GOP Wants More Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Cuts to Unemployment Ins

Washington gave $5 trillion to corporations which enabled them to to get bigger as smaller businesses were allowed to fail. Over 45 million people were laid off, 4 million had their wages cut and 32% haven't paid their rent/mortgages since March. Now the administration wants to cut the capital gains tax and to reduce unemployment benefits. And Trump wants to be a 1 term President, presumably. Or catering to billionaires is just a higher priority. He'll be rewarded like Obama was with his $600k speeches to Wall Street.

 

So corporations got bigger but didn't add any jobs?

lol

 

This is the kind of issue the Democrats need to take and run with. They need to stop pandering to Black Lives Matter and making excuses for black ghetto riots. When class is the issue Democrats win. When race is the issue Republicans win.

 

The Democratic Party also needs to stop pandering to the Feel the Bern crowd and their far-left economic ideas. However, unless something dramatic happens in the next 3.5 months, what the Republicans may want to do is essentially irrelevant because when the smoke clears, the best they can hope for is a continued majority in the Senate led by a largely neutered Moscow Mitch.

 

The GOP needs to get busy working on spending reduction. That is a winning strategy.

 

FYI, there is a way to shrink a .jpg or .png file, just sayin'.

IN the meantime, I offer the one appropriate response to the GOP

 

Since it can't trickle up, it seems like a logical statement.

 

File that one under candidate for "moronic statement of the day". Why is it that wealth can not trickle up - pray tell

 

Because it has to be earned first. Wealth derives from businesses not from government. They pay their employees. They pay taxes. I define that as a downward movement of wealth. If an employee starts his or her own business then the cycle remains the same.

 

I understand that wealth can "trickle down" - your claim was that it can not trickle up !? -

Why not was the question - preferably in context -

Correct Answer - because when we move money to the top - it has nowhere else to go but down.

The question is not if some will "Trickle down" - but how much.

We can let the rich keep all the money - and all the profits - and become like serf's in the middle ages - and yes my child - some of that wealth will "trickle down" to the little people.

 

When working people have money they spend it. It goes back into the economy. When the rich accumulate wealth they put it in the stock market or it sits in their bank accounts. They already have more money than they can spend.

 

Pew Research Center, MAY 26, 2017

President Donald Trump’s first budget request to Congress would make deep cuts to government programs, including Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income adults and children. Recent polls have found little public support for cuts to Medicaid, but that may not be a surprise: Americans tend not to favor budget cuts when asked about specific areas being affected.

In April, only 12% of U.S. adults said they wanted to see the president and Congress decrease spending for Medicaid, according to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Four-in-ten said they preferred to increase Medicaid spending, while 47% said they wanted funding levels to be kept about the same.

Public reluctance to cut federal funding is not limited to Medicaid. In an April Pew Research Center survey, majorities in both political parties said they favored maintaining or increasing spending in nearly all of the 14 specific budget areas that respondents were asked about. The sole area in which a majority of either party favored decreasing spending was “economic assistance to needy people around the world.” Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 56% said they would reduce such funding. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, the share who said this was 13%.

In Pew Research Center surveys dating to 2009, the only other budget area for which reduced federal funding has drawn the support of at least half of either party is “government assistance for the unemployed.” In 2013, 53% of Republicans and Republican leaners said they would decrease spending for such assistance, compared with 16% among Democrats and Democratic leaners. (By April 2017, the share who would cut funding for this kind of assistance had fallen to 44% among Republicans and 10% among Democrats.)

This year’s survey found bipartisan support for maintaining or increasing spending for several entitlement programs. On Medicare – the health insurance program for the elderly or those with certain disabilities, which would not lose funding under the Trump budget – 85% of Republicans said they would maintain or increase spending, as did 94% of Democrats. On Social Security, which is also untouched in the budget proposal, 86% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats said they would maintain or increase spending.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-most-government-programs-including-medicaid/

------------

Because of COVID-19 and double digit unemployment I am confident that there is less support for specific cuts in domestic spending than there was three years ago. Because the stock market continues to rise I am confident that there is more support for raising taxes on the rich and the corporations than there has been in years.

 

You can't poll the public and get to government spending reductions. Congress has to do it regardless of what polls say. We can't keep borrowing money the way we do. It will end in disaster. The public doesn't understand that.

 

I am talking about wealth and you are talking about money. Who are we. How do we "move money to the top?" Without a business, there is no wealth to move in any direction. Money is another matter because it is a governmental construct. We aren't on the same page.

 

Correct - and these are the rich that live here.

If you pay a McDonalds worker more - that money goes directly into the local economy - if instead the money goes to the "shareholders" - this is some nameless faceless person who may not even live in the country never mind spend in the local economy.

 

Money is wealth - and I was talking about money.

 

That is an intent of two party system, do not allow to elect anyone who even remotely threaten ruling class.
That is why Democrat discourage electorate by supporting racial wars, illegal immigration, promotion of pederasty etc.
Republican discourage voters by threatening to take away health care, social security and any safety net.
As the result we have no normal voters and no decent candidates.
That is their game, One party rule playing two party opposition.

 

That's just silly. The Democrats don't "pander" to their base any more than do Republicans.

Frankly, they both disgust me and if somebody would come up with a third party that wasn't as schizophrenic as the Libertarians, I'd join them.

Much more realistic is that the US dump the two-party system which worked well for a more than a century. It isn't working now so we need a moderate third major party which will require the Repubs not to go too far right and the Dems not to be too far left. (I'll now await the far-righters here to tell me how wrong I am. )

 

If it wasn't for PPP, 5 of my employees would be on unemployment.

People that don't understand economics don't understand the concept of trickle down.

 

It is also true that people who do not understand economics - think that trickle down works !

 

"GOP Wants More Tax Cuts for the Wealthy, Cuts to Unemployment Ins"

does this surprise anyone

 

if the people don't have money to buy stuff, no jobs are created... trickle up creates jobs

 

Because it does.

It really isn't a terribly difficult thing to understand.

When a company hires an employee, the revenue generated is partially paid in wages to the new employee. When more revenue is generated, said employee gets a raise, a bonus, or another employee is hired. This is trickle down.

The belief that all the money makes its way down to the lowest employee is not the concept. Thought most who don't understand simple economics think this. Yes, profit for the company and ownership also increase with growth.

Without the employer, nobody would be hired and no revenue would make its way to hiring or wages.

I dont understand how some people cant understand that.

 

Your argument is bad - because clearly this is a terribly difficult thing for you to understand.

The claim on the table is not that "Nothing trickles down" - the first part of your lack of understanding
The claim is that not much trickles down - a claim that you argument fails to address.

 

Rich people do not hire people when they have more money. They hire people when they have more customers, even if they have to borrow money to do it.