NYC Protests

[Carnal_Flower]

I'll be in front of shitty Trump big penis symbol tower at 6 pm for the United We Stand protest. See if you can spot me Ha*

And the NYC Women's March on Saturday. It's gonna be big!

*Featuring Michael Moore!

 

[phrodeau]

On Friday, it will be in Trump's power to declare that Trump Tower is a National Monument. So be sure to wipe your feet.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'll be in front of shitty Trump big penis symbol tower at 6 pm for the United We Stand protest. See if you can spot me Ha

And the NYC Women's March on Saturday. It's gonna be big!

Have fun pissing more people off and ensuring Trumps 2020 victory LOL, thanks!!

 

[tnman03]

I'll be in front of shitty Trump big penis symbol tower at 6 pm for the United We Stand protest. See if you can spot me Ha

And the NYC Women's March on Saturday. It's gonna be big!

Aside from the self empowerment and publicity seeking spectacle of the whole thing let us all know what is actually accomplished that changes anything.


And no I'm not being ugly or sarcastic about this, if the guy isn't doing worth a damn in two years he won't serve a second term. So all this histrionics is puzzling.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Aside from the self empowerment and publicity seeking spectacle of the whole thing let us all know what is actually accomplished that changes anything.


And no I'm not being ugly or sarcastic about this, if the guy isn't doing worth a damn in two years he won't serve a second term. So all this histrionics is puzzling.

It's really just a continued hissy fit from Nov 9th.

 

[BattlingSoul]

I can't wait until Trump does a GREAT job and the biggest serving of crow is HISTORY is fed to all these safety pin wearing snow flakes...

 

[KingOrfeo]

I can't wait until Trump does a GREAT job . . .

So mote it be, but even you must agree he ain't off to a good start. Just look at his Cabinet picks. Jeff Sessions for AG?! Seriously?!

 

[Carnal_Flower]

It's truly amazing that you Trump supporters get upset and angry about protests.

Where were you the last year and a half?

The loathing of Trump comes entirely from HIS loathsome, hate-filled campaign. What did you expect? Tossing flowers at him?

You shit on other people, they DON'T LIKE IT.

Dubya didn't get near as many protests even though he was disliked because he didnt run the same kind of campaign.

You win though hate, you get protested, it's that simple.

 

[tnman03]

I'm curious as to which PAG is funding this protest.

 

[RUlookingup]

Commies out in force. Wait, now they call themselves progressives. McCarthy had them pegged decades ago.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Commies out in force. Wait, now they call themselves progessives. McCarthy had them pegged decades ago.

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

 

[RUlookingup]

Bye bye left. Your ballroom days are over.

 

[BattlingSoul]

It's truly amazing that you Trump supporters get upset and angry about protests.

Where were you the last year and a half?

The loathing of Trump comes entirely from HIS loathsome, hate-filled campaign. What did you expect? Tossing flowers at him?

You shit on other people, they DON'T LIKE IT.

Dubya didn't get near as many protests even though he was disliked because he didnt run the same kind of campaign.

You win though hate, you get protested, it's that simple.

He won, get over it snowflake...

 

[AverageGary]

On CBS News This Morning's "We The People" series, talking to Trump supporters and detractors about Trump, one of them said it best.

"Do I agree with everything he stands for? No. Did I vote for him? No. But I'm an American and as an American I want him to succeed. Why? Because if he succeeds, America succeeds"

 

[BattlingSoul]

On CBS News This Morning's "We The People" series, talking to Trump supporters and detractors about Trump, one of them said it best.

"Do I agree with everything he stands for? No. Did I vote for him? No. But I'm an American and as an American I want him to succeed. Why? Because if he succeeds, America succeeds"

No more needs to be said...

 

[KingOrfeo]

On CBS News This Morning's "We The People" series, talking to Trump supporters and detractors about Trump, one of them said it best.

"Do I agree with everything he stands for? No. Did I vote for him? No. But I'm an American and as an American I want him to succeed. Why? Because if he succeeds, America succeeds"

Trump can -- and almost certainly will -- succeed in the sense of getting all his policies implemented; but if he does, America succeeds not.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's truly amazing that you Trump supporters get upset and angry about protests.

Nobody is upset and angry about any protest.....the protesters that are going to go out and freeze their ass's off to throw a temper tantrum over their loss are the most upset and angry.

Clearly.

You win though hate, you get protested, it's that simple.

Winning through anything doesn't matter as it was (D) loss that is causing the protests.

Further more the protests only serve to help Trump in 2020, so by all means.....carry on.

 

[BattlingSoul]

Trump can -- and almost certainly will -- succeed in the sense of getting all his policies successfully implemented; but if he does, America succeeds not.

How can less illegal aliens...
A stronger military...
More companies staying in America...
Cutting personal and corporate taxes...

Be bad for America?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Trump can -- and almost certainly will -- succeed in the sense of getting all his policies successfully implemented; but if he does, America succeeds not.

