# Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.



## failsafe (Jan 29, 2017)

Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.

  Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.  

  I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 29, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.




I thought we were formed as a republic??? Did you know that composite government is the majority shareholder of every Fortune 500 corporation and subsidiary? This corporate government takes in more from their investments than what is even required to run this corporate entity. They simply give us their credit card bill and keep their profits in offshore accounts which is why Puerto Rico will never be a state...neither will the Cayman Islands. Learn to read a CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. They have been skimming off the top since the Bretton Woods agreement and investing while pleading empty pockets. Not one dime of your income tax goes to fund this corporate entity...it goes to pay interest to the foreign owned  central bank that extends credit that they create from the stroke of a pen.


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 29, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.


----------



## 1stRambo (Jan 29, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



Yo, "Socialist Democrat Mayors" offer "Unions BIG Contracts" for their Votes? Can you tell me who pays that? You have no Knowledge. thank you!!! Yo, if you knew anything, you would know that same rging happens everyday across the U.S.A., Governors do it all the time, trying to bring jobs to their States!!! DAH

"GTP"


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 29, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.


No failsafe 
The poor who can't afford to pay taxes still dont pay taxes. Obamas mandate did more to charge more tax penalties to middle class and even cost me more as a lower income level. I still owe 45 a month for a health share plan which was the cheapest way to avoid a penalty and I still couldn't afford it.

Exemptions given to others does not affect the policies that other taxpayers pay under.

What cost taxpayers was Obama handing over billions in payouts to corporate insurance that came from taxpayer funds later ruled by courts to be unauthorized spending.

Tax breaks, where companies or individuals keep more of the revenue they generate themselves,  is NOT the same as handing payouts of tax dollars to corporations.

Get it straight. Or you are barking up the wrong tree. And letting the real crooks get away with our tax dollars handed to them, and blaming the wrong people if you go after those who are generating revenue and keeping a certain % of it, not taking it away from others which is Different .

If I use a coupon and get a discount that doesn't raise the price that other people pay. But giving out corporate payouts is like taking cash out of the register, handing it over and then charging that amount to the taxpayers . that's not the same as a tax break, which is more like giving incentive to customers that if you spend over 100 paid to the store then you qualify for 20% off what you pay in. That does not affect the customer that only pays or buys 50 dollars worth and only gets a 10% discount . they still pay what they agreed to pay and get the tax break that comes with that bracket .

The real crooks are the ones that get handouts out of the register when they didn't pay anything in, but just took out and the store passed the charges to taxpayers to pay. Those are the ones you should be demanding reimbursement from. Not the ones paying in who get a discount on it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 29, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



*Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor!* 

If Trump cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, the Poor have to pay taxes?

Walk thru the steps for me. Be as precise as you can.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 29, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.



Actually, we're not.  Your public school education failed you.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...



  Republic, democracy.  They are just word games.  Also, for a rhetorical question, how does democracy work under a republic and how does it work under a democracy.  Another point is that it could be that we started out as a republic.  (I don't know and don't really care because it doesn't really matter)  But what we ended up with is a plutocracy.

  Next, I don't know what you mean by a composite government.  As far as I know, the U.S. government doesn't hold shares in any business.  They do make loans to business in trouble.  Which if successful, the business pay back.  Though during the Reagan administration, he wanted to get the U.S. more involved in the stock market.  By placing Social Security funding in stocks.  Thereby letting the income of those on Social Security sink or swim depending on how the stock marked did.


1stRambo said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...





1stRambo said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...



  Unions?  What unions.  Dumbass.  Unions haven't had much power for decades.  Take Michigan.  It used to be a stronghold of unions.  Not long ago they became a "right to work" state.  What does "right to work" mean?  It basically means that unions have no authority to get in between employees and employers.  Or to put it a different way, it means employers are free to fuck their employees.


----------



## yiostheoy (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.


These spam bots are coming out of the woodwork like termites now.

Ignore list.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...



  Blah blah.  Blah blah blah.  You are wrong on just about everything.  (If not everything)  Like it or not, tax breaks is just a different form of payment-bribe.  Though it is probably done, basically, you can't give people money and take money from them at the same time.  The government runs on taxes.  If corporations are being given tax breaks, that means that the taxes the government needs has to come from someone else.  As for insurance companies, they ARE corporations.  Next, I will include a graph that may help you bark up the right tree.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...



  Look at post #10.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.
> ...



  Don't give me your mamby pamby bullshit.  Any government where the officials are elected through a democratic process IS a democracy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



Silly charts without a link back to their source are useless.


----------



## kwc57 (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



No worries, the Democrats were reduced to a regional party for probably a generation.


----------



## kwc57 (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



"Republic, democracy. They are just word games."

Look everybody, a Democrat!!!


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...




Yes, this  corporate "composite government" consists of all the states, counties, cities and towns all of which are incorporated and they do indeed have controlling interest in every Fortune 500 corporation and pick proxy voters to vote in the best interest of making a profit. The big talking point by the left was "The major corporations own the government" when it is really the other way around. Like I said, it's all in the CAFR. Even the Supreme court is incorporated and you can find it on Dun and Bradstreet.com. We are not under common law, we are under admiralty law or as you know it the "Universal Commercial Code". You are a corporate entity yourself if you claim to be a U.S citizen. Your "all caps" fictional strawman was created with the filing of a birth certificate that was printed on bond paper and you became an employee of this corporate entity called USA.INC when you signed up for Social Security...that's how they became the trustee of that birth certificate bond. It all goes back to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 and the sweat equity of the people was pledged as surety against the debt owed to the international bankers.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



  Useless?  Well now you know there is a thing to search for on the internet.  Just enter into your browser something like "Percentage of taxes paid based on income level."  You will probably not only find that graph, but much more to support it.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

kwc57 said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...



  Both democrats and republicans suck.  For some things, Trump just sucked much less.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



Yes, useless.
It refers to sales, excise and property taxes in the state of Washington.
Who cares?

Is that supposed to back up your claim, "If Trump cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, the Poor have to pay taxes"?


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



  You sure do talk a lot of crap.  If the government owns the business, why would they be giving themselves tax breaks.  With what you go on to say, even if it is true, you are going into FAR more detail than necessary.  As to the bankers, Hitler showed them how things should be done.  It's too bad that he couldn't have shown us too.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



  The same sort of thing probably applies to every state.  Next, what is it you think the government is saying.  "We can get by with less tax money."  Sorry.  It just doesn't work like that.  If tax revenue falls short in one sector, they will just take more from another sector.  Which sector is that?  The poor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...


*
The same sort of thing probably applies to every state.*

Why are you posting something about sales taxes in Washington State while you're whining about Trump cutting the Federal Tax on Business Income?
Is it because you're a moron? Or you just don't know any better?

*Next, what is it you think the government is saying.  "We can get by with less tax money."* 

When the fuck did the government ever say that?
*
If tax revenue falls short in one sector, they will just take more from another sector.  Which sector is that?  The poor.*

The poor don't have enough money to make a bit of difference.
Give it up. You made a stupid claim. It was wrong. Move along.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...




Exactly! Why would they???? Oh...I don't know....maybe in order to raise their bottom line???? Learn how to read a CAFR  and you will see all the holdings of this composite "gubermint" monstrosity. I know more than you because I have invested my time to educate myself on how things really work.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



  The graph I showed said "taxes."  Not "sales taxes."  Next, the point was the government would never say that they could get by with less tax revenue.  If they giv tax breaks to some, they will make up for it by taxing others more.  Next, the poor make up the vast majority of the population.  You know.  The 99%.  Apparently taxing them does make a difference.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



  I'm not buying that the government makes more money from business revenues than they do from taxes.  I'm not even buying that the government even owns most business.  Also, the government takes in taxes.  Even "if" they gave themselves tax breaks, it would only mean that they would be taking in less taxes.  What you're talking about is like taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another pocket.  Doing so just wouldn't make any difference.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



*The graph I showed said "taxes."* 

I know. That's why it was useless without a source.
A source that showed it was state and local taxes, not taxes.

*If they give tax breaks to some, they will make up for it by taxing others more.* 

When the Trump tax cut is written and it doesn't raise taxes on the poor, what will you say?

*Next, the poor make up the vast majority of the population.  You know.  The 99%.* 

LOL! You're dumber than 99%.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



You mean facts?  Yeah, those are usually lost on dolts like yourself.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



  The graph said "taxes."  I would have to assume that they were talking about state taxes.  Make of it what you will.  Next, I wasn't talking about any cut in taxes.  I was talking about basically bribing companies to create or keep jobs here by giving them tax breaks.  Next, you don't even know what I'm talking about.  And you call me dumb?


----------



## failsafe (Jan 30, 2017)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



  I showed a graph that showed the percentage of state taxes paid by people according to their income level.  If that isn't factual enough for you, find a graph of your own that says different.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...




Doesn't matter what you believe, what matters are the facts and until you spend the time that I invested, you will remain ignorant. Our income taxes goes to pay interest to the foreign owned Federal Reserve central bank....btw, the 16th amendment (that was never passed by enough states) and the Federal Reserve Act happened the same year...think that's a coincidence???....not hardly or even close.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



*Next, you don't even know what I'm talking about.* 

Because you're a moron.

*And you call me dumb?*

Only because you're a moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 30, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



*Our income taxes goes to pay interest to the foreign owned Federal Reserve central bank...*

Is that why the Fed pays the US Treasury? Because it's owned by foreigners? DERP!


----------



## DrainBamage (Jan 31, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> btw, the 16th amendment (that was never passed by enough states)


Heh heh love seeing this old chestnut trotted out.

US Courts have consistently ruled against this claim, which usually comes from people who have been charged with tax evasion/fraud, yet it still gets repeated as fact. In fact this line of thinking is identified as a frivolous position, if you're confident in your facts I suggest you refuse to file taxes based on this and see where it gets you.


----------



## failsafe (Jan 31, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



  First, what I believe?  How about you tell me how taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another pocket puts you ahead at all.  Next, each year the U.S. has to pay 420 billion dollars on the interest of our national debt.  I think they take in a little more in taxes than that.  But it of course would be best if we didn't have to pay that at all.  As for what you learned, if you need to go through a dense jungle, you don't do it by examining the DNA of every plant you come across.  You do so with a machete.  You have my sympathy that you got suckered into getting caught up in the endless intricate minutiae on the matter.  As for the Federal Reserve being owned by foreign interests, I doubt that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 31, 2017)

failsafe said:


> I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.



Didn't the USSR,  Red China, East Germany and 129 others slowly starve 150 million to death doing just that???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 31, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Or to put it a different way, it means employers are free to fuck their employees.



The beauty of Republican capitalism is that just to survive a business has to offer the best possible jobs and products in the world.

If you doubt it try to start a business with substandard jobs and products. Can you predict what would happen??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 31, 2017)

failsafe said:


> If corporations are being given tax breaks, that means that the taxes the government needs has to come from someone else.


that's true for sure, but its also true that corporations pass their costs, including tax costs, on to consumers in the  form of higher prices. Thus, its better to eliminate corporate taxes altogether to free up  corporations to concentrate on business efficiency  rather than tax dodging.

 We have the corporate tax only to pander to the pure and perfect ignorance of liberals who think they are making corporations pay their fair share. Do you understand now?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 31, 2017)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.
> ...



Dear Dont Taz Me Bro and failsafe

What the school of life will teach you is that you get the justice you give.
So failsafe if we want to live in a democracy, we start by practicing it.

Do you understand what "due process" is?
And the concept of NOT depriving citizens of liberty until and unless
convicted of some crime that merits loss of freedom as punishment.

Judging people without giving them a chance to defend their side
is another way of violating due process. People do this all the time,
thinking it's just human and just natural. Yeah, bullying and picking on 
the runt in the pack is tribal mentality we all fall into by our social nature
and practices of running in groups, competing to defend our interests.

So by that very nature of humans defending our free will, consent
and self-determination, it is even MORE important to "practice the Golden Rule."
And treat others with the highest respect and standards we'd also appreciate more of!

If you want others to "hear your petitions" and "redress your grievances"
that means listening the objections of others coming to us with correction, too!

It goes both ways. That's what human and social relations are all about.

So that's what we are here on the planet to learn in life.

If you are going to speak out and share what you believe to be fair or just
or unfair and in need of correction, that calls for equal respect and inclusion
of the beliefs of others with just as much interest in improving things for everyone.

Seek mutual benefit, let's help one another CORRECT what we see wrong or
abusive with govt, society, media, whether local or global.

Start with ourselves, treat our own neighbors and colleagues with respect.
Accept the challenges and responsibility of fixing things ourselves.
Not just griping and expecting other people to change.
When everyone does that we stay stuck.

Why not reach out a hand and help uplift a neighbor if we want
to get to a higher place in life.

Pushing down or beating up the other person
does not lift us up.  What changes things is lifting each other up to 
create the changes and improvement we want to see, to enforce and embody that ourselves!

I encourage you to do that. Try a more uplifting and empowering 
approach where everyone benefits mutually. And see how much more effective that works!

Take care, have a great day,
Keep pushing for change but remember
that change takes as much on your part
as the people you are pushing.

You get what you give. The more you give,
people will match you  and meet you halfway.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 31, 2017)

failsafe said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



No failsafe
it's called cutting the budget, finding more ways to   provide the same services
without as much loss or waste.

So to give people incentive to make govt work more effectively,
why not reward citizens with the freedom to invest income, labor, donations and resources
into better and better programs, where the taxes saved mean less burden and loss on everyone.

I think the term for your approach and thinking on this is
called "scarcity mentality."
Look that up, and the difference between it and "abundance mentality"

Scarcity mentality promotes fear and victimhood, where you shrink back, thinking others have all 
the control and you are helpless in comparison.
Abundance mentality encourages and rewards investment in building, serving and developing
better personal and community relations. It's about being the one proactively investing energy in others, with the understanding that energy comes back and is multiplied to invite more people in.
Not push them out.

What gives you away is thinking that if one person has more
than means taking away from someone else.

The way that love and good works in this world,
the more you give, the more it grows and multiplies.
You end up with more not less.

Negative energy works similarly, if you focus on complaining and criticizing,
fault finding and projecting blame, you attract more such negative energy
and soon other people are confronting you back in your face with it.

Which do you think is the bigger waste of energy, failsafe?
Investing forward in growing and improving relations and society around us?
Or shrinking back and criticizing what OTHERS are doing. Which does more 
to change to a positive and constructive direction.

Whatever it is you want to see improved in the world.
Jump in and do it yourself. Not only will that solve problems,
but will inspire others to jump in and change what we can.

How empowering is that?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 1, 2017)

failsafe said:


> I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.



too bad communism fails?? You didn't know that??


----------



## Slashsnake (Feb 10, 2017)

failsafe said:


> *Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!*  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  *We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.*  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> *I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.*  Also, want to see something interesting?  *Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.*



So you're against companies creating more jobs? 

We don't live in a democracy, you might want to educate yourself on the American lifestyle... We live in a democratic republic; neither which has to do with the economy, but with the way we elect our representatives, either directly or indirectly. If the American people didn't elect people who took bribes from businesses, this country would be in a better position, but unfortunately, that's not how the people have voted, so blame the 99%, not the 1%. 

Perfect, so let's take away capitalism and turn the country into a complete communist society. So when you work, the government pays you very little, but also controls everything you buy. So if I want to buy that big screen TV, well, sorry, but the government says I can't afford it. Yeah, right, dream on buddy. I'd rather have capitalism than a communist market. 

Companies shouldn't be paying taxes. Shareholders are the owners of a company like GM, and they pay taxes on their earnings, which count as income. Employees who work for companies like GM also pay income tax. I think the corporate tax rate should be 0% for this reason.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 10, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Companies shouldn't be paying taxes. Shareholders are the owners of a company like GM, and they pay taxes on their earnings, which count as income. Employees who work for companies like GM also pay income tax. I think the corporate tax rate should be 0% for this reason.


I'm highlighting this because of how radically insane this is.  I don't think you fundamentally understand the reason why there are taxes or what corporations are for you to assert this claim.  Your knowledge base is seriously lacking in a critical place somewhere.


----------



## Slashsnake (Feb 10, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > Companies shouldn't be paying taxes. Shareholders are the owners of a company like GM, and they pay taxes on their earnings, which count as income. Employees who work for companies like GM also pay income tax. I think the corporate tax rate should be 0% for this reason.
> ...



Hardly, I understand taxes pretty well.

For instance, I know sales tax is bull shit because it's essentially double taxation. You're taxed once when you get paid, and then taxed again when you buy something... Complete thievery by the local and state government right there.

The only people who should be paying a tax within a company are its owners and employees. The NFL doesn't pay a tax because the owners and players pay taxes, but the NFL itself doesn't. The same concept should be used for other companies... The shareholders should be taxed on their earnings (which is all the profit), while the operating costs (used to buy materials, etc, is sales taxed), while the employees who make an income who profit from working there pay income tax. Not really a hard concept to understand what I'm talking about.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 10, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...


I'm not asking about the mechanics of tax...I'm saying you don't fundamentally understand the reasoning behind why we tax (basically the reasoning for government).  You have to pass "Go" before you play the board.  If you want to demonstrate your acknowledgement of why we have taxes in the first place, then we can debate about the implementation of those taxes referring to corporations...but you don't seem like you have that basic foundation.


----------



## Slashsnake (Feb 10, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...



The basic foundation of having taxes is corrupt. Imagine how companies would actually put money back into the company if they weren't paying a special corporate tax so our government can throw excess money down the drain.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 10, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...


And that is why your basic opinions lack relevancy.  You don't even acknowledge the reasoning behind why they are put into place.  Now, you could certainly acknowledge their reasoning...and then assert why you disagree with them...but you just seem to have a general mindset of "taxes = bad" instead of having a coherent argument against them (which would require you to know what the other side posits for the argument).

Since we have that understanding that you don't necessarily know the foundations you are arguing against, instead of being academic, I'll simply point towards a real-world example.  Look at the Middle Eastern oil gurus or the drug cartels of Central / South America.  These are big money businesses that operate outside the bounds of government control or taxation (unless you consider their grease payments a form of taxation).  How beneficial is it for those businesses to operate in this manner?  Do you really want to argue that they have a net positive benefit for the citizen base in the places in which they operate?


----------



## Slashsnake (Feb 10, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...



No, wasting money = bad.
Double taxation = bad. 
Taxes are good when used responsibly, but the rates are inflated because our government wastes money.


----------



## there4eyeM (Feb 10, 2017)

Regressive taxes discriminate in favor of the wealthy.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 10, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...


So you are taking an argument of degrees.  You think that, if used properly, taxes are beneficial.

Then the question becomes what is acceptable?  What is waste?  What is needed?  Why is your opinion on waste more important than other American's opinion on what is wasted versus needed?  I will also point out that if you don't have an issue with taxation, but have an issue with the levels of taxation, you shouldn't really have an issue with double taxation.  You can tax somebody twice at 5% each time and have it be less than the ~30-40% tax the wealthy pay (without deductions).  

I will go ahead and say that I believe that our government does waste a lot of money (coming from somebody in the military who has seen a lot of waste).  However, i also feel that a lot of our programs are needed and, given our insane level of debt, we should actually be increasing our tax levels rather than decreasing them (unless large portions of government spending were cut).


----------



## Slashsnake (Feb 11, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...



Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries, unless you speak to Occupy Democrats members, though, who think a democrat president can do no wrong.

Why shouldn't I have an issue with double taxation? I am part of the double taxation bull shit... When I get paid, I pay federal and state income tax, and then the state and local government charges me sales tax when I buy something. I pay roughly 23% in state, federal, and local taxes and then another 8.25% in sales tax, so 31.25% of my money goes towards taxes... It seems like I'm better paying 10% more to get all of the goodies the Canadian socialist system offers me such as free college and healthcare.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 11, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...


Deflecting to somebody else to justify Trump's actions means, at the base, you don't have a good argument.  Who cares about Obama?  I'm not here to talk about him nor defend him...he has no effect on America anymore.

I pointed out the reason why in a previous post.  You can have an issue with the levels of taxes, but how you are taxed is largely irrelevant.  You should also recognize that corporations are afforded a lot of legal protections which is the base reasoning for their taxation.  If you want to remove their taxability status you should tax them as you tax a small business...which would mean that whomever the owners are have full liability, the company lives and dies with its owners (no ownership shares anymore, simply partnerships), they don't have the ability to bring cases to court nor defend them, etc.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 11, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> which is the base reasoning for their taxation. .



base reason is pure 100% ignorance of liberals. Corporate tax costs like all costs are passed on to us in form of higher prices. We pay the tax cost not the corporations. Liberals stupidly think they are  making corporations pay their fair share when really they are encouraging them to move off shore and take jobs with them. America cant survive pure liberal ignorance forever.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 11, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > which is the base reasoning for their taxation. .
> ...


I never said that their taxes were not passed down in the form of higher prices...I stated the core reasoning why we tax them in the first place, which is that they enjoy limited rights as an independent entity in our legal and governmental system.  

I also never said they pay more or less than their fair share...and, if you would read more than one post, I repeated say that you can certainly debate the level of taxation that we currently maintain and whether or not it is healthy...as I have made no claims to affirm or disaffirm our current levels.

Knee jerk reactionism does not seem to suit you so well.


----------



## EverCurious (Feb 12, 2017)

My issue with taxing the wealthy & thus businesses, the whole 'fair share' bullshit, is that the stats used by politicians to scare up more money for socialist programs /never/ looks at the 'other' taxes we wealthy already pay more in on, never looks at the benefits we give the economy in raw dollars and in services/products rendered.  We pay taxes for our employees on the Fed side, on the State side we pay a shit ton more in on property taxes our homes and our business spaces, we also pay a crap ton more in on sales taxes for the shit we buy, personal items and stuff we need for our businesses.  Then there's the economic effects of paying people to work for us.

Bah, I have to go so I can't finish my thought entirely.


----------



## Slashsnake (Feb 12, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...



Pretty sure Obama still has an effect on our country... Dodd-Frank and Obamacare still exist.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 12, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...


This is what you said, "Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries"

I'm not sure if you are new to this nation, but what you said here has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank nor Obamacare.  Furthermore, Trump has stated and started moving towards rolling back both Dodd-Frank and Obamacare...so complaining about programs that are already in the initial phases of getting rolled back...is like a child whining that they aren't receiving their ice cream sundae immediately after it is bought because it has to get made first.

Getting back to the core discussion on taxes you seem to have ignored my question on why we should award special privileges to corporations and their owners without taxing them for those special privileges.  We have a form of business where the company is taxed as the individual...the sole proprietorship.  There is a reason why corporations are a separate form of business, how do you justify the privileges awarded to them without taxing them?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 12, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> why we should award special privileges to corporations and their owners without taxing them for those special privileges.



Most importantly , USA is at very top in terms of pushing corporations, jobs, and investment capital off shore with the highest tax rate in the world  that, after off shore deductions,  collects little revenue but does provide great incentive to move off shore.

It is pure liberal stupidity. We have the tax only to pander to the pure ignorance of marxist liberals who are brainwashed to imagine they need to punish corportions and make them pay their fair share while having no clue whatsoever that any tax they do pay is merely  passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices like any cost would be.



Corporations are tax collectors, not taxpayers. A corporate tax like any corporate expense is simply passed on to customers. Ever wonder why a Rolls Royce costs more than a VW?? Ans: the high costs of making it are passed on to customers.

A liberal wants higher corporate taxes only because he lacks the IQ to know he will paying them. What could be more absurd than a liberal.

We have corporate taxes only because liberal politicians pander to the free lunch crowd and the liberal Marxists crowd which has been brainwashed to hate the very corporations that provide our jobs, make us the richest people in human history, and sell us Ipods, surgical robots, and jet planes so we can vacation around the world.

See why we are 1000% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow. Is any other conclusion possible??







In a message dated 7/26/2012 9:23:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Bje1000@aol.com writes:

We have corporate taxes only because liberals lack the ability to understand the business tax  and so get some Marxist satisfaction in feeling  they are getting even with corporations  by taxing them. It is a blatant example of pandering to the perfect ignorance of liberals.

Common sense will tell you that corporate taxes are expenses like any other that are passed on to customers like any other expenses. A business is a tax collector , not a tax payer, but that is way way over a liberal's head. Hence, they should be eliminated as a huge waste of time and effort and efficiency. GE for example has 1000 tax professionals all of whom  could be fired if the tax was eliminated allowing GE to lower its prices and become more competitive. Plus, most companies do whatever is necessary to avoid the tax like moving off shore and then keeping profits and jobs off shore to avoid the liberal tax man who should be there at all except to pander to the pure ignorance of liberals. 


Corporation are tax collectors, not tax payers! It is a huge joke on the liberal mentality

Chairman Charles Rangel proposed cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent. While a 5 percentage point cut in the federal corporate tax rate may sound significant, it may not be sufficient to meaningfully improve the competitiveness of the United States.

Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent.1 Lowering the federal rate to 30.5 percent would only lower the U.S.'s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries.

Many states impose state corporate income taxes at rates above the national average of 6.6 percent. Iowa, for example, imposes the highest corporate tax rate of 12 percent, followed by Pennsylvania's 9.99 percent rate and Minnesota's 9.8 percent rate. When added to the federal rate, these states tax their businesses at rates far in excess of all other OECD countries.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 13, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > why we should award special privileges to corporations and their owners without taxing them for those special privileges.
> ...


The effective tax rate for some industries are as low as 5%.  If you don't take deductions and subsidies into consideration, sure, we do have the highest tax rates.  Taking those into consideration, it is more of a mixed bag.  Before parroting information you heard on the internet, it would help if you had a bit of background knowledge beforehand so you didn't sound quite as uninformed.  There is a reason why the largest and most prevalent corporations in the world make their home in America.


----------



## Markle (Feb 13, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



The only reason you'd hide the source is that you have nothing.  It comes from a garbage source which describes you post as well.

Try this, throw up a thread which is real.  EVEN you cannot believe what you posted, you are just trying to stir the pot.


----------



## Markle (Feb 13, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



Your problem stems from the fact that you, like most Progressives, believe that we live in a static economy when we actually live in a dynamic economy.


----------



## Markle (Feb 13, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...



Your ignorance about taxes is not surprising.  Just two examples, then scoot along.  Federal Income Taxes go to the...ta da...Federal Government.  Sales taxes go to the...ta da...the state unless the area where you live has a local option tax and that part goes to the city or county.

Your last paragraph confirms what I said in my first sentence.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Feb 13, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...


_Actually, no, as neither should have been in place in the first place. Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, and should never have existed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing it out. If enough people understand, then it's possible we won't elect someone who would put such a poor piece of legislation in place again. _

_Business shouldn't be taxed for multiple reasons. Firstly, the government never should have been big enough to be able to waste as much money as they're getting in the first place, so they don't need what they get from businesses. The government never should have had 400+ agencies, shouldn't be handing money to foreign governments, and shouldn't be giving taxpayer money to other people. _

_Furthermore, businesses just pass down the cost of taxes to their consumer and employees in various forms anyway, so taxing them just makes the Liberals with wealth envy happy, rather than actually accomplishing anything, plus taxes and subsidies are just being used to hurt certain businesses, and help others in the first place, which is not the government's place._

_Lastly, the private sector businesses are where jobs come from in the first place, and if anything, taxes on them only damage the economy. Taxing those businesses only does harm, and no good. The government should drastically cut spending, not tax businesses, let alone more._


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 14, 2017)

Pumpkin Row said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...


Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.

Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population.  If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.

Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well.  Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Feb 14, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...


_Your strawman is the absolute opposite of what I said. I said absolutely nothing about NOT working for self interest. In fact, what I stated was letting self interest run the economy entirely.  Not only that, what I was advocating was making the government significantly smaller, not expanding it to ridiculous proportions. Did you even read my post?_

_My "inane theory" is that businesses would hire more people and expand faster if they had more money. That's pure logic. If people have more money, they spend more. Likewise, if a business has more money, they spend more. Or would you like to try to make the argument that if a business has less money, they spend more?_


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 14, 2017)

Pumpkin Row said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Pumpkin Row said:
> ...


Read my post before calling it a straw man...I pointed out an example of an academic theory that sounded good on paper, but didn't work out in reality.  If you thought my strawman was saying that not taxing a business is communist...then you lack fundamental reading comprehension.

If you would follow businesses, which I know you don't, but if, in theory, you would...you would realize that what you are saying is just plain false.  Right now we are living in an environment where, for the past decade, businesses had have pretty much free access to cash.  So, have we seen a rapidly expanding economy?  No.  We have seen most of the major corporations move to leverage themselves more, borrowing money, maintaining (not growing) assets, and paying back dividends and buying back stock.  The problem with your outside of real world thinking is a "if you build it they will come" mentality that simply doesn't pan out in the real world.  There are not infinite growth opportunities out there, there is market saturation.  You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something you heard on the internet here.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Feb 14, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...


_Except no, businesses are under a 60(?)% tax rate, and Obamacare is taxing them per-employee. They don't have free access to cash, the economy is outright garbage, with extremely slow economic expansion, thanks to government intervention._

_You can thank government intervention for that. The government can only undo damage it has already done to the economy, or damage it more. I can tell from your lack of understanding of the actual state of the economy that you're a flaming lefty._

_Your outside of reality mindset comes from the thought that businesses are inherently evil and would rather spite people than make money. The actual fact is that if you give businesses opportunities to make more money, they take those opportunities. That's why chains exist, so that they can expand and make more money in more locations, which is what ANY business does when given the opportunity. SURPRISINGLY, to do that, you have to stop warring against those businesses. Go figure that they wouldn't move out of the Nation if it wasn't cheaper. What's that? There's a less than 60% business tax and fewer regulations in X Nation than Y Nation? Of course they'd move, any business would. If America had absolutely no taxes and no regulations, it would be a better location for business. As of right now, because lefties don't understand economics, businesses are moving. Why? Because they can make more money elsewhere._

_It's not a hard concept to understand. If the government steals less from you in America than where you're currently located, then it's a more profitable location. I'm sure if you try REALLY hard, you may be able to understand it. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something CNN told you._


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 14, 2017)

Pumpkin Row said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Pumpkin Row said:
> ...


Again, you simply don't follow business, and it is sad that you are trying to comment on it.  Here is a map of the top 500 corporations in the world.  If businesses rushed towards less taxation and less regulation, you would see this map flooded by all the businesses being in places like Africa or some spots in South America or Southeast Asia, where government has little to no realistic power.

Instead you see a concentration in Europe, America, and East Asia...where government regulations (and control, if speaking of China) and taxation are all heavily prevalent.  You really need to stop commenting on issues that are outside the scope of your knowledge base.

Visualize The Global 500


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Feb 14, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...


_Those areas are based on what they're required to pay their employees and how long they're allowed to work them. For a long time, people in Asia have been spending less time at home and working longer hours, hence the quality of their vehicles, animation, and video games. It's actually frowned upon for people in those areas to leave work on time. What you're looking at is culture and currency as factors in business placement. If America had the lowest taxation and fewest regulations, they'd still be moving their businesses to America._


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 14, 2017)

Pumpkin Row said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Pumpkin Row said:
> ...


Again, if you would follow current business, like reading the WSJ daily, or just being in the business world an environment, and not parroting things you search for on the internet...you wouldn't look so unfortunately uninformed.  Japan has that work ethic you are talking about and was renowned for it...it is what put them in competition with other developed nations in the 70's and 80's.  However, due to their stagnating workforce (they have very strict immigration laws, and declining birthrates), they are no longer as strong as they once were...in fact, they are starting on their second decade in a row of stagnation and slow, but steady, decline.

Furthermore, you skirted around the fact that the real world doesn't reflect your fantastical dreams.  We have places with little to not government regulation or taxation...places in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia...however, those are not the places where businesses are prospering.  They are prospering in the developed world where there are regulations and taxation...sometimes heavily so.  This strictly contrasts with the dream world you create in your mind where people flock to places simply due to their tax or regulatory policies.  The frank fact of the matter is that you don't seem to understand business or the economy and are just repeating something you heard on the internet that agreed with your worldview, so you took it as truth.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Feb 14, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...


_And if you're so right, how about explaining to me how taxing the hell out of businesses helps them thrive? Please enlighten me._


----------



## Markle (Feb 14, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.
> 
> Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population.  If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
> 
> Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well.  Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.



All First World countries I know of have taxes on corporations.  Sadly, our country has chosen to drive corporations away to other shores.

Ireland has a 12.5% maximum tax rate for corporations.  Major corporations have moved their headquarter to that country infuriating...the European Union.  Their economy is BOOMING.  Far greater than the mediocre growth of our country.  Apple moved their headquarters to Ireland in the 1990's.  CNN, a far left news source, headlined that Apple "artificially" lowered their tax bill.  I'm not sure how one "artificially" lowers their tax bill.  The article claims Apple paid a low of 2% of the profits attributed to their subsidiaries in Ireland.

Our corporate tax rate is either the highest or second highest in the world at a maximum of 39%.  That is simply obscene.

What Progressives simply cannot comprehend is that our economy is NOT static.  Our economy is dynamic and we must recognize that fact.  By that, I mean that Progressives believe that if we collect taxes at a rate of 10% on net profits of $100,000.00 the tax collected will be $10,000.00.  Progressives believe that if you raise that rate to 39%, the tax collected will be $39,000.00!  How cool is that?  The problem is that at 39%, the company, who has a fiduciary relationship with their stockholders will find any way legally possible to avoid that exorbitant tax.  The result is that you collect 39% on $10,000.00 instead of $100,000.00 resulting in tax collected of $3,900.00 and not $39,000.00.  How is that good for anyone?


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 15, 2017)

Pumpkin Row said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Pumpkin Row said:
> ...


It is a matter of degrees.  "Taxing the hell" out of businesses does not help them thrive.  The key is in taxing them proportionally speaking to the benefits that are gained by remaining in a certain nation (if international movement is available).  

Basically, businesses are best able to thrive in environments where there is stability, rule of law, and a skilled labor force (which is created through an education system sponsored by the government).  In order to create these things, a strong central government is required.  In order for a strong central government to operate, it is going to need income.  In order to gather income, the government cannot ignore one of their primary holders and generators of wealth, which is businesses.  If a government leans too heavily on its citizens to burden the taxes, it kills their ability to consume which kills the demand for business.  On the other hand, if a government leans too heavily on businesses to bear the taxes, then it does kill business growth.

So, if you don't tax the businesses, you are not going to have a good environment for business growth because you either won't have a strong enough government to support that growth, or the citizen base will not consume enough to provide a good local environment to foster business creation in the first place.  Given the fact that America remains one of the strong economies and home to some of the most well-known and largest international firms (think Google, Apple, Disney, McDonald's, WalMart, Amazon, Exxon, etc).  It is pretty clear that, while we may not have a perfect environment (and nobody does), we still have one of the best environments for business growth.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 15, 2017)

Markle said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.
> ...


This is just false...Apple's headquarters is in California.  They moved their European HQ to Ireland for tax reasons...because there isn't a ton of difference or penalties between moving between nations over there (they have free movement of people so they can take high performers with them, and the EU imposes general guidelines on business conduct for all EU members).  You should do a bit of homework before you regurgitate falsehoods.  Due to various subsidies, tax loopholes, and deductions, some American tech firms are reported to have tax rates as low as 8%...the government gives them a lot of leeway since tech is our best industry and remains one of our faster growing ones.  Our flat tax (before deductions or subsidies are concerned) is the highest among developed nations to my knowledge, but it is negated by provisions in our tax code as well as programs in our government built to help certain industries (again tech, but I think green energy also gets a big boost...and you can rest assured that dirty energy is about to get a huge governmental boost from Trump).

Again, parroting information you hear on the internet that simply upholds your worldview is not going to convince any informed party of the strength of your positions...just the opposite in fact.


----------



## Markle (Feb 15, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...



If taxes are 8%, as you allege, why are so many companies leaving the US and holding their profits in other countries?

I posted facts, you posted fantasies.  As I said, you live in a static world instead of dynamic.

Wow, you agree that they moved their headquarters for their European HQ to...ta da...Ireland for...TAX REASONS!  Thank you!

*Europe's top regulator has accused Ireland of striking a deal with Apple in 1991 that helped the tech giant to artificially lower its tax bill for more than 20 years.*
by Alanna Petroff @AlannaPetroffSeptember 30, 2014: 8:56 AM ET
[...]
The European Commission published details of its case Tuesday after announcing in June that it was probing tax arrangements between Apple (AAPL, Tech30) and Ireland, and Starbucks(SBUX) and the Netherlands.

Apple has paid as little as 2% on profits attributed to its subsidiaries in Ireland, where the top rate of corporate tax is 12.5%.[...]

EU says Apple benefits from Irish state aid

You rightly ignored the fact that the economy in Ireland is expanding sharply instead of the lackadasical growth of America for the past ten years.  Smart boy!


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 15, 2017)

Markle said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Again study business.

Profits generated in other countries are generally held there due to the costs associated with repatriation of funds...these are both real costs as well as intangible costs (such as maintaining good relationships in nations within which a business operates).  You also ignore the fact that to repatriate those funds, it means that they had to have been generated over there as well.  

Again, you need to be informed on business matters instead of just copying and pasting random things that you think back your point.  Linked are the reported GDP growth rates shown by Ireland...you'll notice that they did have a large spike...that is not repeated at all...their growth is stronger than ours overall, but if you know anything about economics you'll know it is easier for underdeveloped nations to catch-up and grow than it is for the leading economies to grow.  We have a GDP of 16+trillion.  Ireland has a GDP of 230+billion.  Who gives a shit if they grow?  If you want to complain about growth rates you would have more of an argument for China, who has shown stronger GDP growth than Ireland...however, that would negate your fallacious argument about taxes since a lot of Chinese business is state-owned and heavily answerable to the Chinese government.

Ireland GDP Growth Rate | 1997-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast


----------



## Spare_change (Feb 15, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



The standard liberal approach.

"If you're cutting taxes, you are just trying to screw the poor."
"If you're cutting taxes, you are just giving tax breaks to rich people."
"Wahhh -wahhh - wahhh!!"

Not once did you see anything in this rant about increased tax revenue by stimulating the economy thru tax cuts. No discussion about jobs created as the result of released capital for investment.

Not once in this rant did you see anything about cutting spending commensurate with tax cuts. The idea that government services might be cut is anathema to the left. They are incapable of believing that nanny government is expensive and unnecessary. They do not comprehend people being responsible for themselves.

In short .... s.o.b.s.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 15, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...


Well let me give you the non-standard liberal approach by a left-leaner.

I'm a big fan of tax breaks...if the government can afford to.  Seeing the size of our budget deficit, we do not have room to afford to cut taxes.  Additionally, I'm also a fan of reducing the amount of our government spending...specifically our entitlement programs, which, last I heard, made up ~50% of government spending.


----------



## Slashsnake (Feb 15, 2017)

Markle said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...



Smart one, you hardly understand anything. 

