The debate "Trump is a good President" was started by
May 15, 2019, 2:08 pm.
47 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 56 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Willyis posted 1 argument, killer posted 3 arguments, Hellow posted 18 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 7 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 8 arguments, TRUELOVE posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Willyis, killer, MADHURA, Hellow, hollieg, Light and 41 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, Nemiroff, historybuff, imjustheretommorow, Damian, DanielSays, bernie, sakshi, TRUELOVE, romeroa251, Communistguy, fry and 44 visitors disagree.
He wasn't even a good business man. He has driven multiple businesses bankrupt. He inherrited a ton of money and was doing pretty badly with it. The only reason it turned around for him is because he got onto the apprentice and that he liked gambling with other people's money. So that when he drove businesses into the ground it was other people's money he was losing.
Did you know that no banks in North America would work with him any more because he refused to pay back his loans? That's why almost all his loans are through deutsche bank now. And there are still alot of questions as to why they were willing to lend him money. deutsche bank has been accused of laundering money for russian oligarchs and deutsche bank is the only bank that will deal with trump. Trump also mysteriously loves russia and won't say anything bad about them. There is a good chance the reason he is so vehement in protecting russia is that his businesses are being propped up with russian money. And if you need money from a russian oligarch to prop up your business, then you probably aren't a great businessman.
He's more of a business man. He's not cut out to be a President. The things he should be focused on, he's NOT!
For a quick example, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
Almost 150 people burned to death because the company they worked for couldn't be bothered to put basic fire safety measures in place. This forced the government to create laws about what safety standards companies had to adhere to, IE interfering in businesses. Do you really want a world where the government doesn't interfere in business and stuff like that still happened?
I'm sorry, but you seem a little shaky on some of the details in your points. Government can, does and should interfere in the affairs of people's businesses. Things like minimum wage, safety standards, Anti-Trust laws, environmental protection etc, are all ways the government intereferes in business every single day. The economy you live in is largely shaped by government interference. So no, your statement is categorically false.
There are absolutely exceptions to contracts. The government has laws about what can be in a contract and what can't. For example if you sign a contract saying you are someone's slave, that is absolutely not enforceable. They can't contractually make you work for less than minimum wage, make you do things that are unsafe etc. There are lots and lots of exceptions to contracts.
Your arguments seem to be full of fundamental misunderstandings about how companies work. You seem to think that they have worker's happiness as a primary goal. They don't. They want to squeeze as much money out of their employees as they possibly can. They won't offer a raise unless they need to do so to attract new workers. They won't improve safety standards unless it starts losing them money. If you want to see what companies not constrained by laws looks like, look at companies in the 19th and early 20th centuries. 100 hour work weeks for pennies a day. Atrocious work environments where workers would regularly get maimed or killed. The reason those conditions don't happen as often in america is because the government was forced to put laws in place to stop those things from happening. Things got better because the government started interfering in business.
I'm not arguing that america should be a command economy, like the soviet union. But the only way to protect workers is either with very strong union, which republicans don't want to allow, or with strong government protections. If you don't have one, or both of those things companies will treat their employees as cash machines to be taken advantage of.
...me, not all of them take advantage of there Workers, that doesn't happen in every company. Not all of them harm the worker. In Arizona, we can work without unions. I don't think that's a bad thing if they get rid of it. Remember, government can't interfere with affaires of peoples Business. Remember, you sign a contract, you agreed to it. No exceptions.
They can't! they can not interfere. That ruins the hole aspect of freedom of choice. The hole purpose of making business is that we can make are own decisions. Drinking and driving isn't even what we are talking about. That's illegal. Unless they were hired to do it, I don't know. The Government doesn't say you can discriminate. They half to abide by are rights. Freedom of speech is one of them. I am not talking about breaking laws, I am talking about business. (From last response.
Please understand that it's not wishing or hoping, it's the fact that they can. Why would they? Listen, they need people to work for them. Money is one way to keep a worker. I also said money isn't always the case. I am not saying that your raise will go from 5 to 30 dollars an hour. No not at all, like I said. They have to expand their Business. witch means more jobs, and better working environment. That also involves wages of salary. That's not hopeful thinking. They have to invest in their business more, otherwise they won't be running if they arnt focused on they're Workers.
