Young adults today: No school, no job, living at home with mom and dad

Only in the lefts fantasy world a anti business president could do better than a pro business president .

Next you will tell us unemployment pay outs stimulated the economy.

 

Yet, that is the basis of every demand you make upon the state to provide "free" this and "free" that. It's the end you are after, and that justifies forcing strangers to pay for it.

Hypocrite.

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

 

Obama was an anti business socialist. Name one Libcommie policy that helped business create jobs.

 

or a liberal will have us believe that the highest corporate rates in the world help corporations stay in USA and create jobs here . It's almost too stupid to believe

 

And why do people from the North move to the South?

Because they made a good living working in the North, and retired to the South where it is sunnier and housing is/was cheaper and the living easier (no more shoveling snow ...)

 

Since I know you know nothing of economics, here is one for you:

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20080130/

But I will bet you think globalization created more jobs for Americans, and lower wages stimulates the economy. BTW, I think I would rather have an honest Pro-American President then the trash now in the office.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/18/trump-companies-dont-always-buy-american-hire-american.html

 

Another lie from the right wing mindless. The EFFECTIVE tax rate for corporations due to the loopholes, deductions,m etc. given to the 1% is around 16% which is lower then several other countries in the world. About 1/3 of corporations pay no tax at all.

But stupidity is a trait of the right.

 

A kid running a lemonade stand knows more about economics then a liberal college kid taking economics..

Once again in the lefts fantasy world they think a anti business president like Obama was could create more jobs then a pro business president.

Next you will tell us we will get personally rich by paying more taxes.

.

 

what is the lie exactly??? Why did you forget to tell us???

 

Statutory rate is 42%, highest in world which is hugely discouraging to any business that stays in the USA and wants to keep jobs in USA. To get lower effective rate they move off shore to lower tax countries, and do other things. If we eliminate corporate tax, which is passed on to customers anyway, it would cause a huge reversal of liberal offshoring. Do you understand now??

 

if so why so afraid to present your best example? What are you learning from your fear?

 

Read what I said and try to do so intellectually even though I know it hurts you to do so.

 

I understand you know nothing save for what some right wing mouthpiece tells you. Statutory rates mean nothing when one is given unlimited loopholes, and what the heck. YOU don't even have a clue as to what the corporate tax rate is:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksh...how-litte-companies-already-pay/#2771b40258aa

 

Kids should remain at home, find work, and further their education if need be to enable them capable to strike out on their own.

 

Who is giving unlimited loop holes? Go ahead and try to close them, for every one loop hole closed , 10 more open up.


.

 

Certainly not the left. And since the right is bought, and paid for, by the corporate world, and they are in charge, I would not expect anything to change. Not even the whining about how high the taxes are.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/opinion/how-austerity-kills.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

1) according to CBO ( non biased) US is at top for statutary, average, and effective corporate tax
2) tax should be eliminated since it is passed on to customers like any cost. We have it only because liberals lack the IQ to understand that they pay the tax.
3) Ireland has 11% tax and most of the worlds corporations moved there in whole or in part thus proving that America could boom hugely by complete elimination of what is a totally absurd tax to begin with designed only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberalism..

 

for 3rd time what is the lie?? Why are you so afraid to tell us???

 

yet another lie. Business gives equally to both parties so they don't out no matter who wins. 1+1=2

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...ny-times-more-democrats-sometimes-do-raise-m/




Securities & Investment


Election cycle

Donations to Democrats

Donations to Republicans

2006

$42.3 million

$37.1 million

2008

$100.5 million

$74 million

2010

$49.1 million

$50.8 million

2012

$59.3 million

$130.9 million

2014

$17.6 million

$30 million





Securities & Investment


Election cycle

Donations to Democrats

Donations to Republicans

2006

$42.3 million

$37.1 million

2008

$100.5 million

$74 million

2010

$49.1 million

$50.8 million

2012

$59.3 million

$130.9 million

2014

$17.6 million

$30 million

 

"Jim DeMint says so" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Except it's not true. ... except for the 2016 race in which most people saw the disaster Trump would be and found Hillary to be the lesser of two evils. But otherwise, as in 2012, the Republicans are way ahead. In 2012 they received 249% of the amount Democrats received. Put the following data into a spreadsheet and you will see...

http://247wallst.com/special-report...ies-making-the-biggest-political-donations/2/

1+1=2
Do you understand now?

 

Hilary raised far more than Trump which proves that money mostly does not matter in elections let alone that a politician does anything of substance for often adversarial donors who want opposing policies. Got it now?

 

Ummm, guess that is why Trump is President.

 

I understand that Republicans are not bought and paid for given that they have supported freedom and capitalism since Jefferson founded the party in 1793, no matter what its supporters were contributing.

Democrats stand for more and more welfare entitlements. Are they bought and paid for by their contributors? It would seem so since most are looking for cash payments from business for their contributions. Why would a politician cripple millons of innocent American with more and more mindless welfare programs if he was not being paid off ?

 

No it doesn't prove that. You can't take one example and claim it applies as a general rule, but you tried to. Got it now?