Rubio: Corporations aren't investing tax cuts

[ivwshane]

In the no shit category.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marco-rubio-corporations-arent-investing-tax-cuts/

The Florida Republican told The Economist last week that "there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker."

Instead, Rubio says corporations bought back shares -- generally done to lift stock prices for investors -- and that "a few gave out bonuses."

So when wages actually decrease (or more generously, when they remain stagnant) can we all agree that trickle down economics doesn't work (righties, "conservatives", Republicans, I'm looking at you)?

When GDP doesn't get to a sustained 4% can we all agree tax cuts don't spur economic growth (again I'm looking at you, righties, "conservatives", Republicans)?

When tax revenue falls dramatically and the debt blows up can we all agree a lower tax rate does not generate more revenue?

The economy is going exactly as I predicted it would. More mergers, stock buy backs, layoffs, and automation are happening now and I expect the pace to quicken.

So far, we are still riding the Obama wave.


https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...rongest-economy-weve-seen-in-decades.2492168/

 

[sandorski]

It's almost like they are doing exactly what they said they'd do....weird.

 

[trenchfoot]

Somebody should tell Trump about this travesty. He'd be frick'in pissed about it. /s

 

[Indus]

Capitalism and tax cuts aren't the solution.

Capitalism and tax cuts are the problem.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Or that what everyone who lives in reality land told them would happen.

Fortunately, the coming economic boom will pay for it, Trump will get reelected, and America will be white again.

 

[glenn1]

No shit because workers aren't an investment, they're an expense. Or in place of investment you could make an argument that employees are an asset to their employer although that sorta depersonalizes them in a way as well (the line between "asset" and "property" can be a fine one and perhaps not worth straying near when some of those workers may have ancestry who lived in slavery). Just because your side likes to use the word "investment" to mean any sort of spending you like and think might serve a policy position you support, that still doesn't change the actual definition of the word.

 

[Humpy]

Fortunately, the coming economic boom will pay for it, Trump will get reelected, and America will be white again.

Make America Guero Again

 

[IronWing]

No shit because workers aren't an investment, they're an expense. Or in place of investment you could make an argument that employees are an asset to their employer although that sorta depersonalizes them in a way as well (the line between "asset" and "property" can be a fine one and perhaps not worth straying near when some of those workers may have ancestry who lived in slavery). Just because your side likes to use the word "investment" to mean any sort of spending you like and think might serve a policy position you support, that still doesn't change the actual definition of the word.

Good to know, thank you. We should immediately repeal the budget busting tax cuts and raise taxes to cover the current deficit.

 

[zerocool84]

No shit because workers aren't an investment, they're an expense. Or in place of investment you could make an argument that employees are an asset to their employer although that sorta depersonalizes them in a way as well (the line between "asset" and "property" can be a fine one and perhaps not worth straying near when some of those workers may have ancestry who lived in slavery). Just because your side likes to use the word "investment" to mean any sort of spending you like and think might serve a policy position you support, that still doesn't change the actual definition of the word.

Nothing to see here people! You just don't know what investment means.

 

[ivwshane]

No shit because workers aren't an investment, they're an expense. Or in place of investment you could make an argument that employees are an asset to their employer although that sorta depersonalizes them in a way as well (the line between "asset" and "property" can be a fine one and perhaps not worth straying near when some of those workers may have ancestry who lived in slavery). Just because your side likes to use the word "investment" to mean any sort of spending you like and think might serve a policy position you support, that still doesn't change the actual definition of the word.

Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber.

Carry on water boy.

 

[glenn1]

Good to know, thank you. We should immediately repeal the budget busting tax cuts and raise taxes to cover the current deficit.

Feel free to repeal the tax cuts and I would love it if Dems actually did lower the deficit but that's not what they're going to do if they win the election. It will be full speed ahead with "universal healthcare" and other social welfare spending. Ideal situation will be a reasonably moderate Dem wins the POTUS and GOP holds the House, then we might actually see some financial restraint again.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Obviously we need to cut just a little more...

 

[darkswordsman17]

You know, given how much they harp about personal responsibility, isn't it odd how little Republicans show themselves? I'm sure everyone is just thoroughly shocked at yet another hypocrisy from them.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Investment is semi risky and the payoff may take a long time.