Listen closely... I pay state taxes and federal taxes out of my paycheck, yes that money goes towards the state and federal government. My issue is when I'm taxed outside of when I get my paycheck every week. If I've already paid taxes on what I've earned, I shouldn't be paying fucking taxes AGAIN when I purchase something. 

Some people on this site are complete bozos, and you're one of them. Not only that but you must've been drunk when you replied because your reply hardly had any relevance to what I said.


----------



## Slashsnake (Feb 15, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



You need to cut taxes for a capitalist society to thrive. Only in a socialist society would higher taxes allow the society to be "well off" like in Canada. The problem isn't "the government can't afford to cut taxes," no, the problem is the government (either federal, local, or both) wastes money on stupid programs like Planned Parenthood and welfare, exporting it overseas to other countries, and throwing stupid events to celebrate a minor event which is also used with taxpayer money. Last year my state politicians threw a party to celebrate the opening of a taxpayer funded amphitheater... What did they do after that? Throw a party as a celebration, also with taxpayer money instead of just using money from their own salaries (also funded by taxpayers) to do it. Do you see where I'm getting at? Why are the politicians throwing a party with taxpayer money that can be saved or used somewhere important? Did they ask if they could use our money to pay for a party? 

Also, there's the issue that companies keep money overseas because they don't want to pay the high import tax to bring it in. So the government would rather get 0% of those trillions of dollars rather than 10-15% of it. Makes sense right?


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 15, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


You must not follow our government spending very much.  If you are complaining about some party being thrown it kinda shows how ignorant you are because I can guarantee you that it wouldn't even register on a percentage basis of our budget spending.  We could literally burn millions of dollars and dance around it like savages and not really have it register on a percentage basis of our budget spending...our spending issues are literally much, much larger than things you seem to have a problem with, which means you just have no clue what they are.

I think I've made a comment about this on a previous post somewhere.  It seems you simply have no clue how international business works.  Take a simple international business course or seminar and get back to me.  To put it simply, repatriation of funds have absolutely nothing to do with imports so mentioning one like you are talking about the other indicates an extremely high level of ignorance when speaking on this subject (it is like being asked what your favorite drink is and answering "baseball").


----------



## Slashsnake (Feb 15, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...



So people who make a salary from the taxpayer's dollars have the right to throw a party with taxpayer dollars without asking? Gee, and I thought you were a smart person. I don't give a flying fuck what % of tax dollars it makes up, it's unethical no matter what.

A little info for you, I live in NY, we're one of the highest taxed states in the country... When I see politicians in Albany giving themselves raises, throwing parties for stupid reasons, giving money to people who don't want to work, paying overweight state troopers $100,000 a year to eat doughnuts, mis-managing Medicaid,  having low standards for welfare so those who pay taxes have to pay even more taxes, of course I'm going to be pissed off you jackass.


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 15, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...


I mean you have the right to be angry and whatever you want, but it is the logical equivalent of being angry that somebody keyed your car when a construction accident gone awry dropped a steel beam on your vehicle that crushed it.  Sure, you can stomp your feet about the asshole that keyed it, but it isn't going to do much about the real problem which is that steel beam.

I'm making a point that the government does spend unwisely...at least given its funding levels (as I see our budget deficit as an issue)...however, I'm more worried about the big picture rather than the small stuff.


----------



## Slashsnake (Feb 15, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...



Welfare is a huge problem in my state and is one reason the taxes are so high. The nation spends $2 trillion a year on welfare, I  would say that's a problem seeing as the federal deficit is $20 trillion. 32% of my state's budget is for welfare. How much does your state spend on welfare? I understand welfare programs are run by each state, but if we took tax dollars spent for welfare and applied them to the federal deficit, the deficit would be erased within a matter of 10 years if the rest of the budget is balanced correctly.


----------



## Spare_change (Feb 15, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



I wouldn't walk unescorted down liberal alley if I were you .... you could be mistaken for a (gasp) conservative. Cut spending FIRST? They'll hang you!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 15, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Welfare is a huge problem in my state and is one reason the taxes are so high. The nation spends $2 trillion a year on welfare, I  would say that's a problem seeing as the federal deficit is $20 trillion. 32% of my state's budget is for welfare. How much does your state spend on welfare? I understand welfare programs are run by each state, but if we took tax dollars spent for welfare and applied them to the federal deficit, the deficit would be erased within a matter of 10 years if the rest of the budget is balanced correctly.



yes!!! and when Newt and Clinton ended  "welfare as we know it" by making it workfare fully half decided they were not poor enough to work!!


----------



## Never3ndr (Feb 15, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...


I'm guessing you don't know what welfare is commonly defined as.  I mentioned entitlements, which seem to be what you are mentioning (since you said $2 trillion) was what I think are a major issue...these include things like medicare / medicaid and social security.  I mistook you for meaning welfare as in assisted living programs (like food stamps) which are a relatively minor portion of our budget in comparison.  

So, I agree, that we need to cut down on or may just do away with these entitlement programs like social security.  

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/budgetinfographic.pdf


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2017)

Never3ndr said:


> So, I agree, that we need to cut down on or may just do away with these entitlement programs like social security.
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/budgetinfographic.pdf


 or privatize it since we don't want to let the elderly starve to death.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 15, 2017)

I agree. SCREW IT!!! Screw trickle down!!! Screw tax cuts for the super rich!!! Screw cutting science, education and infrastructure.

Fuck libertriainism in its nasty ass.


----------



## eagle1462010 (May 15, 2017)

Business passes the costs on to the consumer.............so you pay them anyway...........Strong countries have a  large middle class...........They ultimately circulate the money that stirs the hell out of the economy.  Which is why tax breaks for jobs returning to America is a good thing.

Play to the Class Warfare........even if you when at it........you still pay that money when you buy their products.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2017)

Matthew said:


> I agree. SCREW IT!!! Screw trickle down!!! Screw tax cuts for the super rich!!! Screw cutting science, education and infrastructure.
> 
> Fuck libertriainism in its nasty ass.


You want to screw trickle down capitalism and replace it with trickle down welfare?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2017)

Matthew said:


> I agree. SCREW IT!!! Screw trickle down!!! Screw tax cuts for the super rich!!! Screw cutting science, education and infrastructure.
> 
> Fuck libertriainism in its nasty ass.


If you give the superrich tax cuts they then have more money with which to invent new products and create new jobs. You can't give the poor tax cuts because they don't pay taxes and what would be the point anyway since They don't invent new products that would help the economy grow and generating new jobs


----------



## JonKoch (May 16, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. SCREW IT!!! Screw trickle down!!! Screw tax cuts for the super rich!!! Screw cutting science, education and infrastructure.
> ...





Yeah, the rich need tax cuts *shaking head*



In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income.
As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.










1945-1980 we had no jobs right?  HOW ABOUT 1993-2000?


----------



## JonKoch (May 16, 2017)

Slashsnake said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...




"The nation spends $2 trillion a year on welfare"

LOL

Hint, we spend MUCH more on Corp welfare than people welfare in the US, Your right wing meme is stale


REMEMBER CLINTON JOINED WITH THE GOP ON "WELFARE REFORM" IN 1996 PUTTING A 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON IT???  THEY ALSO LIMITED FEDERAL WELFARE MONEY TO THE SAME AMOUNT EACH YEAR THAT HAS NEVER INCREASED, LESS THAN $20 BILLION A YEAR  

*Most families in poverty don't receive welfare*
*Poverty is higher than in 1996

How welfare reform changed American poverty, in 9 charts


THAT $20 TRILLION IN DEBT CAN BASICALLY BE TRACED BACK TO 2 GUYS POLICIES SINCE 1981 (Hint RR, Dubya) who blew up spending AS they decreased revenues and GREATLY decreased the EFFECTIVE tax rates on the "job creators"

*
*



*


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




So, let me get this straight...I barter my labor in increments of an hour in order to accrue enough Federal Reserve Notes to exist on and you believe that the federal  de-facto "gubermint" is entitled to 25 to 30 percent of my sweat equity due to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of March 1933???? Do tell???? Please tell me how you can  justify that.......


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Markle said:


> Never3ndr said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.
> ...



What a bunch of BS

You like most righties conflate MARGINAL TAX RATES (FEDERAL 35% today) with EFFECTIVE tax rates.


*Feb 27, 2012*
*Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High*

The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.
Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

2011 study by the Congressional Research Service: U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD (DEVELOPED NATIONS)  average of 27.7 percent.


*Reality Check on Corporate Taxes *
*Those who complain U.S. corporations pay more taxes than the rest of the world are either uninformed or disingenuous.*
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econ...3/reality-check-on-corporate-income-tax-rates


*IF ONLY WE HAD A GOV'T WHO DECIDED THAT TO DO BUSINESS IN THE WORLDS LARGEST ECONOMY NEEDED TO PAY TAXES HERE INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THEM TO DODGE THEM BY "OFF SHORING" THEIR PROFITS!!!!*


Repatriation? Oh yeah, that worked great with Dubya's 5% rate


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Yes the  rich need tax cats.  Ask them  if they want to keep more of the money they earn.its suppose to be free country it's their choice because it's their money it's their private property it's not your choice to steal from them out of jealousy, to make up for your own inability to earn money, and your  interest in collecting welfare.  The more people the rich put on welfare with their tax dollars the more crippled people like you with big mouths we have who  can't support themselves except throuugh stealing from others this is a formula for national decay. Our founders came here to be free not to steal from others in order to make a living.


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




"Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of March 1933"

LMAOROG, Sure Bubs, sure

HINT IT'S CALLED A SOCIETY!!!!



*Taxes Are What We Pay for Civilized Society*


*Oliver Wendell Holmes*


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




Free? LMAOROG

You should Google Geo Washington and your TeaT*rd ancestors during the whiskey rebellion.

HINT GOV'T (WE) DECIDE WHAT WE DO AS A NATION AND UNTIL THE GOPers DECIDED TO "STARVE THE BEAST" TO BENEFIT THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS THEY'VE OFF SHORED JOBS AND LOWERED THEIR EFFECTIVE TAX RATE "BURDENS" ON MUCH LARGER SHARE OF THE PIE UNDER GOP "TRICKLE DOWN" BS, WE USED TO DO PRETTY WELL. Thanks Ronnie


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


actually we would have a better civilization with lower taxes i.e. with one group not becoming more and more crippled and uncivilized because they survive by stealing from other groups.  Most communist countries had a parasite tax to encourage everyone to work and contribute to society and to not leach off society .


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




WE HAD LOW TAXES UNTIL RONNIE DECIDED TO GUT TAXES ON THOSE "JOB CREATORS" AND SHIFTED THEM TO THE MIDDLE CLASS BUBBA

AND CONservative economics NEVER has worked ANYWHERE, just look to those "small Gubmt" nations you want to emulate, mostly in Latin America/Asia Bubs


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...





Taxes on our labor isn't "civilized" and I am going to "school" you about the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of USA.INC via 1933 and 1950, what you refer to as your believed "gubermint".........I am gonna knock your ass so far out of the park that you will have to buy a ticket to get back in......make sure you chime back on this thread later today......I'm gonna lay some "truth bombs" on ya......


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


The government is not supposed to redistribute money  this is supposed to be in a free country


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...





So all the trillions of dollars we spent since the 1960s how come we only ended up with this ?


----------



## Spare_change (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


"... redistribution of income ... "

Interesting phrase for allowing them to keep more of the money they earned.


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




Labor huh? lol



I'll wait for your BS interpretation on the Chapter 11 nonsense!


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Gawd you are STILL dumb as a rock, EVERY tax is redistribution Bubs


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

bear513 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




Trillions we've spent on wars, why are there still wars?

Trillions given in tax breaks to "job creators" who off shore US jobs AND gut employees? Why? 

But yes the rights war on the war on poverty HAS worked out well for the "job creator" class! 


*US super-rich get five times more income than in 1995*

*Meanwhile, the effective tax rate on this group—the amount actually paid in taxes—fell to 16.6 percent, the lowest figure on IRS records dating to 1992.*

*



*


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...





You do understand Gov't needs to be funded right? And since Ronnie Reagan, the "job creator" class has been able to shift the burden to the middle class?

Hint ANY tax is redistribution! Earned? NO ONE EARNED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS!


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




The world caught up in the 1980s after WWII they had no choice, either that or NO JOBS..



And why did your Messiah just copy bush Jr and make like over 85% of the tax cuts permeant ? The left has no ideas except trickle up poor


.


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

bear513 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Gawd you wing nutters are DUMB. Seriously trying to say we NEEDED to GUT taxes on the "job creators" otherwise capitalism wouldn't create jobs? LMAOROG

Yeah, I guess over the past 36 years your side has been correct, Ronnie said cut taxes on the "job creators" and the jobs would flow from the sky, gutting the top rate from 70% to 50% and the unemployment rate went up to 10.8% a post WW2 high, it took 28 months to get below 8%, lol



Dubya and GOP "job creator" policies lost 1+ million private sector jobs in 8 years

BJ BILL INCREASED TAXES AND CREATED 22+ MILLION JOBS? WHAT????



You mean when the GOP blackmailed Obama at Christmas time of 2010 of dumping people off of unemployment UNLESS he left Dubya's "trickle down" BS in place for everyone under $400,0000 a year?


CONservative economic policy NEVER works as promised, weird soooooo many right wingers don't understand how an economy works (DEMAND)...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



*who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income.*
And pays 729 times as much tax. Bastard!
DERP


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Slashsnake said:
> 
> 
> > Never3ndr said:
> ...



*THAT $20 TRILLION IN DEBT CAN BASICALLY BE TRACED BACK TO 2 GUYS POLICIES SINCE 1981 (Hint RR, Dubya)
*
Ignore the black fella who added $9.3 trillion, eh?


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




So NOT very progressive.


ALMOST LIKE THERE IS A PLAN TO GUT TAXES ON THOSE "JOB CREATORS" AS DEBT BALLOONED


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...




Care to name the policies the black guy passed that created that debt Bubs? Oops

FEBRUARY 28, 2013

*Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits*

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits


----------



## Hossfly (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Slashsnake said:
> ...



Toddster, you're arguing with a bleeping genius!


----------



## danielpalos (May 17, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.


I make a motion to end the labor cost tax preference, for foreign labor employed by US Firms.   Only US labor should qualify US Firms for a tax preference.


----------



## Spare_change (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



1) A broad statement like "... Gov't needs to be funded.." is clearly indicative of your penchant to acquiesce to the rulers, rather than take a position of healthy skepticism. They need to be funded to perform "essential" responsibilities, but not to subsume control of your life in all its facets. The government's encroachment into our lives, in its unceasing effort to control the people, is noting more, and nothing less, than a power grab designed to turn you into a pawn for their amusement.

2) Your accusation of "shift[ing] the burden to the middle class" is, simply, political doublespeak. Are you trying to say that the top 10% is paying LESS now than they did in the 80s? Are you saying their percentage of contribution to government coffers is LESS now than in the 80s? Are you saying that MORE people are 'being forced" to contribute to government maintenance?

3) If you actually bother to read the post, the meme says "... excessive tax cuts for the rich as what they are ... a simple upward redistribution of income" ... 

The first question - how does failing to take money from someone constitute a "redistribution of income" since it was their income in the first place? How can you be redistributing something that doesn't belong to you?

The second question - the crux of the statement clearly reveals the mistaken belief that some portion of the money earned by the rich is, inherently, the property of somebody else. When did this happen? When did you come to believe that you, somehow, had right of ownership of another person's property?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
So NOT very progressive.*

Very sad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Care to name the policies the black guy passed that created that debt Bubs?*

Transfer payments are $1 trillion a year higher than before the crisis.
Are you saying that poor black fella was powerless to make any changes during his 8 years?
He has zero responsibility for the $9.3 trillion addition to the debt?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...



*I make a motion to end the labor cost tax preference, for foreign labor employed by US Firms.*

US firms can't deduct foreign salary for foreign workers in a foreign land.

Great job!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> CONservative economic policy NEVER works as promised, weird soooooo many right wingers don't understand how an economy works (DEMAND)...


conservative economic policy is capitalism. China just switched to Republican capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of all the planet's poverty!! Ever heard of East/West Germany, Cuba /Florida??


----------



## Markle (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Care to name the policies the black guy passed that created that debt Bubs? Oops



Here is the result of his policies.  First president in history to go his entire term without having a single year of growth above 3%.  This was caused by his policies restricting the growth of companies, halting new businesses and limiting the number of employees.  The failed Obamacare scam has also added greatly to our debt.


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Hossfly said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




As the right wingers create an "alternative facts" world? Yep


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




1) Just a bunch of right wing BS. Carter had US in the 1970's at 19.6% of GDP in revenues, Ronnie gutted in below 17% (while blowing up spending to almost 22%) , BJ Bill had US at 20% of GDP and 4 straight surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's &92 billion tax cut, and Dubya gutted revenues to below 15% of GDP AS he blew up spending to 23%+. You knuckleheads would have the US look like a 3rd world nation thanks to "freedom"

2)  1980 the top 10% received 32.13% of ALL US income, by 2013 it was  47.87%...(ANTI Tax Foundation)

The tax burden HAS shifted off the RICHEST (TOP 1%+) AND ONTO THE BACKS OF THE WORKING MAN BY BORROWING 3+ TRILLION FROM SS, MEDICARE, ETC AND OTHER "TRUST FUNDS" AND DEBT CREATED SINCE REAGANOMICS.

YES THE SHARE OF INCOME GOING TO THE TOP TODAY IS TAXED LOWER THAN IT WAS 1945-1980!!


3) BS, Income of hundreds of millions was NEVER earned by ANYONE, it's BECAUSE of OUR SOCIETY that they were able to receive it AND it IS our right to tax it as we see fit!!!

  Another person's wealth? lol


*The Great Tax Shift*

The tax cuts enacted during George W. Bush’s presidency shift the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes. For all but the wealthy, this will ultimately cause substantial harm. *Shifting costs to future generations of workers to finance tax boons for today’s owners of capital is unproductive, unfair, and unwise.*

The Great Tax Shift | Brookings Institution


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Only if you have a brain


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Got it, you can't name the policy/laws by the black guy that caused the debt. Let me help

REAGAN/BUSH TAX CUTS WERE THE BIGGEST DRIVERS OF DEBT. Dubya's UNFUNDED wars came in second.


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...




LMAOROG, Don't know much about the tax code either huh?


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Markle said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Care to name the policies the black guy passed that created that debt Bubs? Oops
> ...





RIGHT WING BS, I'd expect from the low informed types



DECEMBER 2007
*THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF MR. BUSH
*
The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush


OCTOBER 17, 2008

*The Economic Blue Screen of DeathTheir work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. *

Let's look at a graph I used two years ago, from work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.








Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). 
*
Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. *


Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > CONservative economic policy NEVER works as promised, weird soooooo many right wingers don't understand how an economy works (DEMAND)...
> ...





LMAOROG, Those commies? Grow up Bubs


----------



## Spare_change (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


Another nonsensical and shallow liberal diatribe .... based on the assumption that government expenditures must continue at the current level.

Your emotional screed is cute, but ineffective. You need to visit the real world sometime.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> LMAOROG, Those commies? Grow up Bubs



can you explain???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



lets be serious! Republicans have always been for making deficits and debt illegal while Democrats have killed each and every effort because they don't want to risk always more welfare entitlement spending that they use to buy votes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*REAGAN/BUSH TAX CUTS WERE THE BIGGEST DRIVERS OF DEBT.*

That's awful! And then Obama continued Bush's cuts.
And blew $800 billion on a "stimulus" package.

*Dubya's UNFUNDED wars came in second.*

Didn't the black fella end those wars and save us trillions?


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




Yes BECAUSE CONservatives have been right so much with THEIR policies like????? PRETTY PLEASE? lol


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > LMAOROG, Those commies? Grow up Bubs
> ...



To stoopid to understand what China is huh?


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Let's get serious, for 36+ years the GOP has had a goal of "starve the beast" which ISN'T for making deficits or debt smaller!


THE ONLY 2 GUYS TO LEAVE THE NEXT GUYS A SMALLER DEFICIT THAN THE ONE THEY INHERITED WERE BJ BILL AND OBAMA


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If by extended you meant blackmailed by the GOP Dec 2010? YEP

Stimulus? Right WAY to small to fill the whole 8 years of Dubya/GOP policy put US in. But it still stopped US from going into GOP great depression 2.0


*What Debate? Economists Agree the Stimulus Lifted the Economy*
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/...ree-the-stimulus-lifted-the-economy.html?_r=0


“The stimulus worked” is the overwhelming conclusion of a panel of elite economists surveyed as part of the University of Chicago’s IGM Economic Experts Panel. The survey asked whether the unemployment rate at the end of 2010 was lower than it would have been because of the U.S. government’s 2009 fiscal stimulus act. Out of the 37 panelists who responded, 36 agreed, an even better response than an identical 2012 survey.
Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked | Moody's Analytics Economy.com


Sorry the black guy can't put wars back in the box after Dubya opened up those TRILLIONS of dollars wars!


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




Yeah, "labor"....why should my exchanging one hour of my skill and labor for something I can use as a medium of exchange be subjected to a tax? I know the reason as to why it is done and it's not for the reasons that you think it is nor is it even constitutional and before 1933, the SCOTUS ruled that the 16th amendment did not give "da gubermint" any new taxing powers. Let's say I change the brakes on a car for a friend and to show her or his appreciation, they give me a 12 pack of beer or bake me a cake....is    "da gubermint" entitled to four of those beers or the cost thereof because technically I engaged in commerce per the UCC or that I should report the market value of a two layer cake?  Before I school you about the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of March 5th, 1933 and how that pertains to what we are dealing with today, I would like your response to the above question and I want to see you justify a progressive income tax and what exactly is "income" as it pertains to Black's Law dictionary 6th Edition...........


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Let's get serious, for 36+ years the GOP has had a goal of "starve the beast" which ISN'T for making deficits or debt smaller!



Yes starve the beast since the beast according to our genius and saintly Founders was the thing that needed to be starved most!! Why do you oppose the basic principle of America?

But also they have shut down the govt, opposed debt ceiling increases, and signed the Pledge as our Founders would have wanted

but mostly they have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson's first to make debt illegal. Libcommie Democrats have killed every one of them. Do you know why? Do you know why our liberals spied for Hitler and Stalin and elected Obama/Sanders?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> “The stimulus worked” is the overwhelming conclusion of a panel of elite economists surveyed as part of the University of Chicago’s IGM Economic Experts Panel. The survey asked whether the unemployment rate at the end of 2010 was lower than it would have been because of the U.S. government’s 2009 fiscal stimulus act



BS of course!! Yes, some quick spending can boost employment in the short term but the taxing to pay for it will then cut employment in the long term. Do you understand that if dumping money into economy helps then taxing it out hurts??? One big reason Obama had worst recovery since Great Depression and why economists said in your misquoted survey that in long run stimulus did not help!!

Also,  Obama ran a $500 billion deficit every year!! That's the biggest stimulus in American and world History. It proved stimulus does not work!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Educate me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



What did Obama do to cause all those things?
Be specific.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
If by extended you meant blackmailed by the GOP Dec 2010? YEP*

Smartest president in the history of forever continued the Bush tax cuts. LOL!

*“The stimulus worked” is the overwhelming conclusion of a **panel of elite economists*

Awesome! What did we get for that $800 billion?

*Among those who responded, 36 agreed that the stimulus bill had lowered the unemployment rate,*

By how much?

*Sorry the black guy can't put wars back in the box*

But he was gonna make the world love and respect us again. What went wrong?


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



"is    "da gubermint" entitled to four of those beers or the cost thereof because technically I engaged in commerce "

YES


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Let's get serious, for 36+ years the GOP has had a goal of "starve the beast" which ISN'T for making deficits or debt smaller!
> ...



More of your BS, Hint Geo Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion AGAIN Bubs

Balanced budget amendments? LMAOROG, After BJ Bill's first surplus the GOP passed a $792+ billion tax cut he had to veto to get 3 more surpluses, THEN the Dubya/GOP policy took over and we saw how fiscally conservative you Klowns were!

You're really one of the most ignorant on this board Bubs, and that's a low bar!


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




Really? Based on what?  Make an argument for yourself..........


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > “The stimulus worked” is the overwhelming conclusion of a panel of elite economists surveyed as part of the University of Chicago’s IGM Economic Experts Panel. The survey asked whether the unemployment rate at the end of 2010 was lower than it would have been because of the U.S. government’s 2009 fiscal stimulus act
> ...



Yep, 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies HURT


*Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked*

“The stimulus worked” is the overwhelming conclusion of a panel of elite economists surveyed as part of the University of Chicago’s IGM Economic Experts Panel. The survey asked whether the unemployment rate at the end of 2010 was lower than it would have been because of the U.S. government’s 2009 fiscal stimulus act. Out of the 37 panelists who responded, 36 agreed, an even better response than an identical 2012 survey.


Economists Agree: The Stimulus Worked | Moody's Analytics Economy.com


How did Obama decrease the deficit handed to him by $1 trillion and have 70 straight months of private sector jobs growth of 14+ million jobs EVEN AS 100% OF THE GOP OPPOSED EVERYTHING HE WAS FOR?


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...





You first Bubba, YOU asked about the debt under Obama, I asked for HIS policies that created it???? I'll wait


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



"Awesome! What did we get for that $800 billion?"

Kept US out of GOP great depression 2.0  


Keep scratching at my kneecaps Bubs


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Pretty simple, WE AS A SOCIETY DECIDED!


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




A tax on consumable items that you can choose to purchase or not isn't the same thing as a tax on one's labor...now is it? You can avoid the gas tax by not having a car, no? BTW, there never was a "surplus" under Bill "drop trou"...it's a total myth. The last time USA.INC ever had a "surplus" was under Andrew Jackson when he refused to renew the charter of the central bank. What was the public debt under Bill "drop trou"????? The total national debt on September 30th, 2000 was 5.6 trillion dollars....so what about that alleged "surplus"? Bushpuppet doubled it and then the Barrypuppet doubled it...see? That is what happens when you have a debt based fiat currency system with a central banking system...it's nothing but a machine of perpetual debt slavery.


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Pretty simple Bubs, it's a COST which they get to deduct, sorry to disappoint you Bubs


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Ah another right winger not understanding the difference with a yearly budget and the debt. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org


About 90% of current debt can be traced back to POLICIES by Ronnie Reagan AND Dubya

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce 
spending.

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




LABOR is getting paid, regardless of how you are paid, consumable or not!

Jackson? Oh right the possibly worst Prez EVER. Follow what happened after the debt was cleared up


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




Everything is basically taxed but you have the choice of paying it via consumption......so why do YOU believe that the labor of someone must be taxed????? The SCOTUS and the Constitution (the organic one) were against a progressive income tax...BTW, a progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto...are you a commie?????


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



No, what remains at the end of the day is the 5.6 Trillion dollars owed to the foreign owned central bank known as the "Federal Reserve" after Bill "drop trou" left office and that debt has doubled with each presidency. You have a lot to learn. Have you ever heard of the "Grace Commission"? How the "income tax" does not fund "da gubermint" but pays the interest to the mostly foreign owned private bank known as the "Federal Reserve" that is neither "federal" and has no reserves"????


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




No, we are not "paid", we are given a medium of exchange that has no intrinsic value that cannot be exchanged for REAL money which is silver/and or gold. That was done away with when USA.INC declared Bankruptcy in March of 1933 and under penalty of a huge fine and a five year prison sentence, the people had to turn in their REAL money (gold) in exchange for a Federal Reserve Note and people lost allodial rights to property. Are you familiar with HJR 192 per chance?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



He was President for 8 years. He didn't put any policies in place?

I guess he wasn't so smart.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Kept US out of GOP great depression 2.0*

By wasting $800 billion?

Or was there something else you had in mind?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



You think a US company can hire a guy in India and deduct his salary off US taxes?

Don't know much about the tax code either huh?


----------



## danielpalos (May 17, 2017)

We could have solved simple poverty; but, the rich wanted their bailout.


----------



## danielpalos (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


what part of "labor cost" do you not understand?  There is no reason for that tax preference, at US labor's expense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



*what remains at the end of the day is the 5.6 Trillion dollars owed to the foreign owned central bank known as the "Federal Reserve"
*
The debt is owed to everyone who owns Treasury securities, not just the Fed.
The Fed is owned by the US government.
On Jan 17, 2001, the Fed held $516,288,000 in Treasuries, not quite $5.6 trillion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Which part of, "not a deductible expense in the US" do you not understand?


----------



## Spare_change (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Deficit? Seriously?

Who the hell cares about the deficit? I know ---- we fucked up less than you fucked up.

In the meantime, the debt just keeps growing.


----------



## danielpalos (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


a labor cost is a labor cost; show me where the IRS doesn't give a tax preference for labor costs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


why avoid the question???

Why do you oppose the basic principle of America?

Do you know why our liberals spied for Hitler and Stalin and elected Obama/Sanders?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Find the tax form that lets a corporation deduct the foreign salary paid to a foreign worker in a foreign country.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> More of your BS, Hint Geo Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion AGAIN Bubs



What about GW and Whiskey Rebellion?? You clean forgot to say. I wonder why???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Balanced budget amendments? LMAOROG,



Are you saying that Newt didn't pass a BBA in the House that fell one vote short in the Senate thanks to liberals? Are you saying debt today would be $17 trillion or $0 dollars if it had passed?


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




Know who else advocated progressive taxes? Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt!



“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” Thom Jefferson


"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: *But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."*." Ben Franklin


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



LMAOROG, You anti federal Banksters are a funny group...

Foreign owned? lol


*Myth 1: The Fed is run by foreigners

Myth 2: The Fed isn’t part of the US government

Myth 3: The Fed prints money

Myth 4: The Federal Reserve is not audited

5 Myths Debunked About The Federal Reserve

*


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




MORE right wing BS, Why do you want OUR money supply tied to ANY commodity? Oh right the righties LOVE to be serfs!


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Got it, you can't come up with ANY policies he had that added $9+ trillion to our debt


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry, I only think the 40% of the $787 billion stimulus which were tax cuts, trying to get  a few GOPers on board, was a waste Bubs


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, your inability to use reason and logic IS noted Bubs, again  ,


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Certainly don't see any quote about the taxing of one's labor in any of those quotes.........eh????


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > More of your BS, Hint Geo Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion AGAIN Bubs
> ...




When he got up an army and visited those traitorous b*stards who were like the TeaT*rds today?


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Balanced budget amendments? LMAOROG,
> ...



Newt passed a BBA? And after BJ Bill's first surplus they passed a $792+ billion tax cut he had to veto to get 3 more surpluses? Weird. 

Newt, almost ALWAYS wrong though:

*FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’*

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), February 2, 1993: We have all too many people in the Democratic administration who are talking about bigger Government, bigger bureaucracy, more programs, and higher taxes. I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1 1/2 or 2 years, but it will happen

FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




Weird you mean over 250 years ago it didn't happen much? What did the Founders think about the ESTATE TAXES? Inequality?


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Hint THAT'S what a surplus is Bubs, grow a brain. A budget is yearly, you can have a balanced, deficit or surplus, BJ Bill had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut, then Dubya came along and those "fiscal CONServatives" of the GOP showed US, again!


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



LMAOROG, You're too dumb Bubs


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Tell that to the rest of the world who flock to the safety and security of US treasuries Bubs


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're a Klown Bubs

*Branch- * As a branch, the U.S. business does not create a legal entity in the foreign country. Rather, the U.S. business directly conducts its business activities through employees or contractors. If the U.S. business is treated as having a permanent establishment through its branch operations, it will be required to file foreign income tax returns, pay foreign income taxes, and possibly be subject to other requirements and obligations. *All of the financial activity attributed to the branch operations are included in the computation of the U.S. business’s U.S. taxable income that flows to the U.S. taxpayers. If the branch operated at a loss, then the U.S. taxpayers can benefit by offsetting other U.S. taxable income with foreign branch losses*. In the event the branch is profitable and the U.S. business pays foreign income taxes on foreign income, these foreign income taxes are eligible to be claimed by the U.S. taxpayers as foreign tax credits in reducing the U.S. taxpayers’ U.S. tax liability on foreign-sourced income. Foreign income taxes can also be claimed as a deduction in the computation of U.S. taxable income. 

Learn the Language of Taxes: International Expansion of Smaller Businesses


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



The Fed is a private entity and has never had a "top to bottom audit" in the entire 104 years of it's existence. Look up the "Federal Reserve Bank" in the "government" pages and you will not find it because it is a private entity. There are 13 shareholders of the Fed bank and we know that the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Kuhn Loeb, Goldman Sachs, Israel Moses, The Schiff family, Lehman Brothers, the Morgan family and the Rockefellers are big time shareholders.The Larards as well....it is a PRIVATE entity.

The Fed only keeps 6 percent of what the IRS (which is a Puerto Rican Trust #62) that is incorporated in Puerto Rico, a territory of USA.INC collects after (snicker) "Operating costs"??. What costs are those??? Because after all, the Fed has never been fully audited and they fight like hell to keep that from happening. A limited audit of the Fed showed that during the 2008 economic collapse that they sent a few trillion dollars created by data entry to their overseas banking affiliates.

The Fed doesn't "print" money...it simply buys fancy looking I.O.Us called "government bonds" or Treasury Notes from a checkbook with nothing in it. They create "money" from a few strokes on a computer keyboard backed by nothing but the sweat equity of the 14th amendment citizens/serfs when this corporate entity was declared "bankrupt" in 1933. Our "sweat equity" was pledged as surety against the debt thus the birth certificate that is printed on bond paper. 

You have soooooo much to learn....you think that little bullshit website touting the legitimacy of a parasitic entity that is the Federal Reserve was going to sway me???? LMAO!!!!! I can knock each and every alleged "myth" like swatting away a fly...got something better?????


----------



## Spare_change (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Figures don't lie - but liars figure.

Clinton added $1.36 trillion to the national debt. Hardly sounds like a balanced budget - or a surplus.

*"From 1940 to the end of year 2015 (the latest figures available as of the writing of this article), the average increase in the federal debt was 9.3% under a Democratic President and 7.9% under a Republican President when including World War II."*

The federal debt under Clinton equalled 62% of the GDP, an unsurpassed amount until Obama's administration - when it started out at 64% and increased to 102% of GDP.

U.S. Federal Debt by President / Political Party

If you're going to try to manipulate the numbers in order to foment a lie, at least use defensible numbers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



He spent like a mutha-fucka.

And he never saw a regulation he didn't like.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



So 60% of $787 billion was the difference between Great Depression II and recovery?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*BJ Bill had 4 surpluses,*

Internet Bubbles are cool!!


----------



## Dale Smith (May 17, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




What are those "treasuries" backed by? What commodity or something of an intrinsic value props it up other than the fact that a country must attain Federal Reserve Notes in order to buy oil from OPEC, a deal made by Nixon that we refer to as the "petro-dollar" after Nixon nixed the Bretton Woods agreement? You do know about the petro-dollar, the Bretton Woods agreement after WWII, correct? It seems to me that this bogus system (based on the military might of USA.INC) couldn't continue to exist unless there was a collaboration and deals made to protect countries that produce oil and any country that doesn't like to exchange their oil for worthless debt notes can count on USA.INC's military might to come over and open a can of (snicker) "democracy" on their asses and install a petro-dollar friendly puppet.....no?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



*The Fed is a private entity and has never had a "top to bottom audit" in the entire 104 years of it's existence.*

They're audited every year.

*There are 13 shareholders of the Fed bank and we know that the Rothschilds, Warburgs, Kuhn Loeb, Goldman Sachs, Israel Moses, The Schiff family, Lehman Brothers, the Morgan family and the Rockefellers are big time shareholders.The Larards as well....it is a PRIVATE entity.*

LOL!

*The Fed only keeps 6 percent of what the IRS (which is a Puerto Rican Trust #62) that is incorporated in Puerto Rico, a territory of USA.INC collects after (snicker) "Operating costs"??.*

The IRS doesn't give any money to the Fed.

*A limited audit of the Fed showed that during the 2008 economic collapse that they sent a few trillion dollars created by data entry to their overseas banking affiliates.*

Yup. Swapped equal value of foreign currency. And then those currencies were swapped back.
The Fed made money and helped keep the dollar as the reserve currency.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


*
What are those "treasuries" backed by?
*
The full faith and credit of the US government.

Full Faith And Credit


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 17, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



Great post- except for a few GLARING ERRORS. 

You never defined poor, but the bottom 40% don't pay taxes now, and nobody is suggesting to make them start.

We are not  "supposed to live in a democracy". There are around 4400 words in the US Constitution, the word Democracy is not one of them. We are suppose to live in a Republic.

If you want the government to creat jobs, you need to move to a communist country.

Other than those items, great post.


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




Gawd you anti feders are the worst. You knuckleheads don't accept there isn't a single developed nation without one.



PERHAPS TRY TO KNOCK DOWN THE FACTS PRESENTED INSTEAD OF CREATING MORE BS BUBS?


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Got it you want to conflate debt with a yearly budget *Shaking head*

 HINT, BJ BILL HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THOSE FISCAL GOP'S $792 BILLION TAX CUT, THEN DUBYA WAS ELECTED, LOL


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


----------



## JonKoch (May 17, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Weird, don't understand how it works huh?

“full faith and credit”,  Know why EVERYONE has flocked to US treasuries Bubs?


----------



## Spare_change (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


Four surpluses and STILL added $1.4 trillion to the national debt?? 

So, basically, what you're saying is that during the first four years when Dems were in charge of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, but during the last four years that Congress was controlled by the Republicans, he followed their lead, announced that " ... the era of big government is over ... " adopted their sane fiscal approach, and were able to offset all but $1.36 trillion of the debacle from the first 4 years.


----------



## Dale Smith (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




Actually there are four big countries without a Rothschild central bank......North Korea, Iran and Syria...and Russia that kicked them out and nationalized their central bank......so which countries are being demonized as "enemies" of USA.INC????? The above mentioned countries? Your ignorance staggers the imagination...I don't blame you personally because the programming runs just that deep....but DAMN ????


----------



## Spare_change (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



... until compared to the Democrats whose record is even worse.


----------



## Dale Smith (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



"Full faith and credit"?????? Of a nation that is 20 Trillion Federal Reserve Notes in debt????......yeah, that's a (snicker) "safe bet.....sign me up!!!! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Let's never forget that it was Gingrich Who made Clinton lie and say the era of big government is over and it was Gingrich who followed up with a balanced budget amendment to prevent the libsocialist backsliding that was bound to occur at the first opportunity. After all how would Democrats get votes if they couldn't buy them with promises of welfare? Their presence in our democracy represents nothing other than complete subversion  of the democratic process


----------



## keepitreal (May 18, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.


The fault for corporate greed, out of control, corrupted politicians
and a system of government that is not functioning,
is the fault of the people and their unwillingness
to sacrifice convenience and comfort and demand accountability


----------



## Chuz Life (May 18, 2017)

When, if ever. . .  will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" *IS *a tax on the poor?!?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



You don't want to own Treasury securities, don't buy any.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


standard labor cost deduction?


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> When, if ever. . .  will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" *IS *a tax on the poor?!?


