Author Topic: Trump = Winning  (Read 739306 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1150 on: June 27, 2018, 09:32:22 AM »
Thanks To Tax Cuts, Companies' Overseas Profits Now Flooding Back To U.S.
IBD ^ | 06/27/2018
Posted on 6/27/2018, 12:28:55 PM by SeekAndFind

They said it wouldn't happen, but it did: The money companies stashed overseas to protect them from high U.S. corporate tax rates is flooding back in, boosting growth, jobs and confidence in the economy. Thank the Trump tax cuts.

All told, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported, some $305.6 billion returned to the U.S. from overseas accounts. That's a $1.2 trillion annual rate, and far more than the $35 billion one year before.

The BEA's analysts explain why this happened: "The large magnitudes (of inward capital flows) ... reflect the repatriation of accumulated earnings by foreign affiliates of U.S. multinational enterprises and their parent companies in the United States in response to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act."

In short, the Trump tax cuts did it.

American companies were commonly estimated to have about $2.6 trillion parked in overseas accounts as of 2017. So in the first three months of 2018 alone, some 12% of that overseas stash came back to the U.S. It's now available here for companies to invest, pay out in dividends and bonuses, hire new workers, purchase new plants and equipment, or just buy back stock.

It's a shot in the arm for the U.S. economy.

Of course, you say. It's entirely logical to suppose that by slashing the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a 40% reduction — and by giving one-time breaks to those companies that had piles of cash sitting overseas, money would flow back into the U.S. After all, Trump's 21% tax rate is now lower than the current OECD average corporate tax rate of 25%.

But last year, when the tax cuts were still a topic of conversation, some in the media seemed to have trouble with this idea.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1151 on: June 27, 2018, 11:12:59 AM »
 8)
a

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1152 on: June 27, 2018, 02:36:23 PM »
Thanks To Tax Cuts, Companies' Overseas Profits Now Flooding Back To U.S.
IBD ^ | 06/27/2018
Posted on 6/27/2018, 12:28:55 PM by SeekAndFind

They said it wouldn't happen, but it did: The money companies stashed overseas to protect them from high U.S. corporate tax rates is flooding back in, boosting growth, jobs and confidence in the economy. Thank the Trump tax cuts.

All told, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported, some $305.6 billion returned to the U.S. from overseas accounts. That's a $1.2 trillion annual rate, and far more than the $35 billion one year before.

The BEA's analysts explain why this happened: "The large magnitudes (of inward capital flows) ... reflect the repatriation of accumulated earnings by foreign affiliates of U.S. multinational enterprises and their parent companies in the United States in response to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act."

In short, the Trump tax cuts did it.

American companies were commonly estimated to have about $2.6 trillion parked in overseas accounts as of 2017. So in the first three months of 2018 alone, some 12% of that overseas stash came back to the U.S. It's now available here for companies to invest, pay out in dividends and bonuses, hire new workers, purchase new plants and equipment, or just buy back stock.

It's a shot in the arm for the U.S. economy.

Of course, you say. It's entirely logical to suppose that by slashing the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a 40% reduction — and by giving one-time breaks to those companies that had piles of cash sitting overseas, money would flow back into the U.S. After all, Trump's 21% tax rate is now lower than the current OECD average corporate tax rate of 25%.

But last year, when the tax cuts were still a topic of conversation, some in the media seemed to have trouble with this idea.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

Nice.

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1153 on: June 27, 2018, 03:39:11 PM »
Damn. It's like Trump won the election all over again. So much winning, so many tears.
a

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1154 on: June 27, 2018, 05:27:41 PM »
Damn. It's like Trump won the election all over again. So much winning, so many tears.

The meltdowns are getting even worse.

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40628
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1155 on: June 27, 2018, 05:37:54 PM »
Supreme Court rules non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday in Janus v. AFSCME that non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions.
The case concerns whether public employees can be forced to pay so-called "agency fees" to fund the work of public sector unions.
Experts said that a holding in favor of Janus would be the most significant court decision affecting collective bargaining rights in decades.
Tucker Higgins   | @tuckerhiggins
Published 24 Mins Ago  Updated Moments Ago
CNBC.com
Plaintiff Mark Janus passes in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after a hearing on February 26, 2018 in Washington, DC. The court is scheduled to hear the case, Janus v. AFSCME, to determine whether states violate their employees' First Amendment rights to require them to join public sector unions which they may not want to associate with.
Alex Wong | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Plaintiff Mark Janus passes in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after a hearing on February 26, 2018 in Washington, DC. The court is scheduled to hear the case, Janus v. AFSCME, to determine whether states violate their employees' First Amendment rights to require them to join public sector unions which they may not want to associate with.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that non-union workers cannot be forced to pay fees to public sector unions.

The case, one of the most hotly anticipated of the term, is the second in two days to hand a major victory to conservatives, following Tuesday's holding by the court that President Donald Trump's travel ban is constitutional. Some experts have said that a holding in favor of Janus would be the most significant court decision affecting collective bargaining in decades.

