Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, December 02, 2018

US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping have agreed to halt new trade tariffs for 90 days to allow for talks, the US says.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Trump just got his 🏀 🏀 s clipped off by the Chinese.

#1 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-12-02 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

GM closes some plants and Dotard waives the white flag, no surprise, he is the world's biggest idiot and worst negotiator. I wonder if those soybean markets will ever return.

#2 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2018-12-02 05:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Orange blinked.

#3 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2018-12-02 09:52 PM | Reply

How do you people figure that? Trump did a good job and maybe now we can get some deals more in our favor.

You people are weird.

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-03 07:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Trump is an extremely lazy liar and totally ignorant of how our government actually works.

Trump has made a show of tearing up numerous trade, disarmament and climate agreements. But they have either been the same thing republished with a different name or not replaced with anything. Mostly he just enjoys the media attention his idiotic pronouncements produce.

All trade deals are unfavorable because they force Americans to compete with $1/hr foreign labor.

Trump hasn't changed anything. In fact he uses foreign labor himself to suppress wages at Mar-a-Lago and for Ivanka's import products.

The Republican tax bill was supposed to spur domestic Corporate investment and raise the average wages $4000/year, none of which has happened.

Screwed AGAIN. But, Trump's followers, including bozo in #4, still don't get it.

#5 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-12-03 09:41 AM | Reply

"The Republican tax bill was supposed to spur domestic Corporate investment"

Which is an idiotic claim, since dropping the tax rates incentivized taking money out of the business, and disincentivizes reinvestment.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-03 10:06 AM | Reply

#6 It may disincntivize reinvestment but it incentivizes capital investment and growth. Between the two, I'd take the latter every time.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-03 10:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"but it incentivizes capital investment and growth"

No it doesn't. It incentivizes stock buybacks, moving businesses out of the country, and profit-taking.

Look at the friggin equation.

If you don't understand the equation, look at the behavior.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-03 10:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's the risk/reward paradigm. Lower taxes increases the reward while the risk remains the same.

look at the behavior.

#8 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Yes, look at the behavior. A great example is Mega Millions/Powerball. As the jackpot grows so does the amount of money spent on tickets. The odds remain the same (ridiculous odds), yet the allure of a bigger payout causes people to open their wallets more and more. This is human nature - Econ101.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-03 10:51 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"It may disincentivize reinvestment but it incentivizes capital investment and growth."

Wow, besides the fact that there has been little or no investment or growth (other than stock buyback programs to raise bonuses), and won't ever occur, does even JJ understand what he wrote?

Stupidity reigns supreme. There is a solid 32% of Trump followers that will never get it. This is dangerous when you consider the fact that Bill Clinton won election with 35% of registered voters.

Our election system is in dire need of repair. Too many people have given up on it and refuse to participate. In this age of computer modeling gerrymandering is the most subversive tool ever. Add to this problem the 40% that never vote and the 5-15% that are cyclically removed from voter roles we get near total Republican domination at the State level, where it begins, followed by the Federal level, where results are often fatal.

#10 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-12-03 10:59 AM | Reply

Looking at the bright side of the Truce, maybe the donald has finally figured out that he can't win this war.

#11 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-12-03 11:03 AM | Reply

maybe the donald has finally figured out that he can't win this war.

#11 | POSTED BY BAYVIKING

"What a curious game. The only way to win is not to play." - WOPR aka Joshua

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-03 11:10 AM | Reply

#9

You're giving an example of mass stupidity, in what ends up being a tax on math ignorance. That's a horrible example. Take folks who know enough math to run a business: yesterday they got 35 percent back to reinvest, now it's 21 percent. Are they MORE likely to reinvest, or LESS likely to invest?

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-03 11:10 AM | Reply

Their return on investment increased dramatically. Your logic is totally backward and contrary to human nature.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-03 11:13 AM | Reply

Even Obama groused that our corporate tax rate was too high.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-03 11:21 AM | Reply

Trump did a good job

You don't get credit for making a big mess of things and then starting to clean it up.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-03 11:23 AM | Reply

#13

The odds of winning Powerball is 1 in 292,201,338 at 2 dollars a ticket once the prize breaks $584,402,676 then you are in fact playing the odds. So more people buying it once the prize gets larger is not a tax on math ignorance.

#17 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-12-03 11:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You don't get credit for making a big mess of things and then starting to clean it up." - #16 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-03 11:23 AM

Reminds me...