Taxing the rich can solve simple poverty.


----------



## Chuz Life (May 18, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > When, if ever. . .  will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" *IS *a tax on the poor?!?
> ...


Prove it.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Simply fund unemployment compensation on an at-will basis that clears our poverty guidelines.  We could abolish "wage slavery" and homelessness, at the same time.


----------



## Spare_change (May 18, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > When, if ever. . .  will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" *IS *a tax on the poor?!?
> ...



Absolutely not .... another canard foisted on the unsuspecting ...


----------



## Spare_change (May 18, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Go do the math ---- how much taxes would we need to collect in order to fund this?


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Only if you don't have enough morals to simply tax the rich into Heaven, by solving simple poverty.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.  I make a motion to abolish our current regime of unemployment compensation in favor of general taxes on firms, to fund the unemployment compensation fund.  

It will cost less than we are paying now, and it will improve the performance of our economy.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 18, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



so what if a company paid no taxes?

every dollar any business makes eventually ends up in the hands of a person who then must claim that money on their tax returns

in fact S corporations and LLCs ( the most common types of business entities ) pay no federal tax at all since all the profit is claimed on the shareholders' and members' personal tax returns via the IRS form K1


----------



## Spare_change (May 18, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Interesting ... you propose to change the method of funding in order to reduce the cost. You DO realize that one has nothing to do with the other, right? Cost is driven by benefit x no of recipients ..... which is not affected by the funding mechanism.

You also realize that increasing the tax burden on companies increases the retail burden on the buyers, right? Once you do that, then you increase the sales tax burden, as well. 

Your approach is simplistic and unrealistic ... a toxic combination of naivete and ignorance.


----------



## Spare_change (May 18, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Morals? How interesting that YOU, of all people, should raise the question of morals.

How much income would the US government require to implement your proposal? (Hint: Look up the number of people in poverty and simply multiply by size of the proposed benefit). Now, you know how much your program will cost ---- 

Now, figure out how much tax would have to be placed on the top 10% in order to fund your program.

Doesn't work, does it? Not enough available capital to fund your giveaway program.

You realize, of course, that "poverty" is a relative term, right? There will always be "poor" because someone will be making more money than someone else. By definition, that means one person is poorer than the other.


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Yes, DEBT is different than a yearly budget, but BJ Bill got US back to 20% of GDP after not a single GOPer voted for the 1993 tax increases that created the surpluses 



BTW, this is what the GOPers were saying about the 1993 tax bill


*FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’*
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’




After BJ Bill had his first budget surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut to get three more, then Dubya was installed as Prez and the GOP had control of the economy


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




AGAIN:

"You knuckleheads don't accept there isn't a single developed nation without one."

Gangster Gov'ts and despots aren't developed nations!


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




Yes I remember Ronnie Reagan railing about Carter''s deficits so Ronnie went out and quadrupled them. Dubya was so happy with the balanced budget that BJ Bill handed him he decided to gut revenues by 25% AS he blew up spending by 20% and then handed Obama a  turd, but you keep believing the right wing infotainment complex BS


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Care to give just ONE policy conservative have ever been correct about oh tax expert?

Hint Corp tax burden MOSTLY falls on owners of capital!


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Money Is Flowing Into The United States


 "European and Asian investors have been rushing into the United States bond market, spurred by a global glut of savings that has reached record levels."

 "about $750 billion of private money has poured into the United States in the last two years alone. About $500 billion, he calculates, reflects European and Asian investors buying United States Treasury securities, bonds issued by Fannie Mae and debt issued by American countries."

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4014559-money-flowing-united-states-risks


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




Yeah, we saw how fiscally responsible the GOP was after Clinton's first surplus when they passed a $792+ billion tax cut he had to veto to get 3 more, then Dubya was installed *shaking head*


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> When, if ever. . .  will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" *IS *a tax on the poor?!?



REALLY? LMAOROG

We can't dare touch those babies with the obligation to fund OUR Gov't or they'll put their money under their pillows???


----------



## Chuz Life (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > When, if ever. . .  will the leftardz ever learn that a Tax on the "rich" *IS *a tax on the poor?!?
> ...



Idiot.

Let's  go through this slowly with some q&a.

 1. Where do rich people and their businesses get their money from?


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



Generally theft 

Bubs, care to point to ANYTIME taxing the rich hurt growth???? The economy? 

You keep s*cking off those "job creators" Bubs


----------



## Spare_change (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



What nonsense!!!

Corporate tax burden falls on owners of capital??? Seriously?

Do you mean that consumers don't absorb that tax? You seriously believe that investors just give up a portion of their profits so that you don't have to pay taxes?

Believe in unicorns, too?


----------



## Dale Smith (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Funny, until the false flag event that was 9/11/01? There were quite a few countries without a Rothschild central bank, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya but the bankers took care of that and now they are (snicker) " developed" now!  On top of that, they made off with Libya's 400 plus tons of gold that they were going to use to back their currency. Syria is now on the hit list and once a puppet is put in place? They will get a Rothschild central bank and they can become "civilized"!

Seriously, your ignorance of how the debt based monetary system of fiat currency actually works is simply staggering.


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




“ Most, if not all, of the corporate income tax is borne by shareholders in the form of reduced stock dividends, and high-income Americans receive the lion’s share of these dividends.” *Citizens for Tax Justice

.... Yet as the footnote here shows, numerous independent bodies have concluded after exhaustive studies that the burden largely falls on the owners of capital — that is, predominantly wealthy people.
Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax - Tax Justice Network


In calculating distributional effects, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) assumes 80 percent of the burden is borne by investment returns (dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.), with the remaining 20 percent weighing on wages and other labor income. These assumptions reflect the full, long-term economic consequences of investors responding to changes in the corporate income tax, such as rate changes.

Who bears the burden of the corporate income tax?


US TREASURY STUDY 2012:

DISTRIBUTING THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX: REVISED U.S. TREASURY METHODOLOGY

...In summary, 82% of the corporate income tax burden is distributed to capital income and 18% is distributed to labor income.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/TP-5.pdf



ANYTHING ELSE BUBBA??*


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




I get it Bubs, you'll keep believing in myths and fairy tales as the libertarians generally do


----------



## Dale Smith (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




Keep hanging onto the myths and lies your corporate government tells ya....they couldn't pull this off without it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



but Obama increased the debt by how much?

what does decreasing the deficit matter when we just borrow more to maintain and increase our spending?


----------



## PredFan (May 18, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



The poor pay no income taxes you fucking moron.


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



AGAIN, Care to point to POLICIES under Obama that created the debt? 

HINT Dubya took BJ Bill's 20% of GDP and dropped it to 14.6% AS he blew up spending to nearly 24% of GDP AS he cheered on the Banksters subprime bubble. TRY to think

What does decreasing the deficit by 2/3rds compared to the one the GOPer handed you????


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...


the one percent traditionally consume less than the ninety-nine percent, and create insufficient demand, as a result.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Yes, they do; you simply don't know what you are talking about.  Our current regime is expensive, that is all.  We simply need to simplify our tax collection.  A general tax is much simpler than a direct tax.


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

PredFan said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...




Yes but they pay other taxes, and since the bottom 50% of US receive less than 12% of ALL US income, a drop from almost 18% in 1980, think that matters? Hint that's almost $5,000 PER FAMILY

*Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes*

Jan 15, 2015 - The poor pay a higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes—in every state.
Poor Pay a Higher Percentage of Income in Taxes


*Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes*

When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, _the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average._  The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.
Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


Good thing for me, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.

Solving simple poverty ensure capital circulates under any form of capitalism.  Circulating capital is what engenders a positive multiplier effect.

Any tax monies used to provide for the general welfare, should be an investment.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...







Tell the poor don't vote for democrats then.....vote Republican less taxes and 




Less cost of living.



.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 18, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...







Zzzzzzzzzzzz,zzzzzzzzzz



.


----------



## PredFan (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...



But the rich are paying the majority of the taxes and the poor will just stay the same. The OP is still bull shit.


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

bear513 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Yes all those poor red states look good 

GOPers just put things on the credit card 


*Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala*

In the red states, government is cheaper, which means the people who live there pay lower taxes. But they also get a lot less in return. The unemployment checks run out more quickly and the schools generally aren’t as good. Assistance with health care, child care, and housing is skimpier, if it exists at all.* The result of this divergence is that one half of the country looks more and more like Scandinavia, while the other increasingly resembles a social Darwinist’s paradise.
Blue States are from Scandinavia, Red States are from Guatemala
*


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

PredFan said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




You mean the guys making the VAST majority of money are paying much smaller share of taxes? True

*As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.*
As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.


----------



## PredFan (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Irrelevant nonsense.


----------



## PredFan (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.


----------



## The Derp (May 18, 2017)

PredFan said:


> Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.



Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Would that be a statistics class where you're taught cutting tax revenue will somehow increase tax revenue?




The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.

John F. Kennedy
 “But the most direct and significant kind of Federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand—to cut the fetters which hold back private spending.If Government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency.The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system; and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.” President Kennedy goes on to say “I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a burden on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking…In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government’s most useful role is not to push into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures…When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital.”-John Kennedy


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.
> ...



obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.
> ...


_“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates…. [A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits.” —John F. Kennedy, 1963[__1__]_


J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History. When Charlie Gibson ask BO why he wanted to raise the Cap. gains tax when it always resulted in less revenue, BO said it had to with appearance, not revenue. A liberal lacks the intelligence to think clearly.

Stephen Moore: "from 2004 to 2007 federal tax cuts revenue increased by an enormous 785 billion., the largest increase in American History


individual and corporate tax were up 40% capital gains and  dividend 71% in capital gains and 41% in dividends

NYTIMES: "An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy ids driving down the deficit this year"

" the latest IRS data through 2006 show a more than 120 billion increase in tax payments by the wealthy after the 2003  Bush tax cuts through 2006



Forbes: "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks," co-authored with her husband, fellow University of California, Berkeley, economist David Romer.

In their article, they find that "tax increases are highly contractionary" and that tax cuts are highly expansionary. Otherwise-careful economists Greg Mankiw of Harvard and Lawrence Lindsey of the American Enterprise Institute have run with this result, as they should,

NYSUN: It came when Mr. Gibson questioned Senator Obama about the capital gains tax. Mr. Gibson quoted Mr. Obama as talking about raising the tax to 28% from 15%. "But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent," Mr. Gibson said. "And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Why, Robert Bartley couldn't have put it better himself. Mr. Obama was totally flummoxed, betraying a fundamental lack of understanding of the Laffer Curve. The Democrat of Illinois spoke of the need to "finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it," and of the need to "invest in our infrastructure" and in "our schools."

Mr. Gibson, to his credit, wouldn't let the point go. "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up," he replied to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama replied by changing the subject, to "a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to."

Mr. Gibson tried the same question, more or less, on Senator Clinton. She, at least, disavowed raising the capital gains rate above 20%, ruling out a return to the 28% rate contemplated by Mr. Obama. But when Mr. Gibson pressed her on why she would raise it at all, she went into lunk-headed, static analysis mode, displaying a lack of understanding as severe as that afflicting her rival. "You know, Charlie, I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is," she said.

Dwyer,Washington Times: By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years



http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/draft1108.pdf

Or the National bureau of Economic Research? They non-partisan enough? 

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html

Heritage: A general consensus exists that a higher capital gains tax rate would harm the economy, but at what point would the revenues lost due to slower economic growth exceed the revenues gained from the higher tax rate? How many jobs would be lost and how many wage gains would be missed to implement the President’s notion of tax "fairness”? Analysis by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the President’s budget provides the basis to answer these questions: Only a slight reduction in economic growth will offset the revenue gained from raising the capital gains tax, producing little tax revenue on net. It is more likely to reduce total federal receipts.




In 1990, when the Congress considered a 30 percent cut in the rate on gains, OTA estimated that such a cut would increase revenues by $12 billion over five years; the JCT projected a loss of $11 billion. If they had not factored in a realizations response, the two agencies would have estimated revenue costs of $80 billion and $100 billion, respectively--effectively illustrating how large a behavioral response is incorporated in capital gains revenue estimates.
In general, there is significant consensus that broad-based reductions in taxes on capital have the potential to boost economic growth over the long run. Reductions in capital taxation increase the return on investment and therefore the formation of capital. The resulting increase in the capital stock yields greater output and higher incomes throughout much of the economy.

In particular, treating capital gains favorably can reduce the inefficiency caused by the double taxation (under both the corporate income tax and the individual income tax) of corporate profits. And innovation and entrepreneurship may also respond positively to lower capital gains tax rates.

Eliminating the lock-in effect on the allocation of capital is often cited as a potential economic benefit from reducing capital gains rates.

And while reductions in the overall taxation of capital income can measurably increase economic growth,

DonLuskin: Those are the estimates. Now let’s see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the _Budget and Economic Outlook_ released this week. You’ll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So let’s do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.

CBO’s estimate of the “cost” of the tax cut was virtually 180 degrees wrong. The Laffer curve lives!


----------



## The Derp (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.



Can I tell you how happy I am you brought up Capital Gains!?  Man, you teed it up for me to knock a hole in one!

So, the last time we cut Capital Gains taxes, in 1997, the result was an increase in the volatility of the stock market.  Which means tax cuts are the one and only reason we had a dotcom bubble that popped by 2000.

And you invoke Kennedy, but what you fail to mention is that Kennedy cut the top tax rate _*to 70%*_.  So if you want to return to a top tax rate of 70%, I'm cool with that.  Also absent from the context; the fact that Kennedy increased government spending by 25% from 1961-1963, and LBJ increased government spending by _*50%*_ from 1964-1968.  So all the growth in revenues comes from government spending, not tax cuts.  Thing is you cannot quantify tax cuts as revenue producing because it's not a tangible thing.  You are using "feelings" as a substitute for facts.  You "feel" that tax cuts create growth, but the reality is that they don't.  What creates growth is _*spending*_.  When taxes are cut, household debt skyrockets.  At least, that's been the case since 1981.


----------



## The Derp (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> obviously the more you tax the more you kill the economy and less revenue you collect



Ah...so that's why Bush's economy was so great?  Oh right, it wasn't.  There actually exists no proof that raising taxes harms the economy.  Quite the opposite, actually.  Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and we had the longest sustained period of economic expansion in generations.  Conservatives said raising taxes would kill jobs.  They were wrong.  22,000,000 jobs were created after Clinton raised taxes.  Bush lost 460,000 jobs after he cut them.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> You "feel" that tax cuts create growth,.



actually there must have been 20 economists in the article who "feel" that way after getting Ph.D's!! Why not reread for comprehension???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> .  There actually exists no proof that raising taxes harms the economy.  Quite the opposite, actually.


10000% insane!!! a business expands when it gains money not when it loses money!! How stupid and liberal are you??


----------



## The Derp (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> J: Bush's 2003 supply side tax cuts produced biggest revenue gains for government in American History.



No they didn't:

Federal Receipts (in billions)
2000:  $2,025
2001:  $1,991
2002:  $1,853
2003:  $1,782
2004:  $1,880

It took _*four years*_ for revenue to reach 2000 levels.  And that was only because 2004 was the start of the Bush Housing Bubble.  By 2009, federal receipts were at $2,105.  So if you consider a 4% gain in revenues over Bush's term the biggest revenue gain in American history, then you don't know American history _*at all*_.


----------



## The Derp (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> actually there must have been 20 economists in the article!! Why not reread for comprehension???



I don't consider anything Conservatives say to be truthful.  Nevermind the fact that all revenue gains during Bush were due entirely, 100% to the Housing Bubble...the same housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats.  So all that means is that the revenue growth you're crediting to Bush you should actually be crediting to the Democrats and Clinton...that is, if you are going to blame the mortgage bubble on them.

When the housing bubble popped, federal receipts for 2009 were only 4% above what they were in 2000.

That's not indicative of the greatest revenue gain in American history.  LOL!  What a moron.


----------



## The Derp (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 10000% insane!!! a business expands when it gains money not when it loses money!! How stupid and liberal are you??



NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOPE!

A business expands when there is _*demand*_ for their product.  Demand comes from consumer spending, which comes from wages.  When you jerkoffs cut taxes, you caused household debt to skyrocket:


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> I don't consider anything Conservatives say to be truthful..



Kennedy and his economists were not a conservative!!! and most of the others were not either!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital... the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth in the economy.
> ...



*Which means tax cuts are the one and only reason we had a dotcom bubble that popped by 2000.*

Wow, that's a ridiculous claim!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> A business expands when there is _*demand*_ for their product.



demand for food clothing shelter private jets and Iphones etc is natural and always exists. Did someone tell you  that sometimes people don't like to buy food??? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## PredFan (May 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Bull shit. Looks like you never took a statistics class or failed one.
> ...



You don't learn that in statistics class idiot.


----------



## PredFan (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



He's a derp.


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > I don't consider anything Conservatives say to be truthful..
> ...




You mean those DEMAND SIDE tax cuts?

JFK, the demand-side tax cutter.


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...




LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock

*Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent*

According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. *They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP*, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > You "feel" that tax cuts create growth,.
> ...




*CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)*
*Changes in CBO's Baseline Projections Since January 2001*


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves." 

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme." 


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


*Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."*


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


----------



## Chuz Life (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...


Just the rich making rules with their gold?



> In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[18] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[19] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States



The right wing prefers to, "hate on the poor" for our "financial" problems.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Why do You think the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, on an almost, "institutional" basis.


----------



## Spare_change (May 18, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Ignorance run rampant in your part of town?


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...




Those providing labor

Now WTF should the wealthiest pay low tax rates? Did we not have millions of jobs created pre Reaganomics? How about the debt? What benefit do WE derive from subsidizing 50,000+ families worth a min of $100,000,0000 each AS A SOCIETY?


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




YOO-HOO BUBBA YOU SEEM TO HAVE MISSED THIS ONE 

*Who bears the burden of the corporate income tax?


US TREASURY STUDY 2012:

DISTRIBUTING THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX: REVISED U.S. TREASURY METHODOLOGY

...In summary, 82% of the corporate income tax burden is distributed to capital income and 18% is distributed to labor income.*
*Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

AGAIN, I'LL PATIENTLY AWAIT YOUR ANSWER 
*


----------



## Spare_change (May 18, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...


Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.

What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?

What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...




STILL waiting for the policies passed under Obama that created this debt you righties LOVE to talk about?

I mean it can't be Dubya inheriting a Gov't with 20% of GDP revenues and spending while leaving Obama 14.6% revenues and almost 24% on spending could it???


----------



## JonKoch (May 18, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?  

TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!

Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



tell me what creates debt?

SPENDING more than revenue
Obama signed off on spending proposals during his terms that nearly doubled the debt

that was his policy

and as I stated a deficit is merely a one year stat debt is collective so tell me why obsess about a one year deficit when the government will just borrow more every year to keep feeding its spending addiction?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


 You always want to reduce taxes on the rich since they're the ones that create businesses and make the economy grow in . The top 1% pay 40% of all income tax that represents a huge loss of productivity from our most important people.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



well I hate to make your tiny brain explode but I am neither right nor left.  I unlike you can think in more than 2 dimensions


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 19, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...


which has nothing to do with my post as usual


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Actually there are only two dimensions in all of political philosophy over all ages: freedom versus government. Do you understand


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



funny but the government part of freedom vs government has many dimensions do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


No founders believed government is one dimension and that dimension should be tiny


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!*

It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...


No, all of the Red Herring fisherman are on Your side of town.

Our current regime is expensive, that is all. We simply need to simplify our tax collection. A general tax is much simpler than a direct tax.


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


Abolish the "work tax" for the poor!


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2017)

Tax all income at ordinary rates on the working one percent, to encourage Job Booms!

Kushner had to resign from 266 positions to avoid conflicts of interest


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



government is never one dimensional


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



As I said Plato and Aristotle represented freedom and government while modern Democrats and Republicans represent the same thing if there is another dimension why are you so afraid to tell us what it is


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?



No, it's not.  The result of the tax cuts "for the poor" was that half of all workers don't even pay federal income tax.  Then, Conservatives whine about how 47% pay no taxes and their solution is to _*cut taxes further*_.  So it's masturbatory; Conservatives cut taxes, then complain that half of workers pay no taxes, then propose a solution to _*further cut taxes, *_which results in more workers not paying taxes, which results in Conservatives complaining that they pay no taxes, which results in the proposal of cutting taxes.  

And on and on the circle jerk goes...

It's obvious the real reason Conservatives want to cut taxes; they want to starve the Treasury of revenue in order to force spending cuts to programs they are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage to repeal through legislation.  So they "back-door" it by screwing with the budget, then point to the deficits created by the budget they screwed with as justification to cut spending they have no chance of cutting through legislation.

Wash, rinse, repeat.  It's been that way for 40 years.  In that time, what do we have to show for it?  A growing income gap (because the middle class and poor haven't seen wage increases), increased household debt (because the middle class has to borrow in order to send their child to college), and no jobs.


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> You always want to reduce taxes on the rich since they're the ones that create businesses and make the economy grow in



_*NO!*_  Consumer demand is what grows an economy and leads to business creation.  Consumer demand comes from increased wages, not tax cuts for the rich.  No business will expand if there's no demand.  You cannot manufacture demand in this economy.  We already have an On-Demand economy, but the demand is from consumers, not businesses. Why would you expand your business if your revenues are flat because consumer spending is flat?  No bank _*in the world*_ (except for maybe a Russian bank or two) will give you a loan to expand your business if you don't show revenue increases year-over-year.  Revenue, not profits, are how you determine your business' growth.

What you are describing is "if you build it, they will come", which worked in _*Field of Dreams*_, but that was a movie...not real life.


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> tell me what creates debt?



Deficits.  And what causes deficits?  Revenue reductions.  We were promised by those on the right that if we cut taxes for the rich, they would pay for themselves.  When that turned out to be a crock of shit, we were promised that tax cuts need time to work.  When that turned out to be a crock of shit, we were told that tax cuts only work if there are spending cuts (thus undermining the original premise of your argument).  When that turned out to be a crock of shit, the argument migrated to one of hysteric emotion about "letting people keep more of what they earned".  When that turned out to be a crock of shit (because household debt skyrockets every time taxes are cut), the argument from you guys veered into even more hysteric territory, with a complete ambivalence to the facts showing the fiscal policy to be completely, 100% crap.

I mean, you only need look at Kansas to see how bad that fiscal policy is.  Brownback promised the tax cuts would be "a shot of adrenaline".  When that turned out to be a crock of shit, he said the tax cuts needed time to work.  When that turned out to be a crock of shit, he said that spending had to be cut to close the deficits.  And that's why Kansas state colleges saw their tuition spike.  That's why Kansas is the _*only state*_ to see its uninsured rate rise when all 49 other states + DC saw theirs fall.  That's because health care spending in the state was cut to bridge deficits caused by tax cuts that were promised to pay for themselves.

If you are _*now*_ saying they don't pay for themselves, what economic benefit is there to even do them?  Household debt skyrocketed, undermining the premise that people are "allowed to keep more of what they earned".  How can that be the case if household debt increases?  The facts and figures undermine the faulty reasoning.


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?



Workers.  Wage theft, in particular.  Productivity has increased, yet wages have not.  Profits have increased, but compensation has not.  So where are all these profits going?  Not to the workers, but to the (primarily) majority shareholders who don't trickle down like we were promised they would so many times before.

Why do we keep falling for it?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > tell me what creates debt?
> ...



and what creates deficits?

Spending

it's always the spending 
 ALWAYS

and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.

and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive.  I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?

what people do with their own money is none of your or the government's business


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



it must be nice to just see the world in black or white this or that us or them


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > You always want to reduce taxes on the rich since they're the ones that create businesses and make the economy grow in
> ...


*
Why would you expand your business if your revenues are flat because consumer spending is flat?* 

Why would consumer spending be flat with an across the board tax cut and increased business formation?


----------



## Mr Natural (May 19, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> it must be nice to just see the world in black or white this or that us or them



It's a simple solution for simple people.

Like our friend Special Ed.


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> and what creates deficits? Spending



Ehhh, not really.  Just look at the Bush Tax Cuts.  A surplus before the tax cuts, record deficits afterward.  Yet spending only grew 12% from 2000-2003, but revenues declined by 14% over the same period.  So there was a greater decline in revenues than an increase in spending, according to the Tax Policy Center.




Skull Pilot said:


> and tax cuts do not have to pay for themselves because they cost nothing.



They cost quite a bit, as we see in the revenue numbers and the erasing of a surplus.  And this is also a sudden change of argument.  The argument _*used to be*_ that tax cuts would produce so much revenue, there wouldn't be a need for spending cuts because look at all the revenues!  When that turned out to be a crock of shit, Conservatives shifted the argument over and over and over, ignoring math for feelings and hysteria.

If Bush had not cut taxes, we could have paid the debt off by 2010.  Instead, it doubled by 2009.




Skull Pilot said:


> and if you think taxing people keeps them out of debt then you are extremely naive.  I suppose you're going to tell me raising taxes on people is for their own good right after all the fucking government knows how to spend their money and get into debt better than anyone right?



The facts show that every time taxes are cut, household debt increases.  So why is that?  If people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", what accounts for the massive increase in household debt following tax cuts?


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would consumer spending be flat with an across the board tax cut and increased business formation?



There is no proof tax cuts increased business formation at all.  Consumer spending is flat because wages are flat as inflation takes hold.  People are making nearly the same they did before, but inflation has caused prices to rise, meaning they have less to spend in the consumer economy because their wages were flat, and user fees for things like college tuition, excise taxes, and others increased because of a drop in revenues that create deficits, that lead to spending cuts.

Why did Bush cut taxes in 2001?  He didn't need to.  All it did was spike household debt while costing 70,000 private sector jobs from 2001-4.  After 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts, private sector employment _*declined*_ by 460,000.  So do tax cuts create jobs?  No.


----------



## Chuz Life (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?


----------



## Chuz Life (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, your answer is idiotic as hell.... But let's run with it. Who does the rich and their big businesses "steal" from?
> ...




And those workers who are being stolen from.... are they rich people or are they poor people?


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?



They're just people.  But productivity has increased, yet wages remain largely stagnant.  So where are all those profits going?


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> And those workers who are being stolen from.... are they rich people or are they poor people?



They're working class and middle class people.  They are working harder, for longer hours, yet don't see a wage increase even though corporate profits break records every year (at least, they did every year of Obama).  So companies are making tons more in profits, yet workers aren't seeing their wages grow.  So where are all those profits going?  Not trickling down, that's for fuckin' sure.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why would consumer spending be flat with an across the board tax cut and increased business formation?
> ...



*There is no proof tax cuts increased business formation at all.*

Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.
You disagree?

Cutting regulations helped as well.
*
Consumer spending is flat because wages are flat*

Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.

*user fees for things like college tuition....and others increased*

The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped?
You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?

*Why did Bush cut taxes in 2001?*

They were too high.
*
All it did was spike household debt*

I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.

*while costing 70,000 private sector jobs from 2001-4.*

You think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss?
Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!


----------



## Chuz Life (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. So, are "those providing labor" rich people or poor people?
> ...



One thing at a time. 

I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."

You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor. 

Correct?


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Got it, you will not admit POLICY INHERITED by Obama versus policy CREATED by Ronnie/Dubya created debt.

Hint taking revenues from 19.6%-20%  (CARTER/CLINTON)  of GDP to 14.6%-17.4% as Dubya/Ronnie did was POLICY that created the debt along with Dubya's 2 UNFUNDED wars Bubs



Spending addiction? LMAOROG


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



LMAOROG, You mean the income tax that is simply 24% of ALL US taxes? 

Weird when they paid MUCH higher taxes there weren't any jobs or growth Bubs? 

Most important people? LMAOROG

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics. Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn't Work

The Failure of Supply-Side Economics - Center for American Progress


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




More right wing BS Bubs, I see from your comments who you are


Hint libertarians are farrr right on economics as well as the myths and fairy tales they believe in!


BUT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION???


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




LMAOROG

MUST be why the got rid of that "states rights" thing for the larger, central Gov't Constitution??? lol


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Spare_change said:
> ...



Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!

But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.



Did it, though?  Almost immediately after Reagan's *1981* tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of *1982*, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect.  Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983.  Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will.  Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term.  How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?







Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.



No.  It increases household debt.  That's it.  The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs.  Why?  Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits.  Those deficits have to be closed somehow.  And what is always first on the chopping block?  Education.  We saw it in Kansas last year.  Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed.  So how did they close it?  By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges.  We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too.  In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).






Toddsterpatriot said:


> The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?



Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students.  When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts.  Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again. 




Toddsterpatriot said:


> They were too high.



According to whom?  Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs.  Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000.  Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders".  The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts _*-besides the false promise they would pay for themselves-*_ was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years.  It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again.  A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats.  But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble.  You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing.  I mean, you _*can*_, but you're just being shitty when you do.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.



And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact.  I don't believe you when you make these wild claims.  You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the fuck should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!



Hold the phone, dude!  The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth.  Neither of which happened.  So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit.  Tax cuts kill jobs.  We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked _*immediately after the tax cuts were passed*_), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982.  So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs?  The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*"Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.
You disagree?"*


Source? Ronnie gutted taxes from 70% to 50% and unemployment did the opposite of what was promised, it went to 10.8%, highest post WW2 level and took 28 months to get below 8%???  



*"Cutting regulations helped as well."*

LMAOROG, WHICH "REGULATION" WAS THAT? YOU MEAN OVERSIGHT?



"FREE MARKET" MISES:

]
_*Deregulation*._ Another crucial aspect of freeing the market and getting government off our backs is deregulation, and the administration and its Reaganomists have been very proud of its deregulation record. However, a look at the record reveals a very different picture. In the first place, the most conspicuous examples of deregulation; the ending of oil and gasoline price controls and rationing, the deregulation of trucks and airlines, were all launched by the Carter administration, and completed just in time for the Reagan administration to claim the credit. Meanwhile, there were other promised deregulations that never took place; for example, abolition of natural gas controls and of the Department of Energy.


*Overall, in fact, there has probably been not deregulation, but an increase in regulation.* Thus, Christopher De Muth, head of the American Enterprise Institute and a former top official of Reagan's Office of Management and the Budget, concludes that* "the President has not mounted a broad offensive against regulation. There hasn't been much total change since 1981. There has been more balanced administration of regulatory agencies than we had become used to in the 1970s, but many regulatory rules have been strengthened."*

The Myths of Reaganomics


BTW, HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED UNDER DUBYA, IN JUST 7 YEARS


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



Working people cheated, generally, by the "job creator" class Bubs


NOW back to why those "job creators" who receive  250%-400% of ALL US income  post 1981-present than they did 1945-1980  (6%-10%), WHILE paying a MUCH smaller tax burden need a reduction in taxes? Besides the rights desire to blow up debt, to "starve the beast"!!!!


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...




THAT'S JUST BS

_The U.S. Treasury uses a rate of 82 percent of Corp tax burden falling on OWNERS OF CAPITAL_
_
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/TP-5.pdf

*Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax*
Corporate tax: the great incidence hoax - Tax Justice Network


OF COURSE THAT "JOB CREATOR" CLASS SURE HAS SPENT BILLIONS TO PARROT YOUR BS TALKING POINTS AS THEIR WEALTH HAS EXPLODED SINCE REAGANOMICS!




_


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I'll wait patiently for your response on tax incidence on Corps being 82% (ON OWNERS OF CAPITAL)  according to treasury


HERE:
Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.


----------



## Chuz Life (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



Your deflecting will not work on me. 

Where do the rich get their money from?


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



TAX POLICY SURE HAS HELPED THE PAST 36 YEARS BUBBA








I'll note YOU IGNORE THE CORP TAX INCIDENCE AND WHO IT FALLS ON HOWEVER


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


----------



## Chuz Life (May 19, 2017)

Your spam and diversions do not answer the question... 

"Where does the rich get their money from?"


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Your spam and diversions do not answer the question...
> 
> "Where does the rich get their money from?"




Your ability to try to stick to one talking point is noted Bubs

You'll note CONTEXT that tax cuts for the rich ARE and have been the biggest gain by those "job creators" since 1980's

(Hint it's called TAX POLICY)...


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> One thing at a time.



But they're intrinsically linked.  A worker increasing their productivity should result in a wage increase, right?  Well, worker productivity has increased, corporate profits have increased, yet worker wages have remained stagnant.  So to where are all those profits going?



Chuz Life said:


> I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."



Actually, a tax cut for the rich is a tax increase for the poor.  The reason is because tax cuts result in revenue drops, and those revenue drops result in deficits.  To close deficits, spending is cut or excise taxes are raised.  In the case of spending cuts for example, the first thing always on the chopping block is education.  So a state misses revenue projections because of tax cuts, then the state has a BBA that requires them to balance the budget, so they do that by cutting finding to education and health care, and/or they raid the welfare block grant, or they raise excise and sales taxes.  So that's how the poor end up paying for tax cuts for the rich, *who are supposed to trickle-down, right???*




Chuz Life said:


> You are claiming that the rich are STEALING off of their workers by not paying them enough for their labor.Correct?



That's exactly correct.


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



*"I am trying to make the point that a "tax on the rich is a tax on the poor."-"*


I guess i knocked THAT premise out of the park and you refused to comment on it Bubs 

YOU MUST HAVE JUST "MISSED" THIS POST TO YOU RIGHT??

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Yes, that is the left wing position, the democrats have been advancing through politics. 

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to actually work, makes rational choice theory, sense.


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.  A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to actually work, makes rational choice theory, sense.



Very valid point.  A better case would be to use the real-world example of Walmart.

Walmart made $14B in _*profits*_ last year (not revenue, but profit)
It costs US Taxpayers about $5B a year to provide Walmart workers with assistance benefits like SNAP, Medicaid, etc.
So we are subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits because they don't pay their workers a high enough wage.

So wondering why those on the right are perfectly OK with taxpayers subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits, yet they get all screechy the minute anyone talks about spending more on education or health care.


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.
> ...


National forms of socialism, are right wing forms of "job creation".  Our alleged "wars" on crime, drugs, and terror" are nothing but socialism on a national basis.

I make a motion to simply tax all income of the working one percent, at regular income tax rates, to create Jobs Booms.


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> National forms of socialism, are right wing forms of "job creation".  Our alleged "wars" on crime, drugs, and terror" are nothing but socialism on a national basis. I make a motion to simply tax all income of the working one percent, at regular income tax rates, to create Jobs Booms.



Not a bad idea.  I actually would support a government program that mandated all federal buildings get 100% their energy from renewable sources by a certain date, and those sources have to be made in America.  Of course, I also think the tax rate on the top is way too low.  It should be between 50-75% and should apply to all forms of income.  I also think that we should seriously start considering a wealth tax, as well as a universal basic income as automation removes more jobs by the day. 

I would also support doing away with income tax entirely and putting a Carbon Tax in its place.  Taxation is best used to influence societal behavior.  If we made it expensive for polluters, the "free market" will naturally find solutions to reduce waste.  The larger your carbon footprint, the more you pay in taxes for the waste you produce.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!*

Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.
> ...



*Did it, though?*

Yes.

*Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term.* 

By how much? How does that compare to his cuts?

*No.* 

Yes. Cutting tax rates clearly increases after tax income.





Real Disposable Personal Income

*It increases household debt.  That's it.  The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something,*

No. My rate cut left me with more after tax income which allowed me to pay down household debt.

*when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students.* 

Is that why tuition has soared so much? DERP!
When the government pushes student easy money loans, colleges react by boosting tuition and fees.
Unless you can show me a drop in tuition since Obama had the Feds take over student lending?

*(how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?)*

When have Dems ever tried to pay down debt?

*and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders".* 

Link?

*And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact.* 

So the tax cuts can't be proven to force everyone to increase debt?

*I don't believe you when you make these wild claims.*

Paying down debt is a wild claim? You've never paid down debt?

*The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth.*

Yup. So prove that tax cuts cost jobs.
And walk thru the steps.....

1) Cut taxes...
2)???
3)???
4)???
5) Jobs are cut...

Feel free to show more steps if you need them.

*We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked *_*immediately after the tax cuts were passed*_*), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982.*





LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > One thing at a time.
> ...



*Well, worker productivity has increased, corporate profits have increased, yet worker wages have remained stagnant.*

Liar!!


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes.



No, it didn't.  Unemployment numbers would contradict that claim.  As would the poor economy prior to 1983.  We were told "tax cuts would pay for themselves".  They didn;t.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> By how much? How does that compare to his cuts?



As one of the other posters on this thread showed, the middle class ended up paying more in taxes by 1989 than they paid in 1980.  And why did Reagan raise those taxes anyway?  Wasn't cutting taxes supposed to create all this revenue there would be no need for spending cuts?  Isn't that what "tax cuts pay for themselves" means?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes. Cutting tax rates clearly increases after tax income.



Maybe...but then to make up for the drop in income tax revenues, excise/sales taxes are raised, user fees are raised, tolls are raised, tuition is raised, health care costs are raised, plus there's inflation...all of which puts more of a burden on the middle and lower classes who must spend the money they would have otherwise spent in the consumer economy, on things that aren't a part of the consumer economy (education, health care), or go into debt (which is why household debt always seems to skyrocket after tax cuts are passed).  Household debt _*doubled*_ during the Bush Tax Cuts.  Most of that debt growth occurred before the bubble even popped.  So by cutting taxes, all you do is force most workers to go into debt to afford things they previously could afford because they were well-funded (like colleges, for example).  You get that, right?  Tax cuts are just a transfer of wealth to the top 1%, as is evidenced by their growing share of wealth.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> No. My rate cut left me with more after tax income which allowed me to pay down household debt.



Unverifiable anecdote substituting for fact, right on cue!






Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that why tuition has soared so much? DERP!



Since trickle-down started, state funding for education has been increasingly cut, cut, cut.  They just did it in Kansas to pay for the tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> When the government pushes student easy money loans, colleges react by boosting tuition and fees. Unless you can show me a drop in tuition since Obama had the Feds take over student lending?



Taking over student lending has nothing to do with _*state funding for public colleges*_.  That's why tuition costs rise.  You're talking about student loans, not tuition.  Loans _*pay*_ the tuition.  And the tuition goes up because less state funding because of tax cuts.  States pass tax cuts, which reduce revenue, which result in cuts to things like education, which results in state schools having to raise tuition, which results in increased borrowing by students and their families.  No tax cuts = no education cuts = no student debt.  It's really very simple to understand.  So what your excuse for not getting it?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> When have Dems ever tried to pay down debt?



Clinton did, actually.  Depending on what your calendar is, there was a debt reduction if you look December-to-December.  Of course, since the government doesn't collect revenues all at once, some months when revenues run high, it's put toward the debt (which is what Clinton did several times).  We could have paid off the debt entirely by 2010 if Conservatives had done _*literally nothing*_ to the tax code.  But they can't even do _*nothing*_ right.  SAD!




Toddsterpatriot said:


> and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". Link?



Here ya go, buttmunch.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So the tax cuts can't be proven to force everyone to increase debt?



