Hurricane Harvey decimates Texas. Hurricane Irma bulldozes Florida....Trump's Agenda?

Ah yes, drain the swamp. Cut corporate taxes in the midst of not one but TWO natural disasters...

This is what you voted for. 

My god, are we paying the price a GOP base that pushed such an incredibly vile man and corporatist through the primaries and elected him.

The duping of a lifetime, never to be topped. Thanks GOP voters. You f***ed us all...

Too bad your "queen" lost....Tell us all what she would be doing differently that would make you feel better...

Trump is non-establishment and just needs the people to remember this! Whose Congressman is still on recess? I thought Healthcare was on top of the To-Do List?  There is no fix in Washington until what is happening affects them! Their all self-interested and about fundraising and not for you.

How much $$$ did the Former POTUS contribute to their Hurricane Fundraising? Trump I know gave 1 Million and their name was not on his list! He visited the Texas area and spread out the million to about 10 groups. Everyone knows as most of these fundraising groups have salaries who a big piece of the pie funds collected are paid to!

Let them all write books and let those who have a government jobs read them at work!   

Hard to leave you out of it when you asked the question. The guy asks a legitimate question in return. In other words, what would anyone else do differently?  The assumption is, whatever Trump is doing or asking to do, you don't like the plan. So what would you recommend?  Or what would your candidate do differently?  Do the same thing all other politicians have been doing?  A lot of folks are disillusioned with the normal politicians.  That is why the oddball candidates like Sanders and Trump were able to get so much traction. 

Your whole premise to the topic is faulty and there are more issues than the one you are trying to connect. Hurricanes don't have anything to do with taxes. It is the same with you and your household. If you live beyond  your means it catches up to you. If you have to cut back you can't let every crisis be a reason to keep spending more; you simply cut back on less important things is all. There will always be a next perceived crisis and a reason to keep spending more if you don't start cutting back sooner or later. 

Corporate taxes and tax on wealthy are two very different issues as well.  One has little to do with the other. Basic economics show the cost from corporations being passed down to the consumer is all. I would not charge companies any taxes at all --- there simply is no point to it. 

Higher taxes on the wealthy has never been good for the economy or the poor either.  The assumption is twofold:  rich make more and, therefore, deserve to be taxed higher; and that it would ease the burden on the poor and make things more affordable for them. Both of which are false.  It just seems like the thing to do.  It is just usually jealousy and laziness.  People see that the rich have more and don't think it is fair. They also feel sorry for the poor and want them to share in the wealthy folk's fortune. It simply does not work that way.  Always the wealthy find a way to simply hold onto their cash and not spend it. Therefore, slowing the economy down. You should want their money in the system, making jobs or spending cash where folks work. Not trying to take it from them to use as you see fit.  Encourage them to use it. I never understand why people are so jealous of wealthy people in America. Go back and look at some of the outrageous tax rates on the rich in the past. Just ridiculous to think the average person would think that is right or fair or would help the system at all. Many better ways to get their money than to overly tax then for it. 

Sure, help the folks that want to live in hurricane and flood-prone areas out if you like.  But don't take from the rich or anyone else to do it.  As bad as we need to cut back, we can still help out and cut taxes. We just have to prioritize the funds is all. Very basic. 

Trump did not give one million, or anything for that matter. He made a pledge to give one million, because it made for good press, and then completely back peddled. He's a crook and a liar. We could start another thread just on Trump's fraudulent charitable donations.

Who is back peddling? Call the White House or write for a complete list  STS?

https://heavy.com/news/2017/09/trump-hurricane-harvey-1-million-donate-relief/

Trump donates $1 Million to Hurricane Harvey relief efforts.

Here's where the $1 Million will be sent according to the White House.........

Reach out America $100,000

Red Cross $300,000

Salvation Army $300,000

Samaritan's Purse 25,000

Direct Relief $25,000

Habitat for Humanity $25,000

Houston Humane Society $25,000

Operation Blessing $25,000

Portlight Inclusive Disaster Strategies $25,000

Team Rubicon $25,000

But always any side of economics can be called a scam by folks that don't agree.  I do understand that. Like they say about economists and weathermen --- only two professions where you can be right half the time and still keep your job. But always wanting to tax rich more just because they have more money has never been proven to work either.

Hey, as late as last week he was waffling. I haven't looked at any updates. If he came through then good. I'm not going to beat a dead horse or speak negatively of a good deed.

I think the bank bail outs, which some people did like but many also didn't, I think the bail outs constituted a different form of "trickle down". Likewise, as did the auto industry bail out. I just don't subscribe to massive corporate tax breaks just to pad the pockets of CEOs and share holders. That money sits and collects interest and almost never "trickles down" to stimulate the economy. Where as when you put back into the pockets of the people, it goes immediately back into the system. I don't get how politicians sell their constituents on this whole concept of "we're against doing things like raising the minimum wage because it'll be a "job killer" then let's give tax breaks to the rich and it'll be a "job creator". And it's just not so. And people who are poor let spin doctor politicians sell them on these concepts. I just shake my head. I've stopped caring. I make good money. I'll be ok. 

