Say it ain't so! Ivanka Trump Kushner usta be a LIBERAL! Is she gonna push daddy dearest away from the ALT RIGHT WHITES?

A tax break is not paying anyone anything. It's just recognizing that if you tax too much companies leave and you get NOTHING; no jobs and no tax revenue.

The deal means more people are earning money, and paying taxes and buying stuff which in turn causes someone else to have a job and pay taxes and on and on and on. It increases revenue.

@TrumpianDunningKruger -- You are welcome back in the Reality-Based Community at any time.

In the real world, tax cuts almost never self-finance. All the Pence-Trump deal for Carrier did was shift a tax burden from one entity to another. It is the very definition of "crony capitalism" (Carrier pays less tax, others pay more) and supposedly something Trump promised to eliminate.

Finally, it is conservative dogma that taxes paid by corporations are simply passed on to consumers and not paid for by the corporations themselves. Hence, changes in tax rates should (according RAWF dogma)  have almost no effect upon corporate behavior.

I am sorry your ideogial blinders prevent you from seeing how completely wrong (and/or hypocritical) you are.

Pure propaganda. Tax cuts do increase revenue and they also reduce expenses by getting people off welfare and into work. It just stands to reason.

True tax cuts have never been attempted. The overall burden of tax and regulation has been steadily rising. So called cuts have been minimal and their positive effect cancelled out by other policies.

Corporations act to maintain their competitiveness with other corporations. If they were all subject to the same taxes and regs, then changes wouldn't affect their behavior. Though obviously international corporations aren't subject to the same taxes, regs and other costs. They can move around to get the best deal, so they do. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 5, 2016 10:39 AM MST

@TrumpianDunningKruger --

Re: "Tax cuts do increase revenue and they also reduce expenses by getting people off welfare and into work. It just stands to reason."

Right, because all the economists who've looked at this question for decades using real-world data (and found tax cuts do NOT increase net revenue)  are clearly lying. Is that you using your intution instead of data again?...;-D...

Re: "True tax cuts have never been attempted. The overall burden of tax and regulation has been steadily rising. So called cuts have been minimal and their positive effect cancelled out by other policies."

On this, I think you do have a point. Of course, that means you're admitting GOP policies about "tax cuts" since the Reagan era (and including the Trump proposals) are pure BULLS**T and we need not pay attention to them...;-D...

Re: "Corporations act to maintain their competitiveness with other corporations. If they were all subject to the same taxes and regs, then changes wouldn't effect their behavior. "

EXACTLY! Which is why the Trump-Pence deal with Carrier is such egregious crony capitalism and contrary to any purported principles of "conservative" economic policy. And yet Trump's slurpers (such as you) are PRAISING him for his blatant crony capitalism. And, of course, because you suffer from Dunning-Kruger, you lack the intellectual capacity to recognize how badly you're being duped...;-D... This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at December 5, 2016 10:43 AM MST

Academia is rotten. It's all just politically motivated. There is no real world data. It all comes from the government and can't be trusted.

Yes, the establishment GOP are a bunch of RINOs. That's why the Trump movement got traction. People knew the GOP would only pay lip service to conservative principles.

It's not crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is when the powers that be give a special deal to their FRIENDS. So long as Trump extends similar deals widely instead of just selectively, it's not cronyism.

To what extent Trump is sincere and able to deliver remains to be seen. If he is lying or incapable of delivering, then the U.S. (and the western world in general) has no future. What will be, will be. I have not been duped in any case. I was always well aware of the enormous difficulties and moral complexities of transitioning to a sustainable future.

I do believe in equal treatment under law. Though since the principle on unequal taxation is so endemic, it is unrealistic to think it can be avoided in the short term. Transitioning to low flat rate taxes is a process. Ideologues dream of jumping directly to the system they believe in. That's not possible. The Carrier deal is just pragmatism and fully support it. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 5, 2016 12:13 PM MST

@TrumpianDunningKruger -- I just don't know how to respond.

When you veer from "Everyone who has information contrary to my beliefs is lying/part of TEH EBIL CONSPIRACY" to "Crony capitialism is pragmatism" (BTW, the Carrier plant is in Mike Pence's state of Indiana and Trump owns stock in United Technologies, Carrier's parent company), I don't know how to respond.

Your wall of ideologically-motivated paranoia and stupidity is simply inpenetrable.

I did not say everyone. I merely said that the establishment can't be trusted to make an unbiased analysis of its own policies. You constantly point to the establishment as if it's some independent group. That's irrational. You should be suspicious of it just like anything else.

The trouble with you Old School is that you only ever criticize other people's ideas instead of offering your own for criticism.

If you were President how would you stop the deindustrialization of the U.S.? Or are you so indoctrinated you don't even think it matters?

If you wish to claim cronyism you need to demonstrate that he is treating companies that he doesn't own stock in differently. It's too early to judge. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 5, 2016 12:54 PM MST

Re: "I did not say everyone."

From the previous post:

"Academia is rotten. It's all just politically motivated."

Sorry, until you're willing to own up to your own hypocritical self-contradicting bulls**t, we have no basis for discussion.