The stats show that to be the case, your unverifiable personal account notwithstanding.  So why is it that you guys always seem to fall back on things you know you can't prove to make your argument?  Personal things, I mean.  It's a disturbing pattern on the right that generally reflects an insecurity on the facts, so rather than take personal responsibility, you retroactively justify it by saying you personally experienced it, even though you cannot prove that (or won't because you're too afraid to divulge personal details on an MB).  So we are left to "take your word for it".  My question is; *why the fuck should I take your word for it?*




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Paying down debt is a wild claim? You've never paid down debt?



LOL!  So veering into personal anecdote land, we get a glimpse into the flaws of your argument; namely that you have nothing factual to support your position so you just invent or exaggerate your own personal history to rig the argument after the fact.  You should be able to make an argument without even mentioning anything personal or unverifiable.  At least, that's how I was taught to debate.  But I didn't go to Trump University like you did.  





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup. So prove that tax cuts cost jobs.



You mean other than the fact that Reagan's unemployment skyrocketed the year his tax cuts were first in effect?  Or maybe the 4 years of the Bush Tax Cuts that saw 70,000 jobs disappear?  Or the 8 years of the Bush Tax Cuts that saw 460,000 jobs disappear?  Tax cuts create unemployment because they reduce consumer demand.  How?  Consumers have to spend more out of pocket on things like education and health care, which means less spending in the consumer market where 70% of our economy lives.  So if you're spending more on tuition and health care, you're spending less on consumer goods.  Increased out-of-pocket spending on education and health care doesn't create jobs, it takes demand out of the consumer economy, causing revenues to stagnate, which means businesses have no motivation to expand and hire more people.  Flatlining revenues also result in layoffs because corporations have to increase profits each year.  So if your revenues aren't increasing and the tax rate stays the same, that means in order to increase profit, you have to reduce expenses.  That means jobs disappear.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> <chart showing unemployment spiking the year Reagan's tax cuts went into effect>



LOL indeed.  Thanks for providing the same fucking chart I provided previously, showing unemployment spiking after Reagan's tax cuts.  Also, that chart of yours it total employment, which includes government jobs (that don't count as real jobs, according to you all).  Take the government jobs out of that and what does the employment picture look like?


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Liar!!View attachment 127561



Why not lay inflation over that and see?  Because when you do, you see wages remain mostly stagnant.  They only started ticking up toward the end of Obama's second term.
















Was it deliberate that you held inflation out of your chart?  Or were you just being a lazybones?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...



*We were told "tax cuts would pay for themselves". They didn't.*


Except for capital gains taxes or very high income tax rates, they don't.
So what?
The purpose of tax cuts isn't to make sure the government gets enough money.

*As one of the other posters on this thread showed, the middle class ended up paying more in taxes by 1989 than they paid in 1980.* 

Another poster made that claim. I haven't seen their proof. Have you? Link?

*And why did Reagan raise those taxes anyway?* 

Because of whining about the deficit.
*
Maybe...but then to make up for the drop in income tax revenues, excise/sales taxes are raised, user fees are raised, tolls are raised, tuition is raised, health care costs are raised*

Show me the cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after tax hikes.

*Unverifiable anecdote substituting for fact, right on cue!*

I know, paying down debt, inconceivable!!! Liberals never believe people can be responsible.

*Since trickle-down started, state funding for education has been increasingly cut, cut, cut.*

Right, because cutting federal rates causes states to cut spending.
Explain why the Feds should be giving states money to give to state colleges.

Is that why states spend more and more? Maybe you have a list of states that have cut spending since 1981?

*Taking over student lending has nothing to do with *_*state funding for public colleges*_*.* 

Has easing loan standards caused a hike in tuition or a drop?
If easy loan standards are blamed for the housing bubble, why not blame them for the tuition bubble?

*Clinton did, actually. *

Clinton tried to pay down debt? LOL!
Prove it.
*
We could have paid off the debt entirely by 2010 if Conservatives had done *_*literally nothing*_* to the tax code.* 

Right, because unsustainable Internet Bubbles would have continued until 2010. DERP!

*The stats show that to be the case,*

The stats show people were forced? Try again.

*You should be able to make an argument without even mentioning anything personal or unverifiable.* 

Your moronic argument is that allowing me to keep more of my own money forces me to increase debt.
You just can't prove it.
*
You mean other than the fact that Reagan's unemployment skyrocketed the year his tax cuts were first in effect?* 

Yes, you need to prove causation.

*Tax cuts create unemployment because they reduce consumer demand.  How?  Consumers have to spend more out of pocket on things like education and health care, which means less spending in the consumer market where 70% of our economy lives.* 

Giving the government $1000 less, for instance, causes my spending on education and healthcare to increase by more than $1000?

Cool. Prove it.

*Thanks for providing the same fucking chart I provided previously, showing unemployment spiking after Reagan's tax cuts.* 

Yes, by all means ignore interest rates and the recession. DERP!
*
Take the government jobs out of that and what does the employment picture look like?
*
Feel free.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Liar!!View attachment 127561
> ...



If you can find a Fed chart for real wages, post it.

Federal Reserve Economic Data | FRED | St. Louis Fed


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you can find a Fed chart for real wages, post it.Federal Reserve Economic Data | FRED | St. Louis Fed



That was easy enough.

Just like I said, wages stagnated until the end of Obama's second term, then they went up.


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Except for capital gains taxes or very high income tax rates, they don't.
> So what? The purpose of tax cuts isn't to make sure the government gets enough money.



So tax cuts "don't pay for themselves"?  The purpose of the tax cuts, when they were pitched to us, was that they would generate so much revenue from trickle down that there wouldn't be a need to cut spending.  So if what you're saying _*now*_ is that tax cuts don't increase revenues, therefore there is no economic or fiscal argument for them.  The _*one thing*_ universal in all trickle-down tax cut proposals is that growth from the tax cuts will offset revenue losses.  But if you're now saying they don't do that, then what's the point of doing them at all?  I mean, other than forcing budget cuts that Conservatives lack the courage or will to pass through legislation?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Another poster made that claim. I haven't seen their proof. Have you? Link?



Maybe go back through the thread and take some personal responsibility for yourself.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because of whining about the deficit.



So the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, like we were promised they would.  So now you're saying deficits don't matter?  Or do they only not matter when it comes to reducing revenues?  What exception are you going to make now?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Show me the cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after tax hikes.







There's education for ya.  I mean, dude, this is easily discovered.  You shouldn't need me to do this work for you.  Stop being so lazy and take some personal responsibility.

Here's an article from the Kansas City Star saying exactly that:

_The cost of going to college in Kansas went up again Wednesday when the state’s Board of Regents approved tuition increases at six public universities. *Regents said the increases were necessary because of legislative cuts in higher education funding*._​
And why were there cuts to education funding?  Because Kansas has a BBA and tax revenues fell well short of projections.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Where do the rich get their money from?


*Guillotine-Fodder Rule*

They inherit it, are set up by inherited wealth, or class-climb according to the soul-destroying rules laid down by the HeirHeads.  LIberals are richkids assigned to act disgusting, insulting, and threatening and then say they hate the rich.  That is a trick by this illegitimate class to get those turned off by their fake behavior to support the rich.  The Kennedy types and Bush types differ only in methods but have the same goal of Birth Class Supremacy.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 19, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*America Was Founded As an Escape From Aristocracy and Must Abolish It or Die *

Confiscating the money from inheritance, which is not earned by the heirs, will give us $3 trillion a year from the 1% alone, making income taxes unnecessary.  Ashes to ashes, dust to dust:  the money originates with the plutocrats employees and customers.  So it must go back there, not to spoiled moochers who have always been a cancer eating away at progress.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If you can find a Fed chart for real wages, post it.Federal Reserve Economic Data | FRED | St. Louis Fed
> ...



That's median wages.
I could explain why that's not a very useful stat.......but you're not very good at math.


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know, paying down debt, inconceivable!!! Liberals never believe people can be responsible.



No, just you.  I think you say things like that in order to make you feel better about yourself.  Everyone knows it's bullshit when Conservatives start waxing idiotic about their unverifiable personal lives.  I mean, why sell yourself short?  Reach for the stars!  Why not pretend to be a billionaire yourself?  How about_* I*_ pretend to be a billionaire?  Then nothing I say can be contradicted, right, because I'm a billionaire?  Because I said so.  Because.  So whatever facts you may have (LOL) are instantly to be dismissed because I'm a billionaire and as such, I am the authority over everything fiscal and financial.  Oooo - not only that, but I'm also a veteran as well, so anything I say about, say, foreign military policy or espionage has instant credibility because I said I'm a veteran.  You see how silly that game of "me, me, me" is?  Let's try to talk using facts, not exaggerations, omissions, or outright lies, mmkay?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right, because cutting federal rates causes states to cut spending.
> Explain why the Feds should be giving states money to give to state colleges.



Wait, so you are admitting that the Feds give states education funding.  OK, that's important because it directly addresses what I've been saying; that income tax cuts result in revenue cuts, which result in spending cuts.  So if you are cutting federal income taxes, and if there is federal money going to states for colleges and such, then wouldn't that mean that the less revenue collected from income tax cuts results in less revenues available for the Feds to distribute to the states?  Why yes, it does.  So thanks for helping me with my argument on that by tacitly admitting, whether you realize it or not, that you're explaining exactly what I've been saying this whole time.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that why states spend more and more? Maybe you have a list of states that have cut spending since 1981?



Well, we know it happened in Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and Wisconsin because all those states raided the welfare block grants in order to cover the deficits caused by their tax cuts.  I just posted an article from the Kansas City Star where the Regents of Kansas' state university system came right out and said tuition hikes were caused by a decrease in funding.  And what caused that decrease in funding in Kansas?  *TAX CUTS!*





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Has easing loan standards caused a hike in tuition or a drop?
> If easy loan standards are blamed for the housing bubble, why not blame them for the tuition bubble?



No, loan standards have no bearing on state tuition costs.  As the Board of Regents for Kansas' state schools told you in the link I provided, *tuition was increased because of state cuts to education*.  The cause of tuition hikes is, and always will be, revenue decreases from tax cuts.  So where do you go from there?  Dunno.  I'm sure you'll invent some personal anecdote that contradicts the claims, but we both know that's bullshit.  We have the Kansas Board of Regents saying, with no doubt, that tuition costs were directly related to state aid, and state aid is directly related to revenues, and revenues come from taxes.  When you cut revenues, you cut the amount available for state aid, causing tuition to rise.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Clinton tried to pay down debt? LOL! Prove it.



When I do, will you concede defeat on these boards, cancel your account, and never return?  Because I can do it very, very easily just by providing Treasury Statements on Total Public Outstanding Debt that are distributed each month.  I can prove that the national debt _*decreased*_ according to those statements for the period between December 1999 and December 2000.  Do you really want me to do that?  Doing so is only going to humiliate you.  I'm giving you an out.  I advise you take it.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right, because unsustainable Internet Bubbles would have continued until 2010. DERP!



First of all, the dotcom bubble (Caused by, you guessed it, TAX CUTS) popped before Bush was even President.  Secondly, that's what Greenspan was whining about in the link I provided you.  The video of him saying paying off the debt too soon wouldn't be _*fair*_ to the bondholders.  I mean, I can post the link again if you want.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your moronic argument is that allowing me to keep more of my own money forces me to increase debt.You just can't prove it.



I did prove it using facts.  You lied and pretended that you did the exact opposite, but again, why the fuck should I believe anything you say about yourself?  If I can't verify it, then it's not a fact.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, you need to prove causation.



I did exactly that.  Reagan's tax cuts dropped consumer demand, which resulted in layoffs.  They dropped consumer demand because while income taxes were cut, _*other taxes and fees *_(including payroll taxes, state and local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, health care costs, education costs) all rise to make up for the drop in revenues from the income tax cut.  So that's why household debt skyrocketed under Reagan, flat-lined during Clinton, then shot up again during Bush the Dumber.  Tax cuts _*only*_ create debt.  That's all they do.  That's all they're designed to do.  Manufacture budget crises to use as an excuse to cut spending you lack the courage or support to do through legislation.  So you posture about the budget, never mind the fact that _*you're the ones who threw the budget out of whack in the first place*_ with your stupid tax cuts that you promised "would pay for themselves", but never seem to do.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Giving the government $1000 less, for instance, causes my spending on education and healthcare to increase by more than $1000?



Yes, because the government has a dwindling pool of revenues from which to spend, so out-of-pocket costs rise.  The less you pay in taxes, the more you pay for things like education and health care.  I've shown you how this happens.  I've even given you a link directly to the Kansas Board of Regents who said, very plainly, that tuition costs rose because of funding cuts.  Those funding cuts were because the tax cuts did not produce the revenues Brownback, Laffer, and all the teabags projected.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, by all means ignore interest rates and the recession. DERP!



Interest rates?  The Fed was _*lowering interest rates*_ throughout 1982.  The recession was also caused by ham-fisted fiscal policy.  You cut taxes, but increased fees for everything else, so people had to spend more out of pocket outside the consumer economy, which resulted in less consumer spending, which resulted in...wait for it..._*a recession*_.


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's median wages.I could explain why that's not a very useful stat.......but you're not very good at math.



No, that's median _*REAL WAGES*_.

You asked for the chart, I showed it to you.  If you have nothing to contribute, fuck yourself and die.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Except for capital gains taxes or very high income tax rates, they don't.
> ...



*So tax cuts "don't pay for themselves"?*

So? Who said they must?

*The purpose of the tax cuts, when they were pitched to us, was that they would generate so much revenue from trickle down that there wouldn't be a need to cut spending.* 

Well, when more people are employed, the need for spending in some areas should decrease.
Of course when you see Obama's massive job gains coinciding with massive increases in transfer
payments......it is possible to screw that up.

*  So if what you're saying *_*now*_* is that tax cuts don't increase revenues,*

I said, except for capital gains and income/business taxes at very high rates, they don't.
But that's the difference between conservatives and liberals, conservatives don't always
consider a policy a failure if it causes government to collect less money.

*therefore there is no economic or fiscal argument for them.* 

Wrong!!!
They increase economic growth and increase money in the hands of the people.
If you cut tax rates by 10%, for instance, and government revenues decrease by 5%,
I see that as a win-win.

Liberals would see that as a lose-lose.

*The *_*one thing*_* universal in all trickle-down tax cut proposals is that growth from the tax cuts will offset revenue losses.*

Growth offsets a portion of the revenue loss to government.

*So now you're saying deficits don't matter?  Or do they only not matter when it comes to reducing revenues?*

Deficits matter, so let's cut spending.

*Maybe go back through the thread*

I know, the proof isn't there.

*There's education for ya.*

That's showing cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after income tax hikes?
LOL!


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > National forms of socialism, are right wing forms of "job creation".  Our alleged "wars" on crime, drugs, and terror" are nothing but socialism on a national basis. I make a motion to simply tax all income of the working one percent, at regular income tax rates, to create Jobs Booms.
> ...


I support simplification of government and claim, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.  

We could be lowering our taxes by improving the efficiency of our government.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That's median wages.I could explain why that's not a very useful stat.......but you're not very good at math.
> ...



That's median real wages. I could explain why that's not a very useful stat.......but you're not very good at math.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 19, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...




The source is on the graph.

Always amazes me to read RWNJs demand the right to give more of their money to the 1% but, they always do.

Same bunch voted to give the 1% control over their votes too. This last election, they voted to keep Citizens United. 

Why would they believe that's a good idea?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why would they believe that's a good idea?



They know it's not a good idea.  They don't care.  They want to win elections at any cost...even if that cost means taking sketchy dark money or enlisting a hostile foreign power to spread disinformation on the internet to undermine democracy.


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> I support simplification of government and claim, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. We could be lowering our taxes by improving the efficiency of our government.



So, I'm not sure where this sentiment comes from about inefficiency in government.  Part of the inefficency comes from the fact that government programs are already cut to the bone, and those cuts are operational.  So as operational funding to programs drops, those programs start to fail.  Then Conservatives point to the failing programs (that they caused to fail when they cut their funding) as an excuse to sell them off to private interests who profit off them at our expense while not delivering outcomes any better than what was before (see:  Charter schools, private prisons).

What this is really about is the Conservative zeal to cut government so they can have their rich friends skip away with all the wealth, while leaving a crumbing infrastructure in their wake.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I know, paying down debt, inconceivable!!! Liberals never believe people can be responsible.
> ...



*Wait, so you are admitting that the Feds give states education funding.*

No, I'm saying if they do, they should stop.
If you want your state to give money to your state schools, get your state to do it.
Pay more in state taxes. Lobby your state officials. Stop looking for Federal money.

*if there is federal money going to states for colleges and such*

End it. Raise the money where you want to spend it.

*Well, we know it happened in Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and Wisconsin because all those states raided the welfare block grants in order to cover the deficits caused by their tax cuts.*

Those states cut state spending? Because Federal tax rates were cut? I don't believe you.

*First of all, the dotcom bubble (Caused by, you guessed it, TAX CUTS) popped before Bush was even President.* 

Yeah, and look at the drop in capital gains receipts and individual/business tax receipts

*No, loan standards have no bearing on state tuition costs.*

No, loan standards have no bearing on housing costs. DERP!

*As the Board of Regents for Kansas' state schools......*

Unless you're showing me that Kansas cut funding because the Fed tax rates were cut, it's irrelevant.

*When I do, will you concede defeat on these boards, cancel your account, and never return?* 

And when you don't, will you?

*I can prove that the national debt *_*decreased*_* according to those statements for the period between December 1999 and December 2000.*

What does that have to do with the ridiculous claim that Clinton tried to pay down debt?
*
Reagan's tax cuts dropped consumer demand, which resulted in layoffs.* 

That's an especially moronic claim.
*
They dropped consumer demand because while income taxes were cut, *_*other taxes and fees *_*(including payroll taxes, state and local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, health care costs, education costs)*

For that to be the case, you'd have to show that those increases, if they happened, took more money out of consumer pockets than Fed tax cuts added to consumer pockets.

*Yes, because the government has a dwindling pool of revenues from which to spend, so out-of-pocket costs rise.* 

Why does my extra $1000 cause those things to cost MORE than $1000 extra?
*
Interest rates?* 

Yes, Fed Funds. That thing you didn't understand in an earlier thread. LOL!
*
The Fed was *_*lowering interest rates*_* throughout 1982.
*
And before 1982? DERP!

*The recession was also caused by ham-fisted fiscal policy.*

Tell me more!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*The source is on the graph.*

It refers to sales, excise and property taxes in the state of Washington.
Who cares?

* This last election, they voted to keep Citizens United. 
*

*Why would they believe that's a good idea?*

Because freedom of speech is really nice.
Why do you think it's a bad idea?


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So? Who said they must?



Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them.  But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth.  There goes the premise that cutting taxes increases revenues.  There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs.  So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs, then what's the fucking point of them?  Simple; to manufacture budget crises that are used as an excuse to cut spending for programs you lack the courage and support to repeal through legislation.  Basically, I'm calling you a chickenshit.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, when more people are employed, the need for spending in some areas should decrease.



But tax cuts don't create jobs (see paragraph above), as we saw during Reagan and Bush the Dumber.  Instead, they killed jobs.  Sooooooo.....




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course when you see Obama's massive job gains coinciding with massive increases in transfer payments......it is possible to screw that up.



You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created?  Because that's exactly what happened.  I remember back in 2012 when Obama was going to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top 1%.  Conservatives at the time said it would kill jobs, crash the market, and plunge the economy into a recession.  Wrong on all three.  So if you all were so fucking wrong then, why would you be right now?  BTW - 1.5 million jobs were created in 2013.  In other words, the _*opposite*_ result of what Conservatives were predicting.  So again, if they were so wrong then, why would they be right now?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I said, except for capital gains and income/business taxes at very high rates, they don't.



So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma.  "Very high rates" means what?  90%?  70%?  When rates were "very high" during the 50's and 60's, it didn't seem to do anything to stop job growth.  I see why you use ambiguous and generlized words and phrases...you do it to give yourself wiggle room later because you are not secure in the facts and have to craft escape hatches for yourself in your argument.  What a pathetic and shitty thing to do.  Shame!




Toddsterpatriot said:


> They increase economic growth and increase money in the hands of the people.



NO THEY DON'T!  How many times do I have to post this chart before you let it sink in:









Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you cut tax rates by 10%, for instance, and government revenues decrease by 5%,



So this is where theory gets crushed by reality.  Your _*theory*_ is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves").  However the reality is that cutting income taxes leads to cuts in spending, which leads to increased out-of-pocket costs for consumers outside of the consumer economy (such as:  health care, education).  So you keep using theory, but the _*reality*_ tells a different story.  Why are you so dependent on theory?  Why can't you deal with facts?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Growth offsets a portion of the revenue loss to government.



"A portion"?  So moving the goalposts there, I see.  What "portion" exactly?  And the growth just isn't there.  It wasn't there during Reagan, it wasn't there during Bush the Dumber.  Tax cuts were not sold as something that would offset the drop in revenues.  Tax cuts were sold as being able "to pay for themselves" so now what you're saying is that they kinda, sorta increase growth, but not really and it's not quantifiable, it's just what you happen to believe in your gut.  Right?  That's really what this is...you wishing your gut was reflective of the truth.  All your gut is reflective of are the mountains of ho-ho's you shove in your mouth.  You do not have good instincts.  Do not trust in them because they are wrong and leading you down a humiliating path.  I mean I feel humiliated _*for you*_.  How's that for empathy!?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Deficits matter, so let's cut spending.



Or we could just raise taxes since, by your own squishy admission, tax cuts don't really pay for themselves or product quantifiable growth.  However, there is mountains of evidence showing they cause households to go into debt because, like what happened in Kansas, state schools have to raise tuition costs to make up for the funding gap that occurred thanks to spending cuts, thanks to tax cuts reducing revenue.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's showing cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after income tax hikes?LOL!



No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise.  That's what the Kansas Board of Regents said.  Not even sure what bullshit argument you're trying to make here.  Facts show that tax cuts lead to debt and job loss.  That's in the numbers, and in the quotes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So? Who said they must?
> ...



*Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them.*

Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?
*
But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth*

Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

*There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs.*

Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".

*So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs,*

They do, they don't (usually) and they do.
*
then what's the fucking point of them?* 

To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.
*
You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created?* 

I mean when jobs were created, Obama still managed to balloon transfer payment spending.

*So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma.  "Very high rates" means what?*

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve.

*NO THEY DON'T!* 

Yes, tax cuts leave more money in the hands of the people.
*
So this is where theory gets crushed by reality.  Your *_*theory*_* is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves").* 

My theory is that tax cuts increase growth.
That growth will make the tax revenue decrease smaller than the tax cut.

Let's test it from your end of the spectrum.

Tomorrow the Federal government doubles every single tax rate.
Does the government collect twice as much revenue? More? Less? Why?

*No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise.* 

At what point on that graph were the Federal Tax rates cut?


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, I'm saying if they do, they should stop.
> If you want your state to give money to your state schools, get your state to do it.
> Pay more in state taxes. Lobby your state officials. Stop looking for Federal money.



So you don't know?  Why are you talking about things you don't know anything about?  Why even open your mouth?  Are you that starved for attention because you're so insecure?  Sheesh.  The point is that you make promises and claims of a policy, both of which _*simply are not true*_.  So that's why your stupid arguments always seem to veer into this unintelligible space of hypothetical and "if's".  You use "If" more than any other Conservative poster I've seen on my limited time on these boards.  Everything with you is a hypothetical or a theory.  None of it is grounded in fact or law.

FACT:  Income tax cuts result in revenue reduction, which results in deficits, which results in spending cuts, which results in increased tuition costs.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Those states cut state spending? Because Federal tax rates were cut? I don't believe you.



You don't have to believe me, you just have to accept the facts. 





Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, loan standards have no bearing on housing costs. DERP!



So you just switched the subjefct because you realized you were full of shit.  The standards of your loan have no bearing on the value of the house you are trying to buy.  It has bearing on your interest rate, but not on the value of the house.  

Do you...do you know what a "loan" is?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Unless you're showing me that Kansas cut funding because the Fed tax rates were cut, it's irrelevant.



So you moved the goalposts again, because we weren't talking about _*federal*_ income tax, we were talking about just income tax.  So if you are going to continue to redefine the parameters of the debate, a heads-up would be appreciated.  The difference between Kansas and the Feds, is that Kansas has a BBA and the Feds do not.  So the Feds aren't required to cut spending in order to balance a budget.  But Kansas is.  Setting aside your obvious goalpost shifting...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> And when you don't, will you?



Ah, but I can...do you really want me to?  Do you know what you're getting yourself into?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> What does that have to do with the ridiculous claim that Clinton tried to pay down debt?



_*Ummm....the Treasury statements show a reduction in the debt, therefore DEBT WAS PAID DOWN.  I don't know how clearer I can make it for you.  *_I mean, do you speak English?  Maybe you need a better Russian-to-English Google translator.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's an especially moronic claim.



It's actually true because Reagan immediately raised taxes, starting in 1982.  Why would he have done that if tax cuts paid for themselves?  Oh right, now you're arguing from the laughable position that they don't pay for themselves.  Just "a portion".  LOL!  Hilariously pathetic.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> For that to be the case, you'd have to show that those increases, if they happened, took more money out of consumer pockets than Fed tax cuts added to consumer pockets.



A poster already did that on this thread.  I can also point to _*THIS CHART*_, showing household debt skyrocketing during Reagan and Bush the Dumber.  So why did household debt skyrocket if tax cuts were supposed to let people keep more of what they earned?  You haven't answered that very fundamental question that cuts to the heart of, well, your entire belief system.









Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why does my extra $1000 cause those things to cost MORE than $1000 extra?



Because it's not just you, shithead, it's everyone in that top income bracket.  (NOTE:  I reject the premise you are in the top bracket, for full disclosure)




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, Fed Funds. That thing you didn't understand in an earlier thread. LOL!



So lower interest rates caused job loss?  How so?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> And before 1982? DERP!



Before 1982, we had a tax cut that were promised would pay for themselves and create jobs.  It didn't.  BTW - we didn't enter a recession until _*after*_ Reagan's tax cuts.  Stagflation is not the same thing as a recession.  BTW - the unemployment rate remained relatively static _*until taxes were cut*_.  Then it shot up.  Why?


----------



## The Derp (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?



Yup.  100%.  Laffer was even making that stupid claim as recent as 5 years ago in Kansas.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".



Oh, "can" cause growth?  Notice how the narrative starts to crumble.  Before, you were assured that they do create growth, _*now*_ you're saying they "can" create growth?  Well, I _*can*_ have a lovely evening banging Carla Gugino.  But that doesn't mean I will.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".



Again, there's that word again..."can".  A squishy word thrown in almost under the radar to allow yourself the wiggle room to weasel out of the conversation later on.  My cat "can" play the piano.  But it doesn't.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> They do, they don't (usually) and they do.



Wait, wait...you just said before they "can", not that they do.  So you got tripped up in your own narrative.  Again.  This is getting SAD!





Toddsterpatriot said:


> To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.



So we've already established the first two are not true.  You did that yourself when you said they "can".  The third one is actually right on the money.  Tax cuts are designed to increase deficits an manufacture budget crises that are used as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage or support to repeal through legislation.  Because you're a chickenshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm saying if they do, they should stop.
> ...



*So you don't know?*

No, I don't know every bit of Federal money sent to the states to do things the states should be doing on their own.
Since Federal spending on state and local education isn't mentioned in the Constitution, I know it should be ended.

*Income tax cuts result in revenue reduction, which results in deficits, which results in spending cuts,
*
How much of the revenue deduction is increased deficit and how much is spending cut?

*You don't have to believe me, you just have to accept the facts.*

If you ever produce that fact, I'll be happy to look at it.
*
So you just switched the subjefct because you realized you were full of shit.*

Right, pointing out the idiocy of your claim is changing the subject. LOL!

*The standards of your loan have no bearing on the value of the house you are trying to buy.* 

It sure as fuck has a bearing on the price of houses.

*So you moved the goalposts again, because we weren't talking about *_*federal*_* income tax, we were talking about just income tax.*

We're talking about Federal taxes and your claims about their impact on state spending.
Which is why your example of Kansas taxes is not relevant.
*
Kansas has a BBA and the Feds do not.  So the Feds aren't required to cut spending in order to balance a budget.* 

Which is why your claim that Federal rate cuts result in Federal spending cuts is so funny.

*Ah, but I can...do you really want me to?*

Yes, I want you to show that Clinton wanted to pay down debt.

*Ummm....the Treasury statements show a reduction in the debt, therefore **DEBT WAS PAID DOWN**.*

Great, now show that that is what Clinton desired.

*It's actually true because Reagan immediately raised taxes, starting in 1982.* 

So Reagan's tax cuts reduced consumer demand and his tax increases raised consumer demand?

You're actually getting dumber as the thread goes on.

*A poster already did that on this thread.*

No they didn't.
*
So why did household debt skyrocket if tax cuts were supposed to let people keep more of what they earned?*

Not everyone paid down debt with their tax cut.
If I get a $1000 annual tax cut, does that mean I'm not supposed to borrow $10,000 to buy a car?
If I do borrow to buy a car, does that mean the tax cut didn't work?

If I get a $3000 annual tax cut, am I allowed to take out a mortgage to buy a home?
*
Because it's not just you, shithead, it's everyone in that top income bracket.*

If everyone in the top bracket gets a $1000 tax cut, fucktard, why does that make those expenses increase by more than $1000?
*
So lower interest rates caused job loss?* 

No. And yet, rates dropped while unemployment increased.

*Before 1982, we had a tax cut*

And interest rate hikes.

*BTW - we didn't enter a recession until *_*after*_* Reagan's tax cuts.* 

And only a moron would think that one caused the other.

*BTW - the unemployment rate remained relatively static *_*until taxes were cut*_*.  Then it shot up.  Why?*





See the shaded area, that's a recession. Unemployment rises during a recession.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?
> ...


*
Oh, "can" cause growth? Notice how the narrative starts to crumble.*

Well, I can probably come up with several examples of tax cuts that won't necessarily lead to more jobs.

*Before, you were assured that they do create growth, *_*now*_* you're saying they "can" create growth?* 

If you want to limit the claim to income taxes, then sure, they do create growth.

*Again, there's that word again..."can".* 

If Illinois cuts cigarette taxes by a buck a carton, will that lead to economic growth?
Maybe? I wouldn't count on it.

*So we've already established the first two are not true.*

You've established no such thing.
*
Tax cuts are designed to increase deficits*

If they result in a one-to-one spending cut, as you've claimed, they wouldn't increase deficits.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> NOW back to why those "job creators" who receive  250%-400% of ALL US income



you don't understand that liberal means stupid do you???

they don't receive income, they earn it. You might say one receives welfare but not income. You are free to earn as much income as you like in peaceful voluntary transactions, but you are not free to steal income through govt from those who earn it. What good could come from teaching people that they should get their money from stealing it rather than earning it?? Do you understand why liberals support theft????

"We still find the greedy hand of liberal government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine

Jesus told the chief priests, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.”


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> WHILE paying a MUCH smaller tax burden



typical liberal lie. The top 1% now pay 40% of all income tax while they paid only 20% during Reagan. This is a total rip off of the most productive people in our society! 
And why do liberals want to steal the money at gun point? Ans: For more and more crippling welfare vote buying!


----------



## Chuz Life (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Your spam and diversions do not answer the question...
> ...




Where does the rich get their money from?

From who?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> It's obvious the real reason Conservatives want to cut taxes; they want to starve the Treasury of revenue in order to force spending cuts to programs they are ideologically opposed to,



they want to starve the beast because that is the basic principle of America. It is what the Constitution is designed to do. Liberal programs cripple people. This is why liberals spied for Hitler and Stalin. They want magical govt programs to instantly solve problems! That is treasonously stupid in America. Soviet programs did not work but freedom from soviet programs did work to make American great!

Conservatives are amazed that liberals are actually too stupid to understand that!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Where does the rich get their money from?
> From who?


 they earn it from the middle class and poor by offering them goods that are worth more to them than their money. If not, they would not part with their money. Next??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> _*NO!*_  Consumer demand is what grows an economy.



you have learned 65 times now that demand in 1000% natural . People always and naturally demand air, food, clothing, shelter, inventions to make life easier, etc. How can a liberal be so stupid as to not understand this? Since demand is 1000% natural we don't need to encourage it at all !!!!

Supply of new inventions (how economy grew from stone age to here) is not natural at all; so that we can and should take steps to encourage.

Shall we try for 66 times???


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry my old link of treasury study is gone, "link not found", best I have is this 

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families  Including Middle-Income Families  at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02



LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RICHEST BUBS THE ANKLE BITER 





Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



My link is gone, best I have is this Bubba ankle biter 

The average percentage of income that households in the middle fifth of the income spectrum paid in total federal taxes in 2000, before last year's tax cut was enacted, was close to the lowest on record for the period from 1979 to the present. These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983

Overall Federal Tax Burden on Most Families  Including Middle-Income Families  at Lowest Levels in More Than Two Decades, 4/10/02

LET'S LOOK AT THOSE "JOB CREATORS" BUBBA








AS THEIR "SHARE" OF INCOME SKYROCKETED BUBS







SEE A TREND HERE?


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Remember When Alan Greenspan was Worried That We Would Pay Off the Debt Too Quickly?*

Yes, that was back in 2001 when Greenspan was arguing for the virtues of President Bush's tax cuts. That concern turned out to be somewhat misplaced.



Remember When Alan Greenspan was Worried That We Would Pay Off the Debt Too Quickly?


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I support simplification of government and claim, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. We could be lowering our taxes by improving the efficiency of our government.
> ...


I am trying to convince the right wing to advance a "second wave" to end the drug war.  They prefer to "hate on the poor", and cut social services, instead.


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...




LET'S USE THE CORRECT GRAPH BUBS


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS

The actual amount was $*452 billion -- which was equal to about 12 percent of the existing public debt in 1997.
Bill Clinton says his administration paid down the debt


YES INTRA GOV'T DEBT WENT UP BECAUSE WE HAD MORE REVENUES COMING INTO TREASURY FROM SS, MEDICARE, OTHER TRUST FUNDS, ETC WHICH IS CALLED DEBT!!!



*


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS



actually Newt forced Clinton to lie and say era of big govt is over, to pay down debt, to end welfare as we know it, and pass a middle class tax cut. Did you know  that Clinton  was a Democrat?? Slow??


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



"*So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?*

Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."



OH SO YOU MEAN TOP RATES WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS OF 65%-70%

SAEZ:

65%

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/optimallabortax/tax-redistribution_slides.pdf



The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%

Book sources - Wikipedia

 Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%

Tax rates and tax revenues in a model of growth through human capital accumulation - ScienceDirect


*SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS??? *


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > CLINTON PAID DOWN PUBLIC DEBT BUBS
> ...




Yeah you keep believing that BS Bubs

*FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’*
FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’

*WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE THE DEMS CREATED 3 NEW BRACKETS AND TOOK THE TOP RATE TO 39.6% AND REVENUES STARTING GOING BACK UP TO WHERE CARTER HAD THEM* BEFORE RONNIE GUTTED THEM BUBS, AND WE HAD 4 SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $792+ BILLION TAX CUT!!!


*1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest*
Newt Gingrich and the anti-tax revolutionaries who seized control of Congress in 1994 responded by going for the Full Norquist. In a stunning departure from America's long-standing tax policy, Republicans moved to eliminate taxes on investment income and to abolish the inheritance tax. Under the final plan they enacted, capital gains taxes were sliced to 20 percent. *Far from creating an across-the-board benefit, 62 cents of every tax dollar cut went directly to the top one percent of income earners.*
1997: Gingrich Congress Slashes Taxes - For the Wealthiest


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



cut and paste so  what??? do you know what your point is?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> *SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS??? *



ah...because Republicans are for freedom from central govt as were our Founders????


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



PLENTY OF IT VIA GOP TAX CUTS BUBBA


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Besides you being dumb as a rock special Ed?


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > *SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS??? *
> ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



If you are opposed to freedom  and the principle of America why not tell us why rather than post cartoons like a liberal goof??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



violent personal attack because as typical liberal you lack IQ for substantive response.


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > *SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS??? *
> ...


Only in right wing fantasy.  Our "wars on crime, drugs, and terror" are anything but, limited government.


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


`


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Spare_change said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



*YOO-HOO BUBBA FOR THE THIRD TIME, YOU SEEM TO HAVE "ACCIDENTALLY"  SKIPPED THIS POST?????*



Who bears the burden of the corporate income tax?


US TREASURY STUDY 2012:

DISTRIBUTING THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX: REVISED U.S. TREASURY METHODOLOGY

...In summary,* 82% of the corporate income tax burden is distributed to capital income* and 18% is distributed to labor income.


Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

*AGAIN, I'LL PATIENTLY AWAIT YOUR ANSWER *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*These households paid an estimated average of 17.2 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2000, only slightly higher than the low point of 17.1 percent of income in 1983*

The low point was after Reagan's 1981 tax cuts?
Thanks!


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


`

HOW ABOUT YOU BUBBA, YOU CLAIMED TAXES ON THE RICH TRICKLE TO THE POOR RIGHT? Can YOU step up where your right wing buddy has chosen to ignore it? lol

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH) including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class,  you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link 

BUT YOU DO KNOW WHAT THE "LOW POINT" IN 1983 MEANS? LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



*SO WHY THIS DOGMA FROM THE RIGHT ABOUT TAX RATES TOO HIGH WHEN RONNIE HAD THE TOP RATE AT 50% FOR 6 YEARS??? *

Because 50% is too high.
Because 40% is too high.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Believe what you want Bubs, but since Ronnie increased taxes 11 times (AFTER 1981 TAX CUTS ON THE RICH)*

OMG! That's awful! Terrible! Horrible!
So when he took office, the top rate was 70%.
After all those tax hikes....at the end of his term....the top rate was 28%.
*
including SS taxes by 40% in 1986 which hit the middle class*

He raised SS taxes by 40%? Got a link?

*you don't have much to stand on, I'm just not willing to try to find another link*

Why would you need to find another link?
The one you have shows the lowest percent of income paid by the middle class in federal taxes was 1983.
That means your claim that they paid more in 1989 than in 1980 is still unproven.


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Good dodge Bubs

You said tax cuts BECAUSE:

"*then what's the fucking point of them?*

YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

*AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:*

*"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?*

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

SINCE I'VE SHOWN RATES ARE NOWHERE NEAR THE RIGHT SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE, WHY DO YOU KLOWNS KEEP WANTING TO REWARD THE "JOB CREATOR" CLASS AS DEBT IS INCREASING??? 

*Grow an economy, create jobs and stay off the right side of Laffer's curve are ALL BS responses from you RWNJ's! *


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Sorry Bubs, aint going down this rabbit hole with you again,. I proved under my old account (DAD2THREE) to you Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40% AND since the* LOW point of 1983* was for the middle class my posit was made on Ronnie's 11 tax increases  (or as some of you Klowns say, "user fees", lol)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?*

 YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves.
Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Ronnie "saved" SS by increasing revenues 40%*

That doesn't mean he raised rates by 40% you moron!
If you post the rates before he raised them and after, your idiocy would be exposed.

