6 ms·

Why aren't you asking this of all the comments in this parent? People seem to be blaming Verizon cutting 10,000 jobs on the tax cuts. Or claiming that jobs were

by jayess 8y ago

Why aren't you asking this of all the comments in this parent? People seem to be blaming Verizon cutting 10,000 jobs on the tax cuts. Or claiming that jobs weren't created. Or that somehow the tax cuts were an economic negative. None of those things can be attributed to causation.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
padseeker 8y ago
People seem to be blaming Verizon cutting 10,000 jobs on the tax cuts At no point was that ever insinuated. The simple idea is that the tax cuts were sold as a way to give companies financial resources to boost salaries and hire new people. Well they got their tax cuts, why are they doing the opposite of what the tax cuts were supposed to do? Maybe it's because the tax cuts were never going to boost salaries and increase hiring. You have to be pretty deluded to come to the conclusion my comment was blaming the layoffs on the tax cuts.
- jayess 8y ago
  > At no point was that ever insinuated. Then when is the meaning of the parent comment? > why are they doing the opposite of what the tax cuts were supposed to do? I'm curious what news you're reading or consuming. Wages are up 3.1% YoY (biggest increase in 10 years) and unemployment lowest since 1969: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-by-3point1percent-highest-level-in-a-decade.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-by-3... 2.7 Million more full-time jobs since January 1, when the tax cuts went into effect.
  - padseeker 8y ago
    The point is so simple and straight forward I question your ability to carry on this conversation. It is bloody obvious what I'm trying to say. The idea is that we have a problem, a stagnating economy, lack of jobs and stagnating wages. The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I need to engage in this stupidity. This is like someone getting cancer, and someone prescribes snake oil solution, and I'm saying the snake oil doesn't work. And instead some of you at the bottom of this thread are saying I'm blaming the cancer is due to the snake oil. How long do we need to do this stupid song and dance.
  - Eleopteryx 8y ago
    >Wages are up 3.1% YoY >Real average hourly earnings increased 0.7 percent, seasonally adjusted, from October 2017 to October 2018. Eh... https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
- twblalock 8y ago
  > At no point was that ever insinuated. This is the parent comment, in its entirety: > I'm so glad we passed those corporate tax cuts that created all those jobs and helped provide for all those raises everyone got.... If that doesn't count as insinuation, then nothing does.
  - padseeker 8y ago
    The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I need to engage in this stupidity. This is like someone getting cancer, and someone prescribes snake oil solution, and I'm saying the snake oil doesn't work. And instead some of you at the bottom of this thread are saying I'm blaming the cancer is due to the snake oil. How long do we need to do this stupid song and dance.
    - deadmetheny 8y ago
      The only stupidity you're engaging in is your own. It's very clear that's exactly what the parent comment said.
      - padseeker 8y ago
        In spite of !== Because of. I can't dumb it down for you any more than that.
- darawk 8y ago
  > At no point was that ever insinuated Are you serious man? Why be so dishonest? It's clear as day that that's what you were insinuating. Why lie like this?
  - padseeker 8y ago
    The point is so simple and straight forward I question your ability to carry on this conversation. It is bloody obvious what I'm trying to say. The idea is that we have a problem, a stagnating economy, lack of jobs and stagnating wages. The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I need to engage in this stupidity. This is like someone getting cancer, and someone prescribes snake oil solition, and I'm saying the snake oil doesn't work. And instead some of you at the bottom of this thread are saying I'm blaming the cancer is due to the snake oil. How long do we need to do this stupid song and dance.
    - darawk 8y ago
      > So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. And you were responding to this thread. Which means you were citing Verizon as evidence of your point. Which people the completely correctly compared to anti-global-warming people citing snow as evidence against global warming.
      - Vraxx 8y ago
        All of your responses are blatantly telling the person you're responding to what they were thinking instead of considering that perhaps there are multiple ways to interpret things. You told padseeker that they were insinuating something when at best you could guess that they were insinuating something. If you're actually interested in discussing things instead of telling people what they believe or what their intent was, then I suggest not using this rhetorical device because it stifles understanding and conversation, not encourages it.
- padseeker 8y ago
  The point is so simple and straight forward I question your ability to carry on this conversation. It is bloody obvious what I'm trying to say. The idea is that we have a problem, a stagnating economy, lack of jobs and stagnating wages. The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I need to engage in this stupidity. This is like someone getting cancer, and someone prescribes snake oil solition, and I'm saying the snake oil doesn't work. And instead some of you at the bottom of this thread are saying I'm blaming the cancer is due to the snake oil. How long do we need to do this stupid song and dance. If we are going to engage in news sources regarding statistics for stagnating wages, which news sources are you going to accept, and which ones are going to be dismissed as liberal bias?
- padseeker 8y ago
  I'll make it clearer for you; "In spite of" NOT THE SAME AS "Because of" My comment is clearly saying "IN SPITE OF". I think most people who are reading with intellectual honestly would recognize that. The people who would interpret it as "BECAUSE OF" before this clarification might have a certain oppositional viewpoint. And the only people who would interpret it as "BECAUSE OF" after this clarification don't actually care about having a debate, but would rather call me a liar because it feels better then engaging. I literally cannot dumb it down any more than this.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
> Why aren't you asking this of all the comments in this parent? I don't need to ask everyone in the thread, polluting the thread. I'm asking why you have made several statements in this thread insinuating the corporate tax cut has benefited the economy, with no evidence. My comment includes citations. Bring data, not feelings or unsubstantiated opinions.
- jayess 8y ago
  I was simply providing numbers as a counterbalance to those that were weirdly lamenting that the tax cuts are responsible for job cuts, similarly without evidence.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Tax cuts were sold to the American people as something that would bolster jobs. Clearly, that has not been the case (GM = 15k job cuts, Ford = upwards of 25k job cuts, Verizon = 10k job cuts). It is not a weird lament; it is calling out the lies of trickle down economics.

