raydawg wrote on 08/30/17 at 00:44:10:



That's good news... however, CEO confidence is down by 7 points....(wait, wasn't tweety supposed to be a great businessman??)
http://www.conference-board.org/data/ceoconfidence.cfm

If you're really wondering how 2018 will be, just look at the presidential and congressional approval ratings.... big change ahead.  (but I'm sure all these numbers aren't accurate, only when they're good for the cons, right?...)

How do you figure a tax cut won't have positive impacts on the middle class?

says the guy whose very existence relies on trickle down.....

Unless you own your own company, (and even if you do, this also applies) you have a job and work for a rich guy. They give you money, you spend it. They give you more money, you spend more of it.

You live in Chicago. Move down here to Texas with same income, you'll have more money in your pocket because of lower taxes. You'll spend it somewhere.

Trickle down. It always works. Always. Like gravity.

That's exactly what trickle down is. I don't need to cut and paste a definition.

Fiscal policies enacted by governments which result in higher revenue for either individuals or corporations increase economic activity. It always happens, always. It may not happen to the degree your liberal mind thinks it should, but that doesn't matter. It always increases the positions of entities below.

One evidence it happens is because the opposite always happens. When government activity reduces revenues, economic activity is lessened.

Tax breaks increase your available assets.  You save or spend those. Either way, it increases economic activity on the plus side. Increases (commissions I presume) based on performance are the quintessential example of trickle down. You have increased the position of your employer and they in turn increase your position. You in turn spend that elsewhere and increase someone else's position.

The economy has millions if not billions of moving parts and nothing happens in isolation.

Look, you're just trying to piece together sentences for the sake of arguing. Everyone from a business person to a kid who's allowance just got increased because his parent got a raise understands the concept of benefits flowing 'downhill'.

The only ones who argue against it do what you just did which is to throw it into a big bucket, tip it over and try to blame the mess on that one things.

So, try presenting a realistic argument against it or shut up Oh, and use your own words. You tell me why when your company gets a tax break, you don't benefit from it in some fashion or another.

Tax breaks for the rich....blah blah blah... Grow f'ing up.

My company gets tax breaks, we reinvest that money in the business, so does yours, so does every company trying to succeed, if yours doesn't, go work somewhere else.

"Most of it stays at the top" is an admission that validates my point.

And the rich pay the vast, vast majority of the taxes.

Stop repeating liberal talking points and use your brain for a minute.

Now, I'm getting on a plane. Gave SWA money, the owner takes some and gives some to his employees. If SWA got a tax break tomorrow, the owners would make more money but so would their employees.

It might not trickle down in the amount you want or the amount you think they deserve so you solution is to have Uncle Sam take more of their money by force, keep some, and then give the rest to whom they feel are more deserving.

Like I always say you liberals should do, hang outside a Morton steakhouse and ask the first guy you see in a suit for 50 bucks. Cut out the middleman.