that was still a crucial win, to see how galvanized the minority vote in Atlanta would be. Was a proxy war in many ways, had a conservative candidate cloaked as a moderate/independent....then a lot of kitchen sink dirt to derail the Dem. The GOP candidate was able to control the narrative, evade accurate branding; yet the Blue vote was strong enough to again stave off defeat.
We have a path to win, will be hitting the pavement again hard after the first of the year. Right now I'm fundraising my tail off.
Little concerned that so much attention is being funneled into why not Moore and not enough into why Jones. His opponent notwithstanding, Doug Jones has the history and the platform to serve the people of Alabama well. Wanna see more pro Jones messages.
pretty sure he's had plenty of ads promoting himself along with the constant touring and campaign rallies.
Doug listens to Jason Isbell and St Paul and the Broken Bones. What more do you want out of a senator?
obama admin was well on its way to killing them by not allowing them to be used at the federal level then that all got turned around
Can anyone make GIFs and if so can I get one of this guy's response when he hears you don't have to swear on a Bible?
That whole thing is great. The spokesman being all smug with “a Muslim can’t swear on the Christian Bible, so he can’t be an elected representative” to the stunned silence when he learns that isn’t the law - to finishing up with angrily telling ther Jewish Jake Tapper “Merry Christmas” (edited out of that clip)
I vacillate daily between being extremely frustrated that people this dumb are in positions of power and being extremely relieved that they're too stupid to fully implement their ideals.
Kinda slow today at work it seems. Anyone wanna talk actual policy? I was thinking either immigration or the corporate tax rate but I'm down for whatever.
Healthcare could be delivered more efficiently and uniformly if provided for by the federal government rather than relying on employer provided plans. This would also be cheaper and easier for companies from small businesses (the backbone of the American economy) to large multinational corporatiins and would be far better for Americans than a corporate tax cut.
Well I knew that you wouldn't be up for any real policy debate since you have no ability to comprehend, much less argue actual policy. My apologies for the confusion.
It can and I believe that is the eventual direction that we are going to take. However, I worry that standardizing care for patients and pay for doctors will lead to adverse effects in innovation and limit the doctor pools from the US and abroad as much of the financial incentive to be a doctor in the US will be capped. I don't think corporate tax cuts and healthcare are mutually exclusive. Over 99% of US corporations are small businesses. These aren't large companies with greedy, fat CEOs. They are ran by people not making much more than their employees most of the time. They deserve a tax break because they will most definitely use it to innovate and pay to keep their employees.
You can’t effectuvely cap physician earnings in this country without addressing the monumental cost to become one. Same with dentists. As for innovation, the motivation to innovate is driving scientists all over the world to search for and come up with new cures/treatments. That is different than the expense associated with practice of medicine and isn’t going anywhere. The majority of CEOs have said they aren’t hiring people or increasing wages with a tax cut. It makes sense that employment isn’t likely to increase very much when unemployment is at such a low point already. It’s a flawed argument for anyone arguing in favor of corporate tax cuts. Goldman Sachs has said its foolish to think any boost to the economy from the cuts will be big enough to offset the losses in revenue they cause. That jobs and the economy are still being used to justify the cuts is absurd. The cuts are to do two things 1) increase share price and dividends for large shareholders and 2) force an economic crisis that allows Republicans to justify slashing Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security (Paul Ryan has already let the cat out of the bag on this point) That’s it. If you want to propose policy changes that help out small businesses without doing the things go ahead. The current Republican proposals aren’t the answer to helping out most Americans.
Small businesses employ less than half of the American workforce, and like 3/4 of small businesses are sole proprietorships that aren't hiring employees. While actual small businesses would be helped with a tax break, the lion's share of benefit from the proposed corp tax cuts are going to big business.
To be honest with you, we aren't that far apart from each other in healthcare. I see the benefits in a single payer system but am worried about some adverse affects that may come along with it. This is a "juice is worth the squeeze" issue with me so I can't adequately counter your points on healthcare, because I pretty much agree with you. OTOH, it seems to me that corporate tax rates are always argued at the 1% level. While I would love to see large "American" corporations come back to America, I'm more looking out for the 99% of all C corps that are small businesses. These companies work with much, much smaller margins than large corporations. No one is getting rich off of them but they do provide many people/families a decent living. Any savings in taxes will go to pay off corporate debt, buy new equipment, and most definitely pay everyone in the company more. 99% of corporate CEOs aren't rich greedy bastards.