I understand why you'll fail to post them.


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Yep, good dodge AGAIN Bubs

What you said:

*"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma.  "Very high rates" means what?*

YOU: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*What you said:*

Yup. Cuts from above those high rates would pay for themselves.
Cuts beyond that would not pay for themselves.
I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.

Cut taxes now!

No dodge there, eh comrade?


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I get it Bubs, you're the typical low informed rightie who wants to conflate rates with revenues *shaking head*


Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913

Ronnie's last F/Y-  1989 $289,448
Trust Fund Data

NOW SINCE SS HITS PREDOMINATELY THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS WHO GOT HIT WITH THE NEW TAXES?

*1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses,as soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs

Ronnie increased SS taxes from 10.7% to 12.4%, and lifted the age Bubba *


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Good swerve Bubs, wasn't your original posit though? I guess YOU WILL NEVER BE HONEST


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 19, 2017)

Fuck piss down...

Give tax breaks to the middle class, enforce anti-trust laws and invest in education for the poor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*you're the typical low informed rightie who wants to conflate rates with revenues *shaking head**

Nope, just the righty pointing out the idiocy of your raised "*SS taxes by 40% in 1986" *claim.

*Ronnie's first F/Y- 1982 $147,913

Ronnie's last F/Y- 1989 $289,448*

So this was the source for your claim he raised SS taxes by 40%? LOL!

*Ronnie increased SS taxes from 10.7% to 12.4%,
*
If that's the case, it's an increase of 15.9%, not 40%. DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*wasn't your original posit though?*

What was my original posit? Where?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Fuck piss down...
> 
> Give tax breaks to the middle class, enforce anti-trust laws and invest in education for the poor.



Define middle class.
What rate do they currently pay?
What rate should they pay?


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And created taxes on *both sides of self employed*, taxed income on SS recipients for the first time, increased retirement by 2 years, "windfall" of collecting both a pension and Social Security was curbed.

*Payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP 1981-1989*
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021

*7/10TH OF 1% IS HUGE, WHEN YOU CONSIDER INCOME TAX REVENUES FELL 1% THE SAME TIME PERIOD THANKS TO RONNIE'S TAX CUT FOR THE RICH BUBS  



HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS BUBS:

SS REVENUES THAT MAINLY FALL ON THE BOTTOM 95%
*
Ronnie's first F/Y-* 1982 $147,913 Billion*

Ronnie's last F/Y*- 1989 $289,448 Billion

How did wages do again?
*


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



OH DISHONEST ONE IT'S RIGHT HERE:

"*then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?*

*YOU*: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

*AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:*

*"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?*

*YOU*: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."


----------



## JonKoch (May 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck piss down...
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck piss down...
> ...



Bubba, you are a perfect troll for Trumpov


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Payroll tax revenues increased from 6.0% GDP to 6.7% GDP 1981-1989
*
Just awful!
Still, 11.7% isn't 40%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
YOU: "To grow the economy, create jobs"*

Abso-fucking-lutely.

We should cut taxes today.
We should cut taxes tomorrow.
We should cut taxes next week.
We should cut taxes next month.
Then we should cut taxes some more.

That's my original posit.

Where did I change it? Ever?


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




What you said:

"*then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?*

*YOU*: "To grow the economy, create jobs"

*AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:*

*"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?*

*YOU*: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."

*Sorry you are a dishonest liar Bubs*


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 20, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > and what creates deficits? Spending
> ...



i don't know what's so hard to understand here

Spending in excess of revenue causes both deficits and debt

it ain't fucking rocket science

and did you ever think that government programs like the FHA and GSLs actually encourage people to take on massive debt?

did yo ever think that keeping interest rates artificially low along with government guarantees actually encourage banks to give loans to people that would have been denied those loans in the past?

and we're doing it again by allowing people with a mere 3% down payment for a house to get a government backed mortgage which will increase home sales thereby artificially driving up prices and setting up another bubble to pop


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


 OK so Obama was forced to sign all those spending bills by Reagan's ghost

and you seem to assume that I somehow supported Bush and Reagan

FYI I never did.  Reagan was a big government hack just like every other republican I have ever seen


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



FYI Not a libertarian either


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 20, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.
> ...


correlation does not equal  causation


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




WEIRD, GSE's have been around for almost 70 years when Dubya launched his "home ownership society" which coincided with Banksters being "creative" enough to create and market in LARGE numbers MBS's, yet it was 3% Gov't backed loans that were the problem?

HINT GOV'T BACKED LOANS WERE 450%-600% BETTER IN LOAN PERFORMANCE THAN PRIVATE BANKSTERS LOANS, INCLUDING THE LONG GREAT PERFORMING ZERO DOWN VA LOANS  



*GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance*
*GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance*


*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.
*







*Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom*
*
Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
http://ritholtz.com/2011/11/examining-the-big-lie-how-the-facts-of-the-economic-crisis-stack-up/


NOTE ANYTHING ON THIS CHART?





*
*The Big Lie of the Financial Crisis
*
Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. *It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.*


*Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny.*
What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Sorry I forget in right wing nut job world, GOP policy dies the day the next guy takes over *shaking head*

Want to share where you "independents" pushing austerity had success ANYTIME in a recession by cutting spending? 

Now who said YOU supported anyone Bubs? I simply point out historical facts that POLICY MATTERS and unlike you right wingers believe, it has long term consequences


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




Just a nut job right winger huh?


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Good rebuttal Bubs


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


If it is not, "new money", they are probably getting it from the poor.  Why do you think, that is soo, Institutional?


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


Should we ask our red herring specialists on the right wing, how much actual work, the one percent did to "earn" their money?



> For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."



Is there any, "capital exclusion clause" or is it a social, "moral absolute", regardless of Capitalism.


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



Well those 1%ers DID spend billions to create "think tanks" and public policy places like Heritage, AEI, CATO, etc to push their "agenda" (read tax cuts for the richest) , and bribe the guys in DC

It's absolutely amazing how far these right wingers go to protect the Gangster capitalism practiced today, then support the biggest conman (El Cheeto) since PT Barnum *shaking head*


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


I am on the federal left.  It is about, "divide and conquer in politics".  We need to work on, finding the "weak point" on the right wing, where the religious right meets the secular right.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*No More Paradise for Patrician Parasites
*
We can eliminate taxes altogether by abolishing inheritance.  The dead won't mind the Death Tax.  

Under theocracy, it was thought that God decided who would be born rich.  We still suffer from that superstition today.  Who promotes it?  What kind of self-hatred or hatred of their fathers would make people believe such insulting propaganda?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> It's absolutely amazing how far these right wingers go to protect the Gangster capitalism practiced today, then support the biggest conman (El Cheeto) since PT Barnum *shaking head*


*Bad Cop, Good Cop Scenario*

It's amazing how far the Preppy Progressives will go to pretend they're anything but set-up men, _agents provocateurs_, for their Right Wing fraternity brothers.  Calling us "deplorables" and then saying they hate the rich tricks us into loving the rich.  It's amazing that the majority has been so mind-numbed that they can't see through this charade.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


 Abolishing inHeritance??? You want to steal money from dead people? Do you  want to prevent smart people from giving their children their smart jeans do you want to prevent hard-working people from giving their children a hard work ethic do you want to prevent good looking  people from giving their children good looks  do you want people who love their children more than others to be prevented from doing that too after all we don't like evolution we want to make sure everyone is equal also if wealthy people know you're going to steal their money at gun point they will spend it before they die but then you could prevent them from giving away their money or spending it five years before they died.ultimately you're a Nazi Who wants the government to have 10,000 and one more controls over our lives than it already has


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*An Economist Is a Toy Rat for the Fat Cats to Play With*

This is all irrelevant.  With very different economic policies, both the Reagan boom and the Clinton boom were caused by the only thing they had in common:  low oil prices.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


But why wait until people are dead to steal their money at gunpoint why not take it say when they reach age 65 if we're going to be Soviet we might as well be Soviet all the way?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well Obama had Republican Frak Ing and horizontal drilling to keep oil price very low and yet he never had one year of 3% growth so there goes your theory


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



*We Have the Best Economic Analyses That OPEC Can Buy
*
Oil went up to $147 a barrel in July, 2008.  That's what prevented the banks from slowly and safely getting out of their deals, as they had planned.  Both sides are covering up for the petrocrats in order to push their self-serving economic agendas.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



_"_*then what's the fucking point of them(TAX CUTS)?*

*YOU*_: "To grow the economy, create jobs"_

Yes, that's the fucking point.

*AND IT WAS A DIRECT REASON YOU STATED:*

*"So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what?*

*YOU*_: Rates on the right half of the Laffer Curve."_

Yes, if you cut from a high enough rate, the cut pays for itself.
That's the point of my statement.

If a cut doesn't pay for itself, if the cut reduces government revenues....

*MAKE THE CUT ANYWAY.*

The purpose of our economy is not to maximize government revenues.

Clear?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



which has nothing to do with the debt accumulated by the public because of government backed loans


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


where have i ever pushed austerity?

and since you keep mentioning bush and reagan in your replies to me like it's some kind of gotcha tells me you like most people are a 2 dimensional thinker 

and you have yet to tell me how spending and more spending was not an Obama policy he signed every spending bill he could and ooooh managed to get the deficit down all while almost doubling the debt under his watch

big fucking deal


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


 try again if your limited 2 dimensional mind can come up with anything


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...


statement of fact unless of course causation was proven in the post which btw it wasn't


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



wrong, they had many things in common  like very similar economies in the same country. Most liberals couldn't tell the difference between East  and West German economy so seeing a meaningful difference between Reagan years and Clinton years in America  is 10000% impossible!! Only the biggest of fools pretend a president control the economy and conducts an economic  scientific experiment for them.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> try again if your limited 2 dimensional mind can come up with anything



Plato and Aristotle came up with freedom and govt
Jesus and  Caesar came up with freedom and govt
Jefferson and Hamilton came up with freedom and govt
Clinton and Trump came up with freedom and govt

What does skull pilot PH.D come up with???


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


End the drug war, so we can be, perfectly clear.


----------



## sealybobo (May 20, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.


There's a billionaire on NPR who warns no good ever comes when all the wealth gets concentrated and the gap between the rich and poor gets wider and wider. He said the same thing happened leading up to the French revolution.

My parents had a good life. My dad got a pension, great medical, social security plus he saved. How many Americans in 30 years will have savings, social security, affordable healthcare, a pension??? We see today most people aren't saving.

I also went to college when it was affordable. People graduating college today will be paying their loans off for 30 years.


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > It's absolutely amazing how far these right wingers go to protect the Gangster capitalism practiced today, then support the biggest conman (El Cheeto) since PT Barnum *shaking head*
> ...



Progressives? Oh right the guys ALWAYS on the right side of history


Care to point to the last time CONservatives were on the right side of history? 


How about ONE GOP policy the past 50 years that worked as promised?


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





LMAOROG, Sure Bubs, sure. Source?

Reagan DIDN'T have a boom actually if you look at what the ECONOMIC CYCLE he was in showed, unless you meant for the top 1%ers?


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...





GAWD you're a wingnutter

YES, THIS WAS CAUSED BY OIL *SHAKING HEAD*

HINT US CONSUMER DEBT DOUBLED 2001-2007 AS THE BANKSTER SUBPRIME BUBBLE BLEW UP!


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Got Bubs, when shown you go back on your original posit, you tend to swerve and lie *shaking head*


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...





_The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes_. Noah Webster


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



*WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DEBT BY THE PUBLIC????*? Hey low informed one, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN ANY PRIVATE SECTOR LOANS. 


GSE'S HAVE RETURNED OVER 10% RETURN ON INVESTMENT, SO FARRRR!!!!

Grow a brain  and read a link

*GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance*

*There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs.  Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. T*he numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else. 
*
*
GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




Again, more BS right wing OPINION without a single rebuttal to the argument. 
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




I get it Bubs, you're another right winger who NEVER will address ANY points just trolls.


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Your dodge noted Bubs

HINT POLICY MATTERS, INHERITING OTHER'S POLICY (LIKE RONNIE'S/DUBYA'S) DOESN'T FALL ON THE NEXT GUY. 

But yes Dubya was left 20% of GDP in spending WITH 20% in revenues and Obama was left 14.6% of GDP in revenues and almost 24% spending, nutjobs like you are the ones who were pushing austerity


----------



## Tehon (May 20, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> We need to work on, finding the "weak point" on the right wing


We need to work on good will to man. End the practice of labor exploitation, not find ways to preserve it.


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > We need to work on, finding the "weak point" on the right wing
> ...


Ok.  How about, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis.


----------



## Tehon (May 20, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No. You are simply looking for a way to preserve the current system. You are currently losing that battle and what "progress" has been made has proven to be unsustainable.


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Not sure why you believe that.  It is about, equal protection of the law, for the "poor".


----------



## Tehon (May 20, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


To keep them poor you mean. That is what you are accomplishing, and dependence on the government. While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


You simply don't understand the social dilemma.  It is about solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis, to abolish forms of "wage slavery".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2017)

Tehon said:


> . While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.



compared to what?? China and India are increasingly gaining a capital class and much of the new wealth. American workers are suffering because liberal unions taxes and regulations drove their jobs off shore.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2017)

Tehon said:


> . End the practice of labor exploitation,.


why would you worry about labor exploitation and not owner exploitation??


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > . While the capital class continues to consolidate wealth and political power.
> ...


lol.  Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Still pointing and laughing at your idiocy.

Tell me again how Reagan raised SS taxes 40%.

DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



They performed so well, the government had to take them over.

DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



Expatriate firms don't pay US taxes.


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I get it Bubs, IF I LIED AS MUCH AS YOU, I'D DEFLECT TOO


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You mean thanks to Dubya/GOP's "home ownership society" Bankster ponzi scheme? Yep

Still WAY out performed the private sector


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



If they are US firms they do


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



You've yet to point out where I lied. Or deflected.

But your 40% lie was pretty funny.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Ummmm...expatriate firms are no longer US firms, that's what expatriate means, ya fucking idiot!


----------



## JonKoch (May 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Gawd you're a simpleton Bubs

*An expatriate is an employee sent by his or her employer to work in a foreign country.* The firm is normally referred to as the parent company, while the country of employment is known as the host country.* If General Motors sent one of its U.S. executives to oversee a new development in Brazil, the executive would be an expatriate*, General Motors would be the parent company, and Brazil would be the host country. Equally, if an employee from Brazil was sent to the U.S. or an employee from Canada were sent to the People's Republic of China, they would be expatriates.



*Many corporations are sending expatriates to their overseas operations
*
Expatriates - definition, school, model, type, company, business


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
Why not end any tax break for labor costs, for non-US employees employed by expatriate firms.*

Examine the original comment I responded to.......

Now do you realize your error?


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry if you're brain dead Bubs, I've pointed it out repeatedly you being a liar and deflector

As for Ronnie, how do explain SS taxes doubling for self employed and revenues doubling in SS "trust fund" as wage were flat?


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Sorry MORON, the posters comment speaks for itself, he was talking JOBS EXPATRIATED.

To see an example of a LIE by you look HERE

Why else would he mean to stop deductions on expatriated workers Bubs? LMAOROG


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Bubba, HOW would firms be able to have a tax break in the USA if they weren't either working here OR based in the US and OUTSOURCING Gawd

*WILL YOU EVER BE HONEST BUBS OR JUST CONTINUE TO BE AN ANKLE BITER??? *


----------



## Tehon (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I don't understand how unemployment compensation on an at-will basis works to abolish wage exploitation. Can you explain it?


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Why not?  US expatriate Firms should Only get tax breaks for labor costs, for hiring US labor not Any foreign labor; if they file taxes with the US, IRS in the US.


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


>


I am learning to "love" practicing tolerance and indulging, right wing propaganda, simply for the sake of political morals in modern times.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 21, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > try again if your limited 2 dimensional mind can come up with anything
> ...



you really are dense aren't you?


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Let's keep it simple and refer to expatriate subsidiaries of US Firms, that went "foreign", for their bottom line.


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


He really is, just special.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


so then why whine about debt increasing after tax cuts?

and it doesn't matter how they perform what matters is it's the government encouraging people to take on debt and easy debt at that so along with the government manipulation of interest rates that encourages banks to give loans to people who ordinarily wouldn't qualify and the 3% down payment requirement you get the same set of circumstances that was a major factor in the last housing market bubble


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


so where was the causation proven in the post?


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



OK so everyone else is at fault but Obama and his policies that nearly doubled the debt in 8 years


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It is more complex than that due to Congressional fondness for micromanaging our tax codes.  Some ex-pat Firms are US subsidiaries.


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Sure.  It is about solving simple poverty to improve the efficiency of our economy; Because, _capital_ Must circulate to promote the general prosperity and the general welfare, under Any form of Capitalism.

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment States.  Our current regime is unjust, oppressive, and unnecessary and improper, because it denies and disparages the least wealthy and most vulnerable, equal protection of the law. 

Labor should be able to quit their day job if they simply no longer have any will to work there, and collect unemployment compensation.  

Capitalists should have to "compete" for labor ceteris paribus, not indulge a "work or die" ethic, from the fantastical element of the right wing; that simply happens to be in favor of their bottom line.  Capital coincidence or capital conspiracy?


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Cutting taxes is mere speculation that something useful will happen; solving simple poverty and infrastructure development, helps improve the efficiency of our economy.


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


He got to "bail out the rich and not blacks"?


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




Not me, right wingers are morons who deny facts and history and ALWAYS have collective amnesia on their past stances!


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...





GOV'T? Oh right you meant Dubya/GOP and their "home ownership society" BS because they had less than 1% growth a year every year without home owners using their homes as ATM's during the WORLD WIDE BANKSTER CREDIT BUBBLE. Too bad we didn't have a party in charge who "believes" in REGULATOR OVERSIGHT. Same thing happened with Ronnie Reagan and the S&L crisis 


Gov't backed loans plummeted under dubya's home ownership society bubs, biggly!

*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*

*The boom and bust was global.* Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


*Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom*
*
....The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.
*

*Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards*
*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*



*WHY POINT OUT DEBT INCREASES EVERY TIME THE GOP CUTS TAXES THAT BENEFIT THE RICHEST LARGELY AS THEY EXPLODE DEBT BY RAMPING UP SPENDING???? 

NEXT*


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




Sorry Bubs, that's NOT how you ATTEMPT to refute something. Try again to explain how and why it's not relevant *shaking head*


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Weird you continue to say it's Obama's policies yet can't point to  a single thing that created the policies that created the debt like I did showing Dubya took Clinton's 20% of GDP in revenues AND spending and dropped it to 14.6% and blew up spending to almost 24%??? Almost like you're a typical right winger who doesn't understand what drives policies???


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



No what the biggest thing that would help labor? Get rid of Health care tied to employment, you'd see a boom like the US had post WW2 if we had single payer UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE like every other developed nation!


----------



## Dragonlady (May 21, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...



That false. Governments don't own stock in Fortune 500 Companies. They got some stocks in the auto companies during the bailout, but those stocks were sold when the companies were profitable again. 



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



You're lying.....again.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*One of the Dilliest Dills*

If you think what the New Age snobs have brought us these last 50 years is progress, your mind has been pickled by their overwhelming self-glorifying propaganda.


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Stop projecting Bubs


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*How Then Did Reagan Get More Than 1% of the Vote?
*
You have contempt for the opinions of the voters.  Not only did _Ronaldus Magnus _get re-elected in a landslide, but in one of the few times in history, his VP later got elected President on Reagan's coattails.


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...



So you can't think of a single thing the CONServatives were on the correct side of US history either


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...



True, propaganda worked great for Ronnie


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...



The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president

Reagan administration scandals - Wikipedia


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*Smooth Rides Suddenly End If There Is a Leak in the Gas Tank*

Subprime was a flipper-loan scam.  As soon as the banks got control of ghetto rat traps, they'd tear those neighborhoods down and put in highly profitable upscale housing.  When that market suddenly dried up because of oil price-gouging, they were stuck with worthless property.


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...



Sure a world wide Bankster bubble cheered on by Dubya in the US was thanks to petrol *shaking head*


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> You simply don't understand the social dilemma.  It is about solving for simple poverty on an at-will basis, to abolish forms of "wage slavery".


*If You're Not a Union Man, You're Not a Man at All*

Mandatory unions is the majoritarian democratic way to end wage-gouging, not welfare from a governing class  that feels itself superior to the majority of its citizens.  Look how slowly minimum wage has risen, when unions would have raised it long ago.  A foolish and slavish self-hatred drove unions to depend on the Democratic Party, which became infested with spoiled snobs who have always thought that those who were born in the working class are inferior.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*Circulation Requires Constant Re-Growth*

That's not realistic economics, pretending that parasites will re-circulate their handouts through becoming consumers.  A better way is to allow absenteeism, without any kind of payment but not getting fired for it, either.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Because he's a moron. Not as dumb as you though.......his stupidity is weed related.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Bubba, HOW would firms be able to have a tax break in the USA if they weren't either working here OR based in the US*

Because he's a moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



An expatriate firm is a firm that has left. Such a firm doesn't file US taxes, doesn't owe US taxes, can't write off labor expenses on the US taxes they don't owe/pay.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Some ex-pat Firms are US subsidiaries.*

Excellent! Foreign subsidiaries don't owe US taxes and can't write off their foreign labor expenses off the US taxes they don't owe.

Glad you've realized your previous errors.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Poor Obama.
President for 8 years without a single policy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



You can't show a single time I lied or deflected.

Because you're a lying liar.

Your 40% SS idiocy still makes me chuckle.

Were you lying, or just stupid when you made that claim?


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




At least none that right wingers can point to that caused the GOP debt 

The Current ReaganBush Debt is:

$18,636,016,016,738.40


which means that in a total of 20 years,   these three presidents have led to the creation of
93.85% of the entire national debt
ReaganBushDebt.org


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I get it Bubs, you are the typical rightie who is NEVER honest


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Obama whined for 6 years about the Republican House stopping his desired spending increases, and yet cretins like you hold him blameless for $9.3 trillion.

Unbelievable!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Honestly, you're a lying liar and a moron to boot.

40%?

DERP!


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


Nixon gave us a War on Drugs instead of a Mission to Mars.  We could have had a Mars Observatory there, by now, right wingers.


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Unbelievable is correct since YOU can't point to POLICIES Obama had that created the debt??? 

Weird Bubba


----------



## Dale Smith (May 21, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...




Composite "gubermint" is the biggest corporation of them all but because of their lies and deciet, I say they are the biggest crime syndicate in the country. Composite "gubermint" is the majority shareholder in every Fortune 500 compnay and using proxy voters, they steer the corporations towards making the most profit possible and if it means moving their operations overseas, so be it.  All towns and cities are subsidiaries of the counties, counties are subsidiaries of the states and all the states are subsidiaries of USA.INC whose corporate headquarters are in the District of Columbia.....what is it a district of? Do you know how many city states there are and how they tie in together? Why are there three stars on the flag of the District of Columbia flag? All three of these city states have an obelisk? So much that you do not gave the slightest clue about.

There are two sets of books, the budget and the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) the budget is readily available but the CAFR? Not so much and unless you know how to read one, you will not understand the hard assets they are holding. They have been skimming off the top since the Bretton Woods agreement and through their investments have accumulated tremendous amount of wealth via stocks, cash and hard assets. They own amusement parks, golf courses, race tracks, etc,etc  and then give US their credit card bill. You have NO idea on how badly you have been played. 

Now, who owns USA.INC that provided the 19 enumerated services per their corporate charter constitution? The last bank that took it into receivership was the International Monetary Fund in 1950 when once again USA.INC was bankrupted.......17 years after they did in 1933 and the foreign owned Federal Reserve bank took it into receivership and required that every one with REAL money (gold) had to turn it in under penalty of a huge fine and five years in jail in exchange for federal reserve debt notes. So much that you do not know because you haven't invested the kind of time I have.


----------



## Tehon (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Labor should be able to quit their day job if they simply no longer have any will to work there, and collect unemployment compensation.


Indefinitely?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



He spent like a mutha fucka.....added moronic regulations.
Tried his hardest to cripple our economy.
Would have over-spent and over-regulated, even more, if the voters hadn't spanked him in 2010.
We're resilient. We outlasted him.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



*Composite "gubermint" is the majority shareholder in every Fortune 500 company*

Bullshit.
Show your math and I'll point out your error.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Labor should be able to quit their day job if they simply no longer have any will to work there, and collect unemployment compensation.
> ...



He's a stoner, still living in the basement.
He wants to be paid for sitting on his ass and smoking weed.


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Your inability to point to specific laws and policies noted Bubs

May 22, 2012

Obama spending binge never happened

*Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s*
*Obama spending binge never happened*


*Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?*


January 31, 2013

In 10 of the past 12 quarters, total government spending and investment has fallen, dragging down the Obama economy.

....Or, to put it differently, over Obama's first term, falling government spending and investment snipped, on average, .11 percentage points of GDP off of (annualized) quarterly growth. During Reagan's first term, it added .68 percentage points, and during Bush's first term, it added .52 percentage points.

...The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010.


*Moreover, these numbers are, in large part, functions of the economies the three men inherited.* Each saw a recession in their first term, but* Obama's was by far the worst, and so it led to much more severe cutbacks in state and local spending.*

Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama's term: *While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession.


Just for fun, I took Obama's GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan's first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.

WAPO:

Charts: What if Obama spent like Reagan?

*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Obama spending binge never happened*

Sure it did. It's right there in 2009.
The Treasury spent at least $560 billion on TARP by October 2009, plus all the "stimulus" spending.
Subtract out the TARP spending in 2008/2009, and then add it back into the spending in 2010 and 2011, as it was repaid, to get a truer look at Obama's spending binge.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*The point isn't that Reagan and Bush were big spenders while Obama favors austerity. **If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010.*


Yeah, thanks for being so thrifty, Obama. LOL!


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




REALLY? BY OCT 2009? LINKIE?

TARP? OH RIGHT DUBYA'S THING



Jan 7, 2009

*$1.2 trillion deficit looms*

The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3*%* of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


*BUT AFTER 8 YEARS OF DUBYA/GOP "JOB CREATOR" POLICIES SOMEONE HAD TO KEEP US FROM GOING INTO THE SECOND GOP GREAT DEPRESSION BUBBA! 


*
*TARP? Oh right because Dubya had 7 years of "don't need no stinking regulators on the beat" BS going on as he cheered on the Banksters bubble  *


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Unlike the GOP who just cuts revenues AS they blow up spending ala Ronnie/Dubya


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
REALLY? BY OCT 2009? LINKIE?*

Bailout Timeline: Another Day, Another Bailout | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

*TARP? OH RIGHT DUBYA'S THING*

Yup.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Unlike the GOP who just cuts revenues*

Yup. Cut revenues so much that the FY 2007 deficit was $161 billion.

When was Obama's that low after all the jobs he created and the taxes he hiked on those nasty rich people?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 21, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> you really are dense aren't you?


 translation: I lost that debate so I"ll try to change the subject with personal attack and hope no one notices


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Labor should be able to quit their day job if they simply no longer have any will to work there, and collect unemployment compensation.
> ...


lol.  capitalism has a "natural" rate of unemployment.


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Create a Jobs Booms with your capital gains preference, right winger.


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





So by the end of Dubya's final F/Y budget they spent half of Dubya's TARP money *he authorized*? So the other half was "credited" to Obama???


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How about 2008 and 2009 Bubs? Hint 2007 budged was built on Dubya's Bankster ponzi scheme "home ownership" society BS 

Taxes  he hiked on the "job creators"??? Hint he created MILLIONS more than were created under Dubya


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



The Treasury spent at least $560 billion on TARP by October 2009....DERP.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*How about 2008 and 2009 Bubs?*

How about 2008 and 2009?
You can just admit Obama never got close to a $161 billion deficit.
And as your own link admitted, *If it were up to Obama, the federal government would have spent much more since 2010.*


*Hint 2007 budged was built on Dubya's Bankster ponzi scheme "home ownership" society BS
*
Yup, just as Clinton's "surplus" years were based on the BS Internet Bubble.

*Hint he created MILLIONS more than were created under Dubya *

Yup, he was such a tough budget hawk, raised taxes on the rich and created so many millions of jobs that his best annual deficit was still more than 2.7 times the 2007 deficit.


----------



## Tehon (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Yes, the reserve army of labour. How long do you think you can sustain the reserve army of labour on an at-will basis?


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Got it Bubs you'll continue your lying *shaking head*


*Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf

Bubba, you REALLY need to work on that math 

*


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Good for you Bubs, you'll stick with the bubble economy on Dubya for EVERYTHING? lmaorog


Dubya lost 600,000+ jobs with his "job creator policies" Bubs, even stopping at the peak of the Dubya bubble in 2007, Obama tears his "job creation" BS apart!


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Why should it be a problem as long as they circulate capital to ensure liquidity in our markets?


----------



## Tehon (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Who is going to supply the unemployment compensation?


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Firms; a general tax on firms will be less expensive than our current regime.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 21, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



when you have capitalism supply equals demand so there is no unemployment


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Can you even fucking read?

_The Treasury spent at least $560 billion on TARP by October 2009_

Add up the numbers, ya tard.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yeah, Obama was awesome with his $9.3 trillion in added debt.
You'd think with all those extra jobs, and ending the wars and stopping the rise of the oceans, he should have half of Bush's addition to the debt, instead of nearly double, eh comrade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



He wants to tax companies, to pay bums to not work.

He thinks that somehow helps GDP.

I'd always read that weed fries your brain, he's the proof.


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




HEY DUMMY, NOTE I GAVE YOU A LINK??? LOL

Here let's spank you again Bubba:


*Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. So the one-time bump in spending amounted to about 4 percent of fiscal 2009 spending.*

It’s true that money recovered since then is recorded as negative spending rather than as increased revenues. And that does artificially reduce Obama’s spending figures — but not by much.

Obama's Spending: 'Inferno' or Not? - FactCheck.org


*TOTAL OUTLAYS F/Y 2009 -$154 BILLION BUBBA*
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf


Aren't you getting embarrassed yet Bubs?


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




*Weird you don't understand POLICY inherited caused debt yet, unlike Dubyas/GOP "job creator" period, Obama saw a record string of 83 straight months of private sector jobs growth, 16 million jobs Bubba  

*
Are you EVER going to show policies Obama started that created the debt??? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



You think that the Feds only spent $154 billion on TARP?
DERP!

_This is the first of CBO’s statutory reports on the TARP’s transactions. Through December 31, 2008, those transactions totaled $247 billion. Valuing those assets using procedures similar to those specified in the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), but adjusting for market risk as specified in the EESA, CBO estimates that the subsidy cost of those transactions (broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions) amounts to $64 billion.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program: Report on Transactions Through December 31, 2008









https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Pages/TARP-Tracker.aspx#Bank
_
I am embarrassed. Wasting so much time on someone as stupid as you.

Tell me again about that 40% SS tax hike. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



I love that a guy can be President for 8 years and have no policies that spent a single dollar.
Is it because he was black....ish?


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




So NOW you throw out a different number Bubs? 

NOW WHO TO BELIEVE?  LMAOROG


Your first link is BS, It's just a graph with nothing


YOUR SECOND LINK BUBS, THE CBO?

This is the first of CBO’s statutory reports on the *TARP’s transactions*. Through December 31, 2008, those transactions* totaled $247 billion. *Valuing those assets using procedures similar to those specified in the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), but adjusting for market risk as specified in the EESA, *CBO estimates that the subsidy cost of those transactions (broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions) amounts to $64 billion.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program: Report on Transactions Through December 31, 2008

LET'S SEE WHAT CBO SAID IN 2011 IN HIND SITE WHEN THEY DID THE ACCOUNTING SHALL WE BUBBA?


November 7, 2011*


*MONTHLY BUDGET REVIEW Fiscal Year 2011 A Congressional Budget Office Analysis*
*

TOTAL OUTLAYS- F/Y 2009 (DUBYA'S FINAL F/Y BUDGET) - TARP $154 BILLION 


NOW DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE A LYING POS OR ACCEPT REALITY BUBBA?
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf

*


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




No Bubs, I'm sure MANY of his policies spent money, but unlike you, I  was able to show how Ronnie/Dubya gutting revenues AS they blew up spending WAS the result of policies that Obama inherited that drove the VAST majority of debt!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*So NOW you throw out a different number Bubs?*

Well, ya moron, if you said $154 billion and I show you a source that shows they spent more than that in 2008 alone...that should be enough to show the idiocy of your claim.

But you are an idiot.........


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



_As of the end of December, the Treasury had spent $247 billion of the first $350 billion (see Table 1) and had plans in place for most of the rest of that half of the funds. Although *CBO believes that the budget should record only the subsidy cost of those purchases *(an estimated $64 billion through December 31),* the Treasury has had to borrow the full amount disbursed, thereby increasing debt held by the public by $247 billion.* Disbursements and commitments so far fall into three categories: capital purchases, loans, and other actions._


https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/01-16-tarp.pdf

DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Since Obama made the Bush tax cuts his own.....in 2010, not to mention Obama's SS tax cuts, looks like most of that debt is Obama's.


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Bubs, you showed a link showing "_TARP’s transactions" do you not understand the difference? Apparently you are brain dead Bubs since I showed a link to CBO from 2011 how much money was spent in F/Y 2009  

You going to TRY to refute the accounting from CBO in 2011??? 




_


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Right they buy ASSETS Bubba, you know the ONLY account for SPENDING on the budget  Bubs


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Oh right when the GOP blackmailed him when they threatened to cut off unemployment Christmas 2010? Yeah, Obama owns Dubya's tax cuts *shaking head*


----------



## danielpalos (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


They can always hire them instead of paying for unemployment compensation.  Simple, right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yes, they spent money when they bought assets.
I'm glad you learned something.

*the Treasury has had to borrow the full amount disbursed, thereby increasing debt held by the public by $247 billion.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yes, that's when the Bush tax cuts became the Obama tax cuts.


----------



## Chuz Life (May 21, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Where does the rich get their money from?
> ...




Excellent answer but no fair helping the tardz!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



Dope heads aren't very productive.


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





YET AS THE CBO LINK SHOWS, ONLY $154 BILLION WAS SPENT IN F/Y 2009. GO FIGURE MORON


----------



## JonKoch (May 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Only in right wing world, in reality we know who still owns those tax cuts for the rich Bubs


----------



## Dale Smith (May 21, 2017)

Dragonlady said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > failsafe said:
> ...




Dragonklunt.......still waiting on you to refute my reply...........open that big mouth of yours so I can stick your foot in it.....don't be the typical leftard coward.........debate and discuss instead of abandoning the thread, Miss Bitch.


----------



## Dale Smith (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dude, a partial audit of the foreign owned Federal Reserve showed that they had sent trillions to their overseas banks after the bailout and it was put on OUR tab, dumb ass........depending on "gubermint" websites to prove a point does nothing. The CBO said that Barrypuppetcare would save TRILLIONS!!! Three years of a head start on collecting taxes, stealing BILLIONS from Medi-Care and Medi-Caid and after stealing BILLIONS from the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie? It has been an epic fail..

You are toooo fucking stupid to be embarrassed, puinkinpuss.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



LMAOROG


----------



## Dale Smith (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




Barrypuppetcare  has been an epic fail and leftards have whined, bitched, moaned, griped and complain that the neocons didn't help them.....how fucking funny is that? The neocons were not needed to pass this 2,700 plus pages of pork-filled legislation of tens of thousands of rules and regulations. No sweat off of my ass. I didn't participate in it nor did I comply with Barrypuppetcare mandates nor would I ever. Fuck you and your little commie agenda. Come at me with some facts and data instead of a meme. The repub neocons can kiss my ass just like the fabian socialist leftists. I got out from under the UCC game and reclaimed my estate/birthright. The "benefits" offered versus what they were stealing from me made it a very easy decision....of course you have no idea about what I am talking about or what a "secured party creditor" entails. You are a "DEMCRAT"!!! All about the collective and sucking off the efforts of others for the (snicker) "greater good"....which is just a fancy way of saying you need a nanny and that "gubermint" is your god......how fucking pathetic. Hopefully your gonads will eventually drop but I kinda doubt it,

Any time you think you have got the "game" to take me on in a debate....step up to the plate and I will add your cyber pelt along to the others I have hanging....bet me and lose.


(snicker)


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


.

Game? Bubs, I don't deal with sociopaths!


All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of:* But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.  Ben Franklin



DAMN LIBERTARIAN LOONS WHO "BELIEVE " IN MYTHS AND FAIRY TALES! *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



_*the Treasury has had to borrow the full amount disbursed, thereby increasing debt held by the public by $247 billion.*_

And that's just through December 2008.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yup. The guy who signed them in 2010.
I don't see his SS addition to the debt in that chart.

Maybe he should have hiked SS rates by 40%, like Reagan?

That one will never stop being funny. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*a partial audit of the foreign owned Federal Reserve showed that they had sent trillions to their overseas banks after the bailout and it was put on OUR tab*

Those swaps made the Fed money. Money which ends up flowing into the US Treasury.


----------



## danielpalos (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why complain about a, "rock bottom form of cost", in that alternative?


----------



## sakinago (May 22, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



If you say screw tax the poor. Let's do a flat tax where you're not taxed on the first 50,000$.


----------



## Dale Smith (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...





No, you and your fellow commies avoid debating because it's obvious what you are......useful idiots.


----------



## danielpalos (May 22, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


then, obviously, we don't have true capitalism and never did.


----------



## danielpalos (May 22, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


Let's abolish the drug war to lower taxes.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




YET AS THE CBO LINK SHOWS, ONLY $154 BILLION WAS SPENT IN F/Y 2009. GO FIGURE MORON


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*A Seed Doesn't Grow by Sitting on It*

Money only represents products or potential products. Once the products are consumed, more have to be produced, which won't happen if too many consumers aren't producers.  Imagine a food supply distributed your way, with people loafing who should be farming.  That brings on starvation.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Nixon gave us a War on Drugs instead of a Mission to Mars.  We could have had a Mars Observatory there, by now, right wingers.


*NA$A*

Wasting money on a childish Trekkie circus. Only those who are all doped up ignore what is around them and get fixated on the Twinkling Void.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*As in a Tsunami, the Surface Doesn't Tell Us What Is Going On*

Liquidity leaks.  Economists speak Klingon.  Their fake science is shallow and superficial.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*the Treasury has had to borrow the full amount disbursed, thereby increasing debt held by the public by $247 billion.*

The CBO is wrong, idiot.
They spent $247 billion by December 2008.
They had to borrow $247 billion to do it.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



CBO ACCOUNTING IN 2011 WAS WRONG ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY SPENT IN F/Y 2009 ON TARP???? LMAOROG

Actual outlays for TARP in fiscal 2009 totaled $154 billion, according to the CBO. 
Obama's Spending: 'Inferno' or Not? - FactCheck.org



TOTAL OUTLAYS (Billions of dollars)
TARP FY 2009 - TARP $154

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf


 To be sure, some of that is attributable to Bush. *But most of TARP is turning a profit, funneling money back into the treasury; the actual net cost of TARP in FY2009 was $154 billion, but $108 billion is expected to be returned to the treasury in FY2010.
A Visual History of U.S. Government Deficits



IT RETURNED $108 BILLION IN FY 2010 BUBS

*
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
CBO ACCOUNTING IN 2011 WAS WRONG ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY SPENT IN F/Y 2009 ON TARP????*

Yes.

