Is there a reason why Republicans never actually do anything to help poor people?

[Benjamin Frank]

Have you heard of the phrase: A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats

You mean the phrase that Republicans use to lie to poor people that cutting taxes for the rich will somehow help them?

[Benjamin Frank]

Republicans try to cut taxes and regulations all the time. How else do you propose to sustainably help poor people?

"cut taxes" uhh...yeah, that extra $36 a year will really bring them out of poverty huh?  I believe that was the average saving for middle class people from the 2017 cuts (and conveniently those are temporary).

I don't see how cutting regulations is supposed to help poor people, the only regulations they cut help big business.    If the regulation helps keep poor people down like regs limiting unionization or marijuana prohibition the Republicans always seem happy to keep the system in place.

Regulations keep big businesses afloat by removing their competition: small businesses who cannot compete with them. Having many small businesses do something rather than one large corporation will tend to employ more people and give consumers (who are often poor) more choices and greater satisfaction.

Cutting taxes for businesses will also allow them to hire more, as recent American history has repeatedly shown.

I don't want to say Republicans are perfect (very, very far from it), but Democrats rarely suggest these tried-and-true solutions at all (though, to their credit, not never).

1.I agree that cutting taxes for corporations, especially the payroll tax can lead to corporations creating jobs.  However, most of the tax cuts have gone to the upper end of the personal income tax, which in no way helps with job creation.  Any additional spending by these people is offset either by adding to the deficit, which tends to have an impact on interest rates or by cutting spending, a good deal of which does not go to the wealthiest.  

Of course, large tax cuts and large deficits have been achieved without rising inflation or interest rates for the last 20 or so years, but it's hard to believe that tax cuts that mostly went to the wealthy were the best use of that money.

2.It likely is true that the cost of regulations have a greater impact on small business than big business, however I don't think that's an accurate description of the result.  First, niche businesses that offer different choices are the ones that tend to exist to compete with big business and other than that, big businesses tend to offer more choice due to economies of scale and better access to supply chains.

Second, if small businesses tend to employ more people, they can only do so at the expense of either higher wage costs or lower wages.  Neither of those help poorer people.

[Benjamin Frank]

Republicans try to cut taxes and regulations all the time. How else do you propose to sustainably help poor people?

"cut taxes" uhh...yeah, that extra $36 a year will really bring them out of poverty huh?  I believe that was the average saving for middle class people from the 2017 cuts (and conveniently those are temporary).

I don't see how cutting regulations is supposed to help poor people, the only regulations they cut help big business.    If the regulation helps keep poor people down like regs limiting unionization or marijuana prohibition the Republicans always seem happy to keep the system in place.

Cutting taxes for businesses will also allow them to hire more, as recent American history has repeatedly shown.

This has never, ever, happened.

Corporations do not generally hire people because they got a tax cut, and anyone who thinks this is a pants-on-their-head moron. All it means is they keep more of their profits. It often goes to executive bonuses if it goes anywhere. Having more money doesn't mean they suddenly will be willing to hire people that they don't need - a company always has enough people to operate.

If anything, raising taxes leads to more hiring or at least better wages - because the company would rather spend the money on salaries as a business expense than pay it to the government.

It depends on a number of factors.

Historically corporate income taxes tend to be paid out of businesses discretionary spending which often includes things like research and development, however, it likely also can come out of executive compensation.  Of course, there is likely a difference between where the money comes from through raising taxes and where the money goes to when corporate taxes are cut.  When corporate taxes are cut, at least in the short term, the corporation likely treats it as 'found money' and is likely to distribute it to either executives or shareholders.

Over time, in a properly functioning market sector, competition should cause that company to reinvest money from tax cuts to the operations of the business, especially useful discretionary spending like research and development.

However, there are some arguments that due to the rising cost of going from research to product development, that spending on research is slowing down.  That remains to be seen.  Obviously that would have a large impact on economic growth going forward if that's true.

In regards to corporate payroll taxes, that is a tax that effects corporations at the margins, meaning the more workers it hires, the more payroll tax it pays.  That can get a corporation to spend money on research and development to replace employees with 'capital' i.e machinery or other labor saving technology.  

[Benjamin Frank]

Republicans try to cut taxes and regulations all the time. How else do you propose to sustainably help poor people?

"cut taxes" uhh...yeah, that extra $36 a year will really bring them out of poverty huh?  I believe that was the average saving for middle class people from the 2017 cuts (and conveniently those are temporary).

I don't see how cutting regulations is supposed to help poor people, the only regulations they cut help big business.    If the regulation helps keep poor people down like regs limiting unionization or marijuana prohibition the Republicans always seem happy to keep the system in place.

Regulations keep big businesses afloat by removing their competition: small businesses who cannot compete with them. Having many small businesses do something rather than one large corporation will tend to employ more people and give consumers (who are often poor) more choices and greater satisfaction.

Cutting taxes for businesses will also allow them to hire more, as recent American history has repeatedly shown.

I don't want to say Republicans are perfect (very, very far from it), but Democrats rarely suggest these tried-and-true solutions at all (though, to their credit, not never).

To argue that big businesses don't strenuously put for government deregulation at every turn possible chose a truly astonishing level of ignorance regarding history, as well as the modern-day world.

There are people who I disagree with, and then there are people who have just mind blowing levels of self-delusion.

The reason America became far greater than any European nation in history is cause of our emphasis on individual freedom which includes the free market

Do you work for the U.S Chamber of Commerce?