Wonder what the socialist democrats are really up to? Hang on... it's scary.

You would do better to tell us your opinions, rather than tell us others' opinions that you made up.

 

According to that argument many others who pay less taxes than me take money from me? LOL! You must really be envious of those making less money than you. Myself, I would be excited to get into the next tax bracket, it would mean I make more money and can FIRE earlier.

 

Yes, and those who make more than you.
Why do you like to be in their company?

 

let's start with the drug war.

 

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour; let's let business pay for it, not Labor via an Income tax.

 

Since you weren't paying attention last time around, "fear mongering to destroy a potential candidate they hate" is the exact opposite of what we Republicans do.

Democrats didn't nominate Hillary Clinton. The GOP did.

 

...arguing with fake news, right wingers.

 

I've yet to hear anyone present a reasonable case against stock buy backs. It's politically expedient for envious fools, but I'm not sure what anyone really fears.

 

Guys, I'm not sure who keeps lying to you, but you do not pay for a tax cut. From an accounting standpoint, it's ignorant to even suggest it.

 

So, your plan is to try ideas that provide abysmal historical results. It's a bold strategy cotton; let's see how it works out.

 

Using something that is beyond ignorant to defend an ignorant statement is drifting into stupidity.

 

1. No one makes a 10 year plan. 3-5, maybe, but anyone taking the time to calculate 10 year projections involving revenues versus expenses is dumb.
2. Deficits from revenue short falls aren't paid for. Spending is reduced or revenue is generated.

 

Hell yeah, let's dump all failed national programs. Glad your on board.

 

Yogi Berra, is that you?

 

It was your money to begin with. You earned the money. You are just receiving your own money.

Like with Iran -- they keep saying Obama didn't give Iran any money, he just gave them ka-billions of their own money.

Your money. Their money. Same, same.

 

Lol, we need more unemployed people, that we need to pay unemployment benefits, and magically create more industrial automaton as if that's not been the goal of every national industrial site with a worth while cost benefit ratio. The lack of thinking this through isn't surprising.

 

Don’t even need all that, just need politicians that won’t drop to their knees and swallow whenever someone pulls out a checkbook.

 

Word games.

If I make $50,000 a year and then decide that I want to work only 40 instead of 50 hours a week, my salary drops to $40,000. Now, if I keep my spending the same, who pays for it? Yes, the credit card.

Net = In - Out, if Out > In, Net is negative, i.e. a deficit. The tax cuts without spending cuts reduced In and made sure the Out >>> In for 10 years to come. Everything else is just word games.

 

This act. To say it is nationalization is ignorant at best.

 

1) Stock buybacks can be seen as a form of stock price manipulation. They increase the price of stock in the short term, and since CEOs are paid n company stock as a large part of the compensation, they put short term cash directly into CEOs pockets.

2) Stock buybacks divert cash from being reinvested into the company for things like research, innovation, buying new equipment and hiring new workers. They favor short term gain in exchange for long term loss of competitiveness.

3) They are a form of extractive capitalism. They extract current value from the company instead of creating new value. That's the opposite of what is beneficial for the economy.

 

What act are you talking about?

 

1) Stock buybacks benefit all shareholders(owners). They increase the percentage of corporate ownership that each share represents. They increasse the percentage of corporate earnings that each share "owns".

2) Corporate boards and executives have the responsibility to make the best use of the shareholder's money. Stock buybacks, or the issuance of 'special dividends' are a legitimate use of excess cash. If management cannot find any practical improvements to the business, the money should be passed on to the owners.

3) Isn't this just your second point repeated, using different words?

Most shareholders are only in it for the money. Extracting money is kinda the point. They want as much as they can get. It is up to management to use excess cash wisely. If there is no productive use for the cash, it's not a negative to pass it along to the shareholders. In fact, it's more productive to have shareholders make use of it, rather than to have it sit on the corporate balance sheet.

 

You need some serious education on financial process.

Owning stock (investing) is basically loaning money to a company with the equivalent of interest being the opportunity to share in the performance, which can be gain or loss. Such investments are traded between people every day- but without them, most of the large companies that provide the basis for American employment wouldn't exist. It is a way for ordinary people to finance and own a large business not otherwise possible,

A stock buy-back is a voluntary choice by the company to pay off some of that loaned money, to buy, usually at better than market price- it simply offers to buy it's own stock, returning more of the ownership of the company to itself. If the company buys all the outstanding stock, it called "Taking the company private", where as offering stock in the first place is "Going public".
NONE of this is forced on anyone- it free market choices by both company founders and investors. Nothing here imposes on anyone without their express and intentional agreement.

The people who own the company get to run the company. Just as you get to drive the car you own to the destination you chose- because you own it, it is your choice. The mechanic you pay to change the oil (your temporary employee) is paid for his specific services is not a part-owner, and does not get to dictate what you do with your car. Your property is in your control, and it's hard to grasp how you could think otherwise. Companies work the same way.

People who work for a company DO NOT own any part of the company unless they buy stock- so they don't get to sit on the board unless the board wishes to use them as counsel or special advisors, and that is "at pleasure", meaning by invitation, not by right or privilege. Employees are selling their services for a price, and when they do the wok and get paid for it, the contract is satisfied completely- there are no other rights afforded to the employee other than as agreed to.

That's how it works. That is fair, honest and just- at least to everyone except the customers of the employee (those who hire people) who get stuck with labor regulations that are all one sided. By one sided, nowhere in the regulations are there demands or obligations regarding the performance and production that the employee is supposed to deliver for the price he is being paid; they kind of ignore that part and leave it up to the business to control. Very lop-sided regulations, already totally weighted and purposed for employee benefit, with no protections for the employee's customer. IF anything is unfair- that is it.

The obsession with selling the idea that ordinary people are "victims" of more successful people is a self-serving delusion being pushed to entitle legalized theft- by people who would manipulate those gullible enough to demand more free things.... and ultimately control them; literally make them totally dependent. They are relying on your gullibility and greed for free things to lead you into that position, and once there, you will indeed be a victim- of your own foolishness.

Opportunity is everywhere. Moreso today than at any time in my life, and I have over 50 years in business and investing experience. The great shortage is in people willing to seize that opportunity, and the excess of those waiting for it to be delivered to the door, free, because it's too much trouble to work for it. They deserve nothing, and if the politics they support ever get in power- that is exactly what they will have.

 

I agree, you guys are playing word games with ignorant people. Confiscating less wealth from the private market is not spending, period.

 

what abysmal results has solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner, resulted. in? Only the right wing, specialized in fake news.