Of course the rich are paying taxes. I don't pay more taxes then Trump. I don't know how much taxes Trump pays. But I don't believe The Government is just handing the rich money. Let's say that they are. How is the Government getting all this money? only to hand it to the rich? The rich owe 90 percent of the money in the economy, they are the ones to pay federal taxes. I still don't see how Government just gives someone money, and not tax the rich.
Owe no. It's not just wages. You know McDonald's and Burger King? Think of it this way, people like burgers and fries, so they are going to a place that are making the burgers you like.The workers, are producing these goods to the consumer. The question is. Would you rather work at. McDonald's, or Burger King? You would first check the ratings of people work in those places. If they do have them.Whos minimum wage is better? What has better quality working.Do they teach you how to flip a patty properly ECT. A rich man knows as well as I do that I don't want a shitty job. It's not just the pay, but it's one of them. It's not that they are dumb, they are trying to make the best decisions for they're company, they know their is more then one burger joint.
Not really proving your point, just saying if a company does take advantage of you like that, then don't work for them. The Rich have always made their money. My wage hasn't went up or down. Actually last year it went up. Anyway, I haven't experienced any low payment. Just isn't happening to me. Nor to my colleagues. If something isn't going up, doesn't mean it's going down. stagnant isn't a bad thing. We still are making wage were we are, we already got are wage, we are happy were we are. No one's wage will go down.
No, that's a sad way of looking at it. They all don't cut corners just so they don't pay their workers.
That's a little
cheap if you ask..
for you paragraph 1) they could pay their workers more or expand their businesses creating more jobs. but history has shown that isn't what they do. Your argument is based on what you wish or hope the rich people might do. Recent history shows that the vast majority of that money went to share buybacks. It wasn't used to raise emplyoee wages. Why would they? They don't need to attract more employees.
And giving them a tax break so they don't pay their share is giving them money. You probably pay more in taxes than donald trump does. He can make millions and millions of dollars and still pay nothing in taxes. So when I say the government is giving them money, they are in the sense that they are not making them pay the same percentage of their income that you pay in taxes.
For paragraph 2, this is only true if the companies are dumb enough to directly compete in wages. They mostly don't. They just sort of keep wages the same. If you get into a bidding war everyone pays more. The big companies know that. So they will pay top dollar for executives, but for everyone else they simply don't raise wages unless they have absolutely no choice.
For para 3, you kind of just made my point. Your salary has not increased and neither has your co-workers. But corporate profits keep going up. So while the billions who own the company get richer than ever your wages stay the same. Additionally, you need to take inflation into account. Your money is worth about 2% less every year. So if you aren't getting a 2% raise every year, then your wages are actually going down. So essentially, the rich continue to get rich and everyone else is staying stagnant or declining.
For your statement about cutting corners. That only makes sense if it is a minority of companies doing it. If it is standard practice of all major companies, then there is literally no choice. They all do it, so no matter what company you pick, they are going to do it. At that point the only way to correct that behavior is unions (which republicans have spent decades destroying) or laws to protect people from the asshole companies.
For you statement that a government's job is not to interfere with decision making. Of course it is. Lots of people decide to drink and drive. The government says you cant discriminate people because of their race, there are millions of americans that want to do that. So yes, governments absolutely have to interfere in decision making where it is necessary to do so.
what I am saying yes, they most likely will pay they're workers more.
finishing my statement.
Well good, now let me tell you why that's wrong.
If the Government just gives the rich money.(Witch they don't, money isn't just handed to you on a silver platter.) This would give these companies a better chance at expanding they're Business, create a better working environment, Owe and yes! They can increase the pay of they're workers more. They may not be twice as much, but twelve dollars is better then Ten. They rich own 90 percent of the money in America, so why would the government be giving more money to the rich, and taking from the middle class?
Wrong, there's always reasons why to increase the pay of workers. That may not be always the case. Their are these things called competition. First off, they half to expand they're business. They need to create more jobs, that way, they can apply more people to the product they are trying to sell. So yes, several options of making your business better. One of them is paying more. Like I said, not always the case. It's usually the working environment, the quality of it.