by jayess 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

padseeker 8y ago

People seem to be blaming Verizon cutting 10,000 jobs on the tax cuts At no point was that ever insinuated. The simple idea is that the tax cuts were sold as a way to give companies financial resources to boost salaries and hire new people. Well they got their tax cuts, why are they doing the opposite of what the tax cuts were supposed to do? Maybe it's because the tax cuts were never going to boost salaries and increase hiring. You have to be pretty deluded to come to the conclusion my comment was blaming the layoffs on the tax cuts.

jayess 8y ago
> At no point was that ever insinuated. Then when is the meaning of the parent comment? > why are they doing the opposite of what the tax cuts were supposed to do? I'm curious what news you're reading or consuming. Wages are up 3.1% YoY (biggest increase in 10 years) and unemployment lowest since 1969: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-by-3point1percent-highest-level-in-a-decade.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-by-3... 2.7 Million more full-time jobs since January 1, when the tax cuts went into effect.
- padseeker 8y ago
  The point is so simple and straight forward I question your ability to carry on this conversation. It is bloody obvious what I'm trying to say. The idea is that we have a problem, a stagnating economy, lack of jobs and stagnating wages. The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I need to engage in this stupidity. This is like someone getting cancer, and someone prescribes snake oil solution, and I'm saying the snake oil doesn't work. And instead some of you at the bottom of this thread are saying I'm blaming the cancer is due to the snake oil. How long do we need to do this stupid song and dance.
- Eleopteryx 8y ago
  >Wages are up 3.1% YoY >Real average hourly earnings increased 0.7 percent, seasonally adjusted, from October 2017 to October 2018. Eh... https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
twblalock 8y ago
> At no point was that ever insinuated. This is the parent comment, in its entirety: > I'm so glad we passed those corporate tax cuts that created all those jobs and helped provide for all those raises everyone got.... If that doesn't count as insinuation, then nothing does.
- padseeker 8y ago
  The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I need to engage in this stupidity. This is like someone getting cancer, and someone prescribes snake oil solution, and I'm saying the snake oil doesn't work. And instead some of you at the bottom of this thread are saying I'm blaming the cancer is due to the snake oil. How long do we need to do this stupid song and dance.
  - deadmetheny 8y ago
    The only stupidity you're engaging in is your own. It's very clear that's exactly what the parent comment said.
    - padseeker 8y ago
      In spite of !== Because of. I can't dumb it down for you any more than that.
darawk 8y ago
> At no point was that ever insinuated Are you serious man? Why be so dishonest? It's clear as day that that's what you were insinuating. Why lie like this?
- padseeker 8y ago
  The point is so simple and straight forward I question your ability to carry on this conversation. It is bloody obvious what I'm trying to say. The idea is that we have a problem, a stagnating economy, lack of jobs and stagnating wages. The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I need to engage in this stupidity. This is like someone getting cancer, and someone prescribes snake oil solition, and I'm saying the snake oil doesn't work. And instead some of you at the bottom of this thread are saying I'm blaming the cancer is due to the snake oil. How long do we need to do this stupid song and dance.
  - darawk 8y ago
    > So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. And you were responding to this thread. Which means you were citing Verizon as evidence of your point. Which people the completely correctly compared to anti-global-warming people citing snow as evidence against global warming.
    - Vraxx 8y ago
      All of your responses are blatantly telling the person you're responding to what they were thinking instead of considering that perhaps there are multiple ways to interpret things. You told padseeker that they were insinuating something when at best you could guess that they were insinuating something. If you're actually interested in discussing things instead of telling people what they believe or what their intent was, then I suggest not using this rhetorical device because it stifles understanding and conversation, not encourages it.
padseeker 8y ago
The point is so simple and straight forward I question your ability to carry on this conversation. It is bloody obvious what I'm trying to say. The idea is that we have a problem, a stagnating economy, lack of jobs and stagnating wages. The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I need to engage in this stupidity. This is like someone getting cancer, and someone prescribes snake oil solition, and I'm saying the snake oil doesn't work. And instead some of you at the bottom of this thread are saying I'm blaming the cancer is due to the snake oil. How long do we need to do this stupid song and dance. If we are going to engage in news sources regarding statistics for stagnating wages, which news sources are you going to accept, and which ones are going to be dismissed as liberal bias?
padseeker 8y ago
I'll make it clearer for you; "In spite of" NOT THE SAME AS "Because of" My comment is clearly saying "IN SPITE OF". I think most people who are reading with intellectual honestly would recognize that. The people who would interpret it as "BECAUSE OF" before this clarification might have a certain oppositional viewpoint. And the only people who would interpret it as "BECAUSE OF" after this clarification don't actually care about having a debate, but would rather call me a liar because it feels better then engaging. I literally cannot dumb it down any more than this.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

> Why aren't you asking this of all the comments in this parent? I don't need to ask everyone in the thread, polluting the thread. I'm asking why you have made several statements in this thread insinuating the corporate tax cut has benefited the economy, with no evidence. My comment includes citations. Bring data, not feelings or unsubstantiated opinions.

jayess 8y ago
I was simply providing numbers as a counterbalance to those that were weirdly lamenting that the tax cuts are responsible for job cuts, similarly without evidence.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Tax cuts were sold to the American people as something that would bolster jobs. Clearly, that has not been the case (GM = 15k job cuts, Ford = upwards of 25k job cuts, Verizon = 10k job cuts). It is not a weird lament; it is calling out the lies of trickle down economics.