala would have been any better on this issue? I mean, her campaign promise was to raise the corporate tax rate by 7%?

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Corporate taxes should be zero.

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

So you're arguing for corporate tax rates here or against? I can't even tell.

When we call you all a bunch of illiterate rubes, this is what we mean.

2 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I see. So Biden did the WRONG thing by trying to close the borders, but it was actually really Trump's fault for tricking the populous into thinking that illegal immigrants are BAD, when they're actually really, really GOOD for our economy.

I honestly can't even keep up with the crazy in here anymore.

You make no sense. You say Biden is for open borders, then say he did the wrong thing by trying to close the borders.

My statement should translate to the US having a more permissable immigration policy for nations south of us, focusing on bringing back temporary work visas for seasonal workers, would bring some sanity to our border.

This "immigrants always bad" view is stupid simple and only appeals to the low and common view.

It's correct to make a value judgement here and call simple stupid people what they are: simple and stupid.

2 hours ago, The Norseman said:

So you're arguing for corporate tax rates here or against? I can't even tell. And no, companies are going to pass along tariff's in the form of price increases and cost cutting, just like they would corporate taxes. If anything, tariffs are better because the big corporations like Amazon and Walmart can push the pain back down to their suppliers so that they don't have to raise prices. Taxes hit the corporation directly and can not be avoided.

The bigger question is....why do you think Kamala would have been any better on this issue? I mean, her campaign promise was to raise the corporate tax rate by 7%?

If you can't tell you're an idiot. I literally stated "corporate taxes should be zero".

11 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

You make no sense. You say Biden is for open borders, then say he did the wrong thing by trying to close the borders.

My statement should translate to the US having a more permissable immigration policy for nations south of us, focusing on bringing back temporary work visas for seasonal workers, would bring some sanity to our border.

This "immigrants always bad" view is stupid simple and only appeals to the low and common view.

It's correct to make a value judgement here and call simple stupid people what they are: simple and stupid.

Nobody, anywhere has said immigration is always bad. The argument is over uncontrolled, illegal immigration...which you were trying to suggest was great for our economy because they were all paying taxes and providing cheap labor. Now you're moving the goalposts to talk about controlled immigration which everyone supports.

My comments were trying to paraphrase your argument, not making one of my own.

11 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If you can't tell you're an idiot. I literally stated "corporate taxes should be zero".

And then you went on to make a comparison between corporate taxes and tariffs, arguing that corporate taxes were in some way preferable. So no, I'm not an idiot....your argument made no sense. More importantly, you conveniently ignored my question about why Kamala would have been a better option, when she was proposing a +7% increase to corporate taxes. I'll wait.

10 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

My comments were trying to paraphrase your argument, not making one of my own.

Then you have no idea what I was arguing. Most of the time you project some "liberal strawman" onto whatever is being argued.

It's not worth my time to try and dumb it down for you anymore.

6 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

And then you went on to make a comparison between corporate taxes and tariffs, arguing that corporate taxes were in some way preferable. So no, I'm not an idiot....

Clearly you are. Because that's nowhere close to what I said.

Reading comprehension is at a 2nd grade level for you. There's no point in arguing.

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Clearly you are. Because that's nowhere close to what I said.

Reading comprehension is at a 2nd grade level for you. There's no point in arguing.

Again, you avoid the question that started all of this. If you don't support corporate taxes, they how would Kamala have been a better option? You won't answer the question because you know that she would have raised corporate taxes...just as she campained she would.

In terms of reading comprehension...please explain to me what this sentence means.

"The point is that "fairness" aside, the best way to endure paying jobs as a matter of public policy is to lubricate the skids for companies to operate here - among which is corporate taxation. Yeah the worker is going to ultimately pay some taxes then, but the reality is that taxes on corps is little different from a tariff. It's passed on to the consumer in higher product costs and the worker in reduced wages."

If this was supposed to anchor your argument around why corporate taxation is bad. You missed.

Amid all the accusations of illiteracy, IMO

3 hours ago, The Norseman said:

So no, I'm not an idiot.

2 hours ago, The Norseman said:

Again, you avoid the question that started all of this. If you don't support corporate taxes, they how would Kamala have been a better option?

Again, you avoid the question that started all this. If you don't support tariffs, then why is Trump a better option?

While you're at it, you can also do adherence to the Constitution, not being a rapist, or a criminal, or staring at solar eclipses, being duped by Facebook memes, etc.

To have jobs, you need businesses to operate. One way to incentivize businesses in your township/city/state/country is to reduce/eliminate taxes on these businesses.

If there are jobs, people will come. You need to raise taxes, so the taxes end up being raised on earners rather than corporations. Ultimately there is a net effect to any sort of taxation, but balancing them towards earners - who have less leverage than businesses - achieves the goal of getting more businesses and jobs operating.

In terms of Kamala, no I am not a fan of hers or the policies of the left generally when it comes to business.

But any election with Trump on the other side of the ticket is not about policy.