My wage hasn't changed, neither has my co-workers. I haven't experienced any change. Sorry, No ones wages are always going to be consistent. Did you know that some of the workers around are paid under the table? Now that's illegal, but it happens! it's what we are supposed to make, but it's not. I guess companies don't have a reason to pay they're workers more. No reason for that! owe wait. I know companies that do that, I bet they are rich as hell.
Those companies cut corners on salaries, Then don't work for them. It's that simple. I know it can be hard finding a job, but I have seen many people leave their work because they are unhappy. That's just how some business work. You ether like it because it's a good one, or you hate because it's a bad one.
A governments Job is not to interfere with the citizens decision making. We can make the choices that are best suitable for us, not them.
Well they have to. They have to do things in are best interest. Otherwise, workers are going to leave for a better job. No one wants to work for a business that isn't doing them any good. Do you know what Companies actually do to try to keep they're doing? "Owe let's pay them more if they are unhappy." That would be their go to. And it actually happens. Sometimes, it's not about the money. If they are happy because of the pay, they are gonna stay. If they are unhappy because of the work environment, They might..
Yes, that is exactly what we think. Because that is the reality of what happened. That is the reality of what has been happening for years. The government gave companies huge tax breaks. There are very few that passed that money onto their employees. i heard some examples of companies that gave out bonuses the 1st year. But those companies still have the tax breaks and those bonuses aren't being given out again.
There is no reason for a company to increase the pay of their workers just because they have more money. Those 2 things are in no way linked. Companies pay their workers more when they have to. Usually because they are having trouble attracting new workers. How much profit they are raking in is not going to even factor into it.
Companies have been making record profits for years but wages have not been keeping pace. And so while companies are already making record profits, trump hands them even more money while the government is running absolutely massive deficits and trying to cut social spending. When looking at issues like this you need to keep a few things in mind.
1) A company's primary motivation is to earn as much profit as possible. That means cutting corners in as many places as they can get away with. Employee salaries, safety standards, and abusive business practices are all ways that companies have and are currently doing this.
2) a government's job is to protect it's citizens and look after their best interests.
3) politicians in general, but republicans in particular use money from corporations to fund their campaigns. They need this money to keep their job. As a result, they do things that are not your best interest. They do things in the best interest of the people giving them money.
You think they won't pay their workers more? after receiving more money?
You bring up these two corporation as if they don't have workers, when my original statement was. " A company won't thrive if you don't have workers." So you know what I'm getting at. That may not be the exact words but you know what I'm getting at.
What's lowest now? What recent political moves? to benefit the rich? What's the ongoing process? Taxes will raise for the middle class while Rich get more?
I just finished saying that they do have workers who are paid, and that there is no incentive to pay *more*.
you acknowledge that in 1 sentence, but in the next you claim I said they have no workers at all. what are you talking about?
it doesnt change the fact that its lowest now, it also doesnt change the fact that this is an ongoing process that has nothing to do with recent political moves.
sure it does. Why wouldn't they pay their workers more?
Walmart is a very big business. And so is Amazon. You telling me they don't have workers? Because without workers, they will go bankrupt. And the investing of buy backs, I doubt just gives them crazy more money. Keep in mind, the rich pays for are federal government. So it's not like they arnt losing money as well.
Doesn't change the fact weather 10 20 years ago people were getting jobs, job rates are at its highest in 50 years.
they are paying their workers now. that doesnt give them any incentive to pay more.
are any of the big companies struggling? how is Walmart and Amazon's profits? are they going bankrupt? we are talking about tax cuts. which are based off revenue. companies going bankrupt arent making alot of revenue. apple is. and the only thing they are doing with the many many millions they saved, is buying back their stocks. look at any of their earnings announcements. those buy backs shoot up their stock value overnight.
the job rates and all other indicators have been rising ever since we began recovering from the recession over 10 years ago. look at any graph that covers many years.