It was during the days when the tall ships ruled the oceans of the world, in the 18th and 19th centuries. One such tall ship was sailing into the night when a fierce storm arose. In the middle of this terrible tempest one of the cannons broke loose from its moorings and rolled about the deck, threatening to sink the ship. One sailor braved the winds and rain and waves and went up on deck, grabbed the cannon, pushed it back into its berth, and lashed it securely into place. His heroic actions saved the ship and the lives of his fellow sailors.

The next day the captain brought the entire crew up to the deck where he gave the sailor a medal for his heroism, then had the sailor hanged from the yardarm. Why hang the heroic sailor, the sailor who saved everyone's life?

Because it was that sailor's responsibility to make sure the cannon was properly secured before the storm arose.

#18 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-03 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 Hans

Interesting anecdote.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-03 11:32 AM | Reply

I wonder if those soybean markets will ever return.
#2 | POSTED BY _GUNSLINGER_

I suppose if Russia is unable to fulfill the shipments.

It allows China to renegotiate imports with us.

They'll end up paying pennies compared to how much they had been paying.

Thanks Trump.

You're a real Twitter tough guy. Like the rest of you couch warriors.

#20 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-03 11:32 AM | Reply

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-03 11:32 AM

Thanks, JeffJ.

It was something my father told me when I was young. It resonated with him because he was in the Navy in WWII.

Heroic efforts after the fact don't make up for not doing your duty before the fact.

#21 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-03 11:35 AM | Reply

Trump did a good job and maybe now we can get some deals more in our favor.
You people are weird.
#4 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Speaking of Trump's couch warriors...

Boazo, Trump pretended he knew how to negotiate and he lost. Our farming industry has taken a hit.

Or auto manufacturers have taken a hit.

The only thing Trump has successfully done is secure Chinese patents for Ivanka.

Your continued support for Trump. Is astonishing. You really are RTarded.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-12-03 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Their return on investment increased dramatically."

And can only realize that gain by taking money OUT of their business.

Yesterday it cost them 35% to take money out of their business. Today at costs only 21% to take money out of that business. Are they more likely or less likely to take money out of their business today than they were yesterday?

Here's a hint: try actual math.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-03 11:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is their ROI higher with a 35% tax rate or a 21% tax rate?

You know, actual math.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-03 12:12 PM | Reply

Are their profits higher at a 35% tax rate or a 21% tax rate?

Would you be more likely to take the risk of opening your own business at a 35% tax rate or a 21% tax rate?

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-03 12:14 PM | Reply

Remember when Economics expert Jeffyj repeatedly claimed the implementation of Laffer in Kansas was going to show all you libs how economics are done

well, that is right up to the point is showed to opposite, then he denied ever promoting it

#26 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-12-03 12:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Are their profits higher at a 35% tax rate or a 21% tax rate?"

We're talking reinvestment.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-03 12:50 PM | Reply

I thought we were talking about the positive/negative effects of raising/lowering the corporate tax rate.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-03 01:19 PM | Reply

"Would you be more likely to take the risk of opening your own business at a 35% tax rate or a 21% tax rate?"

The tax rate itself should not be a risk to any sound business plan which creates wealth.

For a business engaged strictly in reistribution, maybe that's different. But those businesses should be disfavored anyway.

Plus, your side always just says businesees never reslly pay any taxes, they just increase prices to the consumer.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-03 01:24 PM | Reply

"I thought we were talking about the positive/negative effects of raising/lowering the corporate tax rate"

Kansas's budget disaster sprang from tax reform similar to Trump's

#30 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-12-03 01:55 PM | Reply

JJ,

Everyone (except you) is talking about how the tax cut was sold to a very gullible public and how not a single one of those talking points ever actually became a better economic reality for the 99%. As usual it was another windfall for the 1%, which is the point of virtually all legislation for the last forty years, Republican or Democrat. A Princeton study firmly established this point after reviewing 2000 pieces of legislation.

#31 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-12-03 03:06 PM | Reply

If you don't understand the equation, look at the behavior.

Righties always point to theoreticals as if they're facts.

Usually at the expense of actual human behavior that's easily observed.

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-04 10:35 AM | Reply

"not a single one of those talking points ever actually became a better economic reality for the 99%. As usual it was another windfall for the 1%"

Something I've been saying about the next tax code equation since the start.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-04 12:07 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort