you can't be any farther from reality than half of the blowhards here. I don't understand how you can paint it to be otherwise.
nobody bucked the party. Fetterman is a Bernie Sanders progressive and Porter is in a league of her own. You're just an idiot trying to blame all your shortcomings on your elected officials.
stop it already. This is becoming very aggravating.
Again you project your own 'feelings' with misinformation that justifies those feelings.
and dems just don't understand how they push so many away, actually represent so few and justify it.....
Were you not more 'pushed away by Trump's divisive rhetoric, authoritarian impulses, election denying stop the steal bullshit and finally by his treasonous incitement of an insurrection? Even before the insurrection enough people WERE pushed away by a delusional candidate and his party to repudiate both in the '20 election and again, arguably, in the '22 midterms.
'Represent so few'? Factually inaccurate. I argued yesterday that the Dem Senate represents a larger population than the 51% Dem majority in the the Senate. The following argument supports that argument and it's not based upon feelings.
Just to break even in the Senate, Democrats need to win more of the national vote for Senate than the Republicans. With the even split in the current Senate, the 50 Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the voters, while the 50 Republican senators represent just 43.5% of the voters. In 2018, the Democrats won nearly 18 million more votes for Senate than the Republicans, but the Republicans still gained two seats.
Think about this: the Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections, the longest winning streak for any party in American history, yet they have won the presidency only five times.[1]
The status quo is just what the corps want since they are now so completely in control..
But the following was not what the corps wanted and it was passed by the Dems.
Biden’s corporate tax hike in the Inflation Reduction Act won’t hurt most U.S. companies, Wall Street analysts say
PUBLISHED TUE, AUG 16 202210:43 AM EDTUPDATED TUE, AUG 16 20226:54 PM EDT
Corporate business advocates have railed against the 15% corporate minimum tax in the Inflation Reduction Act.
President Biden is scheduled to sign the legislation into law Tuesday afternoon.
Tax analysts say the reforms will not adversely affect most companies.
The 1% excise tax proposed on stock buybacks will not be enough to discourage companies from the practice, analysts added.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks during a news conference about the Inflation Reduction Act outside the U.S. Capitol on August 4, 2022 in Washington, DC. Negotiations continue on the Senate budget reconciliation deal, which Senate Democrats have named The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The bill is expected to include $370 billion on energy and climate spending, roughly $300 billion in deficit reduction, three years of subsidies for Affordable Care Act premiums,
Business advocacy groups lobbied hard against the 15% minimum tax rate for large corporations that just passed Congress as part of the the Inflation Reduction Act, saying it was “terrible policy” that would reduce economic growth and make America “poorer.”
Wall Street analysts, however, say the legislation won’t dramatically affect company earnings or their future investments.
Companies that make more than $1 billion a year will now have to pay a minimum tax rate of 15% as well as 1% on stock buybacks. Those tax reforms, aimed mostly at the largest U.S. corporations like Google parent Alphabet, JPMorgan Chase and Facebook parent company Meta, will reduce the federal deficit by an estimated $300 billion over the next decade.
Inflation Reduction Act will have immediate benefit to health-care costs, says Rep. Hakeem Jefferies While the new taxes are “generally not positive for stocks,” the 15% corporate minimum tax won’t be “material,” Wells Fargo analysts wrote in an Aug. 9 research note that called the new taxes “modest.”
Just over 170 companies in the S&P 500 paid less than 15% in taxes last year, according to a new analysis by Credit Suisse. Of those corporations, less than half would likely see a tax hike for 2023 since the legislation allows companies to use adjusted earnings, which can be massaged in a number of ways, the analysis found.
“In general, the impacts could be somewhat minimal overall and at this point, complicated to truly understand,” Credit Suisse accounting strategist Ron Graziano said in an interview. “Will some companies possibly be hit more than others? Possibly, yes. The overall impacts are not material to the large corporations.”
Senate Democrats passed the bill 51-50 on Aug. 7 without a single Republican “yea” and Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote. The House approved it 220-207 on Friday; President Joe Biden is expected to sign it into law Tuesday.
“This legislation will finally make the biggest corporations start paying their fair share in taxes, and — as our nation’s top economists have confirmed — it will reduce inflationary pressures in our economy,” bill sponsor Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., said after it passed the House.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., meanwhile accused Democrats over Twitter on Friday of jamming through a “700-page bill that raises your taxes and doubles the size of the IRS.”
“87 days from now, Democrats will have only themselves to blame...” McCarthy said, referring to the upcoming November midterms.
Catherine Schultz, vice president of tax and fiscal policy at Business Roundtable, called the 15% minimum corporate tax a “terrible policy.”
“What it really does is pick winners and losers within the tax system,” Schultz said, and added that companies that have the most stock compensation will experience substantial effects.
“Businesses are not stagnant, they’re dynamic, and they make different investment decisions on a daily basis,” Schultz said. The minimum tax “could affect how companies determine how they’re going to do certain investments in the future.”
“Companies may not be as willing to take certain risks in their investment, if it feels like that could add to their bottom line tax bill,” Schultz said.
The National Association of Manufacturers “remains staunchly opposed to the IRA,” president and CEO Jay Timmons said in a statement. “It increases taxes on manufacturers in America, undermining our competitiveness while we are facing harsh economic headwinds such as supply chain disruptions and the highest rate of inflation in decades,” he said.