Trump is an idiot. And a criminal. And a traitor to the Constitution. He leans into authoritarianism. Even wielded carefully tariffs are stupid and self-defeating economic policy. He has stated on multiple occasions that he does not care about the deficit. Only a fool would believe he was going to reduce the deficit let alone the debt. His reckless spending coupled with revenue losses from tax cuts that are not offset by spending cuts is accelerating an already poor debt situation for the country. And his stupidity with tariffs is causing economic pressures that reduce the likelihood of interest rate reductions, causing the costs of that debt to increase. He's also waging a war with our largest trading partners via tariffs, many of which hold a ton of US treasuries - and thus they have leverage to sell these on the market and put more pressure on the US Treasury to increase rates of return on treasuries costing the nation MORE money. He is an ignorant and recklessly stupid man who hasn't the first clue how the economy operates and how the market impacts our ability to raise funds to pay our obligations. He is the greatest threat to the stability of the US right now, and that includes Xi and Putin.

These are all negatives that easily override concerns about policy differences. If I was an myopic single-issue voter and only cared about "tax cuts", sure maybe Trump's idiocy would be appealing. But I, for one, vote for a stable government with a long term view, and Trump is a disruptive force in the worst possible ways.

None of what I stated is hyperbole. It's readily observable truth to anyone who has paid attention in the last 4 months.

12 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

To have jobs, you need businesses to operate. One way to incentivize businesses in your township/city/state/country is to reduce/eliminate taxes on these businesses.

If there are jobs, people will come. You need to raise taxes, so the taxes end up being raised on earners rather than corporations. Ultimately there is a net effect to any sort of taxation, but balancing them towards earners - who have less leverage than businesses - achieves the goal of getting more businesses and jobs operating.

In terms of Kamala, no I am not a fan of hers or the policies of the left generally when it comes to business.

But any election with Trump on the other side of the ticket is not about policy.

Trump is an idiot. And a criminal. And a traitor to the Constitution. He leans into authoritarianism. Even wielded carefully tariffs are stupid and self-defeating economic policy. He has stated on multiple occasions that he does not care about the deficit. Only a fool would believe he was going to reduce the deficit let alone the debt. His reckless spending coupled with revenue losses from tax cuts that are not offset by spending cuts is accelerating an already poor debt situation for the country. And his stupidity with tariffs is causing economic pressures that reduce the likelihood of interest rate reductions, causing the costs of that debt to increase. He's also waging a war with our largest trading partners via tariffs, many of which hold a ton of US treasuries - and thus they have leverage to sell these on the market and put more pressure on the US Treasury to increase rates of return on treasuries costing the nation MORE money. He is an ignorant and recklessly stupid man who hasn't the first clue how the economy operates and how the market impacts our ability to raise funds to pay our obligations. He is the greatest threat to the stability of the US right now, and that includes Xi and Putin.

These are all negatives that easily override concerns about policy differences. If I was an myopic single-issue voter and only cared about "tax cuts", sure maybe Trump's idiocy would be appealing. But I, for one, vote for a stable government with a long term view, and Trump is a disruptive force in the worst possible ways.

None of what I stated is hyperbole. It's readily observable truth to anyone who has paid attention in the last 4 months.

Yep, no emotion there. All objective. 😂

On 5/24/2025 at 10:05 AM, we_gotta_believe said:

Again, you avoid the question that started all this. If you don't support tariffs, then why is Trump a better option?

While you're at it, you can also do adherence to the Constitution, not being a rapist, or a criminal, or staring at solar eclipses, being duped by Facebook memes, etc.

He's a better option because at least he's not afraid to the buck the system and try to make some meaningful change. In order to save us from going off a fiscal cliff. We don't need more of the same, we need disrupters who will change the tax code, the way bills move through the legislature, the way the government spends money, build in proper oversight and hold politicians accountable to their pork driven re-election process. Most importantly, they will need to re-structure the entitlement programs which will surely get them run out of office in the next election.

Is Trump doing that? Not nearly to the extend he needs to be, and this house bill looks like its taking us in the wrong direction. If it passes as is, I'll be the first to say that this administration is failing to live up to it's promises. Can he? I dunno, every time he tries you and your friends scream to the heavens that he's exploiting the powers of the executive. If he relies on the legislature, we wind up with fiscal disasters like this current bill. Seems like it will take an economic implosion to get these politicians serious about any real fiscal responsibility.

The simple fact is that at best, Kamala would have been a do nothing, more of the same tax and spend democrat, and we all know it. You can burp up your laundry list of reasons you hate Trump for the 9000th time, but the fact is that nobody cares. People are hoping that he can bring some real change. But, sadly the deep state is proving to be very good at defending itself.

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

hold politicians accountable

3 hours ago, The Norseman said:

He's a better option because at least he's not afraid to the buck the system and try to make some meaningful change. In order to save us from going off a fiscal cliff, we don't need more of the same, we need disrupters who will change the tax code, the way bills move through the legislature, the way the government spends money, build in proper oversight and hold politicians accountable to their pork driven re-election process. Most importantly, they will need to re-structure the entitlement programs which will surely get them run out of office in the next election.