Mark Janus, an employee at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Human Services, asked the court last summer to overrule a 40-year-old Supreme Court decision. It found that public sector unions could require employees affected by their negotiations to pay so-called "agency fees," which have also been called "fair share fees."

Those fees, approved by the court in the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, cover collective bargaining costs, such as contract negotiations, but are meant to exclude political advocacy.

Janus argued that his $45 monthly fee to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees was unconstitutional. He said the fees infringed on his first amendment rights, and that, in the case of public employees whose contract negotiations are with the government, the fees were a form of political advocacy.

He argued that there was little distinction, for instance, between requiring employees to fund unions that engage in political lobbying and requiring them to fund political groups such as the Democratic Party.

The court on Wednesday agreed with Janus's argument.

"Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned," wrote Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the court's opinion in the case, Janus v. AFSCME.

Trump hailed the ruling immediately after it was handed down. In a post on Twitter, the president wrote that the decision was a "loss for the coffers of the Democrats."


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!

10:11 AM - Jun 27, 2018
13.5K
6,008 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The Supreme Court Wednesday dismissed the union's argument that agency fees prevented free-riding from employees who benefit from the union's negotiations. AFSCME argued that, because it was obligated by law to represent the interests of both union and non-union members, the fees were a way for employees to pay their fair share for contact negotiations from which they benefited.

Avoiding free riders, Alito wrote, "is not a compelling interest."

"Many private groups speak out with the objective of obtaining government action that will have the effect of benefiting nonmembers," he wrote. "May all those who are thought to benefit from such efforts be compelled to subsidize this speech?"

The case is the third in five years on the question of fair share fees to come before the Supreme Court. In 2014, the question came to the court in Harris v. Quinn, but the justices declined to answer the central question over agency fees' constitutionality, and instead ruled 5-4 that the petitioners in the case were not public employees.

In 2016, the court issued a one sentence opinion in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association that left the question open.

I'm headed to my union's annual conference in a few minutes. This should be an interesting next few days.

Many chapters in OSEA have negotiated fair share. Some have 100% membership or close to and some who don't have fair share have classified employees who enjoy union benefits while not contributing to the cost of providing them. This means when an employee screws up or their supervisor wants to fire them just because, the union still represents them. I know, I was a chapter president responsible for representing about 1,500 employees. Folks who claimed that union membership violated their personal or religious beliefs had no trouble seeking legal help and support when they had got themselves in to some deep shit with our employer.

I believe you are an attorney from what you've posted. How would you feel if you were required to represent anyone who came to you for help regardless of whether they paid your usual fees?

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1156 on: June 28, 2018, 02:43:39 PM »
Could you fucking imagine... the outrage over world peace!
a

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1158 on: June 29, 2018, 12:44:56 PM »
All I know is the ladies look a lot sexier in yoga pants  :P

Tell us Howard, do you still use pre-cum as cologne?
a

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1159 on: June 29, 2018, 05:50:47 PM »
Anyone wanna bet against Trump again?
a

Yamcha

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13292
  • Fundie
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1160 on: July 01, 2018, 09:31:41 AM »
 8)
a

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1161 on: July 02, 2018, 05:29:09 AM »

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1163 on: July 02, 2018, 07:30:50 AM »
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/01/chuck_todd_despite_unpopularity_trump_is_winning_while_dems_are_reeling.html



LOL   Even libfag chuck todd admits what we knew a long time ago here - Trump = Winning

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1164 on: July 02, 2018, 09:16:39 AM »
I know you're a Trump supporter , he's President and your side is happy.
What I never understood on either side is the intense joy or sadness over this.
I didn't vote for Trump, but I still think he's done a few good things.

Can we at least agree that Trump isn't Hitler2.0 and Hillary wouldn't have ruined the country?

I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect none of you Trump voters here will admit that Hillary wouldn't have been a total disaster.
Like the hard left, you have demonize the other side . True?

Hillcunt would have been great only because she would not be functioning as a POTUS but in AA and a rehab facility for her boozing.  Thus, she could not do too much damage

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1166 on: July 02, 2018, 10:01:37 AM »
Would she go to the Betty Ford Clinic or Passages-Malibu? ;D

I crack on Hillary , it's funny sometimes,  but she's no longer relevent.

serious political question ;D - who has higher body fat %, Trump or Hillary?


lb for lb probably hillfag. 

Princess L

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13095
  • I stop for turtles
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1167 on: July 02, 2018, 10:26:20 AM »
I know you're a Trump supporter , he's President and your side is happy.
What I never understood on either side is the intense joy or sadness over this.
I didn't vote for Trump, but I still think he's done a few good things.

Can we at least agree that Trump isn't Hitler2.0 and Hillary wouldn't have ruined the country?

I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect none of you Trump voters here will admit that Hillary wouldn't have been a total disaster.
Like the hard left, you have demonize the other side . True?