_CBO estimates that the subsidy cost of those transactions (broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions) amounts to $64 billion._

They're using "subsidy cost" instead of money spent.
We should do that with defense spending.
We can pretend the USS Gerald R. Ford, $13 billion price tag, only cost $3 billion, because it was an asset purchase. LOL!

*But most of TARP is turning a profit
*
Yes, TARP was profitable. And the payment of that profit and the return of the original investment made Obama's spending spree look smaller.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Bubba, you are just a right wing liar undeterred by FACTS AND DATA!


----------



## Dale Smith (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




Since you have no clue about how the financial system by a foreign owned central bank created this and how your beloved "gubermint" is a corporate entity that has caused wage slavery and poverty, of course you would believe that we need "MORE gubermint", more taxes, more fees, more entitlements and subsidies. Idiots like you can never get enough "gubermint" or enough of other people's income.


----------



## danielpalos (May 22, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


Solving simple poverty and ensuring capital circulates, does that.

The poor tend to spend most of their income on consumable goods and services.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



And all it took was $9.3 trillion in new debt and the weakest recovery from a recession since WWII.

The American people were so impressed with his success, they gave the Republicans control of the House, Senate and the Presidency and 33 governorships.

Thanks Obama!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Handing poor people cash doesn't increase GDP.


----------



## danielpalos (May 22, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Nixon gave us a War on Drugs instead of a Mission to Mars.  We could have had a Mars Observatory there, by now, right wingers.
> ...


Nobody should ever take the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Where do you think we have been getting most of our advances in technologies from.


----------



## danielpalos (May 22, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Solving simple poverty will act like an oil pump, to ensure capital circulates.


----------



## danielpalos (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


It does to the extent there is that liquidity in the markets to engender a positive multiplier effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yeah, wasting money by handing it to poor people doesn't have a positive multiplier.


----------



## danielpalos (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That is your claim, right winger.  

How can it not produce a positive multiplier, if more people are _circulating capital_ under our form of Capitalism?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*How can it not produce a positive multiplier,*

You're taxing the productive to hand to the unproductive.
You're reducing incentives and not boosting GDP.

*if more people are *_*circulating capital*
_
The people who had it before, because they earned it, are circulating it just fine.


----------



## danielpalos (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?  

The one percent fail due to the law of large numbers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.*

Least of all idiots like you.

*How can circulating Capital under Any form of Capitalism, but unproductive?* 

If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Bubba, you wing nut anti feders are  a funny bunch not letting REALITY into your world views.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




New debt? Oh right from policy created after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies that Obama had to rescue and keep US out of GOP great depression 2.0   

If you meant gerrymandering helped the GOP get the House? Yep, and Dems received over 1+ million more votes in the Senate too 

*GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority*

Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too
Democrats won popular vote in the Senate, too


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...



Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy? 


Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie, don't think ANYONE believes 100% works anymore than 0% does Bubba idiot


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*New debt? Oh right from policy created after 8 years of Dubya*

Poor Obama, president for 8 years, not responsible for a thing.

*If you meant gerrymandering helped the GOP get the House?*

Gerrymandering? That thing you can only do if you control the state government? LOL!

*Dems received over 1+ million more votes in the Senate too*

And they only hold 48 seats? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*Let me guess, poor people put the money in their Cayman bank accounts which doesn't stimulate the economy?*

Taking money from the productive and handing it to the unproductive does not stimulate the economy.

*Perhaps IF you understood how the economy works Bubba?*

Irony is ironic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*How about we go back to the way it was pre Ronnie*

You mean before he raised SS taxes by 40%? LOL!

Have you figured out yet how much he raised SS tax rates?

Or are you still as dumb as a fucking stump?

*don't think ANYONE believes 100% works*

Why don't you explain why 100% doesn't work? The stoner needs an econ lesson.

And thanks for the bar chart, I knew the 1% paid higher rates than the 99%.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




JANUARY 17, 2013 

“The rationale was straightforward,” reads the memo. *“Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.”*


GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Weird, lowest effective "tax burden" on those "job creators in 80+ years and ALL they create are crappy jobs say right wingers?


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yup. You can't gerrymander unless you control the state government.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Weird, Obama raised taxes on those mean rich guys and his recovery still sucked.
His $9.3 trillion in new debt still nearly doubled the debt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yup, Bill and Hillary got rich fooling clowns like you.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Recovery? After 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies???

Weird Bubba?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Smartest President in history couldn't fix Bush fuckups....even after adding $9.3 trillion in debt?

Poor powerless Obama.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Give more of your money to the government....anything else is selfish.

DERP!


----------



## Dale Smith (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


----------



## sakinago (May 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It's called helicopter money, and it only works once, if at all. In this case it didn't. If you want to expand your business through R&D, or say a new factory, or new investment, whatever. There are 2 traditional ways to do so. The first is you go to bank for a loan, but this gets expensive since you're paying interest on that money. The other way is on the stock market, which isn't expensive money, but you are selling shares of your company. Now what happened in the case of the business practicing insane policies getting handouts from government, they decided to take that money and instead of expand business the right way, they dumped that money back into their own stocks, doing so making a quick easy buck. And that's what all the 6 trillion from QE has been going into, inflating the stock market. Not actually producing anything new, or giving out loans to us little people, just making a quick and easy buck. Before you get mad at these business can you actually blame them? A sure fire way to make money, without taking risks. Can't say I blame them but that's why helicopter money doesn't work.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sure he fixed them Bubba, even inheriting the policy that created that debt


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




OR we could've kept US revenues about 19% like Carter had then Clinton brought them back up too?

Nah we needed to GUT taxes on those "job creators" ???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yeah, he fixed things so good that the Republicans have much more power than they did in 2009.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yeah, Clinton's Internet Bubble was cool. If only it had gone on another 10 years.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov,  that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?

*Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans*

The 2010 Supreme Court decision that helped usher in a new era of political spending gave Republicans a measurable advantage on Election Day, according to a new study.


*And in six of the most affected states — Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee — the probability that a Republican would be elected to a state legislative seat increased by 10 percentage points or more.*

In five other states — Colorado, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming — Republican candidates were seven percentage points more likely to win

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You "believe" that nonsense Bubs, forget Carter's 19.6% of GDP in revenues and Clinton getting US back up there, until Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies dumped it to Korean war levels 14.6%


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Wait, are you under the delusion, like Trumpov, that POTUS is a dictator Bubba?*

Poor Obama.....so smart, so weak.

*Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans*

Freedom of speech is a bitch, eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yes, it's easier to raise those levels during a bubble.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Yes, Corps are people my friend *shaking head*


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Carter had a bubble? LMAOROG, Hint as soon as the Dems passed the 1993 omnibus bill, receipts went up. Amazing when you tax the rich how well US treasury does!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Too much freedom, eh comrade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
Carter had a bubble?*

Clinton had a bubble.....DERP!
*
Amazing when you tax the rich how well US treasury does!*

Exactly!
Obama's $9.3 trillion in new debt is the proof.


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Sure Bubs, it's "freedom" to choose not to pay for services Congress already OK'd?

UNLESS you cut spending, as you GUT revenues like Ronnie/Dubya did ALL you are doing is pushing debt to our kids and grandkids. Why?? Oh right, CONServatives are selfish!


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



OK, Ankle biter I'm done here, stalk me elsewhere


----------



## Dale Smith (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...





Corporations are "persons", dumb ass, you were made a corporate entity i.e a "person" when your mother signed your all caps name certificate of "live birth" that they then monetized and made themselves the surety of that bond by copy writing your all caps fiction. You were made surety and collateral against the debt via the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of March, 1933 and the people lost allodial rights to property. Ever heard of HJR 192? Senate document #43 Senate resolution #62, page 9 paragraph 2??? April 17th, 1933? How it states "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state. Individual so called ownership is only by virtue of government amounting to mere user and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the state"......sounds like communism to me, eh?????

You really crack me up when you start bitching that things would be AWESOME under this debt slavery/fiat currency system if everyone making more money THAN you simply gave "da gubermint" more of their fiat currency/means of exchange and always vote "leftard" because if you don't? "You are voting against your own interests". Who in the fuck are you to presume as to know what is best for me? Who the fuck put your ilk in charge of knowing what is best for all? No one did..... so take a fucking hike, ass-wipe. You don't have a fucking clue about anything you post about. 8 days here and you are averaging 60 posts per day? Seriously? Do you have a job or is this your "job" to spew leftard talking points?


----------



## Dale Smith (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




How can we miss you when you won't go away???? LMAO!!!!!!


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




LMAOROG, You knuckleheads are good for a laugh at least Bubba


----------



## Dale Smith (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




Jon SEZ?????? 

"You make me laugh because I dont understand what your saying and I dont know how to use punctuation and I dont spell so good but I be smarts because I watch CNN and I vote leftard you Bubbas and I post all day to combat those that know more then me due you here me due you????"""


LMAO! Damn!! It only took you a week and 500 plus posts to become a running joke. I call you out to debate? You run like a cowardly chicken.....hang onto your misconceptions because I doubt you have the I.Q to face reality even if it hit you upside that sloped, neanderthal skull of yours.

(snicker)


----------



## JonKoch (May 22, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Bubba, IF you had ANYTHING to refute my posts beside your right wing nutjob BS about the federal reserve, you would. You haven't 

ONE nation to follow your economic BS EVER? 

As for me I have 250+ years in the US


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yes, corporations are free to spend money on speech.

Yes, people can make videos that criticize Hillary.

Even if that freedom makes you cry.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Don't go away....tell me more about Reagan's 40% Soc Sec tax hike.

Fucking moron.


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nothing but red herrings, right wing fisherman?  Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes, it does; the poor still have to "eat and drink".  It is about demand and supply not socialism on a national basis; that is why the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



If you raise the income tax to 100% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?
*
Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.*

So?


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

Dale Smith said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


End the work tax on real Persons; Only artificial Persons should have to work and pay income tax.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
Yes, it does; the poor still have to "eat and drink".*

Yes, just as the people you taxed need to eat and drink.

*It is about demand and supply*

You imagine handouts increase supply, you never show that they do.

*that is why the right wing, never gets it.*

We get it, that's why we mock your simplistic "first stage thinking".


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That is Your red herring.  It is irrelevant as a result to this argument.  It is simply, diversion which is usually considered, fallacy. 

The laws of demand and supply don't stop working for right wing fantasy.  

Simply ensuring capital circulates, provides that benefit to our economy and GDP.

I don't mind the practice with right wing, red herrings, just for fun; the law of large numbers applies.  the poor merely need to spend a little every transaction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You feel raising taxes on the productive and handouts to the unproductive somehow increases production.

Your ignorance of economics is stunning.

If you raise the income tax to 95% and give the revenues raised to the bottom 10%, is that productive? Why?


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That is Your red herring, right winger, fish with it. 

We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.

Are math concepts not a "strong suit" on the right wing? 



> In probability theory, the *law of large numbers* (*LLN*) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.
> 
> The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for the averages of some random events. For example, while a casino may lose money in a single spin of the roulette wheel, its earnings will tend towards a predictable percentage over a large number of spins. Any winning streak by a player will eventually be overcome by the parameters of the game. It is important to remember that the LLN only applies (as the name indicates) when a _large number_ of observations is considered. There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others (see the gambler's fallacy).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*We could be lowering our tax burden by simplifying that social safety net.*

Your plan to give slackers "unemployment" benefits would be simpler, but it would not lower the tax burden.

*In **probability theory**, the law of large numbers (LLN)*

Thanks.
I'm glad you've discovered the idiocy of your claim that the LLN had anything to do with your slacker welfare plan.


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes, it would.  Probability is a form of speculation, right winger, don't like it, don't simply "cut taxes".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Incentivizing sloth and de-incentivizing work is a really bad idea.
It's not a surprise that you like it.


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That is Your red herring, right winger; fish with it.

Ensuring full employment of capital resources promotes the general welfare in a manner analogous to this concept:



> *If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.*
> Aristotle, Book IV, 1291b.34


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The impact of your "idea", incentivizing sloth and de-incentivizing work, is not a red herring. It's fact.

*Ensuring full employment of capital resources promotes the general welfare*

Paying people to sit idle does not fully employ our resources and would lead to less employment, lower GDP.


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric?  Explain in devilish detail; how your right wing fantasy would happen, by solving simple poverty in our Republic, on an at-will basis.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 23, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*Only the Stupid Keep It Simple*

Money turns into scrap paper if it's not backed by production.   Economists create a design, a blueprint, a flat drawing of a structure.  That makes it easier for their limited intelligence to work with and explain to the suckers who fall for their unearned prestige.


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


What are you referring to?  Simply engaging in red herrings from pre-WWII Germany does nothing for your credibility.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 23, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



*"Wow!  Cool!" Goofballs Munching Mind Candy*

If the government wants to fund a practical technological advance, it should subsidize research in that specific area instead of tying it to some useless and expensive spectacle. 

The corporations have the power to stop this colossal government waste, but they get the patents needed for NA$A's silly circus without risking any of their own money.  Another drag on progress is that scientists who could have cured cancer, etc., have their talents wasted on the childish and escapist indulgence of astronomy.


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


Nothing but propaganda and rhetoric. I like advances in technologies.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 23, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*OPEC Price-Gouging Is Similar to the Versailles Treaty's Effect on Germany*

Actually, Germany's economic collapse was a lot like the lazy minorities' mooching that you advocate.  War reparations were the same kind of welfare check to the unproductive (for Germany, at least) that drained the value of the mark.  Don't let the Liberal/Conservative Axis trick you; the leeching rich, poor, and foreigners must be all be attacked equally and mercilessly.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 23, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*The Moon and Sixpence*

You like to freeload off the humiliation of STEM talent, which ironically also makes them into weird immature escapists who believe in Trekkie silliness.  Pay superior students a high salary in college, plus free tuition.  When they get hired, give them 50% of the profits from their corporate patents. You disrespect solutions that don't come from hired gurus.


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


Just like I suspected; nothing but red herrings.  you only have a fallacy of false Cause; our modern US economy is not a Third World economy, like it would need to be, for "truer forms of capitalism" to "take effect".


----------



## danielpalos (May 23, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


You prefer outhouses to indoor plumbing, right winger?


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Subprime was a flipper-loan scam.  As soon as the banks got control of ghetto rat traps, they'd tear those neighborhoods down and put in highly profitable upscale housing.  When that market suddenly dried up because of oil price-gouging, they were stuck with worthless property.



No, the housing market dried up because the credit markets were frozen because banks had leveraged themselves to purchase tons of subprime-backed mortgage securities that turned toxic once the mortgages backing them started to default.

The oil bubble actually increased demand because once it popped, oil prices plummeted.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Mandatory unions is the majoritarian democratic way to end wage-gouging, not welfare from a governing class  that feels itself superior to the majority of its citizens.  Look how slowly minimum wage has risen, when unions would have raised it long ago.  A foolish and slavish self-hatred drove unions to depend on the Democratic Party, which became infested with spoiled snobs who have always thought that those who were born in the working class are inferior.



I think you are projecting the Republican Party onto the Democratic Party.  The destruction of unions and the refusal to raise the MW are Conservative things, not Democratic things.  Conservatives oppose unions.  Conservatives oppose raising the MW.  Conservatives are the problem.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves..
> Tax cuts below that level wouldn't. So? They should still be cut.



So what is that level?  You don't know, do you?  Most economists say that level should be between 50-75% on the top bracket.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.



Cutting taxes doesn't mean people will "keep more of their own money"...the household debt figures completely undermine that wild claim.  Sure, you're saving money in income taxes, but sales taxes, excise taxes, user fees, tuition, health care costs, public transportation costs, etc. all rise to make up for the gap created by income tax cuts.  Those cost increases affect the middle and lower class more than the wealthy.

But that's always been the Conservative goal; you lack the courage and support to repeal legislation you are ideologically opposed to, so instead you try to Trojan Horse it by reducing government revenues deliberately in order to manufacture deficits that you then use as an excuse to cut the spending you are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage and support to repeal through legislation.

We know the game by now...Norquist revealed it in the 80's.  Amazing that in 30+ years, Conservatives have not changed their dogma one iota.  That proves they are regressive and out of touch.


----------



## danielpalos (May 25, 2017)

Why does the one percent, need a tax break?


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> If the government wants to fund a practical technological advance, it should subsidize research in that specific area instead of tying it to some useless and expensive spectacle.



The #1 funding entity of medical research in this country _*is the government*_.  Of the entire health care sector, guess who is at the bottom when it comes to research funding?  Insurance companies.  Guess who is second-to-last?  Drug companies.  Drug companies spend more on advertising than they do on research & development.  You want waste?  There's your waste; marketing & advertising.  Also, lobbying.  That's a waste of your money too because the insurers aren't lobbying on _*your*_ behalf, they're lobbying on behalf of themselves.  Their interest and your interests are not one in the same.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Why does the one percent, need a tax break?



We obviously know they don't.  Conservatives are still pretending that trickle-down happens.  They think calling it something else makes it different, but we know it doesn't.  So do they.  They are being deliberately obtuse on purpose; mainly because they have no thoughts of their own, so they just parrot that which they have heard from authoritarians the last 40 or so years.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ah...because Republicans are for freedom from central govt as were our Founders????



We have a centralized economy, so we need a centralized government to make sure it works for everyone.

When you can sit at your computer in Seattle, order a product from Miami, pay for it with a credit card based in Wilmington, and have it shipped by a company based in Houston, the concept of de-centralized government makes little sense.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> typical liberal lie. The top 1% now pay 40% of all income tax while they paid only 20% during Reagan. This is a total rip off of the most productive people in our society!



*You're the ones who created this situation* when you cut taxes.  So you cut taxes, which resulted in disruption of the tax burden, which caused nearly half of all workers to not pay federal income tax, and your solution is....to cut taxes further?  I'm assuming because doing so would result in an even greater burden, which causes more people to not pay federal income tax, which your solution to is...to cut taxes further.

So really, you are complaining about the very thing your policy caused.  The problem *is you!*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.Tax cuts to below that rate would pay for themselves..
> ...



*So what is that level? You don't know, do you?*

I don't know, I don't care.

Cuts to below that level should still be made.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't know, I don't care.Cuts to below that level should still be made.



So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.

How typically Conservative...such snowflakes...all about feelings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I think people keeping their own money is more important than maximizing government revenues.
> ...



*Cutting taxes doesn't mean people will "keep more of their own money"...*

You're one of those morons who thinks higher taxes mean people will keep more of their own money.

*Sure, you're saving money in income taxes*

Excellent! Glad you finally pulled your head out of your ass....however briefly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know, I don't care.Cuts to below that level should still be made.
> ...



*So you're making a determination based on your feelings, not based on facts or evidence.*

Cuts once you're below the peak of the Laffer Curve will reduce government revenues.

I think that's fine.

You feel it isn't.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're one of those morons who thinks higher taxes mean people will keep more of their own money.



Higher taxes on the rich, yes.  Those higher taxes can fund things like health care and education, which means everyone else spends less on those and more in the consumer economy, which is 70% of the entire economy and where most of the jobs are.  And we want people spending money in the consumer economy, don't we?

When taxes were cut for the wealthy during Bush the Dumber, they didn't increase their spending.  Instead, they increased their savings.  So the trickle down promise never came to pass, nor would it ever because it's fantasy.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> xcellent! Glad you finally pulled your head out of your ass....however briefly.



Of course, you cut out the rest of my sentence.  But that's how you guys roll; lie by omission.  Tax cuts have to paid somehow, and almost always that "somehow" involves higher excise and sales taxes, and/or higher user fees and costs for the middle and lower class.

That part of the equation you guys never account for.  Like Trump's latest budget that has a $2T math error in it.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cuts once you're below the peak of the Laffer Curve will reduce government revenues.



But you don't know what the peak is.  As you said, you don't know or care.  Which questions your entire purpose of responding to this thread.  Fact is, you have no idea what the "peak" is, and you don't care to know because doing so would probably undermine your entire argument against taxation.  

So everything you have written, are writing, and will write isn't based on any actual evidence or facts...but rather your theory which comes from your feelings and instincts.

All I have to say to that is...yikes!


----------



## danielpalos (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It is only _fine_ if you cut the drug war, otherwise, it is just dumb.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're one of those morons who thinks higher taxes mean people will keep more of their own money.
> ...



*When taxes were cut for the wealthy during Bush the Dumber, they didn't increase their spending. **Instead, they increased their savings.*

You're one of those morons who thinks one of America's problems is too much savings.

*But that's how you guys roll; lie by omission.*

Like your omission of any evidence that Federal tax cuts result in Federal spending cuts. DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cuts once you're below the peak of the Laffer Curve will reduce government revenues.
> ...



*But you don't know what the peak is. As you said, you don't know or care.
*
I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome.

I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.
*
you don't care to know because doing so would probably undermine your entire argument against taxation.* 

What's my argument? Why would the peak undermine my argument?

Put up or shut up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



Tax cuts have nothing to do with the drug war.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're one of those morons who thinks one of America's problems is too much savings.



So you're conceding the point that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, from the Bush Tax Cuts.  OK, great.  So that now takes us to the next step which is; _*since the wealthy do not increase their spending as a result of getting a tax cut, then the tax cut for the wealthy serves no economic purpose. *_ So then, why do the tax cut at all?  Since it won't trickle-down, what is the point?  I'll answer for you; tax cuts create deficits which are used as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage or support to repeal through legislation.  So you very cynically attack the budget by posturing deficit concerns, then pretending those concerns have enough merit to warrant cuts to social spending.  That's what tax cuts are designed to do; produce deficits to use as an excuse to cut spending you have no prayer of cutting through legislation.  To think, you are so opposed to social spending you are willing to throw the budget out of whack in order to achieve that goal.  I think that's light treason, but that's just my opinion.  Deliberately wrecking the budget in order to advance an ideological agenda _*feels*_ like treason and terrorism.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like your omission of any evidence that Federal tax cuts result in Federal spending cuts. DERP!



Well, the federal government doesn't have a BBA, so it isn't required to balance its budget at the end of the FY.  However, many states do have BBA's and those states end up cutting spending in order to balance the budget (or they do what they did in KS and raise excise and sales taxes), so all you really do is transfer the burden to the states, who then transfer the burden to the taxpayers.  That's why I quoted KS' Regents Board for you when they said that the reason they were raising tuition was because of state cuts to education funding.  And why were those cuts enacted?  Because the tax cuts reduced revenue so much, KS couldn't even meet its minimum revenue projection.  Because tax cuts _*do not generate growth*_.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome.



Ridiculous.  So you don't care what the rate is, even though your entire argument hinges on the premise of a "peak" rate.  You're basically just masturbating at this point in the debate.  That happened the minute you said you had no idea what the peak rate is.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.



Of course, by your own admission you base this on absolutely nothing other than your precious _*feelings*_.  What a snowflake!  So consumed with feelings and shit...

What makes you think the top rate of 25% is "plenty", since you have no idea what the peak rate would be according to the Laffer Curve?  Sounds like bullshit to me, pal.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's my argument? Why would the peak undermine my argument? Put up or shut up.



Because by your own admission you have no idea what the peak is.  We had a top tax rate of 25% about 37 years ago.  It didn't produce the growth we were promised it would.  So if it didn't work before, why would it magically start working now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're one of those morons who thinks one of America's problems is too much savings.
> ...



*So you're conceding the point that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, from the Bush Tax Cuts.* 

No, I'm not. The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.

*GDP (Y)* is the sum of *consumption (C)*, *investment (I)*, *government spending (G)* and *net exports (X – M)*.

If those mean rich people increased their savings (investment), looky there, that's part of GDP.

*federal government doesn't have a BBA, so it isn't required to balance its budget at the end of the FY.* 

Excellent! Glad you pulled your head out of your ass....however briefly.
*
However, many states do have BBA's*

And if we ever stop talking about Federal tax cuts, that will matter.

*so all you really do is transfer the burden to the states, who then transfer the burden to the taxpayers.*

Yes, when states cut taxes the burden is on the state. Very astute.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome.
> ...



*Ridiculous. So you don't care what the rate is, even though your entire argument hinges on the premise of a "peak" rate. *

Where have I ever said my argument hinges on the peak rate?
When I say, "I don't care what the peak rate is, cut taxes anyway", that's me saying my argument doesn't hinge on the peak rate.

*What makes you think the top rate of 25% is "plenty",*

Because people should keep more of their own money.
Because the government wastes enough, they don't deserve more money to waste.

*Because by your own admission you have no idea what the peak is.* 

No one knows what the peak rate is.

*We had a top tax rate of 25% about 37 years ago. *

No we didn't.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So you're conceding the point that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, from the Bush Tax Cuts.
> No, I'm not. The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.



An idea debunked over and over and over.  Why?  Because giving money to suppliers doesn't increase consumer demand.  Never has, never will.  Secondly, it is not a matter for debate whether the wealthy increased their savings.  It is a fact.  So you have to concede that point because that point is reality.  But you're not much of a realistic thinker.  You prefer the magical thinking and faith that drives every single GOP idea simply because they don't have the merit.  Supply-side tax cuts (aka trickle-down tax cuts) have not, and will not produce any jobs.  Why?  Because supply-side tax cuts do not increase _*revenue*_.  _*Revenue*_ is how you determine whether or not a business will expand.  If your revenue increases each year, then your business is growing thus warranting a need to expand.  If your revenue remains flat or declines, then your business is going to need to cut expenses in order to grow profits.  And what is the #1 expense for any business?  Labor.  Supply-side tax cuts do nothing to increase revenue.  Believing they do is akin to believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If those mean rich people increased their savings (investment), looky there, that's part of GDP.



LOL!  you think the wealthy's "savings" lead to increased investment?  LOL! Wow, someone sure is naive!  Again, this is where theory meets reality.  Your _*theory*_ is that the wealthy's savings are used by banks or whomever to "invest" in new companies and businesses.  The _*reality*_ is that the wealthy stash their money in overseas accounts or pour it into derivatives and secondary markets like what happened during the Bush Mortgage Bubble.  In 8 years of the Bush Tax Cuts, 460,000 net private sector jobs were lost.  So if the wealthy's "savings" were used to invest in new businesses or expand others, there would not have been net private sector job loss after 8 years, wouldn't there?

Also, the premise of your tax cuts; that they will unleash increased trickle-down spending, is undermined by your own admission!  So since tax cuts don't create jobs, don't create growth, and _*now*_ require spending cuts in order to be offset; what fucking benefit do they even have?  None as far as I can see.  We had 8 years of trickle-down in practice during Bush.  460,000 net jobs were lost.  So the wealthy, who you say invested that money, did what with it instead?  Not invest in new businesses (because there was net job loss).  So your premise is tossed right out the window.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> And if we ever stop talking about Federal tax cuts, that will matter.



Federal tax cuts create deficits.  Always have, always will.


----------



## hunarcy (May 25, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



The poor (bottom 50%) don't pay taxes , so how can they be forced to pay for tax cuts to corporations?


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where have I ever said my argument hinges on the peak rate?
> When I say, "I don't care what the peak rate is, cut taxes anyway", that's me saying my argument doesn't hinge on the peak rate.



Oh right, you support cutting taxes regardless of what it does to the budget.  So, curious, why are you so consumed with deficits and debt?  From where do you think they come?  Your argument _*does*_ hinge on a peak rate.  You said the rate yourself was 25%...of course, you base that on nothing other than your feelings and emotions because in the absence of a factual argument, you can't just come out and admit you're full of shit because of your ego.  So you have to make an argument based on what's going on in that gut of yours.  So everything is _*emotional*_ and _*hysterical*_, and not grounded in facts or reality.  Which makes your argument not grounded in facts and reality, which makes your belief system not grounded in facts and reality.  Which makes you delusional.  Seems to me you just pulled that 25% number out of thin air.  No justification for it other than emotion and bad rhetoric.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because people should keep more of their own money.
> Because the government wastes enough, they don't deserve more money to waste.



So again, it's an emotional and biased argument from someone who has no grasp on facts or reality.  I know why you want to make this an emotional argument; because you cannot win an argument on the merits of the idea.  So you say the merits of the idea don't matter, what matters is how you _*feel*_ about it.  Which makes you a snowflake, does it not?  Your ego has to be preserved by entertaining an economic point-of-view that is not grounded in facts or reality, but rather emotion and hysterics.

Basically, you are bringing a feather to a gunfight.

And what waste?  There are three programs that make up the lion's share of the budget; Social Security, Defense, Medicare/Medicaid.  Any "waste" you'll have to cut to have any meaning on the budget deficit (*B*_*UT WAIT - YOU JUST SAID BEFORE YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET*_) will have to come from one of those three.  Even if you cut all discretionary spending, you've done nothing to replace that demand in the economy.  You don't bother to account for where that demand will be made up.  You can't, of course, because the fundamental premise to your belief system relies entirely, 100% on faith.

The Church of Wishful Delusion, more specifically.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> No one knows what the peak rate is.



Actually, many economists say it should be between 50-75%.  They've done tons of studies on it.  None of them say it should be as low as it is now.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> We had a top tax rate of 25% about 37 years ago.No we didn't.



Apologies...it was 28% from 1988-90.  And, a recession started in 1990.  Coincidence?  The recession ended in 1991, after Bush the Elder created the top rate to 31% in 1991.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

hunarcy said:


> The poor (bottom 50%) don't pay taxes , so how can they be forced to pay for tax cuts to corporations?



And why do they not pay taxes?  Because Conservatives cut their taxes.  So you cut taxes, then complain that people don't pay taxes, so your solution is to...cut taxes.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe the problem is _*you*_?


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome. I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.



But it's not the peak, is it?  Oh wait, you are pleading ignorance of your own argument...I forgot.


----------



## danielpalos (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


fiscal Responsibility does.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So you're conceding the point that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, from the Bush Tax Cuts.
> ...



*Because giving money to suppliers doesn't increase consumer demand.* 

Not until they create new or expand existing businesses.
*
Never has, never will.* 

As long as you ignore every time it's been done.
*
Secondly, it is not a matter for debate whether the wealthy increased their savings. ** It is a fact. *

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative.

*Supply-side tax cuts (aka trickle-down tax cuts) have not, and will not produce any jobs.*

As long as you ignore every time it's been done.
*
you think the wealthy's "savings" lead to increased investment?* 

Rich people are investing all the time.
That's how they got rich.
*
Your *_*theory*_* is that the wealthy's savings are used by banks or whomever to "invest" in new companies and businesses.* 

Yup.

*The *_*reality*_* is that the wealthy stash their money in overseas accounts*

Why would they do that?
*
or pour it into derivatives and secondary markets like what happened during the Bush Mortgage Bubble.* 

Pour it into derivatives? LOL!
Liberals are funny with all their financial idiocy.
*
Also, the premise of your tax cuts; that they will unleash increased trickle-down spending*

The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.

*So since tax cuts don't create jobs, don't create growth,*

They do both.

* We had 8 years of trickle-down in practice during Bush.* 

And 4 years under Obama.

*Federal tax cuts create deficits.  Always have, always will*

You said they cut state and local spending. Were you lying?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Where have I ever said my argument hinges on the peak rate?
> ...




*Oh right, you support cutting taxes regardless of what it does to the budget*

We need to cut spending...a lot.
And regulations...a lot.
*
So, curious, why are you so consumed with deficits and debt?*

I don't like idiotic wasted spending.
*
From where do you think they come*

From idiotic wasted spending.

*Your argument *_*does*_* hinge on a peak rate.  You said the rate yourself was 25%..*

25% should be the top rate, I don't think 25% is the peak rate on the Laffer Curve.
*
So everything is *_*emotional*_* and *_*hysterical*_*, and not grounded in facts or reality. *

It's a fact, government is wasteful and inefficient. 
*
There are three programs that make up the lion's share of the budget; Social Security, Defense, Medicare/Medicaid.* 

Yup, lots of waste there too.

(*B*_*UT WAIT - YOU JUST SAID BEFORE YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET*_)

If a tax cut lets people keep $100 billion more of their own money and that cut reduces government revenues by $80 billion, I'm still in favor of that cut.
*
Even if you cut all discretionary spending, you've done nothing to replace that demand in the economy.* 

It's funny that you think more money in the hands of the people doesn't increase demand.

*None of them say it should be as low as it is now.*

None of them? LOL! Prove it.

*Apologies...it was 28% from 1988-90.  And, a recession started in 1990.  Coincidence?* 

The previous recession ended in November 1982, when should the next recession have started? Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care. Your "economists" think the peak is 50%-75% Awesome. I think a top rate of 25% is plenty.
> ...



*But it's not the peak, is it?*

I didn't say it was.

I believe in tax cuts, even if we're already below the peak Laffer Rate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Hard labor for drug offenders.

You can help rebuild infrastructure.


----------



## danielpalos (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


lol.  We don't need alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror that the right wing is to, "chicken" to pay for.

We have a Second Amendment; better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia out of gun lovers, is Always a solution.

10USC311 is federal law, right wingers; be "legal" to our own laws!


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not until they create new or expand existing businesses.



By why would they create a new business, or expand one if there's no increase in their revenues?  This is getting back to the magical thinking I was referring to earlier with you...where your economic policy relies on the faith that there is invisible demand that can only be satisfied by providing a supply first.  The _*Field of Dreams*_ approach to economics, if you will..."if you build it, they will come".  Yeah, that only works in the movies.  Increasing the supply does nothing to increase demand.  Wrong part of the equation, pal.  A business only expands if they have growing revenues to justify it.  No bank is ever going to give your business a loan to expand if your revenues are flat or declining.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> As long as you ignore every time it's been done.



Which has been never.  So I'm ignoring nothing.  Literally, nothing.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Increased savings is a positive, not a negative.



First of all, _*NO IT ISN'T.  *_An economy only expands when there is spending.  If you are not spending, then you are not growing the economy.  Increased savings means money is not going into the consumer economy, where it increases consumer demand in order to create jobs.  Instead, the money is sitting in banks, not being lent out, not used to "invest", and not making its way into the consumer economy.  Increased savings is not a positive _*at all*_.  Money needs to circulate in order for the economy to grow.  If everyone decides at one time that they are going to pull back their spending in order to save, what do you think is the effect on the economy?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> As long as you ignore every time it's been done.



Which has been never.  So I'm ignoring nothing.  Literally, nothing.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rich people are investing all the time.That's how they got rich.



Nooooooooo...that's not how they got rich.  There are myriad ways for people to be rich, but a lot of rich people today inherited their wealth...which means they did nothing to earn it other than be born and not drown in a bowl of soup.  Or they got it by winning the lottery.  Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US.  Global profits are where the game is now being played.  That's what they're working towards.  Handing rich people a tax break means they're just as likely to "invest" that tax break in a third world country as they would be here in the US.  You cannot make such a statement that they are investing all the time without the caveat of _*where*_ they may be doing this "investing".  You want us to believe it's all domestic.  The reality is that it mostly all global.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your _theory_ is that the wealthy's savings are used by banks or whomever to "invest" in new companies and businesses.
> Yup.



Which is why it's just a theory and not reality.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> YThe _reality_ is that the wealthy stash their money in overseas accounts Why would they do that?.



Because they're not patriotic and don't care about this country.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> or pour it into derivatives and secondary markets like what happened during the Bush Mortgage Bubble.
> Pour it into derivatives? LOL!
> Liberals are funny with all their financial idiocy.



Unfortunately for you, that is precisely what they did.  That's how the secondary and tertiary markets became so inflated.  _*Someone*_ was pouring gobs of money into those markets beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007.  We know it wasn't the middle class or lower class because their household debt was doubling during Bush the Dumber.  So who was doing all this gambling, and with whose money were they doing it?  We already know the wealthy increased their savings during the Bush Tax Cuts.  Since 460,000 jobs were lost from January 2001 to January 2009, the "savings" the wealthy were making...the same ones you say are "invested"...must have been going into the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets, right?  Because it wasn't going to business creation or expansion, as evidenced by the decline in employment over the 8 year period.

And that, friends, is how you destroy a right-wing argument.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Also, the premise of your tax cuts; that they will unleash increased trickle-down spending The idea behind supply-side tax cuts is to increase business formation, increase hiring.



The only way you can manufacture demand is through mandates.  "_*If you build it, they will come*_" is magical thinking.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So since tax cuts don't create jobs, don't create growth,They do both.



Well, they didn't create jobs _*or*_ growth during Bush the Dumber.  They didn't create jobs _*or*_ growth in Kansas.  So why would they magically start working now?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> We had 8 years of trickle-down in practice during Bush.And 4 years under Obama.



Yeah, and it didn't really work.  Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012.  Remember that?  You all said that if he did that, it would lead to a recession, job loss, and a market collapse.  Wrong on all three.  So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Federal tax cuts create deficits.  Always have, always will You said they cut state and local spending. Were you lying?



If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap.  In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits.  Arizona did that very thing last year.  Kansas too.  Which would mean that the entire Conservative economic philosophy is _*dependent*_ on welfare in order to survive.  Which would technically make Conservatism the ultimate in welfare dependency.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Not until they create new or expand existing businesses.
> ...



*By why would they create a new business, or expand one*

Those rich people are always plotting to make more money.
*
if there's no increase in their revenues?*

When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?

*Yeah, that only works in the movies.*

And every time we cut taxes.

*Which has been never.*

Except for the 20s, 60s, 80s, 00s.......

Increased savings is a positive, not a negative.
*
First of all, *_*NO IT ISN'T.  *_

Wow!
*
Nooooooooo...that's not how they got rich.*

Nobody gets rich by investing? WOW!

*a lot of rich people today inherited their wealth...*

How many?

*Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US.* 

It's true, morons like Obama make it harder to invest here.

*Which is why it's just a theory and not reality.*

Businesses don't borrow money from banks? Is that your claim?

*Well, they didn't create jobs *_*or*_* growth during Bush the Dumber.* 

They did both, under Bush and Reagan.
*
Yeah, and it didn't really work.  Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012.*

Explain why the Obama tax hikes increased growth.

*If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap.*

When was federal spending cut?
*
In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits.* 

Why is the federal government giving grants to the states?
You want to spend money, raise it yourself.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We need to cut spending...a lot.And regulations...a lot.



Why?  Businesses have made record profits since Obama each year, the market is at its highest levels ever, and we are at full employment.  So explain how cutting regulations and taxes solves a problem we don't have?  How does cutting spending and regulations lead to increased consumer demand?  The answer, of course, is that it doesn't.  And what spending to cut?  Medicare?  Good luck with that.  Social Security?  Ha!  You're dreaming.  Defense?  No way would you ever let them cut defense.  So even if you cut all discretionary spending, eliminate everything other than those three programs, you are still running a deficit and you've taken trillions of government demand _*out*_ of the economy and replaced it with nothing.  So the result would be a depression...not a recession, _*a depression*_.  And what regulations to cut?  Can you name any?  I doubt it.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't like idiotic wasted spending.