TDT mainly is two-fold: if it benefits, or seems to benefit mainly the wealthy or business, in the short-term; and, it benefits, or seems to benefit the poor in the long-term. This stems from way before RWR, which democrats mainly associate it with. So, yes, a lot of different things can be seen as TDT or used as examples. So, you may or may not agree with some of it; but it is hard to dispute all of it. That is all I am saying. 

The assumption that tax breaks 'are just to pad the pockets of CEOs' simply falls apart to logic.  It doesn't work that way. For example, think of how very, very few CEOs there actually are in the country. It is about WAY more than that over-simplification. That money does not sit and collect interest. That is exactly what it does NOT do. It does more of that the other way around. This is proven many times over. But, again, it is not about the rich guy --- in the short-term; it is about the poor guy --- in the long-term. 

You told me you are an independent. And I told you I will take you at your word for that for a while. Because I haven't discoursed much with you at length before. But the minimum wage thing and the tax thing are always used as a copout by democrats.  The two are distinctly different issues, economically and politically. 

It is the same rationale democrats used during, and well after the depression,  when it took so long to stabilize the economy and turn things around.  The democrats always say we actually didn't spend enough and do enough.  When TDT doesn't work the week after, the republicans always say it wasn't allowed to last long enough.  Both can never be proved.  The interesting issue is when it is studied with a lagging effect.  Things are seen in a whole different light. 

I sincerely recommend reading up on it if you are interested; instead of just listening to democrats that advocate against TDT or tax breaks. It is a very interesting topic and way more complicated than a quick news segment would have you believe. 

And it is not about you; it is not about any one individual. That is actually the same attitude you accuse big business or CEOs of having. 

Good for the ones of us that have done well.  But you have to look long-term if you care about the country or the next generations, etc.  

Nice that you are discussing it. But I think you would be pleasantly surprised if you were to read some decent articles or books on an even keel about it. 

The issue that democrats can't see around or don't like is that it also greatly benefits the wealthy.  The wealthy hire more people, they spend more, they invest more. All of which add money to the system. But the money also grows more for the wealthy.  Democrats see this as unfair.  Democrats want a situation that actually takes from the rich and gives to the poor; not a situation that works to increase the whole.  Of course, if rich are hiring and producing more --- they make more for themselves. But now someone who didn't have a job has one or someone who had a lesser paying job now has a higher paying one, etc. Of course, the point is it has never been tried completely in an absolute way.  Even Laffer-types admit that you obviously don't want 0% tax on folks. And no one wants 100% tax.  So, there has to be a middle ground.  When the rate has dropped from the 90s or the 70s down to the 30s or even the 20s --- look at what happened. It can very easily be argued that it got us out of recessions.  Obviously profits go up if you hire more people and your business produces more.  More for everyone. But a 1% gain for a broke person is not nearly as much as a 1% gain for a person making 200k/yr. 

But the issue is the same as most things like this. If people don't want to see it or admit it, they won't no matter what evidence or argument you present. 

I would ask what articles or books you have read that advocate it?  That is almost always the best way to see how someone stands on an issue and how they came to their conclusions. 

I notice you have criticized some in this forum for their comments in debate (Wall a couple of weeks ago), yet here you are specifically stating that you are more educated on a subject and therefore right. 

That might be true in some subjects, but there is no uncontroverted facts you can rely upon to support your proposition here. 

Come on man.  Trump has been very generous in his life.  He even had a top rated television show that was completely based on donating to charity.  That show probably raised close to a billion dollars for different charities.... all very good causes.  

In recent years there has been indescrepencies in the record of his charitable foundation. And let us not forget that foundations take in donations and redistribute them. Not the same as giving out of his own pockets, which is what he apparently did here. Regardless of any of it, we don't have to make it a big thing. I'm here to split hairs or get into a pissing match about the benevolence of the POTUS.

Yes. That is where a lot of folks disagree, including economists.  As I said before the argument is always that we didn't go far enough or stick with it longer. But I will post a few quick links that hit the basics.  When you get a few free minutes, read through them and maybe go to some of the links they refer to.  These are pretty simple articles.  There are some more complex ones that are way in-depth.

Anyway, read them when you get time and let me know what you think.

This is mainly correct.  As I have said before, it is not a scientifically-proven experiment by any means.  That is why it is called a theory.  But my point is still the same.  There is evidence it works.  But it may have to be coupled, as RWR did, etc.  But economically, it makes sense. Hard to argue against encouraging companies to stay here, to hire folks, and pay more.  

I'm all for cutting taxes. But there has to be some sort of spending cut to coincide with it as well. Kansas is an example of your theory not working. Brownback cut corporate taxes and the state basically went bankrupt. It didn't have the trickle down effect people were hoping for. 

So where do you want to cut spending at? Are you in favor of Trump's wall? Do you want to cut military spending? Welfare spending? There has to be some balance here.