I am not saying 99% of CEOs are rich greedy bastards. I am just telling you what CEIs have said. They aren’t taking the tax cut and giving that money to either new or existing employees. Corporations don’t base hiring decisions on tax policy. They base those decisions on the long term outlook for the business. The absolute best case scenario for employees if some of those businesses pass some of the windfall along in the form of a bonus. Raises and hiring aren’t going to impacted to any significant degree. CEO’s have an obligation to look out for the company and the shareholders. That same obligation is not extended to the employees.
Are taxes not a part of a company's budget? If you lower taxes, that puts more money in the pot for everything else except taxes. One would think that in almost all corporations not in the 1%, what is best for the company and shareholders is growth and increased market share. The companies I am talking about are typically not publicly sold or VC funded and have very few shareholders outside of payroll. Lowering tax costs prevents them from lowering costs in other places and gives incentive to grow.
You voted for someone who can barely create full sentences and you accuse me of not understanding policy.....HILARIOUS
I expect the share price of my employer's S-Corp ESOP to get a nice boost (25%+) while my wages drag along at 3-5% as a high performer in a field that's hard to recruit in. Works out pretty neat for the people who already hold all the capital. While I'm not hurting for income, it's pretty annoying. My in-laws have an S-Corp that owns their farm land and veterinary business. They work the farm themselves, the S-Corp just gives them much better benefits. Rather than offer health benefits for their employees (and themselves), they use the health plan from my FIL's union job. There's a guy at my work who churns through LLCs for each little side business he thinks of so that he can fully take advantage of (abuse in my opinion) the tax system. My anecdotes are just anecdotes, but you're giving far too much credence to this idea of the small business owner. And remember that even if the owner's income is comparable to their employees', they're still growing their net worth via the business while their employees aren't. The main takeaway I got from The Millionaire Next Door is to own your own business and don't be an MD.
CEOs have said what they plan to do with the money. Paying off debts and buying back shares are the big winners. Hiring new employees and giving out raises aren’t. And that makes sense because tax windfalls aren’t viewed as long term business growth. Business growth is due to expansion and increased demand for the company’s goods and services. If that demand isn’t there to expand, then nobody new is going to be hired. The “extra” money is just going to go to the owners.
You are describing S corps whereas I'm talking about C corps. Two completely different conversations. Presidents/CEOs of C corps only increase their net worth via their pay from the standalone company. With S corps you are completely correct, but those are taxed and filed in accordance with the owner's personal income tax. Those are typically your non-employer corporations.
Your argument holds weight when it comes to large companies, especially publicly traded corporations, subsidiaries and VC funded, high margin C corps (most tech companies). They make up the top 1%. Hell, you can even stretch it out to the top 5% if you want. I don't give a fuck about them. I'm talking about your local retailers and service providers. When the founder of your local S-corp widget dealer starts making decent money and growing their market share in their community, it greatly behooves them to incorporate for a multitude of reasons, mostly credit and insurance risk. As soon as they incorporate, that company gets lumped in the same tax brackets as your medium and large corporations.
Well I'm glad we can all agree that a socialized healthcare system would be overwhelmingly good with only one or two very minor concerns that would likely be addressed by any legislation that implemented the system. Good talk guys.
the knock on innovation being adversely impacted ignores that much of modern medical research comes from not the US or is publicly funded at not for profit institutions
Look if these corporations don't have the ability to price gouge life saving medications and procedures as a way to bleed the population dry and funnel money from the desperate to the rich, what's the point of medical science in the first place?
Whether they grow market share is what will determine whether or not they hire more people or issue raises - because that is a source of new business. Decreased taxes aren’t. Lowering taxes doesn’t mean that public needs or wants any more of that company’s product.
It also limits innovation to only those diseases or conditions that have a solid business case for investment.