Yet you like tax cuts, which are idiotic and wasteful and produce nothing of value and only create deficits and debt.  So again, what spending?  Medicare?  Social Security?  Defense?  And if you cut spending, how are you replacing that spending in the economy?  Because cutting spending leads to recessions, regardless of where you're cutting the spending.  If you aren't making up for the cut in spending elsewhere, then you are doing what to the economy?  _*Contracting it*_.  And what is it called when an economy contracts?  A recession.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> From where do you think they comeFrom idiotic wasted spending.



We went from a $236B surplus in 2000  to a $377B deficit by 2003.  A swing of nearly $613B.  Over that same period of time, spending went from $1.789T in 2000 to $2.159T in 2003, an increase of $370B.  So revenues were reduced as a result of tax cuts when, if they had not been and outlays remained the same as they are in this chart, we would have had surpluses as far as the eye could see.  But you all just had to pass your stupid tax cuts that erased a surplus and produced four record deficits in 8 years, when we could have paid the debt off in 9 if you had done _*literally nothing*_.  Conservatives are so terrible, they can't even do _*nothing*_ right.  SMH.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your argument _does_ hinge on a peak rate.  You said the rate yourself was 25%..25% should be the top rate, I don't think 25% is the peak rate on the Laffer Curve.



So the 25% seems wholly arbitrary.  You are basing that on your emotions like a snowflake.  So emotional!  Then you have your little outburst about government being wasteful and inefficient.  Hmmm...wonder why that could be?  Oh right, because Conservatives control all three branches of government, and a majority of states.  So if government is wasteful and inefficient, it's only because people like you are in control of it.  So again, hard to see how you're not the cause of the very thing you are complaining about.  Conservatives say government is the problem, then get elected and prove it.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> There are three programs that make up the lion's share of the budget; Social Security, Defense, Medicare/Medicaid. Yup, lots of waste there too.



Then you should love Obamacare since it cut out about $700B in waste from Medicare by no longer reimbursing providers for procedures to treat conditions that arose from the treatment of other conditions.  Did you even know that?  Doubt it.
*
*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> (_BUT WAIT - YOU JUST SAID BEFORE YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET_) If a tax cut lets....



I'm just gonna stop you there.  Firstly, you began the statement with an "if", which means you are about to make a non-factual statement and instead argue hypothetical/theory/fantasy.  Tax cuts result in increased taxes and fees for the middle and lower class.  I've shown you how that's the case multiple times, using Kansas as the example.  Now you are a bit confused on your own position.  You say you don't care about the impact of tax cuts on the budget, yet then you complain about deficits and debt which are caused by tax cuts.  So help me understand your position; do you not care about the budget when it comes to things you have an ideological obsession over?  So you're willing to look the other way as tax cut after tax cut creates deficit after deficit?  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's funny that you think more money in the hands of the people doesn't increase demand.



It's not something I think...it's something that I accept because it's fact.  We saw it very plainly during Bush the Dumber.  Income taxes were cut, yet household debt doubled.  So how did the tax cut result in more money in the hands of people if those people all went into debt?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> None of them say it should be as low as it is now. None of them? LOL! Prove it.



Actually, it's not on me to prove a negative.  It's on you to prove that some do.  Stop being so lazy.  I'm not doing your work for you.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Apologies...it was 28% from 1988-90.  And, a recession started in 1990.  Coincidence? The previous recession ended in November 1982, when should the next recession have started? Why?



The previous recession started in 1981, again, during Reagan.  The 1990 recession happened despite what were record low income tax rates on the top.  So how could the central premise of your argument hold water since there was a recession that started while tax rates on the top were at historical lows?  Shouldn't the opposite have been the case?  With record low income tax levels, shouldn't there have been _*more*_ spending?  That's what you're arguing.  But that wasn't what happened, was it?  So why are you still arguing on behalf of something you know is demonstrably false?  I think it's because of your ego.  That's what I think this is all about; preserving your fragile ego so you don't have to admit you're wrong.  Pathetic.  What a snowflake!


----------



## danielpalos (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


cutting taxes is merely, speculation, not results oriented action.


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> By why would they create a new business, or expand one Those rich people are always plotting to make more money. if there's no increase in their revenues? When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?



2001, 2002, 2003, 2004.  Revenue for all four of those years was below revenue in 2000.  So the tax cuts _*decreased*_ revenues for four consecutive years below the level revenues were at the year prior to the tax cut.

You can see it right here.

What you don't see happen, is revenues declining when taxes are raised.  In fact, you see revenues growing.  So if raising taxes creates more revenues, cutting taxes reduces them.  Because, math.

You are still clinging to the fantasy that magically somehow, "if you build it, they will come".  That may work on ghostly ballplayers, but it doesn't work in reality.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, that only works in the movies. And every time we cut taxes.



So we cut taxes in 2001.  The result?  A surplus erased into record deficits, revenue below the previous level for four consecutive years, 460,000 jobs lost,  1.76% growth, and a doubling of the household debt.  What you didn't see?  Increased growth.  Job growth.  Wage growth.  Savings growth (except among the wealthy and only at a 4% rate).  So what exactly was built and who came to it?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which has been never.Except for the 20s, 60s, 80s, 00s.......



Dear God, do we really have to rehash this again?

The 20's laissez-faire policies lead to the largest income gap ever (except for the one that currently exists) and the market crash that wiped out all those gains overnight.  The 1960's saw increased revenues as a result of dramatic increases in federal spending; *25%* from 1961-1963 and *50%* from 1964-1968.  The 80's was due entirely to the Fed lowering interest rates beginning in 1982, and Congress increasing spending for 1983.  You said yourself the Reagan recession ended in November 1982, even though the unemployment rate would peak in December 1982 and the tax cut took effect in January 1982.  And the 00's, see above.  I already dissected those.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Increased savings is a positive, not a negative. *First of all, *_*NO IT ISN'T.  *_Wow!



And this is precisely why your economy policies always fail...because you don't know the first thing about how our economy operates.  We are a consumer economy...70% of our economy is based on consumer spending.  If consumers ratchet back spending in order to save (actually, more likely to pay down debts they incurred during Bush the Dumber and Reagan) then what happens to consumer spending?  It declines.  And what happens then?  The economy contracts.  And what do we call it when an economy contracts?  A recession.  The whole premise of your bullshit argument is that cutting taxes lets business expand, but business can expand without a tax cut, as they have been doing since Obama.  So since corporate profits are at all time highs, since corporate cash-on-hand is at all-time highs, since the market is at all-time highs, and since we're at full employment, explain to me how a tax cut will solve for a problem that doesn't exist?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rich people are not investing all the time, and when they do, they're not investing here in the US. It's true, morons like Obama make it harder to invest here.



How so?  Conservatives have controlled the House since 2011, and the House and Senate since 2015.  Conservatives also control a majority of states since 2011 too.  So if it's hard to invest here, it's only because _*you guys made it so*_.  With your terrible economics and questionable accounting.  BTW - it's not hard to invest here at all.  They just choose not to because it's a globalized economy, and global profits mean way more now than they did 17 years ago.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which is why it's just a theory and not reality. Businesses don't borrow money from banks? Is that your claim?



If a business isn't increasing revenues, no bank is going to loan that business money...unless it's a Russian bank and you're Donald Trump.  Do you think banks just hand out loans to businesses willy-nilly?  It doesn't seem like you have a ton of experience in this subject.  Any loan officer will tell you, unless you can show your revenues increasing (thus showing growth), you ain't getting another dime from that bank no matter how much you may want it or how much faith you have.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, they didn't create jobs _or_ growth during Bush the Dumber. They did both, under Bush and Reagan.



Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years.

Reagan had a 10.8% unemployment rate more than a year after his tax cuts were passed.  Then he raised taxes 11 times and increased defense spending.  Tax cuts didn't create shit.  All they did was create deficits and debt.  Same thing is happening in Kansas right now.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, and it didn't really work.  Obama's economy didn't start cooking until after he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy at the end of 2012. Explain why the Obama tax hikes increased growth.



Simple; increased federal revenues reduced the deficit significantly which gave long-term planners optimism when making their LRPs.  Let's also not forget that at the time, you people were saying if the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich were to expire, there would be job loss, a market crash, and a recession.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If federal spending is cut, then states have to make up for the gap. When was federal spending cut?



Sequestration, for starters.  Remember?  It was the thing you wanted because you claimed austerity was the only way to get out of the recession you clowns got us into.  A claim, by the way, that was based on a lie; the Rogoff-Reinhart "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper thingy that Conservatives were using as their holy bible as they argued for Sequestration.  You remember that, right?  What was the big hullabaloo about that paper?  Oh right, it was complete and utter bullshit.  So we based policy on what was a deliberate undertaking by shady Conservatives to promote austerity when it was unnecessary to do so.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> In most cases, red states just raid the welfare block grant to plug their deficits.
> Why is the federal government giving grants to the states?



Because that's how Conservatives reformed welfare in 1996.  They did it that way specifically so they could use the block grant to pay for their tax cuts, instead of people getting welfare directly from the Feds.  So Conservatives _*quite literally*_ use welfare to fund their economic and fiscal schemes.  Conservatism is, and always has been a welfare scheme for the wealthy.


----------



## danielpalos (May 25, 2017)

We need a definite Capital plan, that will be, _fine_ and wonderful.


----------



## danielpalos (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > By why would they create a new business, or expand one Those rich people are always plotting to make more money. if there's no increase in their revenues? When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?
> ...


The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, on an Institutional basis?


----------



## The Derp (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I didn't say it was.I believe in tax cuts, even if we're already below the peak Laffer Rate.



Because you are emotional.  No other reason.  Certainly no economic or fiscal reasons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > We need to cut spending...a lot.And regulations...a lot.
> ...



*Yet you like tax cuts, which are idiotic and wasteful and produce nothing of value*

Of course, liberals think only government spending is good, letting people spend their own money is bad.
They should run on that platform.
*
Because cutting spending leads to recessions, regardless of where you're cutting the spending.
*
Cutting spending leads to recessions? How much? If we cut $1 will that cause a recession? $1 billion?
$150 billion? We can never ever cut any spending because.....recession?
*
So revenues were reduced as a result of tax cuts when, if they had not been*

How much would revenues have dropped without the tax cuts?

*So the 25% seems wholly arbitrary.* 

25% seems sufficient. 

*Then you have your little outburst about government being wasteful and inefficient.*

Government isn't wasteful and inefficient? DUDE!

*I'm just gonna stop you there.  Firstly, you began the statement with an "if", which means you are about to make a non-factual statement and instead argue hypothetical/theory/fantasy.* 

If a current tax rate raises $200 billion and we cut that rate in half, tax payers should save $100 billion.
Why don't you tell me how much they'll save?


*It's not something I think...it's something that I accept because it's fact.* 

It's a fact that more money in peoples hands doesn't increase demand? Where do you get your facts? LOL!

*We saw it very plainly during Bush the Dumber.  Income taxes were cut, yet household debt doubled.* 

So where is your proof that the cuts didn't increase demand?

*So how did the tax cut result in more money in the hands of people if those people all went into debt?*

People go into debt to consume more, durr........

*The previous recession started in 1981, again, during Reagan.*

And how long should we go between recessions?
*
So how could the central premise of your argument hold water since there was a recession that started while tax rates on the top were at historical lows?* 

Did someone say a tax cut would prevent all future recessions?
Who?
When?


----------



## danielpalos (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


This is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > By why would they create a new business, or expand one Those rich people are always plotting to make more money. if there's no increase in their revenues? When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?
> ...



*2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Revenue for all four of those years was below revenue in 2000.*

A tax cut results in more revenue for business.
You said businesses won't expand without increased revenue.....business revenue, not government revenue.

*And this is precisely why your economy policies always fail...because you don't know the first thing about how our economy operates.*

Right, you think if you spend less than 100% of your income,  less than 110%, less than 120%, you're being irresponsible and hurting the economy.
Because you're an idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > By why would they create a new business, or expand one Those rich people are always plotting to make more money. if there's no increase in their revenues? When has a large tax cut resulted in no increase in revenues, ever?
> ...



*BTW - it's not hard to invest here at all. They just choose not to because it's a globalized economy, and global profits mean way more now than they did 17 years ago.*

You're making it sound like investing outside the US is more profitable.

*If a business isn't increasing revenues, no bank is going to loan that business money...*

And if a large tax cut increases revenues, there will be plenty of lending.

*Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years.*

The growth was before then.

*Simple; increased federal revenues reduced the deficit significantly which gave long-term planners optimism when making their LRPs.*

Why does that increase optimism?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



Don't worry, no one takes your welfare for stoners plan seriously.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > typical liberal lie. The top 1% now pay 40% of all income tax while they paid only 20% during Reagan. This is a total rip off of the most productive people in our society!
> ...


wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 25, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Conservatism is, and always has been a welfare scheme for the wealthy.


actually conservatives support capitalism in general wherein there is no welfare for anybody. Do you understand. When Clinton  went along with Newt and ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare half of his cabinet walked out . Do you understand?


----------



## danielpalos (May 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Coming from You, that means only the clueless and the Causeless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Dude!


----------



## The Derp (May 26, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.



"Libertarians" (is that what you're calling yourself _*now*_?) are like housecats; wholly convinced of their own independence, yet entirely dependent on others.


----------



## The Derp (May 26, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> actually conservatives support capitalism in general wherein there is no welfare for anybody. Do you understand. When Clinton  went along with Newt and ended welfare as we know it by making it workfare half of his cabinet walked out . Do you understand?



Conservatives don't even know what capitalism is.


----------



## The Derp (May 26, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> A tax cut results in more revenue for business.



_*NO IT DOESN'T. *_ It results in more _*profit*_, because you pay taxes on profit, not revenues.  _*Revenues *_are pre-tax, and that is what is used to determine if your business is growing or not.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said businesses won't expand without increased revenue.....business revenue, not government revenue.



So this post of yours clues everyone here into how much of a bullshitter you actually are.  Business won't expand without increased revenue, nor will a business expand if just its profits increase.  It is possible for a business to increase profits without increasing revenue.  That is done by cutting expenses.  And what is the biggest expense in any business' budget?  Labor.  So that's why companies lay people off, even though they make a profit.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right, you think if you spend less than 100% of your income,  less than 110%, less than 120%, you're being irresponsible and hurting the economy. Because you're an idiot.



No, what I said was that if everyone did that at the same time, then you would be hurting the economy.  Also, if you remove $1T or so of government discretionary spending out of the economy, you have to replace it with spending from somewhere else, otherwise the economy contracts.  The part Conservatives never figure out is how to replace the drop in government demand.  You pretend that the private sector will magically, somehow, pick up the slack caused by the drop in spending that the government does.  But that is, of course, a fantasy because the government spends money on things the private sector will not or cannot because it is not feasible for them to do so.

The only idiot here is the person who thinks "if you build it, they will come" is a valid economic policy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 26, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.



You think that prices in a market should be variable? Are you suggesting that the price paid at the register be "means tested" so that "the rich" pay more for a can of soup than "the poor" (or politically favored.)


----------



## The Derp (May 26, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're making it sound like investing outside the US is more profitable.



Well, the global market is bigger than just the US market.  So...yeah.  For instance, Hollywood films derive more than 2/3 of their total box office from international markets.  Less than 1/3 of a movie's global box office is domestic (on average).  Global Box Office for 2016 was about $38B.  Domestic Box Office for 2016 was $11B



Toddsterpatriot said:


> And if a large tax cut increases revenues, there will be plenty of lending.



Tax cuts _*don't*_ increase revenues.  They increase _*profits*_.  Revenues are pre-tax.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The growth was before then.



What growth?  In 8 years of Bush, he lost net 460,000 jobs.  In the first four years of Bush, he lost 70,000.  Bush had the worst growth rate since the Great Depression and handed Obama the worst recession in generations.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Simple; increased federal revenues reduced the deficit significantly which gave long-term planners optimism when making their LRPs. Why does that increase optimism?



Are you fucking kidding me?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 26, 2017)

The Derp said:


> _*NO IT DOESN'T. *_ It results in more _*profit*_, because you pay taxes on profit, not revenues.  _*Revenues *_are pre-tax, and that is what is used to determine if your business is growing or not.



First off, you don't know what revenue is. Revenue is simply income, pre-expense. Revenue by itself means utterly nothing. If you  have revenue of one billion and expenses of two billion, you do not have a healthy or growing company.


What you probably are thinking of is. EBIT and EBITDA .

These are critical metrics of the health of an organization, but an organisation that fails to generate net income will go bankrupt, regardless of the EBIT generated. This is why highly leveraged companies with strong EBIT performance still go bankrupt. Interest payments kill them.



> So this post of yours clues everyone here into how much of a bullshitter you actually are.  Business won't expand without increased revenue, nor will a business expand if just its profits increase.  It is possible for a business to increase profits without increasing revenue.  That is done by cutting expenses.  And what is the biggest expense in any business' budget?  Labor.  So that's why companies lay people off, even though they make a profit.



More nonsense. In retail labor MIGHT be the greatest cost element, but even then it is unlikely. Generally in manufacturing, material costs are 60 to 70% of total costs. Even in retail where labor might be a larger factor, overhead tends to become far more significant as advertising and facilities are used to attract customers.




> No, what I said was that if everyone did that at the same time, then you would be hurting the economy.  Also, if you remove $1T or so of government discretionary spending out of the economy, you have to replace it with spending from somewhere else, otherwise the economy contracts.  The part Conservatives never figure out is how to replace the drop in government demand.  You pretend that the private sector will magically, somehow, pick up the slack caused by the drop in spending that the government does.  But that is, of course, a fantasy because the government spends money on things the private sector will not or cannot because it is not feasible for them to do so.
> 
> The only idiot here is the person who thinks "if you build it, they will come" is a valid economic policy.



Your lack of grasp of economics is extremely obvious. Government is not a net producer. Government does not produce goods for sale and exists as a service sector to the private sector. The idea that reducing government will harm the economy as a whole is simply ignorant. Capital that remains in the market will create economic activity. That which is consumed by government is far less likely to do so. Government is at best a consumer, buying goods that puts capital back into the market. However, the removal of capital through taxes and fees is a major inhibitor to economic  growth.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 26, 2017)

The Derp said:


> [
> Well, the global market is bigger than just the US market.  So...yeah.  For instance, Hollywood films derive more than 2/3 of their total box office from international markets.  Less than 1/3 of a movie's global box office is domestic (on average).  Global Box Office for 2016 was about $38B.  Domestic Box Office for 2016 was $11B



I'd love to see your source for that claim.



> Tax cuts _*don't*_ increase revenues.  They increase _*profits*_.  Revenues are pre-tax.



Revenue has nothing to do with tax. Taxes are an expense. Why does no one on the left know how to read an income statement?

Taxes are a major factor on net income, which equates to retained earnings, which translate to capital expansion.


----------



## The Derp (May 26, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Capital that remains in the market will create economic activity.



And thus, right here, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of Conservative economics...the faith that the private sector will increase its spending to fill the void created by a decline in government spending.  Never has happened, doesn't happen now, and never will happen.  If you remove $1T of government spending from the economy, it has to be replaced by something.  "Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > A tax cut results in more revenue for business.
> ...



_*NO IT DOESN'T. *_* It results in more *_*profit*_*, because you pay taxes on profit, not revenues.*

We're still talking about cuts for individuals. Duh.

*Business won't expand without increased revenue, nor will a business expand if just its profits increase.* 

You seem to think it's unusual in America for business revenues to increase.
*
Also, if you remove $1T or so of government discretionary spending out of the economy, you have to replace it with spending from somewhere else,*

And if you've given people $1T in tax cuts, they spend just fine without idiotic government wasting their money.

*The part Conservatives never figure out is how to replace the drop in government demand.* 

And liberals never figure out that private demand is better than government demand.

*You pretend that the private sector will magically, somehow, pick up the slack caused by the drop in spending that the government does.*

Well, it's true, the private sector won't demand as many studies on transgender frogs and won't demand as much queer Asian poetry.

*But that is, of course, a fantasy because the government spends money on things the private sector will not*

No fucking kidding.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're making it sound like investing outside the US is more profitable.
> ...



*Tax cuts *_*don't*_* increase revenues.*

Reagan's big tax cuts for individuals didn't increase business revenues?
Can you prove it?
*
What growth?*

The growth after the tax cuts.

*Are you fucking kidding me?*

So you can't explain why increased government revenues give a business optimism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Capital that remains in the market will create economic activity.
> ...


*
And thus, right here, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of Conservative economics...the faith that the private sector will increase its spending to fill the void created by a decline in government spending.*

And thus, right here, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of liberal economics...the faith that the public sector taking resources from the productive and spending it is somehow magically additive to the economy.


----------



## danielpalos (May 26, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.
> ...


How about, "being able to rent or lease" a girlfriend, at a Dollar Store?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.
> ...



If the rich have to pay more for govt why not for a can of soup in the supermarket?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2017)

The Derp said:


> If you remove $1T of government spending from the economy, it has to be replaced by something.



That is embarrassingly stupid and liberal. If you remove $1 trillion in govt spending, taxes go down by $1 trillion, the private sector has $1 trillion more to spend, and net spending stays the same. But, since a govt monopoly run by brain dead bureaucrats does not invent anything and the private sector does, the economy moves forward when you increase private spending some of which will go toward invention. Remember, we got from the stone age to here thanks to new inventions not thank to govt bureaucrat monopolists wasting our money. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2017)

The Derp said:


> "Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.



1) if it doesn't happen why do we have 100 million super computer smart phones at $140/month?

2) if it doesn't happen you want to replace it with trickle down welfare from the federal govt?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2017)

The Derp said:


> "Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.


100% stupid and liberal of course. The Iphone, for example,  has to be the lowest price possible so it will trickle down [ be affordable] to billions of people; if  not a competitor will have the lowest price, the economies of scale, and bankrupt Apple.
The same is true for jobs at Apple. Either they the best jobs possible trickle down or the best employees are free to leave


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 26, 2017)

The Derp said:


> [
> And thus, right here, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of Conservative economics...the faith that the private sector will increase its spending to fill the void created by a decline in government spending.  Never has happened, doesn't happen now, and never will happen.  If you remove $1T of government spending from the economy, it has to be replaced by something.  "Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.



Economics are not conservative not liberal. You highlight the the flaw in ignorant partisanship. You substitute partisan goals for fact.

As for removing a trillion of government spending, you ignorantly have fallen into the one sided transaction trap. Before government can spend a trillion, it must first remove several trillion from the economy, significantly lowering economic activity in the far more efficient private sector. Since government does not and in fact cannot create wealth, it must by necessity remove capital from the market prior to spending anything.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 26, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > "Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.
> ...



"Trickle down" is a foolish term used by those who fail to grasp basic economics. It was a disparaging epithet applied to Arthur Laffers ideas. There is not, nor has there ever been anything such as "trickle down economics." The moment a person uses the term you can be assured that they have no grasp of basic economics and are pursuing a partisan agenda.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 26, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Fuck off pot head


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 26, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> [
> 
> If the rich have to pay more for govt why not for a can of soup in the supermarket?



I am opposed to both. I view direct taxation as evil.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



well yes and no. Steve Jobs invents the Iphone and soon enough they trickle down and 100 million Americans have them. Seems accurate to me. And certainly useful when directly compared to the trickle down welfare that liberals want.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 26, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Economics are not conservative not liberal.



???conservatives want capitalism and freedom. Friedman wrote a book with that name.
liberals spied for stalin and  always want a bigger state and more socialism.


----------



## danielpalos (May 27, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


It could be possible, with ID checkout for every transaction.  Who wants to do that?  the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos (May 27, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


How does that work with a printing press that creates fiat money, almost as if by majick?


----------



## danielpalos (May 27, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...


Yes, there is.  It is a right wing term and euphemism for, "bailout the wealthiest and then, let it trickle down."


----------



## danielpalos (May 27, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


No dollar stores in your area; dopeless wonder?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 27, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> ???conservatives want capitalism and freedom. Friedman wrote a book with that name.
> liberals spied for stalin and  always want a bigger state and more socialism.



"Conservative" carries a great deal of cultural baggage. Many conservative do indeed support market capitalism, yet some are only concerned with stopping abortion or other social issues.

Friedman wrote many books, "Price Theory" was brilliant. But then Friedman was more Libertarian than Conservative.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 27, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> [
> 
> well yes and no. Steve Jobs invents the Iphone and soon enough they trickle down and 100 million Americans have them. Seems accurate to me. And certainly useful when directly compared to the trickle down welfare that liberals want.



First off, that isn't what is meant by "trickle down," secondly I believe you are poorly coopting a thesis I have stated many times here and to my classes regarding supply side. Are you familiar with Says law?

Essentially the iPhone proves Says law in practical terms. In 2003 there was no demand for smart phones that could run applications. The ignorant trolls that claim demand is that basis of economic advance would then be forced to state the iPhone does not exist, since there was no demand to drive it

How ever, supply creates demand is a fact, an economic law. Jobs and his group CREATED the demand for smart phones by stealing the technology from Hewlett Packard and demonstrating through marketing to the public WHY they wanted and even needed the device. Jobs CREATED the demand by providing a supply of product and showing why they were needed. 

A classic illustration of supply side economics in action. Has nothing to do with anything "trickling down," though increased activity reverberates throughout the market and increases wealth at every strata.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 27, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> [
> It could be possible, with ID checkout for every transaction.  Who wants to do that?  the right wing.



Force labor camps could be possible too, in fact they are high on the democrats agenda. 

But as with variable pricing of goods, it is immoral and destructive to a society.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 27, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Yes, there is.  It is a right wing term and euphemism for, "bailout the wealthiest and then, let it trickle down."



False, you ignorant fool. It is an epithet created by the democrats to disparage Reagan. Only leftist morons like you use the term.

{
"*Trickle-down economics*", also referred to as "*trickle-down theory*", is a term associated with _laissez-faire_ capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics. The term is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged, while being framed as good for the average citizen.

In recent history, the phrase has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but then became critical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[1][2] Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[3]}

Trickle-down economics - Wikipedia


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 27, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> No dollar stores in your area; dopeless wonder?



Don't you have a bridge to sit under, troll?


----------



## danielpalos (May 27, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, there is.  It is a right wing term and euphemism for, "bailout the wealthiest and then, let it trickle down."
> ...


Like I said; bailout the wealthiest, and then let it trickle down.  Only the wealthiest are, too big to not bailout.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The bailouts for the wealthy were repaid at a profit.....the bailouts for the rest lost money.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 28, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 Well you're close or hovering around the truth. You start out by talking about trickle down economics and never defined what it was when it was our subject  let alone address my point about trickle down economics as seen by Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives

 Also your explanation of supply side economics is only close to the truth. Supply side economics is not based on companies  dreaming up Ruben Goldberg contraptions and supplying them to an eager Consumer most companies who do that you would learn in MBA school go bankrupt  most new products come from carefully learning from your potential customers what they want or need and then building a product around that. But that  subject is called marketing not supply side economics well while our subject was trickle down economics which you ignored


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 28, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> [
> Well you're close or hovering around the truth. You start out by talking about trickle down economics and never defined what it was when it was our subject  let alone address my point about trickle down economics as seen by Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives
> 
> Also your explanation of supply side economics is only close to the truth. Supply side economics is not based on companies  dreaming up Ruben Goldberg contraptions and supplying them to an eager Consumer most companies who do that you would learn in MBA school go bankrupt  most new products come from carefully learning from your potential customers what they want or need and then building a product around that. But that  subject is called marketing not supply side economics well while our subject was trickle down economics which you ignored



LOL; I have an MBA, concentration in economics. I also have Ph,D. in supply chain management. I also teach economics. I have also read the General Theory, Man, Economy and State, and most other major texts on the subject.

Now we have all been treated to your ignorance on economics in the past. I generally say little to you since your ultimate goal is capitalism. 

Marketing was the expertise of Apple. They are less of a tech company than they are a marketing company. As I pointed out, they stole the tech from Hewlett Packard, which had their iPaq smart phone on the market going back to 2002, ages before the iPhone - which even went so far as to steal their name. The take away of the story is the confirmation of Says law, supply creates it's own demand. Demand does not drive growth. The amount of demand for water in the Gobi desert is extremely high, yet it does not result in a supply of water for the average consumer.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 28, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Now we have all been treated to your ignorance on economics in the past.


of course if true you would have one good example to show the world and would not be pretending. Why be a liar??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 28, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> LOL; I have an MBA, concentration in economics..



I have an MBA, concentration in marketing. It was all cases about where new products in the real world come from, Hint: not from idle dreams,speculation, and bold guesses about what people will buy,  but rather from market research and market testing from concept to initial market test. It has nothing to do with economics theory or supply chain management theory.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 28, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> supply creates it's own demand.


depends if the supply meets the customers needs. 95% of the time it does not and new products fail


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 28, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> . Demand does not drive growth. .


I agree. If I disagreed I will pay you $10,000. Bet??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 28, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Marketing was the expertise of Apple.



Steve Jobs had no expertise in marketing at all. He was drop out, simply an eccentric nutcase with no concept of what he was doing at all. For example, his super ego led him to believe that he should control every aspect of the user experience right down to colors and screw head appearance on unseen bottom of machine. He became a billionaire thinking his taste and control was responsible. Then he said, screw it lets do a cell phone and partner with AT&T so they can control the user experience on our   phones. AT&T was 1000 times worse than IBM his first enemy. They were a huge utility oligopoly with crappy unreliable service and support[10000% anti Apple's concept of itself] but that was ok with the new Steve Jobs.


----------



## downpour (May 29, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



  On top of tax breaks for the wealthy, now Trump wants to cut food stamps.  Things just keep getting worse and worse with that dickwad.


----------



## downpour (May 29, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Marketing was the expertise of Apple.
> ...



  Why are you even bring up Apple.  If they hadn't borrowed something over 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates, they wouldn't even exist.  And the only reason Bill Gates did that was to stave off any possible breakup of Microsoft like what happened with Standard Oil.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 29, 2017)

downpour said:


> On top of tax breaks for the wealthy, now Trump wants to cut food stamps.  Things just keep getting worse and worse with that dickwad.



Another leftist fascist who doesn't grasp the concept of "baseline budgeting."

Tell me comrade Brown Shirt, are you stating that the amount of money spent on food stamps (SNAP) for 2018 will be LESS than what was appropriated for 2017?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 29, 2017)

downpour said:


> Why are you even bring up Apple.  If they hadn't borrowed something over 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates, they wouldn't even exist.  And the only reason Bill Gates did that was to stave off any possible breakup of Microsoft like what happened with Standard Oil.



Jobs was a marketing genius. Compaq and then HP who absorbed them had the iPhone tech for 5 years before Apple copied it. Yet HP could not sell their devices. Jobs created the demand for smart phones through clever marketing that made them "cool" to the millennials.

Apple was spoken of because the story illustrates Says law in practical terms.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> downpour said:
> 
> 
> > On top of tax breaks for the wealthy, now Trump wants to cut food stamps.  Things just keep getting worse and worse with that dickwad.
> ...


I am claiming we should end the drug war instead of, "hate on the poor".


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> downpour said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you even bring up Apple.  If they hadn't borrowed something over 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates, they wouldn't even exist.  And the only reason Bill Gates did that was to stave off any possible breakup of Microsoft like what happened with Standard Oil.
> ...


Or, "guys with gold" can "shape public policy"?


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> downpour said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you even bring up Apple.  If they hadn't borrowed something over 100 billion dollars from Bill Gates, they wouldn't even exist.  And the only reason Bill Gates did that was to stave off any possible breakup of Microsoft like what happened with Standard Oil.
> ...


It depends more on the "gold".  Knights with "gold", demanded horses that could carry them, their armor, and their "gold".   Supply met that demand; in both cases, both parties had "gold" and merely, created demand with that capital wealth.  Wealth is what makes supply side work.  The US has a printing press at an official Mint; management is the problem.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> [
> I am claiming we should end the drug war instead of, "hate on the poor".



Who cares?

A cut to the proposed INCREASE in spending is not a cut, it is a fucking increase. Funding for food stamps (SNAP) will increase in 2018, just not as much as the democrats wanted. The lying press turns around and calls it "cuts."


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> A cut to the proposed INCREASE in spending is not a cut, it is a fucking increase. Funding for food stamps (SNAP) will increase in 2018, just not as much as the democrats wanted. The lying press turns around and calls it "cuts."



Does the increase exceed inflation?  Does it run the same?  How will the cut to the increase in SNAP affect the 1.4 million veterans who are currently enrolled in the program?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> [
> It depends more on the "gold".  Knights with "gold", demanded horses that could carry them, their armor, and their "gold".   Supply met that demand; in both cases, both parties had "gold" and merely, created demand with that capital wealth.  Wealth is what makes supply side work.  The US has a printing press at an official Mint; management is the problem.



So sparky, what you are saying is that the supply of gold gave rise to the demand for horses to carry the gold? 

Supply side in action - though not what you intended.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> [
> Does the increase exceed inflation?  Does it run the same?  How will the cut to the increase in SNAP affect the 1.4 million veterans who are currently enrolled in the program?



Yes, the increase exceeds inflation, which is virtually flat. 

{"Baseline budgeting" is one of those Washington terms that sounds very dry and boring. In reality, baseline budgeting is one of the most sinister ways that politicians claim to cut spending when they are actually increasing spending. The Congressional Budget Office defines the baseline as a benchmark for measuring the budgetary effects of proposed changes in federal revenue or spending, with the assumption that current budgetary policies or current services are continued without change. The baseline includes automatic adjustments for inflation and anticipated increases in program participation. Baseline, or current services, budgeting, therefore builds automatic, future spending increases into Congress's budgetary forecasts.}

Baseline Budgeting | Citizens Against Government Waste


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yes, the increase exceeds inflation, which is virtually flat.



SNAP itself seeing less enrollment as the economy improves.  Was the cut to the increase equal to the drop in enrollment on a per-beneficiary basis?


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Economics are not conservative not liberal. You highlight the the flaw in ignorant partisanship. You substitute partisan goals for fact.



But your economic ideology depends on the _*faith*_ that the drop in government spending will be made up for by an increase in private sector spending.  When it comes down to it, you are relying on faith, are you not?  What happens if the private sector does not make up for the drop in government demand?  Why, the economy contracts. 

We went through this before, back in 2010 and 2011, when you all argued for austerity amid the worst recession in 80 years.  Your argument was that we had to cut government spending because it was causing a deficit which was increasing debt, which was negatively affecting the economy.  To support this wild claim, Conservatives trotted out this paper called "Growth in the Time of Debt" by Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart.  In this paper, they argued that once debt reaches 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff".  This paper became the standard by which all Conservatives made the case for austerity and the subsequent Sequestration that followed.  But guess what?  The thing the paper supposedly proved turned out to be a big fat lie.  Why?  Because Rogoff and Reinhart deliberately omitted data and had multiple "spreadsheet errors" that when corrected, showed the _*opposite*_ to actually be the case.  So it was another instance of Conservative "faith" losing out to facts.  The faith was that the economy would slam on its brakes once government debt reached a certain level.  And much like the faith you put into trickle-down, it was misplaced.





Uncensored2008 said:


> As for removing a trillion of government spending, you ignorantly have fallen into the one sided transaction trap. Before government can spend a trillion, it must first remove several trillion from the economy



LOL!  Again, you are working from the assumption that the wealthy and businesses are taking the extra cash they are getting and putting it into the economy!  They aren't.  They haven't.  And they never will.  Because relying on the _*faith*_ that they will do so is misguided and naive.  As we saw during the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending.  Bush lost net 460,000 jobs after 8 years of his tax cuts.  If cutting taxes results in more "investment" as you like to pretend it does, shouldn't there have been positive job growth after 8 years of Bush?  He even lost net private sector jobs after 4 years!  So if there was no job growth, what were all those businesses and rich people doing with their money that they got from the tax cut?  Not putting it into the economy, that's for fuckin' sure.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the increase exceeds inflation, which is virtually flat.
> ...



All entitlements are participant based.

Answer a simple question, will the grant to a recipient go down, or will it in fact go up?

We both already know the answer. There is no cut, never was one.


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Answer a simple question, will the grant to a recipient go down, or will it in fact go up?



You didn't answer that question.  It was my question that I asked you, and you just parroted it back to me.  I don't know what the per-recipient is now vs. what it will be next year.  That's why I asked you.  You don't seem to know either.


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> There is no cut, never was one.



Show your work.

SNAP budget/number of enrolled for 2017 vs. SNAP budget/number enrolled for 2018


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Economics are not conservative not liberal. You highlight the the flaw in ignorant partisanship. You substitute partisan goals for fact.
> ...




Of course. Another genius who thinks "the rich" fill swimming pools with gold coins.






I'll give you a hint, people don't get or stay rich by letting capital sit idle.


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> "Trickle down" is a foolish term used by those who fail to grasp basic economics. It was a disparaging epithet applied to Arthur Laffers ideas. There is not, nor has there ever been anything such as "trickle down economics." The moment a person uses the term you can be assured that they have no grasp of basic economics and are pursuing a partisan agenda.



When someone gets all screechy they tend to make a semantic argument as you are making here.

Call it whatever you want; voodoo economics, trickle-down, supply side, teabaganomics...it's all the same stupid shit.

You can put different shades of polish on a turd, but it's still a turd.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Answer a simple question, will the grant to a recipient go down, or will it in fact go up?
> ...



I did indeed answer it, all entitlements are participation based. A decline in recipients will decrease the capital outlay.

Is your complaint that the record number of new people on the welfare roles that Obama fostered is coming to an end?

Oh, and the SNAP benefits are widely published, it is no secret.

Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Of course. Another genius who thinks "the rich" fill swimming pools with gold coins. I'll give you a hint, people don't get or stay rich by letting capital sit idle.



And yet, that is exactly what has happened since the Bush Tax Cuts.  So again, you are working from a place of faith-based reasoning.  The _*faith*_ that the rich will "invest" or businesses will "expand" if their after-tax profits are increased as a result of cutting taxes.  It simply does not happen.  They don't use that tax cut money to grow the economy at all.  They haven't and they never will.  

If what you are saying is true, then how do you account for the private sector job loss during Bush's 8 years?  Wouldn't the opposite have been the case?  That the wealthy would have taken their newly-found money they got as a result of their tax cut and use that to invest or grow businesses (which means jobs)?  That didn't happen, did it?  They didn't do that during Bush, did they?  So what did they do with their tax cut?  They saved it.  And when they "saved it" did the banks take that money and invest it in new companies or expand already existing ones?  Nope.  How do I know this?  Because I can look at employment numbers and see for myself!

The employment numbers would indicate that when given a tax cut, the wealthy and by extension the banks do not invest that tax cut back into the economy.  At least, not our economy.  Maybe a third world economy, or maybe they just gamble with it in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets (which seems to be what they did during the Bush Housing Bubble), but definitely not in the consumer economy where it would create jobs and growth.