Akash Chougule, a lobbyist at Koch family-founded Americans for Prosperity, said “Americans are left worse off” while some “line their pockets” and lawmakers claim a win. “At the end of the day, this is the same old story – hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes and corporate welfare being sold as the solution to our most pressing crisis,” he said.
Neil Bradley, executive vice president and chief policy offer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the minimum tax would make America “poorer” and reduce “future economic growth.” He added that the 1% excise tax on stock buybacks will “distort the efficient movement of capital” and “diminish the value of Americans’ retirement savings.”
S&P 500 companies bought back a record $881.7 billion in their own stock last year, as historically low interest rates pushed up company profits and valuations. The practice, however, only benefits investors if the company reduces its outstanding shares, which increases earnings per share. Often times, however, the buybacks serve to boost executive pay.
Analysts for the Washington-based Cowen Research Group disputed industry claims, predicting the 1% excise tax won’t change buyback behavior.
Credit Suisse agrees that the tax is not high enough to affect capital deployment decisions — “particularly for companies with strong balance sheets and attractive valuations.”
Graziano said time will tell with reference to the overall impacts of the law.
“All tax is complicated. This is a new type of tax based on adjusted financial income. This is the first time this has been done,” he said. “The way they roll out could be much different than planned. That’s nothing new, it happens all the time with all tax provisions.”
David French, senior vice president of government relations for the National Retail Federation, said that, while a tax increase in a weakening economy is a “concern,” a minimum tax is fairer and “preferable to an increase in the tax rate.”
“Retailers are generally unaffected by the new corporate minimum tax proposal, because most retail companies already pay at much higher effective rates than 15 percent,” French said in a statement to CNBC.
B402, Screw you for still chewing on your fucking bone.
"So it used to be, but things have change over the years, the history of the Democratic party is far different than the modern one, just the near equal distribution of corporate money now speaks volumes of the modern day.......Results or lack of and then the blame game can be convenient..The status quo is just what the corps want since they are now so completely in control......Pluto is now the master and Mickey is wondering why our leaders don't listen to Nick... "
That's bullshit. In spite of all the evidence you have been given you cling to it, one example:
...basic claim is that, from the New Deal through the Great Society, the Democratic Party espoused a set of values defined by, or at the very least consistent with, social democracy or socialism. Then, starting in the 1970s, a coterie of neoliberal elites hijacked the party and redirected its course toward a brand of social liberalism targeted to elites and hostile to the interests of the poor and the working class.
[Insert: Correct me if wrong, that sounds like B402 to a T.]
The first and most obvious problem with this version of history is that there is little reason to believe the Democratic Party has actually moved right on economic issues. The most commonly used measure .. http://k7moa.com/political_polarization_2014.htm .. of party ideology, developed by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, has tracked the positions of the two parties’ elected members over decades. Here is how they have evolved on issues of the government’s role in the economy:
This chart indicates that Democrats have not moved right since the New Deal era at all. Indeed, the party has moved somewhat to the left, largely because its conservative Southern wing has disappeared.
Now, the Poole-Rosenthal measure does not end the discussion. No metric can perfectly measure something as inherently abstract as a public philosophy. One obvious limit of this measure is its value over long periods of time, when issue sets change in ways that make comparisons difficult. The Poole-Rosenthal graph has special difficulty comparing the Democratic Party before and after the New Deal. But it does raise the question of why the Democrats’ supposed U-turn away from social democracy does not appear anywhere in the data.
Any remotely close look at the historical record, as opposed to a romanticized memory of uncompromised populists of yore, yields the same conclusion as the numbers. The idea that the Democratic Party used to stand for undiluted economic populism in its New Deal heyday is characteristic of the nostalgia to which the party faithful are prone — no present-day politician can ever live up to the imagined greatness of the statesmen of past.
In reality, the Democratic Party had essentially the same fraught relationship with the left during its supposed golden New Deal era that it does today. [...] The Democratic Party has evolved over the last half-century, as any party does over a long period of time. But the basic ideological cast of its economic policy has not changed dramatically since the New Deal. American liberals have always had some room for markets in their program. Democrats, accordingly, have never been a left-wing, labor-dominated socialist party. (Union membership peaked in 1955, two decades before the party’s supposed neoliberal turn, and has declined steadily since.) They have mediated between business and labor, supporting expanded state power episodically rather than dogmatically. The widespread notion that “neoliberals” have captured the modern Democratic party and broken from its historic mission plays upon nostalgia for a bygone era, when the real thing was messier and more compromised than the sanitized historical memory. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170923414
Obviously, B402, you disagree vehemently with that position of Johnathon Chait's. I don't think though you have given any good evidence to discount either the basis for, or the logic toward, that chart of his.
You say the fact Democrats now take more corporate money than they used to means conclusively they have moved away from their earlier ideals.
That sole point of yours flies in the face of the work done by so many others. In the face of the learned opinions of Chait and the others who created the chart above.
Yet you cling more tightly to that bone of yours than Linus ever did to his blanket.
The bills blackhawks and others keep giving you as evidence the dems are not as tied to corporations as Republicans are is a much better guide than your simply saying: ' they get the money so they must be as much in bed with corporations.' That's like saying every man who dresses neatly is of better character than all who don't. You lay your entire argument on the foundation of appearance. That's simplistic as shit. And smells as bad.
There is not equivalence. Your position is not supported by the evidence. It's crap.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
