You were too quick for me. I was about to amend my response to say any Democrat but known Wall Street Cheerleader Chuck Schumer but there you are and I for one am not a bit surprised.

Three thoughts. First is that Mr. Schumer is not stupid, and he understands that US corporations pay just a hair under 100% of the bills in the USA, either directly through the corporate tax or indirectly through wages to workers, which are then taxed. It makes precisely zero sense to be anti-corporation and pro social programs, since the corporations foot the bill.

Second: It was hardly just Shumer. The article I posted to you included a quote by Sen McCaskill who reference other Senators; basically, any Senator who is honest (meaning, not anti-corporation) was ready to support corporate tax reform until the matter turned Trumpian. Including this lady:

And then, of course Barack Obama advocated for the rate to be lowered as well.

Thirdly, what is a pension fund, anyway? (I ask this assuming you know the answer). It’s a fund, invested in STOCKS and bonds, from which pensions are paid. State and local administrators have a rather nasty habit of overestimating the returns they expect to get from their investments, because overestimations cover up the fact that the pensions are underfunded.

If there’s more money flowing into buybacks, stock prices go up; if stock prices go up, the value of those pension funds goes up…….and the pending disaster that will someday be known as the “pension crisis” gets pushed a few years farther out.

And as to stock value growth in general, wouldn’t it be nice if the private sector provided quality products and services that lead to earnings rather then relying on financial gimmicks and the endless maneuverings to reduce their competition but such is the modern economy.

Of course, ultimately, nothing can replace good products being sold by good people leading to good profits. But our majors have been struggling to turn REAL profits since 2008; they’ve been relying on the Fed’s low interest rates and QE program to make earnings look good, while they downsize and squeeze benefits and the expense lines. Since demand is slack to stable, there’s nothing to do with all that extra cash that benefits anyone other than buybacks.

Finally, we will just have to agree to disagree on lies and the lying liars who tell them. You are assuming that the author’s statement was intended to mislead. But I would venture to guess that every reader here is well informed and understands what the Republicans did. So what we are really talking about is probabilities of outcome NOT lies.

The chances that those deductions are extended in 2025 are 99.99999999%. But Pelosi and the rest of the Dems “sold” resistance to the bill based on an analysis which assumed the .0000000000001% outcome. Think about that for a moment. If telling the country that a bill is far worse than it really is because something might happen that you yourself would never support doesn’t fall into the “lie” category…..then that’s a definition that is more technical than practical.

Here is a parting thought exercise: Imagine a well constructed law that actually uses behavioral economics to achieve the stated goal of expanding the economy, raising wages and increasing the workforce. Is this the law that was passed?

On the corporate side? Definitely. It’s a slam dunk, and probably the best thing that the government has done in twenty years.

On the individual side? Obviously a mixed bag. Lowering marginal rates…….not a great move. Increasing the standard, child deductions, and capping mortgage and SALT? Definitely good.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store