OHhhhhhhhhh don't actually explain that one....ever..... just keep preaching that doom and gloom KO.

I'm sure things like immigration reform that isn't pushing a globalist agenda will totally destroy the USA


LOL

 

[KingOrfeo]

How can less illegal aliens...
A stronger military...
More companies staying in America...
Cutting personal and corporate taxes...

Be bad for America?

The undocumented aliens are not in any way bad for America, and we would really miss them if they left. Every once in a while, if you will recall, they go on a general strike -- and nobody likes the results.

Our military is already far stronger and far more expensive than it needs to be. A buildup would only be throwing good money after bad.

Companies leaving America is not the problem, companies offshoring jobs is, and Trump won't do shit about that, though he will claim otherwise.

Cutting personal and corporate taxes will balloon the deficit and do nothing to grow the economy. Haven't we all learned by now that that never works?!

 

[BotanyBoy]

The undocumented aliens are not in any way bad for America, and we would really miss them if they left.

Except for that whole not paying taxes and sucking up benefits bit.....

Our military is already far stronger and far more expensive than it needs to be. A buildup would only be throwing good money after bad.

It's certainly more expensive than it needs to be. But that can be fixed and defense spending isn't bad spending.

Companies leaving America is not the problem, companies offshoring jobs is.

Right, because people like you have made it uneconomical to hire American workers, you've artificially and legally priced the USA out of the labor market.

Good job KO!!

Cutting personal and corporate taxes will balloon the deficit and do nothing to grow the economy. Haven't we all learned by now that that never works?!

Corporations never have and never will pay 1 penny of taxes.

And yes cutting taxes on the working/middle class does help grow the economy. People have more money to spend when the KO's of the world don't steal it from them.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Except for that whole not paying taxes and sucking up benefits bit.....

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gifhttps://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gifhttps://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.gif

Illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes, and they don't use benefits because they are ineligible.

 

[BattlingSoul]

Except for that whole not paying taxes and sucking up benefits bit.....



It's certainly more expensive than it needs to be. But that can be fixed and defense spending isn't bad spending.



Right, because people like you have made it uneconomical to hire American workers, you've artificially and legally priced the USA out of the labor market.

Good job KO!!



Corporations never have and never will pay 1 penny of taxes.

And yes cutting taxes on the working/middle class does help grow the economy. People have more money to spend when the KO's of the world don't steal it from them.

VERY well said...

 

[KingOrfeo]

Except for that whole not paying taxes and sucking up benefits bit.....

Of course they pay taxes, and nobody sneaks across the desert for government benefits.

It's certainly more expensive than it needs to be. But that can be fixed and defense spending isn't bad spending.

Spending more on defense than the next 11 biggest-spending nations combined in a post-Cold-War world is bad spending, and there is nothing wrong with the DoD that anything Trump plans to do will "fix." Why do we need a big military establishment at all? We have no strong enemies. Right now our biggest national security problem is terrorism, and that is not the kind of threat you can fight with an army.

Right, because people like you have made it uneconomical to hire American workers, you've artificially and legally priced the USA out of the labor market.

A race to the bottom is no solution. Even China is now losing manufacturing jobs to cheaper labor markets.

Corporations never have and never will pay 1 penny of taxes.

Whatever. They do file returns. You could make a case that individuals "really" pay the corporate taxes, but that is in no way relevant.

And yes cutting taxes on the working/middle class does help grow the economy. People have more money to spend when the KO's of the world don't steal it from them.

It never helped before, why now? Supply-side economics never works as intended -- or, rather, it works perfectly as intended, it makes the rich richer, but the messaging never sincerely reflects the intentions.

Ronald Reagan brought to the White House budget director David Stockman to devise a new economic plan. Reagan didn't bother to cut spending (and actually increased military spending), partly due to lack of political capital, and partly due to mendacity. Stockman, realizing that Reagan's "plan" was a fig leaf on a massive tax swindle for the wealthy, quit in disgust. Reagan brought in a toady named Art Laffer, originator of the so-called "Laffer Curve", and proceeded to run up massive deficits during his two terms: even accounting for the robust economic growth of the 1980s, the gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP increased from 32.5% in 1981 to 53.1% in 1989.[7] In relative terms, this constitutes the largest increase in government debt since World War II, and the second-largest peacetime increase ever, a close second to the years of the Great Depression. Note that Saint Ronnie neither had to wrestle down fascism nor deal with a devastating economic meltdown.

Laffer curves show that, under certain circumstances, a government's tax revenue can actually be increased by reducing tax rates. Often, as taxes increase, they may reduce income-producing activities. For example, high tax on a commodity item may increase its price so that demand drops thereby yielding less tax revenue. Conversely, lowering taxes can actually increase tax revenue in the long term - the taxed goods become more favourable to buy. In the case of income tax, it is assumed that a high tax rate means less money available for purchases or businesses and so the economy suffers - and so a low tax rate frees up more money to drive the economy. (An alternative route is that high taxes divert commerce from legitimate (and taxable) endeavors to illegitimate black markets.

This theory is sound only if the high point of the arc can be properly found. This curve is referred to as the "Laffer Curve," named for the economist who scrawled it on a napkin. When John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan cut taxes, government revenue went up.[8] However, under President George W. Bush taxes were once more cut and revenues dropped throughout Bush's first term, showing that US taxes were not on the far end of the Laffer curve. Jonathan Chait, a writer for The New Republic, has done a great deal of work recently demolishing the arguments in favor of Reaganomics, again. His book, The Big Con, explains this all in more detail.

Hangover

The problem with the Republican implementation of Reaganomics was that it reduced taxes on the wealthy, shifting more of the tax load onto the overburdened middle class, a perversion of the economic theories of the early French economist Jean-Baptiste Say. One of the main arguments used to justify this upward redistribution of wealth was "When was the last time a poor man gave you a job?" In simpler terms, If you give tax cuts to the poor, they only spend it on food and shelter!

As a result of this tremendous success (in terms of re-election), American radical conservatives trumpeted a mantra of "cut taxes" as often as fundamentalist Muslims pray. David Stockman, one of the architects of Reaganomics, became critical of his own project after the Reagan administration. He reappeared in 2010 to talk about his deconversion from the Church of Tax Cuts and to chastise the current GOP for its support in extending the Bush tax cuts.[9]

The true results of the cuts "trickled down" to the state and local level, as federal funding for many projects dried up. This threw most American state and local governments into fiscal crises cyclically, forcing them to raise local taxes in order to provide services people actually needed.

Recovery?

During Bill Clinton's two terms in office, taxes were raised slightly, the budget balanced, and the country's longest ever peacetime expansion occurred. The subsequent recession was arguably mild. Clinton did, however, cut the capital gains tax which led to investments in the information boom that fed the aforementioned expansion.

Plan W

In 2000, President George W. Bush admonished Americans to read his lips, so help him God.

Bush cut taxes for the rich, eliminated the inheritance tax for wealthy people too stupid to consult with a financial planner, gave away bribes called tax incentive packages, sought and got an $800 billion bailout package (which he called $700 billion bailout), and paid for it all with a Chinese credit card.

From 2000 to 2007, revenues from the corporate income tax almost doubled. It could be argued this was due to the cut in both the dividend and capital gains tax rates,[10] but as with many analyses of economic history this claim cannot be conclusively proven or disproven. Either way it wasn't close to enough to balance the books. During this same period, the dollar slipped against world markets, losing so much ground that some nations chose to no longer peg their currencies to the US dollar. Once at par with the euro, the US dollar lost a third of its value. When Bush junior entered office, the Canadian dollar was worth about 65¢. By January 2008, the Canadian dollar exceeded the value of the US dollar for the first time since 1976, although it has since receded to about 95¢, due in part to governmental intervention (former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is one of Bush's acolytes) and falling oil prices.

Relapse

Never ones to be discouraged by being repeatedly and conclusively proven wrong, the Republicans made supply-side economics a centerpiece of their 2010 election manifesto Pledge to America. Once the Republicans work their magic, Americans would again be allowed to have their cake and eat it: all of the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of 2010 would be extended, new ones would be enacted, and yet the federal deficit would be reduced through spending cuts.[11] These would, of course, not target defense spending or popular entitlement and welfare programs, because that would be political suicide. Where exactly the necessary reductions in spending should come from is intentionally left vague. Since eliminating the federal deficit while maintaining low taxation levels would necessitate the abolishment of all government functions other than those that should explicitly not be touched,[12] it is much more likely that Republicans will conveniently ignore the deficit once they are in power again.[13]

"Success" stories

It's also interesting to note that when "horse-and-sparrow" and "Mellonomics" were employed, government spending didn't change very much, and each decade saw some of the most massive economic crises in history. When "Reaganomics" was employed, government spending shot up dramatically (Reagan had to pay for all those military toys like SDI) and the Fed loosened by dropping interest rates from record highs of 20+%, which it had previously enacted to stave off inflation. This was done in tandem with the tax cuts. The end of the Reagan administration saw the crash of 1987 and the S&L crisis but, thanks to the stimulus, these were nothing like the panics in the 1890s or the Crash of '29. Reaganites don't like to talk about the spending or the Fed, though.

In many of the post-Communist regimes, a world drop in oil prices gave the appearance that trickle-down economics worked. Ukraine in particular increased tax revenue when the taxes were lowered, as it brought many economic activities out of the black market and into the legitimate economy. Part of this falls under tenets known as "Say's Law."

In the contrary case, President Bill Clinton slightly raised marginal tax rates, the economy boomed, and the budget for the first time in memory showed a surplus.

 

[phrodeau]

Do you think BotanyBoy is going to read all that? Especially when he's gearing up for 4:20?