Much easier and safer to just merge with other companies and form a monopoly, then inflate prices.

 

[dank69]

Feel free to repeal the tax cuts and I would love it if Dems actually did lower the deficit but that's not what they're going to do if they win the election. It will be full speed ahead with "universal healthcare" and other social welfare spending. Ideal situation will be a reasonably moderate Dem wins the POTUS and GOP holds the House, then we might actually see some financial restraint again.

I bet universal healthcare could reduce the deficit in the long run if done right.

 

[sdifox]

Feel free to repeal the tax cuts and I would love it if Dems actually did lower the deficit but that's not what they're going to do if they win the election. It will be full speed ahead with "universal healthcare" and other social welfare spending. Ideal situation will be a reasonably moderate Dem wins the POTUS and GOP holds the House, then we might actually see some financial restraint again.

Except you are already outspending everyone else and getting shittier results. Universal healthcare done like everyone else will be a saving.

 

[Puffnstuff]

No shit because workers aren't an investment, they're an expense. Or in place of investment you could make an argument that employees are an asset to their employer although that sorta depersonalizes them in a way as well (the line between "asset" and "property" can be a fine one and perhaps not worth straying near when some of those workers may have ancestry who lived in slavery). Just because your side likes to use the word "investment" to mean any sort of spending you like and think might serve a policy position you support, that still doesn't change the actual definition of the word.

Typical republican mindset. Tesla is learning the hard way right now about the human resource asset.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I bet universal healthcare could reduce the deficit in the long run if done right.

It would also free up large amounts of money for employers.

 

[Puffnstuff]

It would also free up large amounts of money for employers.

I cannot believe that they've not yet gone to gladiator health care. Throw all of the sick people into an arena and let them fight it out for access to health care. The last man standing gets to be seen by the provider of their choice and the rest get pushed into mass grave.

Does this sound about right? (My sarcasm level is high this morning)

 

[ch33zw1z]

I cannot believe that they've not yet gone to gladiator health care. Throw all of the sick people into an arena and let them fight it out for access to health care. The last man standing gets to be seen by the provider of their choice and the rest get pushed into mass grave.

Does this sound about right? (My sarcasm level is high this morning)

Lol, look at the cdc maps for common health problems....the gladiator arenas would be raging in red states.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Lol, look at the cdc maps for common health problems....the gladiator arenas would be raging in red states.

All the more reason to adopt it ASAP! Do trial testing in red states for sure.

 

[cytg111]

Feel free to repeal the tax cuts and I would love it if Dems actually did lower the deficit but that's not what they're going to do if they win the election. It will be full speed ahead with "universal healthcare" and other social welfare spending. Ideal situation will be a reasonably moderate Dem wins the POTUS and GOP holds the House, then we might actually see some financial restraint again.

Wtf? Your party just blew up your economy and your justification, post rationalization, is that dems would have done the same just some other way? Dems inherited a friggin depression from unregulated wallstreet and banking and got things back on track, enough track for Trump to rape you in the behind. Again.

 

[glenn1]

Wtf? Your party just blew up your economy and your justification, post rationalization, is that dems would have done the same just some other way? Dems inherited a friggin depression from unregulated wallstreet and banking and got things back on track, enough track for Trump to rape you in the behind. Again.

It isn’t “my party,” I’m a deficit hawk libertarian and fully recognize Republicans have often been worse for spending (and civil liberties) than Democrats. Which is why I asked fur Dem President/GOP Congress because that’s the configuration that most often leads to reined in spending in the modern era. I’m a Bill Bradley democrat or GHW Bush republican in a day where the extremists run both parties.

 

[shortylickens]

I bet universal healthcare could reduce the deficit in the long run if done right.

In America it will never be done right. Too much incompetence and shadiness.

 

[Paratus]

It isn’t “my party,” I’m a deficit hawk libertarian and fully recognize Republicans have often been worse for spending (and civil liberties) than Democrats. Which is why I asked fur Dem President/GOP Congress because that’s the configuration that most often leads to reined in spending in the modern era. I’m a Bill Bradley democrat or GHW Bush republican in a day where the extremists run both parties.

It’s a cute story you tell yourself but anyone who feels the only legitimate role the government has is protecting your property rights is an extremist.