Donald Trump’s speech during Musk interview sparks health concerns

[maesariang]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You might want to look closer to home when it comes to deciding who is ignorant. I don't know if you are unable or unwilling to read a graph but you'll note that from 1941 to 2017 the corporate tax rate was higher than the 28% tax rate which Yellowtail claimed would come out of consumers' pockets.  Please share with us why the corporate tax rate which was always higher than 28% for 66 years over this time is implicated in bursts of inflation in the 70's and 80's?  Where's the correlation? 
And why such a rapid growth in the average  Americans' income when taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals was higher?

 

You never studied economics did you? 

[placeholder]

Just now, maesariang said:

You never studied economics did you? 

In other words, in reply to the facts I marshalled, all you can do is offer a personal question. You've got nothing.

[maesariang]

Just now, placeholder said:

In other words, in reply to the facts I marshalled, all you can do is offer a personal question. You've got nothing.

Yes or no?

 

Have you ever studied economics? 

 

Not a personal question at all. 

[Yellowtail]

54 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But non-morons know differently

Look at the corporate tax rates when Americans real income was rapidly on the rise:

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/corporate-tax-rate

According to you, from 1941 to 2017, Americans were suffering from the high taxes on corporations.

Your graph does not support your claims. 

 

Where do corporations get the money to pay their taxes? Do you think they just take that hit? 

 

Also, you "forgot" to address: 

The left has been in power for the last 12 out of 16 years, and at their convention, all they can do is go on and on about how terrible things are, and how they're going to make things right if you just reelect them.

 

They are in office now. 

 

Kamala promised to: 

Raise corporate taxes to 28%, which every non-moron knows comes out of consumer's pockets. 

Raise capital gains taxes to 44.6%, which will stifle the economy.

Initiate 25% tax on unrealized capital gains, taxing the money you have not made yet. 

$25K for first time home buyers, which will only drive of the cost

Free medical for illegals 

Amnesty & citizenship for all the illegals already in the country. 

Etc. 

[maesariang]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

reply to the facts I marshalled

What facts? You posted 1 graph 

[maesariang]

Inflation was mostly high when corporate tax was high

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, maesariang said:

Inflation was mostly high when corporate tax was high

Thanks for dispelling any doubts about your mastery of economics. Or rather lack of it. Lots of evidence of ignorance here, but let's just stick to the main one: namely that somehow you correlate the purchasing power of a dollar with prosperity. The purchasing power of a dollar is irrelevant to how prosperous someone is. What matters is the total purchasing power of the dollars they earn and save. By your cockeyed reasoning, Americans in the midst of the Great Depression when there was actual deflation and the purchasing power of an individual dollar increased, were better off than Americans after WW2 when the purchasing power of the individual dollar declined due to high inflation during the War and afterwards. This is laughable.  You really need to review your Economics 101 textbook or maybe just read it for the first time.

[maesariang]

Just now, placeholder said:

Thanks for dispelling any doubts about your mastery of economics. Or rather lack of it. Lots of evidence of ignorance here, but let's just stick to the main one: namely that somehow you correlate the purchasing power of a dollar with prosperity. The purchasing power of a dollar is irrelevant to how prosperous someone is. What matters is the total purchasing power of the dollars they earn and save. By your cockeyed reasoning, Americans in the midst of the Great Depression when there was actual deflation and the purchasing power of an individual dollar increased, were better off than Americans after WW2 when the purchasing power of the individual dollar declined due to high inflation during the War and afterwards. This is laughable.  You really need to review your Economics 101 textbook or maybe just read it for the first time.

I see you like to waffle on. No facts whatsoever. Obviously never studied economics so making up your own theories. Corporate tax rates get passed onto consumers which raises prices. Epic fail by you. Lower corporate rates also encourage more competition so you have greater supply.

 

Thanks for confirming you don't understand inflation.

[maesariang]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The purchasing power of a dollar is irrelevant to how prosperous someone is. What matters is the total purchasing power of the dollars they earn and save. By your cockeyed reasoning,

Where did you get this waffle from?

[maesariang]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Americans in the midst of the Great Depression when there was actual deflation and the purchasing power of an individual dollar increased, were better off than Americans after WW2

What a stupid thing to say. Just random nonsense. Things like inflation, gdp and unemployment are related. Trump had steady gdp growth, low inflation and low unemployment. 2019 was the best overall figures for 50 years.

[maesariang]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

This is laughable. 

The only laughable thing is the internet has so many Trump haters with no idea about economics. They just ramble on with made up theories.

 

Trump was the only guy in 50 years with 3.5% unemployment and 2% inflation. Nobody else did it.

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, maesariang said:

Where did you get this waffle from?

More empty denigration. I'll  explain to you in terms that require only a basic mastery of arithmetic. If someone earns let's say $100 per week and then 10 years later earns $300 per week but the purchasing power of a dollar has fallen by 50%, has their total purchasing power decreased, remained the same, or increased?

[maesariang]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

More empty denigration. I'll  explain to you in terms that require only a basic mastery of arithmetic. If someone earns let's say $100 per week and then 10 years later earns $300 per week but the purchasing power of a dollar has fallen by 50%, has their total purchasing power decreased, remained the same, or increased?

What has this got to do with unemployment, gdp and inflation? Try making a post that makes sense.

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, maesariang said:

The only laughable thing is the internet has so many Trump haters with no idea about economics. They just ramble on with made up theories.

