LostArtist wrote on 09/26/16 at 19:25:14:



Myopic mentality.
Corporations are TAXED 35% in America.
They LEFT because of the cost of doing business HERE, Nafta made other things attractive.
Unless people are willing to
Look at what the business environment WAS
LOOK at what Changed
Understand WHY jobs left
Then the BILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMAN will look foolish to you,
While the BILLIONAIRE crooked politician will keep looking good.

Why does America seem determined to continue in a direction that has been painful?

LostArtist wrote on 09/27/16 at 13:03:56:


Please provide some links and or more data.

Best regards,

pg wrote on 09/27/16 at 16:16:36:




Tax Policy Center:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed tax reforms that would significantly reduce marginal tax rates for both individuals and businesses,increase standard deduction amounts to nearly four times current levels, limit or repeal some tax expenditures,repeal the individual and corporate alternative minimum taxes and the estate and gift taxes,and tax the profits of foreign subsidiaries of US companies in the year they are earned. The Tax Policy Center estimates the proposal would reduce federal revenue by $9.5trillion over its first decade and an additional $15.0trillion over the subsequent 10 years,before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects.1Most of the revenue loss would come from individual income tax cuts, but about a third would be from the reduction in the corporate income tax rate and the introduction of special rates on pass-through businesses.


Economy.com
https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Polic...

Conclusions
Presidential candidates often put forward proposals that are as much political statements as firm policy positions. No one expects that their proposals will get through the legislative process and into law fully
intact. But while the policy proposals put forward by candidates are generally well overstated, they are a statement on their philosophy and priorities.

Mr. Trump’s economic policy proposals should be considered through this lens. He has suggested that he might be willing to bend his position on taxes and perhaps tariffs. He has even intimated that his policy
statements are simply a negotiating stance— he is asking for a lot more up front than he ultimately expects to get.

Having said this, what he is asking for is fiscally unsound. His tax and spending proposals will result in very large deficits and a much higher debt load. A future Congress may be able to rein in this profligacy, but it will not be easy, as there is a gulf between what he says he wants on taxes and spending and what it will take to make the budget arithmetic work.

He is also very suspicious of globalization. His willingness to threaten higher tariffs on U.S. trading partners and his sharp criticism of major trade deals signal a reversal on the long-running expansion of U.S. trade and foreign investment. Requiring millions of undocumented immigrants to leave the country also signals less openness to the rest of the world.

The upshot of Mr. Trump’s economic policy positions under almost any scenario is that the U.S. economy will be more isolated and diminished.



the reality is, Trump's plan is only successful IF company's and rich people actually create jobs. however, I'm highly skeptical that they will, I bet they won't, at least not nearly enough. We have left this "job creation to make money" economy way behind. now you can create much more wealth and money via simple investing rather than hard work and job creation. Not only do you get more wealth with much less risk, you get tax breaks for investing rather than actually creating a company and going through all that hassle to create something that might create demand enough for you to hire people.

LostArtist wrote on 09/28/16 at 08:05:28:


Ok, so he knows what demand is... but not how to create it.
If it's a commodity, you create demand by dropping price.
You can do that by dropping overhead... TAXES.
But of course you're ok with increasing overhead by mandating $15/hr.

If it's not a commodity, then you need to increase more esoteric qualities such as quality, appearance, etc.
You can do that by training your employees or just hiring more skilled labor.  Both increase costs.

Or you invest in new tech that automates the process and give everyone the boot.

Or you could invest in a politician and work a deal thru NAFTA or TPP and get some 3rd world labor.

When taxes and regulations cause the cost of my product to either go up or I lose money, then the cost goes up. If the taxes and regulations force me to raise the price above the Value to the poorest of my consumers, I lose sales, in order to maintain the necessary profit margin, I raise the price, alienating more consumers. Businesses Try to absorb as much of the increases as possible, in order to stay in business, just operating on a slimmer profit margin.
We have an environment that is not business friendly.
So, by extension, we have an environment that is not employee friendly.

Those who accuse me of Supply side, trickle down economics have less time studying and understanding. I know that's true, because they won't look at anything that I've suggested.
I'm not saying
Fill the warehouse, customers will come.
I'm saying
Stop robbing the employers so we can manufacture HERE, instead of import so much.
Before we had these great trade deals America was doing better. Still not being done Right, but less crappy than now.

I know all about the role Bush played. Again, please, I'm BEGGING YOU , PLEASE, stop pretending that I wouldn't put bush in same cell as the Clinton clan and Obama.

The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[9]


Clinton SIGNED IT INTO LAW, as a supporter.


Would this be a good time to repeat
Both sides are working for someone other than WE the People?





When the manufacturers who left went to where savings were, they used people where it was more PROFITABLE. And where robotics made sense, they used that new technology. A car welded and painted robotically makes sense, if the technology is affordable.

I can only explain so much typing. I really don't think you have any desire to understand.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/28/16 at 10:03:24:




oh, as a supporter...  I see, I didn't say he didn't support it

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-12-18/news/1992353055_1_treaty-renegoti...

Bush signs North American trade pact Clinton says he won't renegotiate

December 18, 1992|By Gilbert A. Lewthwaite | Gilbert A. Lewthwaite,Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- President Bush signed the North American Free Trade Agreement yesterday, and his successor-in-waiting Bill Clinton immediately announced that he would not seek the treaty's renegotiation.


I'm totally fine with them BOTH being culpable

but no one deserves to be in a Cell. via our REPRESENTATIVE government we are all to blame, corruption in Washington IS NOT NEW, yet we all keep voting for it.