Is Trump doing that? Not nearly to the extend he needs to be, and this house bill looks like its taking us in the wrong direction. If it passes as is, I'll be the first to say that this administration is failing to live up to it's promises. Can he? I dunno, every time he tries you and your friends scream to the heavens that he's exploiting the powers of the executive. If he relies on the legislature, we wind up with fiscal disasters like this current bill. Seems like it will take a fiscal implosion to get these politicians serious about any real fiscal responsibility.

The simple fact is that at best, Kamala would have been a do nothing, more of the same tax and spend democrat, and we all know it. You can burp up your laundry list of reasons you hate Trump for the 9000th time, but the fact is that nobody cares. People are hoping that he can bring some real change. But, sadly the deep state is proving to be very good at defending itself.

You are not a serious person if you watched this moron stumble his way through bankrupting casinos and manage to significantly increase the deficit during his first term before Covid even came into the picture and somehow thought "yeah this is the guy we need to save us from fiscal calamity"

Thank you for ef'ing all of us with your absolutely stunning stupidity.

32 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

You are not a serious person if you watched this moron stumble his way through bankrupting casinos and manage to significantly increase the deficit during his first term before Covid even came into the picture and somehow thought "yeah this is the guy we need to save us from fiscal calamity"

Thank you for ef'ing all of us with your absolutely stunning stupidity.

Naah, stunning stupidity is being blinded by hyperbolic, emotional groupthink. Very few of you are even capable of rational thought which is why you can't have an honest debate without blurting out the same emotinal nonsense over and over and over again. Then you echo it back to one another on repeat to make sure nobody ever deviates from the message. Cults are full of people that lack the ability to be introspective.

What's funny is that the more rage you throw at the problem, the more normal people who are capable of rational thought recoil and go 180 degrees in the opposite direction. It is literally people like you who got Trump re-elected.

Ok moron, I'm three old fashioneds in.

Please enlighten me as to what policies (hah!) and leadership () Trump displayed from 2017-2020 that would lead you to believe he's a fiscally sound choice.

I'll be waiting with great anticipation.

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Ok moron, I'm three old fashioneds in.

Please enlighten me as to what policies (hah!) and leadership () Trump displayed from 2017-2020 that would lead you to believe he's a fiscally sound choice.

I'll be waiting with great anticipation.

We've done this before. I write down my list. You jump all over it and say its propaganda.

How about you tell me what on Kamala Harris' platform made her a better choice on the economy?

4 hours ago, The Norseman said:

Cults are full of people that lack the ability to be introspective

That's what I admire the most about trumpbots like you, norse, your ability to be introspective.

12 hours ago, The Norseman said:

How about you tell me what on Kamala Harris' platform made her a better choice on the economy?

That she wasn't Trump. We know what Trump is. He will spend more than Democrats while trying to cut taxes. He will exacerbate every fiscal issue we have.

Kamala was wrong within normal parameters.

Republicans haven't had a true fiscal conservative since Bush 41. Romney was probably the best candidate since.

11 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Republicans haven't had a true fiscal conservative since Bush 41. Romney was probably the best candidate since.

Truth

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

That she wasn't Trump. We know what Trump is. He will spend more than Democrats while trying to cut taxes. He will exacerbate every fiscal issue we have.

Kamala was wrong within normal parameters.

Republicans haven't had a true fiscal conservative since Bush 41. Romney was probably the best candidate since.

Agree that Republican's haven't been fiscal conservatives as advertised of late. But, the bulk of the spending is mandatory and happens regardless of who is in office. Legislatively, the entire system is designed to spend money. Omnibus bills, pork fueled re-elections, military industrial complex, public sector unions, entitlements and new added programs. Add in things like 9/11, the financial crisis and Covid to emergency spending and spending gets out of control quickly.

Of course Kamala would have let the Trump tax cuts expire. And then what? She had no plan for meaningful changes to our system or spending cuts. She would have kept the same puppet masters behind the scenes that pulled the strings for Biden and we would have had 4 more years of the same tax and spend nonsense we've had for decades. "Normal parameters" got us to where we are today and take us off the fiscal cliff. We know where that road leads.

I don't know if Trump's plan will work or not, but I know it requires Congress to step up and legislate meaningful change to everything from the tax code to entitlement reform. The tariffs will offset some of the losses from the tax cuts and the idea is that improved trade abroad as well as a more enticing US market for business will boost GDP. The trade deals he is negotiating in places like KSA are already having meaningful impact to our most critical industries. Do you think Kamala would have done that?

Lastly, Doge. I know you all love to hate on Doge, but the fact is that they have begun to show us examples of the massive waste within our government and are making meaningful change in order to drive future efficiency. They will need congress to move before we start cutting real money, but they have laid out the framework for meaningful spending reform. Line by line, contract by contract agency by agency. Doge should be a fixture of the government no matter who's in office for years to come.

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

I don't know if Trump's concepts of a plan will work or not

fyp, trumpbot