 

Trump was the only guy in 50 years with 3.5% unemployment and 2% inflation. Nobody else did it.

Here are a couple of graphs that give the lie to both your claims:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi#:~:text=Inflation Rate in the United States averaged 3.30 percent from,percent in June of 1921.

If you extend the time span beyond 10 years. you'll find lots more quarters where inflation was below 2%

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate#:~:text=Unemployment Rate in the United States increased to 4.30 percent,percent in May of 1953.

 

If you visit the web page and do a count, you'll find that under Trump unemployment only descended to 3.5% for 1 quarter. Under Biden it reached got down to 3.5% 3 times and to 3.4% twice.

 

 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, maesariang said:

What has this got to do with unemployment, gdp and inflation? Try making a post that makes sense.

You're the party that originally  posted about the purchasing power of the dollar. Not me. What did you think you were proving by doing that?

[maesariang]

Just now, placeholder said:

Here are a couple of graphs that give the lie to both your claims:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi#:~:text=Inflation Rate in the United States averaged 3.30 percent from,percent in June of 1921.

If you extend the time span beyond 10 years. you'll find lots more quarters where inflation was below 2%

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate#:~:text=Unemployment Rate in the United States increased to 4.30 percent,percent in May of 1953.

 

If you visit the web page and do a count, you'll find that under Trump unemployment only descended to 3.5% for 1 quarter. Under Biden it reached got down to 3.5% 3 times and to 3.4% twice.

 

 

When was it below 2%? 

[maesariang]

Just now, placeholder said:

You're the party that originally  posted about the purchasing power of the dollar. Not me. What did you think you were proving by doing that?

You made a crazy post wanting 200% wage rises 

[maesariang]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Under Biden it reached got down to 3.5% 3 times and to 3.4% twice.

...

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, maesariang said:

When was it below 2%? 

I have to read the graph for you? You don't see the  digit "2"  besides the line on the right side of the graph? Now look to the left side of the graph. Do you see how all those bars fail to reach the 2% line?

[maesariang]

Just now, placeholder said:

I have to read the graph for you? You don't see the  digit "2"  besides the line on the right side of the graph? Now look to the left side of the graph. Do you see how all those bars fail to reach the 2% line?

What months were there buddy? Do tell

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, maesariang said:

You made a crazy post wanting 200% wage rises 

Actually, what's sad, is that in this example  in nominal terms the increase was 300%. In real terms the increase was 150%.  Apparently, you can't even do arithmetic correctly.

[maesariang]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I have to read the graph for you? You don't see the  digit "2"  besides the line on the right side of the graph? Now look to the left side of the graph. Do you see how all those bars fail to reach the 2% line?

So what year and month were they? 

[maesariang]

Just now, placeholder said:

Actually, what's sad, is that in this example  in nominal terms the increase was 300%. In real terms the increase was 150%.  Apparently, you can't even do arithmetic correctly.

Oh dear. 200/100 is a 200% increase.

[maesariang]

Just now, placeholder said:

Actually, what's sad, is that in this example  in nominal terms the increase was 300%. In real terms the increase was 150%.  Apparently, you can't even do arithmetic correctly.

Sad you would fail basic math. Try again.

[maesariang]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I have to read the graph for you? You don't see the  digit "2"  besides the line on the right side of the graph? Now look to the left side of the graph. Do you see how all those bars fail to reach the 2% line?

Here you go seeing as you don't know the graph you posted

[maesariang]

27 minutes ago, placeholder said:

More empty denigration. I'll  explain to you in terms that require only a basic mastery of arithmetic. If someone earns let's say $100 per week and then 10 years later earns $300 per week but the purchasing power of a dollar has fallen by 50%, has their total purchasing power decreased, remained the same, or increased?

 

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, what's sad, is that in this example  in nominal terms the increase was 300%. In real terms the increase was 150%.  Apparently, you can't even do arithmetic correctly.

....

 

300 -100 = 200

200/100 = 2

2 = 200%

 

Year 4 math. 

[maesariang]

What's your next challenge going to be? 1+1 =?

[Lacessit]

On 8/17/2024 at 4:29 PM, mogandave said:

You have to excuse him, his whole world revolves around hating Trump and making things up.

I guess this is made up too.....

 

 

[maesariang]

[maesariang]

25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I have to read the graph for you? You don't see the  digit "2"  besides the line on the right side of the graph? Now look to the left side of the graph. Do you see how all those bars fail to reach the 2% line?

 

47 minutes ago, placeholder said:

More empty denigration. I'll  explain to you in terms that require only a basic mastery of arithmetic. If someone earns let's say $100 per week and then 10 years later earns $300 per week but the purchasing power of a dollar has fallen by 50%, has their total purchasing power decreased, remained the same, or increased?

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for dispelling any doubts about your mastery of economics. Or rather lack of it. Lots of evidence of ignorance here, but let's just stick to the main one: namely that somehow you correlate the purchasing power of a dollar with prosperity. The purchasing power of a dollar is irrelevant to how prosperous someone is. What matters is the total purchasing power of the dollars they earn and save. By your cockeyed reasoning, Americans in the midst of the Great Depression when there was actual deflation and the purchasing power of an individual dollar increased, were better off than Americans after WW2 when the purchasing power of the individual dollar declined due to high inflation during the War and afterwards. This is laughable.  You really need to review your Economics 101 textbook or maybe just read it for the first time.

Says it all