If they don't pay their workers, then they don't have any workers. The point would be for them to be able to expand their businesses. The rich is one of the reasons why are economy is thriving, also job rates are at their highest in 50 years. If the rich are are benefiting, so are they're workers. It's not a matter of handling money out, it's a matter of what will benefit everyone. Point of business is that if you can produce a good better then anyone at a low price, your company will succeed. If they can't produce the good, it's because lack of workers, And that's bad for business. Investing in buybacks won't save them from Going Bankrupt.
a business tries to keep down costs while maximizing profit. they arent going to give money away just because they can. that's why trickle down economics has never worked.
why would a business hand out the money instead of buying back their stocks (which is what they actually did in reality)
The double standard is there because even if the rich will be taxed less. Their companies will thrive more. Don't you think if they have all this money, they can pay their workers better?
the rich were already prospering throughout the recovery while everyone else's wages were stagnant. why would we cut taxes on the only group that is prospering? clearly taxes werent hurting their growth. maybe cut taxes to the people who need a break?
also, for lbgt you ask what is the benefit?
for cutting taxes on rich you ask what is the harm?
why the double standard?
I may have been partly wrong questioning your thoughts. Why do you suppose you think this will happen though?
OK Then, How does making rich people more richer a bad thing?
Oh I also forgot to mention that they also cut the deduction for state or local tax. So if you live in an area that has high state or local taxes you used to be able to claim those as a deduction for federal taxes. Now you can't do that. So people in those areas are often worse off than they were before as well.
So I think on the whole, most people are at least slightly better off. Most people are saving between 50-300 ish. It is hard to find reliable figures. But there are specific areas are actually worse off because of the changes. And in a few years everyone will be either back where they started or worse than ever having lost their deductions.
The rich however as saving huge amounts of money and corporations are saving billions. And they are using those billions in share buybacks, so essentially just giving the money to millionaires.
The end game is to help the rich get richer. There are some in the republican party that might honestly still believe trickle down economics works. (it doesn't) but I think most are pretty cynical about it. Most republican members of the government are rich. The people who donate to their re-election campaigns are rich. Passing these cuts helps them by directly saving them money as well as saving other rich people money, some of which will be used to fund their next campaign.
The temporary tax cuts for the middle class were just tacked on to sell it.
keep in mind historybuff, I want to rip this thing apart, I have to do more research though. Cause I think this is wrong.
Back when I was in Junior high, teachers in my school still weren't making enough money. They always had money issues, at least in AZ, and in highschool as well. So they were always worse off. I don't know what it's like in what your living in.
So this says tax cuts started kicking in 2018 huh. also showed a table. Credit for mentioning. We will see in 2026 won't we. keep in mind, we paid a lot more taxes under Obama then we did under president Trump. I am still with the tax cuts. I couldn't necessarily follow what they are trying to say word for word. Some actually made sense. However; When the tax cut got signed, I my dad, and everyone I know started doing better. If the taxes start increasing when 2020 comes, I will cut off my arm. Cause I'm not paying any hire yet. This is a prediction, even Google said it. It's a weird thing to think about now. But still. When did people decide lets see the future. Then again I may very well be wrong.
But still, why not just tax the rich as well? What is the end game here?
Lots of people in the middle class are suffering. For example, they removed the deduction for teachers who spend their own personal money to buy supplies for their class. Teachers used to be able to use that as a deduction on their taxes. So alot of teachers are worse off.
Here is a link. The tax cuts expire in 2025. They also say that it ends almost all personal exemptions and itemized deductions. So in 2026 the tax rates go back up but the deductions they got rid of don't come back. Therefore most people will be worse off than they were before the cuts once they expire in 2026, but the rich will still keep all their cuts.
sorry for the illiteracy. LOL. I'm a bit impatient at time?
So who's not better off with these deductions? They wanted to give tax cuts to only the rich? The Tax cuts went to everyone. I never heard one middle class man complain about there financials. Not saying that a middle class man is suffering, but who are the middle class man that are suffering?
You stating a what if scenario. You can look to the future? All I know is I am doing better, My dad's doing better, My two neighbors are doing better, my mother is doing better, she won't admit but the tax cut is the only reason why she's making so much money. Owe and another guy that hates Trump. I asked him how are you doing with money. He said not to bad, I'm doing better. were did you get. "Tax cuts will end in a few years." give me the source please. just so I can rip them apart.