Absolutely would never agree to that!  She would've been just as bad or worse than Obummer continuing with the same policies.  She wanted to continue and expand the ObamaCare disaster, referring to it as “one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama. She sees ObamaCare as a success, after all before it was called ObamaCare it was called HillaryCare.
It is truly troubling to think what she would've done to the economy. Ie: her comments on American businesses, "Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs," or her plan to raise taxes by at least $1 trillion.
Hillarynomics = More Of The Same Failed Obamanomics
Foreign policy? Immigration? The Supreme Court?  YIKES!  It's nauseating to even fathom the disaster it would be.

One thing for sure though, you wouldn't be seeing as many idiots protesting in the streets
::)
:

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40628
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1168 on: July 02, 2018, 01:42:59 PM »

Absolutely would never agree to that!  She would've been just as bad or worse than Obummer continuing with the same policies.  She wanted to continue and expand the ObamaCare disaster, referring to it as “one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama. She sees ObamaCare as a success, after all before it was called ObamaCare it was called HillaryCare.
It is truly troubling to think what she would've done to the economy. Ie: her comments on American businesses, "Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs," or her plan to raise taxes by at least $1 trillion.
Hillarynomics = More Of The Same Failed Obamanomics
Foreign policy? Immigration? The Supreme Court?  YIKES!  It's nauseating to even fathom the disaster it would be.

One thing for sure though, you wouldn't be seeing as many idiots protesting in the streets
::)

FYI, Obamacare has yet to be repealed or replaced. No matter how lousy some people think it is, congress hasn't come up with anything better.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1169 on: July 02, 2018, 01:51:59 PM »
THIS attitude is why we won't get any civility in our politics or this forum.

For me, it's like trying to discuss religion with a devote Christian , Muslim or Jew.
It's normal to feel "you're right" on various political issues.
The problem is  the need to demonize the other side as evil.

I know you consider some liberal ideas as "nauseating" ( your words).
Once I know that, I realize it's futile to even attempt a debate.
You've already come to a conclusion before we begin.
In my field that's known as "experimentor bias" and is a huge no-no in scientific research.




Just accepting the Winning.   Get over the fact that Trump has exceeded every single expectation set for him so far and obliterated the failed Obama term. 

Hillary has ruined and wrecked everything she ever went near - her term as Sec of state was a disaster.  She was do nothing as a senator.  As a first lady she was a horror show. 

If she were elected POTUS, she would have just continued her legacy of failing at everything she touches. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39259
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1171 on: July 03, 2018, 07:26:38 AM »
ip to comments.

Trump to rescind race guidelines in college admissions, WSJ reports
Reuters ^ | 3 Jul 2018
Posted on 7/3/2018, 10:24:04 AM by mandaladon

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration plans to revoke guidelines that encourage considering race in the college admissions process as a way of promoting diversity, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.

The guidelines, put in place in the Obama administration in 2011 and 2016, put forth legal recommendations that Trump officials contend “mislead schools to believe that legal forms of affirmative action are simpler to achieve than the law allows,” the Journal reported, citing two people familiar with the plans.

Trump administration officials plan to argue the guidelines go beyond what the Supreme Court has decided on the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled universities may use affirmative action to help minority applicants get into college. Conservatives have said such programs can hurt white people and Asian-Americans.

The Justice Department under Republican President Donald Trump has been investigating a complaint by more than 60 Asian-American organizations that say Harvard University’s policies are discriminatory because they limit the acceptance of Asian-Americans.

Princess L

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13095
  • I stop for turtles
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1172 on: July 03, 2018, 08:27:05 AM »
THIS attitude is why we won't get any civility in our politics or this forum.

For me, it's like trying to discuss religion with a devote Christian , Muslim or Jew.
It's normal to feel "you're right" on various political issues.
The problem is  the need to demonize the other side as evil.

I know you consider some liberal ideas as "nauseating" ( your words).
Once I know that, I realize it's futile to even attempt a debate.
You've already come to a conclusion before we begin.
In my field that's known as "experimentor bias" and is a huge no-no in scientific research.


BULL.  That's a leftist tactic.

Albert Einstein is credited with saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Voting for Killary would have been the textbook example of insanity.
:

SOMEPARTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15831
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1173 on: July 03, 2018, 01:16:08 PM »
Wow, an Einstein quote. I never heard that before and sure don't have the IQ to understand it  ;D


You are on a 24/7 shitposting marathon in the politics board. Go back to the G&O.

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40628
Re: Trump = Winning
« Reply #1174 on: July 03, 2018, 01:35:18 PM »
Unlike you and most Trump voters, I'll praise the person I didn't vote for when they do something good.
In fact, I fully accepted he won the electoral college and election, fair and square.

I was disgusted when I saw protestors chanting and harrassing our sec of DHS (in a Mexican restaurant).

I was totally against the school that refused access to sec of education Devos.

 I stand for the anthem and would call Trump  "Mr President" if I was lucky enough to meet him.

If you wouldn't feel and behave the same for Obama and Hillary, you're 1 sided with serious political bias.



You're a better man than I am. I cannot bring myself to call Trump President. He's done nothing which warrants my respect. I did not like the man prior to the election and nothing about this has changed for me post election. I have developed a modicum of sympathy and appreciation for the First Lady, who appears to have distanced herself from her husband. However, I do question her recent fashion choice.