You'll simply evade by saying "I didn't say that" when I catch you, and that's not whack-a-mole exercise I'm willing to engage in. Please refer to my previous post about your impenetrable wall of ideologiclaly-motiviated paranoia and hypocrisy.


Re: "The trouble with you Old School is that you only ever criticize other people's ideas instead of offering your own for criticism." 

Oh, so if someone asserts "The Moon is made of Green Cheese", I have to offer my own theory about Moon composition instead of citing astronomical evidence the Moon is NOT made of Green Cheese?  Riiiiiight. Says who?

Re: "If you were President how would you stop the deindustrialization of the U.S.? Or are you so indoctrinated you don't even think it matters?"

I don't know. Is it even happening? Economic data (there's that pesky empiricism again) says the United States is manufacturing more stuff (in terms of dollar value) than it ever has. Yes, it's true, we're producing that stuff using far fewer workers than in the past. Is that a bad thing? Should automakers be forced to pay 60 man-hours of labor to produce a mediocre car (e.g. a 1965 Ford Falcon) when they can produce a far superior care (e.g. a 2016 Ford Fusion) with only 15 man-hours of labor?

Or consider the following example: The Obama administration imposed a large tariff on Chinese tire makers to protect tire manufacturing jobs in the United States. It worked, something like 1,200 jobs in the tire industry stayed in the US. The resulting higher prices cost American consumers over $1 billlion.  In other words, it cost consumers $900,000 per job saved. Was that a good deal? Or should that particular bit of "deindustrialization" have been allowed to happen?

Of course, thinking about concepts like "deindustrialization" in all of its complexities doesn't fit into breezy right-wing talking points ("Tax cuts increase revenue. I have no proof of this, but by ideological necessity is MUST be so!") So, explain to me what EXACTLY the problem with "deindustrialization" is, and I'll try to offer some solutions to the problem.

Re: "If you wish to claim cronyism you need to demonstrate that he is treating companies that he doesn't own stock in differently. It's too early to judge."

No, I don't need to wait. Carrier got a sweetheart deal. NO OTHER COMPANY got a similar sweetheart deal.  There are approximately 30 million businesses in the United States. If The Donald was going to negotiate with every business individually, he would have to make a deal EVERY 4 SECONDS for his entire administration to make this process "fair." Clearly that's not going to happen.

You claiming, "Well, we need to wait and see" is you substituting ideologically-motivated wishful thinking for admitting the Carrier deal (whatever the motivations behind it were) was blantant government favoritism on behalf of a single private company. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at December 5, 2016 1:24 PM MST

Hello T:

Whether a tax cut "works" is the subject for another conversation.. 

MY problem with the Carrier deal, is Trump SAID he was gonna TAX 'em at the border, instead of GIVING them a tax cut to stay..  It smells like a bailout..  It's the OPPOSITE of what he SAID he'd do.  This is NOT gonna STOP corporations from leaving..  It's gonna cause corporations to SAY they're leaving, and then line up at the Trump cash back window..

I thought I'd NEVER say this, but Sarah Palin is right.  It's crony capitalism.  It's picking winners and losers..

But, hold on..  It's even WORSE than that..  Carrier is STILL outsourcing 1,300 jobs to Mexico. In other words, Trump is building Carrier factories in Mexico and making Indiana pay for it.

excon This post was edited by excon at December 5, 2016 11:00 AM MST

The man hasn't even taken office yet, it is too early to pass judgement. I expect him to use a mixture of incentives, tariffs, and across the board tax cuts.

"In other words, Trump is building Carrier factories in Mexico and making Indiana pay for it."

That's nonsense. It isn't costing Indiana anything. They have something when they would have had nothing. 100% of nothing, is nothing. Part of something is something.

You say 'the man hasn't taken office yet, it is too early to pass judgement' and yet your whole argument is hypothetical. You are speculating. As is, if I may say, your romantic view of trickle down economics.

But there is one thing I would like clarity on - your assertions regarding establishment conspiracies. Your uber-heroes seem to have led a closeted existence, these multi-millionaires, that exempts them from such an extablishment. In your opinion. Yet that they are now entering that very same establishment mellee - by pure fact that they are now politicians subject to the same red tape, constrictures, and other annoyance that maketh a politician.
This isn't 2nd century Greece. This is the real world. Where I am wrong I fully expect you to elucidate my errors.

Good luck with that.

All political opinion is speculation. Politics is not about the present. It's about extrapolating the future and deciding what decisions lead to the best outcomes. It's a controversial subject. You told me you're a communist in another thread. Is that not your romantic view? We all have our beliefs. Naturally we all think we're right.

I don't think personal wealth has much correlation to moral character. Just being wealthy does not make a person part of the establishment. If it did they would've welcomed Trump with open arms, instead they fought him with everything they had.

Just being president doesn't make you a member of the establishment either. The establishment is really really pissed. They may just assassinate him.

The establishment is about shared elitist goals. Trump doesn't fit in.

Nothing has changed since 2nd century Greece. Human nature is a constant. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 27, 2016 7:28 PM MST