If they were going to give it to the wealthy, why just give it to the wealthy then? If they really wanted to give it to The rich, Then the bill would have called. "Tax cuts for the rich." That's a bill that will never be passed. Why would Congress agree to this? why would the supreme Court deem that constitutional? Even if that scenario does happen, Congress is to blame as much as Trump is. Trump can't just change a bill to his liking. How many poor people do you know? Are you poor? Keep in mind, my family were going poor until tax cut came around. Tax cuts mean Deducted taxes for everyone. Who ever said that tax cuts will for the middle and poor and only will help the rich, I want to know who they are. I Garnette you they are bias. Besides; not to to tax the rich when you would get more from them then from any other class.
Again, who suffered? I don't see anyone suffering that has jobs! I benefited, my family benefited, my coworkers benefited, do I need to go on? I'm sorry, but I think this is entirely wrong. I will be glad to change my opinion if you can prove to me that middle class me are suffering.
They did add in a tax cut for the middle class at the last minute. But they also cut alot of deductions middle class people could use to lower their taxes. Before trump's tax bill you could write off moving expenses. You can't do that any more. So while some people, who weren't using these deductions, will be better off, alot of people who were using them are actually worse off.
Add to that that the tax cuts for the middle class only last for a few years. They will revert back to their previous levels in a few years. Those deductions they removed though, those are permanent. So literally everyone who isn't really rich will be worse off because of this in a few years.
But the tax cuts for the uber wealthy and corporations, those are permanent. That is what this bill was designed to do. They wanted to cut taxes on the rich. They realized they needed some way to argue that this will benefit other people so they tacked on a temporary tax cut for the middle class to help sell it. By also including cuts to deductions they managed to spin a tax cut on the rich as somehow helping the poor all while increasing the amount of tax they will have to pay in the medium and long term.
if you make less than a million dollars a year, then this tax bill was bad for you. You might not have encountered the down side personally yet (many others already are), but they are coming.
That just the way it is, the child in the family is just spoiled. of course there going to learn from they're dad's to learn how to run a business. They're ether going to do well, or they're going to choke. We need the rich, that's why are economy does better. Not all of them are good.
I have to disagree with you on this. Rich can't make there money if they don't have workers working for them. My Dad and I are middle class workers, and we make good amount of money. My dad was in debt, he was able to pay most of it off because of the tax cut. Besides, businesses have to expand they're business because of healthy competitions. I don't know who else would be struggling. My next door neighbor was finally able to move out because of the tax cut.
think about it this way. if alot of people have cash to spend and things to buy, some entrepreneurs will figure out a way to capitalize.
that is the essence of entrepreneurship and capitalism.
if a bunch of entrepreneurs have extra cash to start businesses, but there is no consumer base to use those businesses.... nothing will happen. the money will go elsewhere. like stock buy backs, or some other nation without impoverished consumers.
rich people having extra money doesnt stimulate the economy. demand from a large consumer base that can afford to buy goods and services (aka demand) creates jobs and stimulates the economy.
since more and more people in the USA cant afford goods and services, this extra give away turned into endless stock buy-backs instead of jobs or any benefit to our economy.
sure if they are first gen wealthy who made their money themselves.
did their children who started off with millions and build their wealth on just investing into the market and doing minimal work earn their millions? or were they just born lucky?
throughout the last decade of our recovery, while stock markets were booming and the rich were raking in the money, ordinary middle class Americans faced stagnant wages and increasing costs. if the wealthy are prospering, they clearly do not need more help, regardless of whether you want to help the struggling majority or not.
The wealthy earned there millions of dollars. It wasn't just handed to them on a silver platter. Who's reserving pennies the poor? There are these things called soup kitchens wear they eat for free. Economy is doing so well because of the rich and their Millions they make.
if you save everyone pennies, but save the wealthiest millions, you didnt give sh@t to everyone.
I don't get what your saying. The Tax cuts went to everyone. Not the wealthy.
And your Proof
It went to everyone! Even if the wealthy got helped. They can now expand their Business, which will help create more jobs.
the ones that lead to no job creation and mostly went to stock buybacks, which i
once again all helped the uber wealthy who hold the majority of shares....
he sold it as mostly going to the middle class, then did a bait and switch, and yall fell for it. SAD.
lol. the one that went mostly to the uber wealthy?
for one. the Tax cuts.
What policies has President Trump passed that have increased the wellbeing of the everyday citizen?
I think he's a good President