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> I did indeed answer it, all entitlements are participation based. A decline in recipients will decrease the capital outlay.



No, you didn't answer it.  It was a very simple question:

What is the benefit now vs. what will it be next year?

Show your work.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> When someone gets all screechy they tend to make a semantic argument as you are making here.
> 
> Call it whatever you want; voodoo economics, trickle-down, supply side, teabaganomics...it's all the same stupid shit.
> 
> You can put different shades of polish on a turd, but it's still a turd.




Epithets are rarely sufficient for scholarly study, though they do form the basis of the partisan argument.

For fun, explain how you think "Supply Side Economics" works? Do you even grasp the difference between Keynesian, Chicago, and Classical economics?


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Epithets are rarely sufficient for scholarly study, though they do form the basis of the partisan argument.



No, in some cases an epithet is most appropriate.  For instance, the Conservative idea that we need austerity during or in the aftermath of a recession is a stupid fucking idea full of bullshit and supported by nothing other than outright lies.




Uncensored2008 said:


> For fun, explain how you think "Supply Side Economics" works?



"If you build it, they will come"

That is supply-side economics.  Unfortunately, it only works in the movies.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> [
> And yet, that is exactly what has happened since the Bush Tax Cuts.



Ignorant nonsense. If fact I would go as far as to say that the Obama stimulus generated only a tiny fraction of the economic activity that the Bush cuts did. Remember, the Bush cuts quickly took us out of the recession Clinton had left us in. The stimulus did virtually nothing to spur jobs or growth, since virtually all of it was stolen by well connected looters, such as public employee pension funds or inside track contractors on highway fund slush accounts.

The faith that government won't openly steal most money in it's care is the most misplaced of all faith.



> So again, you are working from a place of faith-based reasoning.  The _*faith*_ that the rich will "invest" or businesses will "expand" if their after-tax profits are increased as a result of cutting taxes.  It simply does not happen.  They don't use that tax cut money to grow the economy at all.  They haven't and they never will.



Ignorant nonsense.

First of all, the Bush cuts were heavily tilted to the middle class. One of the major features being the per child tax credit, which was doubled under the Bush plan. The standard partisan lie of "tax cuts for the rich" plays well to the ignorant, but has no place in a serious discussion.

Further though is that when people have more capital, they use it. Because the overwhelming beneficiary of the Bush tax cuts was the middle class, the majority of the capital was returned to the consumer economy. (for good or ill) prompting huge spikes in consumer electronics and other sale of semi and non-durable goods.

Unlike the Reagan cuts to businesses, the Bush cuts did not prompt capital improvements by business, since consumers were the recipient.. However, capital improvements to domiciles were extremely high.



> If what you are saying is true, then how do you account for the private sector job loss during Bush's 8 years?  Wouldn't the opposite have been the case?  That the wealthy would have taken their newly-found money they got as a result of their tax cut and use that to invest or grow businesses (which means jobs)?  That didn't happen, did it?  They didn't do that during Bush, did they?  So what did they do with their tax cut?  They saved it.  And when they "saved it" did the banks take that money and invest it in new companies or expand already existing ones?  Nope.  How do I know this?  Because I can look at employment numbers and see for myself!
> 
> The employment numbers would indicate that when given a tax cut, the wealthy and by extension the banks do not invest that tax cut back into the economy.  At least, not our economy.  Maybe a third world economy, or maybe they just gamble with it in the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets (which seems to be what they did during the Bush Housing Bubble), but definitely not in the consumer economy where it would create jobs and growth.



Seriously?

Private sector job losses were the result of an economic meltdown based o the bursting of the housing bubble and a vast web of MBS chicanery.

Are you claiming that the nation had high unemployment from 2001 to 2007?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> No, in some cases an epithet is most appropriate.  For instance, the Conservative idea that we need austerity during or in the aftermath of a recession is a stupid fucking idea full of bullshit and supported by nothing other than outright lies.



Ignorant nonsense.



> "If you build it, they will come"



A bit simplistic.



> That is supply-side economics.  Unfortunately, it only works in the movies.



As Steve Jobs found out when he built the iPhone with no demand for it...

Oh wait...


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> And yet, that is exactly what has happened since the Bush Tax Cuts.
> Ignorant nonsense"



The only nonsense seems to be coming from you.  It is a fact that the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending, during the Bush Tax Cuts.  It's also a fact that the "savings" of the wealthy did not make its way back into the consumer economy by way of increased "investment" or "expansion".  If it had, there would not have been _*net private sector job loss after 8 years*_.  So where did all the tax cut money go?  Some of it went overseas, some of it sat in banks, and some of it went into the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets.  And we know that because banks were over-leveraging themselves, starting in 2004, in order to play in that market.  So if you want to get technical, I guess you could say that some of the Bush Tax Cuts went to inflate the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets because those "savings" were what banks were over-leveraging in order to buy all those shitty securities and whatnot.  Maybe that's what Bush was alluding to when he credited his tax cuts for the growth of the housing market while campaigning in 2004.




Uncensored2008 said:


> The faith that government won't openly steal most money in it's care is the most misplaced of all faith.



Enough with the hysterics, you big 'ol drama queen.  The government doesn't steal money.  It has the power to levy taxation thanks to the constitution.  If you think taxation = theft then you are a fucking idiot.  Again, appropriate use of an epithet.  Sometimes you have to call them like you see them.




Uncensored2008 said:


> irst of all, the Bush cuts were heavily tilted to the middle class. One of the major features being the per child tax credit, which was doubled under the Bush plan. The standard partisan lie of "tax cuts for the rich" plays well to the ignorant, but has no place in a serious discussion.



What a fucking load of shit.  No, the Bush Tax Cuts were tilted heavily _*to the rich*_.  Household debt for everyone else _*doubled*_ during the Bush Tax Cuts.  So if what you are saying is true, that wouldn't have been the case.  So once again, we have an instance of Conservative fantasy colliding with reality.  The fantasy is that the Bush Tax Cuts benefited the middle class.  The _*reality*_ is that household debt during the tax cuts _*doubled*_, which meant the Bush Tax Cuts were not some wonderful thing for the middle class.  They didn't leave the middle class with more money to spend in the consumer economy.  Instead, what happened was the middle class had to go into debt to survive in the Bush economy.  That's why household debt _*doubled*_ during Bush.  The federal government wasn't the only entity that cut taxes.  State governments did that as well.  The result?  Increased tuition and health care costs, which forced middle-class consumers to borrow in order to send their kids to college or get health care.  Tax cuts only exacerbate that problem, particularly at the state level because so many states have BBA's that require them to raise sales and excise taxes (like Kansas did) or increase user fees for things like public schools and tolls (again, like Kansas did) because of the BBA.  Just like Kansas' Board of Regents said, the reason they had to raise tuition was specifically because of funding cuts from the Legislature.  And those funding cuts were made because of the BBA.

So that's how tax cuts end up costing everyone more.




Uncensored2008 said:


> Further though is that when people have more capital, they use it. Because the overwhelming beneficiary of the Bush tax cuts was the middle class, the majority of the capital was returned to the consumer economy. (for good or ill) prompting huge spikes in consumer electronics and other sale of semi and non-durable goods.



Boy man, you couldn't be any more clueless if you tried.  Your first fault is thinking that the tax cuts increased capital.  Yeah, that didn't happen.  Why?  Because household debt doubled during the Bush Tax Cuts.  So your entire argument starts off from an ill-informed premise.  That the middle class had increased capital to spend in the consumer economy.  They didn't.  So while they may have got a tax cut for their income at the federal and state level, their sales and/or excise taxes went up, or user fees went up in order to balance budgets.  You mistakenly think that capital from the tax cut was put back into the economy.  It wasn't.  The only thing that grew the economy at all during Bush was the housing bubble.  The same housing bubble you blame on the Democrats and Clinton and Barney Frank and the CRA and anything else to avoid culpability for your shitty economic belief system.  So if the housing bubble was the fault of Clinton and the Democrats, then they conversely get _*credit*_ for any gains from that housing bubble.  You Conservatives are such douchebags; you want to take credit for the good stuff and dole out blame for the bad.




Uncensored2008 said:


> Unlike the Reagan cuts to businesses, the Bush cuts did not prompt capital improvements by business, since consumers were the recipient.. However, capital improvements to domiciles were extremely high.



LOL!  First of all, are you trying to make the argument that the money the middle class got from the Bush Tax Cut they used to renovate their homes?  Well, that's simply not true as we saw from the household debt numbers.  So I'm not sure what the fuck you're trying to say, but it sounds to me like you are tying the mortgage bubble to the Bush Tax Cuts.  Is that what you're doing?  Because that's what Bush did in 2004 while campaigning for re-election.  People weren't using their tax cuts to renovate their homes.  They were going into debt to do that.  Again, this is where Conservative _*fantasy*_ meets reality.  And if the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich were meaningless, why do them at all?




Uncensored2008 said:


> Private sector job losses were the result of an economic meltdown based o the bursting of the housing bubble and a vast web of MBS chicanery.



A housing bubble _*you just tied to the tax cuts in the previous quote!!!!!*_  And BTW - Bush lost 841,000 net private sector jobs in his first four years.  So at no point did Bush ever have net private sector job growth that wasn't attributed to the housing bubble.  And we can see this in BLS' employment numbers after you remove those millions of _*government jobs*_ Bush created to pad his total.




Uncensored2008 said:


> Are you claiming that the nation had high unemployment from 2001 to 2007?



I am claiming the job growth from 2001-7 was virtually non-existent as the jobs Bush "created" all disappeared the moment his housing bubble popped.  Bush _*lost *_net private sector jobs before the housing bubble even started.


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> No, in some cases an epithet is most appropriate.  For instance, the Conservative idea that we need austerity during or in the aftermath of a recession is a stupid fucking idea full of bullshit and supported by nothing other than outright lies.
> _*Ignorant nonsense*_.



Really?  Maybe you need to do some light reading, pal, and catch up to the rest of 2012.  Conservatives deliberately tried to deceive people by pushing this paper whose authors had to lie, manipulate, and omit in order to get the conclusion their ideology had committed them to.  Why do you think they didn't want their paper to be peer-reviewed???????  Obviously because doing so would have caught the deliberate data omissions and "spreadsheet errors" that produced the conclusion Conservatives wanted; that high government debt levels translate to slower growth.  _*WHICH IS NOT TRUE AT ALL AND IS FAKE NEWS*_.

Soooooo...what that means is that if the thing Conservatives were relying on to make their arguments about government debt and spending was a fucking lie, doesn't that make those who spread the fucking lie, fucking liars themselves?  And if they lied about that, why wouldn't they lie about other things?  I don't feel like these are unfair questions to ask.  You either went along with their conclusions because you are stupid, or you did it because you're a liar.  Doesn't really matter to me which is which.  I think both suck equally.




Uncensored2008 said:


> "If you build it, they will come"
> A bit simplistic.



No, that is the actual level of complexity behind the thought process and belief system.  Conservatives don't do a lot of thinking, so their solutions are simplistic.  "If you build it, they will come" is what your belief system amounts to...which is why it's a belief system and not fact.  Because faith is the only thing guiding it.  Might work for ghostly ballplayers and Kevin Costner, but never works in real life.




Uncensored2008 said:


> As Steve Jobs found out when he built the iPhone with no demand for it...Oh wait...



Yeah, oh wait, the iphone was just an improvement on technology that already existed.  HP and Compaq (I believe) had smartphones before Apple did.  Apple is a brand, and as such is all about marketing.  Cell phones had existed for a couple decades before the iPhone.  It wasn't a new product.  It just built upon an older one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the increase exceeds inflation, which is virtually flat.
> ...



The recession ended in June 2009.
Obama added millions of jobs, why is SNAP still 50% higher than in 2008?


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The recession ended in June 2009.
> Obama added millions of jobs, why is SNAP still 50% higher than in 2008?



Because wages didn't start growing until the last two years of Obama's term.  Conservatives didn't want to raise the minimum wage which would have moved millions off the program.  Since SNAP is based on income, the more you make the less in benefits you qualify.  So if you wanted to move more people off the program, the only way to do that is to raise wages, starting with the minimum wage.  But you oppose that because, reasons, so why don't _*you*_ explain to me how all this screeching about SNAP isn't just Conservative masturbation;

To reduce SNAP enrollment, you have to raise wages, but you oppose raising wages which keeps SNAP enrollment high.

So explain to me how that isn't the message-board equivalent of jerking off?  It seems like you are deliberately preventing a wage increase in order to complain about wage-based welfare programs.

Fuckin' masturbation.  That's pretty much Conservatism defined these days; One big massive jerk-off.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The recession ended in June 2009.
> ...



*Because wages didn't start growing until the last two years of Obama's term.*

Why not?

*Conservatives didn't want to raise the minimum wage which would have moved millions off the program.*

There are more millionaires than minimum wage workers.

*Since SNAP is based on income, the more you make the less in benefits you qualify.*

Yeah, the high levels point out the weakness of Obama's recovery.


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why not?



Because states started raising their minimum wages on their own since the federal government was stuck thanks to Conservatives who wanted to tank the economy in order to score political points.  Now that they have full control, they've (predictably) done nothing to address the issue.  In fact, many Conservatives would prefer if there was no minimum wage at all and American workers were paid the same as Chinese workers.  So I think you only oppose raising the minimum wage because doing so prevents you from complaining about means-tested welfare programs like SNAP.  It's really all about your egos at this point.  Raising the minimum wage is good economics.  Which explains why Conservatives oppose it.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Conservatives didn't want to raise the minimum wage which would have moved millions off the program. There are more millionaires than minimum wage workers.



The MW is just the starting place.  There are far, far more workers who earn low wages that qualify them for SNAP benefits, for example, than millionaires.  44 million people, actually.  Most of those 44 million would come off SNAP rolls if their wages were higher because SNAP is means-tested.  SNAP enrollment started going down once wages started to grow.  That began around 2015.  So if you want fewer people on SNAP, pay them more money.  It's not terribly complicated.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Since SNAP is based on income, the more you make the less in benefits you qualify. Yeah, the high levels point out the weakness of Obama's recovery.



Well, Obama wanted to raise the MW - you guys didn't.  So it's hard to see how this thing you are complaining about wasn't caused by your own doing.  That's why I call it masturbation.


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

I said before Bush lost net 70,000 private sector jobs in his first four years.  I was incorrect.  Bush actually lost 841,000 net private sector jobs in his first four years.  I was including government jobs in the total.  Apologies.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Who cares.  The drug war is Not about Economics.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Only through wealth.  There is plenty of demand for water in the Gobi Desert, by the poor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why not?
> ...



*Because states started raising their minimum wages on their own since the federal government was stuck*

How many of those awesome Obama jobs were minimum wage?
Was that the total of wage growth under Obama, minimum wage hikes?

*In fact, many Conservatives would prefer if there was no minimum wage at all*

Obviously, just look at what it did the black youth employment.
Terrible idea, like most things libs come up with. I blame their ignorance of economics.

*Raising the minimum wage is good economics.*

LOL!
You morons are funny.
*
Most of those 44 million would come off SNAP rolls if their wages were higher*

How many would come off the rolls if they got fired when they couldn't justify their higher minimum wage?


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many of those awesome Obama jobs were minimum wage?
> Was that the total of wage growth under Obama, minimum wage hikes?



Not many were minimum wage...Bush was the minimum wage President, let's remember.  He's the one who said it was "uniquely American" for a person to have three jobs.  Wages started growing the final two years of Obama's term.  That's why you see SNAP enrollment decline over the same period.  Wages would have gone higher had Conservatives gotten on board with a minimum wage hike.  But they want to masturbate rather than work on policy (mostly because all they do is jerk off, figuratively speaking)...so no MW increase.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Obviously, just look at what it did the black youth employment.
> Terrible idea, like most things libs come up with. I blame their ignorance of economics.



What are you talking about????  Now you're just flaming out because you have nothing of importance to say.  If Conservatives were so concerned with black unemployment, they would raise the minimum wage.  But they're not.  Instead, you'd prefer to perpetuate problems that you then complain about.  That's why I call you all a bunch of jerk-offs.  That's what you do.  Hard to see how tax cuts for the rich will decrease unemployment in African-American communities.  After all, we've been cutting taxes for close to 40 years.  So if you're looking for something to blame for black unemployment, start there.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *aising the minimum wage is good economics.*]
> LOL!
> You morons are funny.



So what's sad about your belief system is that in 2014, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages.  As a result of that, job growth in all those 13 states + DC was _*higher*_ than in states that didn't raise their minimum wage.  You all said that if they did raise their wages, there would be all this job loss, economic distress, etc.  And just like how you were wrong about letting the Bush Tax Cuts on the wealthy expire, you were wrong then too!  Is there anything you've ever been right about?  Don't think so.  So once again, Conservative _*fantasy*_ comes crashing into reality.  The _*fantasy*_ is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs.  The _*reality*_ is the opposite, as the link explains.  It's like you are just regurgitating the shit Trump and the other Russians spit out there without bothering to know anything about that which you speak.  SAD!




Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many would come off the rolls if they got fired when they couldn't justify their higher minimum wage?



Again, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages in 2014.  All 13 of those states + DC saw _*higher job growth*_ than states that didn't.

So once again your fantasy comes crashing into reality, and you can't seem to handle that.


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> <Russian Active Measures>



Just curious; did you know that about the 13 states in 2014 that raised their minimum wages?  How they all saw faster job growth than the states that didn't?  And it's not like they were all 13 blue "maker" states.  It was a wide variety of different states in different areas of the country.  The criticism you morons trot out there about the minimum wage is _*disproved*_ by the facts.  The _*facts*_ show nothing you clowns said about the minimum wage turned out to be true.  

So if you were wrong just three years ago, why would you be right today?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How many of those awesome Obama jobs were minimum wage?
> ...



*Not many were minimum wage...*

Then why do you feel the hikes had any impact on total wages?

*...Bush was the minimum wage President*

You're defending Obama's crappy performance by pointing out Bush's idiocy?
*
Wages would have gone higher had Conservatives gotten on board with a minimum wage hike.*

In 2015, fewer than 1 million hourly workers made the minimum wage.

*What are you talking about????*

I'm talking about the widespread ignorance of liberals in the area of economics.

*If Conservatives were so concerned with black unemployment, they would raise the minimum wage.* 

Why would hurting low skilled black workers be a good idea in your view?

*So what's sad about your belief system is that in 2014, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages.  As a result of that, **job growth in all those 13 states + DC was *_*higher*_ 

Why would a hike in government mandated wages result in higher job growth?

*The *_*fantasy*_* is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs.* 

Thanks for clearing that up for me.
If the MW was hiked to $100/hour tomorrow, do you expect more jobs and lower prices?


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Not many were minimum wage...*
> Then why do you feel the hikes had any impact on total wages?



????  What the fuck?  Do you read your post before posting?  As I said, wages started growing the last two years of Obama.  13 states + DC raised their wages beginning in 2014.  So...start there, I guess.  Of course the minimum wage hikes helped raise wages overall.  If you are increasing the minimum wage, you are raising the average wage.  Math.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *...Bush was the minimum wage President*
> You're defending Obama's crappy performance by pointing out Bush's idiocy?



Obama's performance?  Conservatives controlled the House and a large majority of state houses and governorships beginning in 2011.  They controlled the Senate beginning in 2015.  Obama started presidentin' in 2009.  So if you are going to criticize anyone for poor economic performance, you should criticize yourself since the dumbasses who believe what you believe have been running the show for a while now, and definitely during most of Obama.  

But regardless, wages under Obama increased from where they were when he started.  Wages under Bush _*decreased*_ from where they were when he started.  So Bush was the minimum wage president, and you morons supported him throughout.  It was only afterwards, when you finally got to survey the damage your belief systems caused to the country that Bush was _*suddenly*_ not Conservative.  Funny how that works, right?  He's your guy until the report card comes...then it's like, "_Bush who?_"

Seriously, who fucking buys that shit you're peddling?  Who believes you?  We all know you're just posturing for the sake of your ego.  Why is everyone else in the world admitting that except you?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Wages would have gone higher had Conservatives gotten on board with a minimum wage hike.*
> In 2015, fewer than 1 million hourly workers made the minimum wage.



Yeah, because states raised their minimum wages...13 of them in 2014 alone.  At the time, you Conservatives said that if they did that, it would lead to higher prices and job loss.  You were wrong.  So if you were wrong three years ago, why would you be right today?  I don't think that's an unfair question.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *What are you talking about????*
> I'm talking about the widespread ignorance of liberals in the area of economics.



This from the folks who use Field of Dreams as their economic model.  Seriously, dude.  Get a grip.  It was called Field of _*Dreams*_.  That's all your economic policy is; dreams.  Might as well throw in some imaginary characters to give it a little more depth...oh wait, you do that already.  The "invisible hand".  Funny how most of what Conservatives believe comes down to imagination and invisibility, isn't it?  "_Bush who?_", right?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If Conservatives were so concerned with black unemployment, they would raise the minimum wage.*
> Why would hurting low skilled black workers be a good idea in your view?



Raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt low-wage workers.  In fact, it helps them because they have more money to spend in the consumer economy.  We know because we saw 13 states do in in 2014 and all those states outpaced states that didn't raise their wages when it came to job growth.  So once again, _*I have facts on my side and you do not*_.  All you have is fantasy.  Just like most of what you believe, it's purely a dream and magical thinking.  My 6-year-old niece is more of a realist than you.  She stopped believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.  When are you going to give up your fantasies?  Are you more gullible than a six year old?  Well, if you believe in magic invisible hands, probably.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *o what's sad about your belief system is that in 2014, 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages.  As a result of that, **job growth in all those 13 states + DC was higher*
> Why would a hike in government mandated wages result in higher job growth?



More money in the hands of consumers = more demand = more jobs.  Poor people are more likely to spend their money than wealthy people.  Poor people don't save.  The largely don't have debt (because they can't borrow because they're poor).  So they live paycheck-to-paycheck.  So if you increase their paycheck, they are going to spend more.  Which is what happened.

So explain to me how raising the minimum wage hurts jobs when just three years ago, 13 states raised their minimum wages and saw better job growth than states who didn't? 

If you were wrong then, why would you be right now?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The *_*fantasy*_* is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs.*
> If the MW was hiked to $100/hour tomorrow, do you expect more jobs and lower prices?



Why stop at $100/hr?  Why not $1,000/hr?  Why not raise it to $100,000/hr?  Why not pay someone in cocaine, old Sears catalogs, and unicorns that fart glitter? 

The reason you don't raise the MW to $100/hr is because it would be unreasonable economically for someone working the drive-through to make four thousand dollars a week.  But I feel like there might be a reasonable place in between the $290 a week they make now and the four thousand a week you suggest.  Of course, that would require you to be reasonable...and the jury is still out on that one.


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The *_*fantasy*_* is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs.*
> Thanks for clearing that up for me.
> If the MW was hiked to $100/hour tomorrow, do you expect more jobs and lower prices?



So at least you are now conceding that perhaps people do need enough money to, you know, feed themselves so they can get up and go to work at that drive-through for $290/week.  You may think that $15/hr for that job is too generous.  I disagree.  I think that we both agree that some people _are _being paid too much money to shovel unappetizing, unhealthy shit to the American public...we just disagree about who those people are and where they work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Not many were minimum wage...*
> ...


*
As I said, wages started growing the last two years of Obama. 13 states + DC raised their wages beginning in 2014.*

Based on the tiny number of MW workers, those hikes had a tiny, probably unmeasurable impact on total wages.

*Obama's performance?* 

Yes, the weak president who just left office.
*
Conservatives controlled the House and a large majority of state houses and governorships beginning in 2011.  They controlled the Senate beginning in 2015.* 

It's true, amongst his other failures was his failure to play well with others.
Elections have consequences, eh?


*But regardless, wages under Obama increased from where they were when he started.* 

Increased so much, number of SNAP recipients is 50% higher. Good job!

*This from the folks who use Field of Dreams as their economic model.*

Tell me again that businesses won't expand when individual taxes are cut. That's always funny.

*Raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt low-wage workers.*

It only hurts the ones who lose their jobs......and the ones who don't get hired.
For the few that receive MW, a hike is good.

*More money in the hands of consumers = more demand = more jobs.* 

Less money for companies to hire = fewer workers = less demand.

*My 6-year-old niece is more of a realist than you.  She stopped believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.*

Does she still believe in the magic pot of corporate money that unlimited MW hikes can draw from?

*Why stop at $100/hr?  Why not $1,000/hr?* 

Exactly! You cheap bastard!

*The reason you don't raise the MW to $100/hr is because it would be unreasonable economically for someone working the drive-through to make four thousand dollars a week.*

Why would it be unreasonable? Just think of all the spending they'll do, more demand = more jobs!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *The *_*fantasy*_* is that higher wages lead to higher prices and less jobs.*
> ...



*So at least you are now conceding that perhaps people do need enough money to, you know, feed themselves so they can get up and go to work*

They'll feed themselves pretty well at $100/hr.

*You may think that $15/hr for that job is too generous.  I disagree.* 

This is America, you're free to start a business and pay your low-skilled workers $15/hr.
Hell, you're a nice guy, make it $20/hr.

Be sure to post your progress.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.  Just socialism bailing capitalism, like usual.


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Based on the tiny number of MW workers, those hikes had a tiny, probably unmeasurable impact on total wages.



So there's that squishy word, "probably".  That's Conservative code for; "Be prepared, I'm about to say something I pulled right outta my ass".  And of course, the states that raised their minimum wages were already higher than the *federal minimum wage*.  But you knew that already.  You thought you could conflate the issue by conflating the federal minimum wage with the minimum wage in the states that raised theirs.  None of the states that raised their minimum wages in 2014 had a minimum wage as low as the federal one.  In every case, the state's minimum wage was higher than the federal minimum wage.  Feel like you tried to throw a red herring in here because you know your argument is full of shit.  BTW - the states that did raise their wages represented about 30% of the total US population.  So once again, facts are on my side and not yours.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Conservatives controlled the House and a large majority of state houses and governorships beginning in 2011.  They controlled the Senate beginning in 2015.
> It's true, amongst his other failures was his failure to play well with others.
> Elections have consequences, eh



That's right, elections do have consequences.  The consequences of the last election is that the Conservatives now have to govern.  Boy, they're doing a shitty job of that, even after Obama handed them a growing economy.  Obama was too _*nice*_ to Republicans.  If it was me, I would have put the boot to your necks right after the 2008 election.  Obama made attempt after attempt to work with Conservatives.  But they were too ashamed and embarrassed at the disaster that was Bush so you all thought the best course of action was to deliberately harm the economy so you could draw an equivalence between Obama and your failures.  Such brats.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> But regardless, wages under Obama increased from where they were when he started.
> Increased so much, number of SNAP recipients is 50% higher. Good job!



If you raised wages, it would be lower.  But you oppose raising wages.  Which makes that response from you purely masturbatory.  Apparently, wages grow by magic, clicking your ruby red shoes together three times, and fairy dust.  Er um, "supply side".  LOL!




Toddsterpatriot said:


> his from the folks who use Field of Dreams as their economic model.
> Tell me again that businesses won't expand when individual taxes are cut. That's always funny.



Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.  In fact, *Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in the first four years of his tax cuts.*  He would go on to lose net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years.  So you have this dumb theory, with no empirical evidence to support it, that you think is equal in terms to my position which is based on actual evidence and fact?  Get outta here, joker!  Bush cut taxes, proceeded to lose nearly 1M jobs, then inflated a housing bubble that burst and left Obama with an economy in shambles.  So...thanks?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Raising the minimum wage doesn't hurt low-wage workers.
> It only hurts the ones who lose their jobs......and the ones who don't get hired.
> For the few that receive MW, a hike is good.



Again, why are you saying something that is _*demonstrably *_untrue?  *13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and they had better job growth than the states that didn't.*  So you say raising the MW kills jobs, but lack any empirical evidence to support it.  So, like most of what you believe, it's a fantasy not grounded in reality or fact.  You do that a lot, substitute theory for fact.  Well guess what?  Your instincts suck ass.  Which means your theories suck ass.  Which means your belief system sucks ass.  Lotta ass sucking on your part, I'd say.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> More money in the hands of consumers = more demand = more jobs.
> Less money for companies to hire = fewer workers = less demand.



Why would they have less money to hire people?  They only pay taxes on _*profits*_, not revenues.  And if people are spending more, because they have more money to spend, wouldn't that lead to an _*increase*_ in revenues?  Why would revenues decline if you're paying people more.  You conflate revenues with profits and I think you do that on purpose so you can cloud the issue because you know ultimately that you're full of shit.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> My 6-year-old niece is more of a realist than you.  She stopped believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.
> Does she still believe in the magic pot of corporate money that unlimited MW hikes can draw from?



Who said anything about unlimited hikes?  Is this just your attempt to spike the debate because you're know you're going to lose, so instead of being an adult and accepting that maybe your worldview is wrong, you would prefer to just flame out because you've reached the end of everything you think you know?  Seriously, _*grow up*_ and get over yourself.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The reason you don't raise the MW to $100/hr is because it would be unreasonable economically for someone working the drive-through to make four thousand dollars a week.
> Why would it be unreasonable? Just think of all the spending they'll do, more demand = more jobs!



So you have this really nasty habit of taking things out of context, hiding the stuff that you don't want to see, in order to what?  Stay relevant in an internet debate?  Seriously, dude, get over yourself and grow up.  I happen to believe there exists a reasonable middle ground between paying someone $290/week to work at a drive thru and $4,000/week to do the same job.  But for you, there only exists these two extremes, with nothing in the middle.  That is why and how I know you're full of shit, that you're posturing on this board because you feel some culpability and regret for being such a tool, and because you haven't really put any thought into this subject beyond regurgitating the same, tired, bullshit we've heard over and over from people *who have never been right about anything!*


----------



## The Derp (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They'll feed themselves pretty well at $100/hr.



No one is suggesting the MW go that high, so why are you?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You may think that $15/hr for that job is too generous.  I disagree.
> This is America, you're free to start a business and pay your low-skilled workers $15/hr.
> Hell, you're a nice guy, make it $20/hr.Be sure to post your progress.



Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average_* right now, *_and they still manage to turn a profit.  So if they can do it, why can't everyone else?

Of course, maybe you should just pay people in faith...since that seems to be the only thing guiding your philosophy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Based on the tiny number of MW workers, those hikes had a tiny, probably unmeasurable impact on total wages.
> ...



*So there's that squishy word, "probably". That's Conservative code for; "Be prepared, I'm about to say something I pulled right outta my ass".*

Well, take the less than 1 million MW workers....add their raises....show me how much that raised average wages for the 150 million plus employees in the US.

I'll wait, while you pull that number out of your ass.

*If you raised wages, it would be lower.  But you oppose raising wages.* 

I think rising wages are great, even while raising them by government fiat is stupid and destructive.

*Apparently, wages grow by magic, clicking your ruby red shoes together three times*

And saying.....you must pay $X/hr. I agree, raising them that way is stupid.
*
Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.* 

Well, they did.






Bush tax cuts fully phased in May, 2003.

*Again, why are you saying something that is *_*demonstrably *_*untrue?  13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and they had better job growth than the states that didn't.* 

You said they had better job creation because they raised MW. Still waiting for your proof.
*
Why would they have less money to hire people?* 

You just forced them to raise wages.
You think they have that unlimited pot of money you dreamed up?
If you raise their expense from $8/hr to $10/hr,  $40 now pays for 4 instead of 5 workers.
*
They only pay taxes on *_*profits*_*, not revenues.*

You're right, higher MW would reduce profits, if you assume they don't reduce headcount.

*So you have this really nasty habit of taking things out of context*

$15/hr is good, $100/hr is better.
Put that in context.

*I happen to believe there exists a reasonable middle ground between paying someone $290/week to work at a drive thru and $4,000/week to do the same job.* 

$50/hr is in the middle. Too high? Why?
$30/hr sounds good, right? Why not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They'll feed themselves pretty well at $100/hr.
> ...



*No one is suggesting the MW go that high, so why are you?*

I love low-skilled workers.
Why don't you think they deserve $100/hr?

*Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average*_* right now, *_*and they still manage to turn a profit.*

Well, shit, if they have a profit, why not $25/hr?
Think of all the extra spending their workers could do.......


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.



Lay off the weed and get a job.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour.
> ...


oh look, another "dopeless wonder" with a lousy argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Stoned, fat and unemployed is no way to go through life son.


----------



## danielpalos (May 30, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


neither is being, "full of fallacy".


----------



## The Derp (May 31, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I love low-skilled workers.
> Why don't you think they deserve $100/hr?



Why are you intentionally spiking a debate?  Is the reaosn because you know you cannot win it if we speak in plain terms?  Is that why you always have to go to extremes as you debate?  Because you don't have the thought or capacity to think critically?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average_ right now, _and they still manage to turn a profit.
> Well, shit, if they have a profit, why not $25/hr?
> Think of all the extra spending their workers could do.......



Yeah, maybe they should get paid even more.  You haven't made the argument they shouldn't.  The best you can do is go from $7.25/hr to $100/hr.  You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised, but you don't want to admit it on the message board because of your ego.

Get over yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I love low-skilled workers.
> ...


*
Why are you intentionally spiking a debate?*

They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
Can you explain why?

*You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised*

Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?


----------



## The Derp (May 31, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
> Can you explain why?



Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru.  Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.  All I have said is that there exists a middle ground somewhere.  And that point is one you do not want to agree with _*because of your ego, nothing more*_.

So get over yourself.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> You do that on purpose because you know that their wages have to be raised
> Why? Why do unskilled workers need government force to raise their wages?



Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.  So why do _*you*_ hate American workers so much that you think they should be paid and treated like the workers in China?


----------



## The Derp (May 31, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So there's that squishy word, "probably". That's Conservative code for; "Be prepared, I'm about to say something I pulled right outta my ass".*
> Well, take the less than 1 million MW workers....add their raises....show me how much that raised average wages for the 150 million plus employees in the US.



Of course, you already know that many states have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage...though still below the $15/hr necessary for workers today to avoid leaning on welfare benefits.  So I'm wondering why you don't bother to make that distinction in your posts?  Is it because you know that and are choosing to be deliberately deceptive by removing that context?  Is that because it's the only way you can even come close to making a point here on the boards (even though it's not salient)?  How many workers in this country make less than $15/hr?  Certainly more than 1 million, right?  So to you, you are ignoring the fact that many states have minimum wages above what the federal minimum wage is.  Why?  I didn't say to raise the federal minimum wage...I simply said we should raise the minimum wage.  That goes for all of them, not just the federal one.  So raising the wages for _*all *_minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else.  Because, math.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you raised wages, it would be lower.  But you oppose raising wages.
> I think rising wages are great, even while raising them by government fiat is stupid and destructive.



There's that phrase again, "I think..."  You're basing that thought on what, exactly?  Certainly not any empirical evidence.  So what are you basing it on?  Your own personal bias.  Well, your bias means shit when stacked next to the facts.  Why is it that everything you say has to be qualified like that, anyway?  There you go, substituting your feelings for fact.  I find you do that pretty much all the time.  There's not a single position you argue that is based in any fact.  It's all from the ether or your imagination and feelings and instincts.  Why the fuck should anyone take anything you say or believe seriously, knowing you don't care for facts to make an informed decision?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ipparently, wages grow by magic, clicking your ruby red shoes together three times
> And saying.....you must pay $X/hr. I agree, raising them that way is stupid.



Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.
> Well, they did.
> ush tax cuts fully phased in May, 2003.



So here's the problem with what you are arguing; Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those.  Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument, and you're doing so completely outside the purview of the Bush Mortgage Bubble, which is the only driver of job growth during Bush's presidency.  So if you are saying job growth starting in 2003-4 (even though the Bush Tax Cuts were passed in 2001 with some of them starting in 2001) is attributed to the tax cuts, then that means the mortgage bubble *-which was the driver of the job growth- *is also attributed to the tax cuts.  So that means the subsequent economic collapse and all the shit that came from that is the fault of the Bush Tax Cuts.  So thanks for helping me make the case that the Bush Tax Cuts destroyed the economy.  If, as you say, they are what was responsible for the job growth, which was caused by the mortgage bubble.  Ergo, the Bush Tax Cuts caused the housing bubble.  Of course, Bush already said so while campaigning in 2004:

*Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership*
_Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said._​
So now comes the part in the debate where you try to say that the growth Bush had wasn't because of the housing bubble, but because of the tax cuts.  But the reality is that the tax cuts caused the housing bubble -according to you and Bush- so is that what you were intending to say?

BTW - Bush was President from January 2001 - January 2009.  So by ripping the years where the economy performed -because of the housing bubble- out and representing those as the whole is disingenuous, and I think you even recognize that.  Which would make you pretty shameless.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Again, why are you saying something that is _demonstrably _untrue?  13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and they had better job growth than the states that didn't.
> You said they had better job creation because they raised MW. Still waiting for your proof.



There's enough circumstantial evidence to tie the two.  Whereas your position, that raising the MW kills jobs, has no evidence whatsoever to support its claim.  You all said that raising the minimum wage would kill jobs.  The empirical evidence shows that isn't the case at all.  So why are you still arguing that it does?  Is this another ego/pride thing?  Get over yourself.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would they have less money to hire people?
> You just forced them to raise wages.



And you don't think there would be a corresponding increase to revenues from sales due to people having more money to spend?  Have you ever worked in a business before?  You are assuming that the rate of spending remains the same, even though people have more to spend if their wages are raised.  See, this is what I'm talking about when I say you are full of shit.  Paying people more means _*they spend more*_.  Which means more revenues for the business.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> They only pay taxes on _profits_, not revenues.
> You're right, higher MW would reduce profits, if you assume they don't reduce headcount.



No, a higher MW would increase revenues.  You are working from the assumption that if people are paid more money, they don't spend more.  *Which is in complete contradiction to your position on taxation; that if they are given more after-tax income, they will spend more.  So explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending, yet reducing someone's taxes will?*  This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...your entire argument contradicts itself the second we begin to scrutinize it.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So you have this really nasty habit of taking things out of context
> $15/hr is good, $100/hr is better.
> Put that in context.



There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr.  You seem determined to pretend there isn't and you only do that because you would have to admit that I'm right and your ego just can't handle that.  So, as usual, it's all about you and your feelings.  Get over yourself.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I happen to believe there exists a reasonable middle ground between paying someone $290/week to work at a drive thru and $4,000/week to do the same job.
> $50/hr is in the middle. Too high? Why?
> $30/hr sounds good, right? Why not?



I am not an economist.  I don't know what the middle ground is.  All I know is that it's too low right now.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They deserve $15/hr but not $100/hr?
> ...


*
Because it's not economically feasible to have someone get paid $4,000 a week to work the drive-thru*

And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.

*Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.* 

Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.

*Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.*

Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.


----------



## danielpalos (May 31, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour; that is Why.


----------



## danielpalos (May 31, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes, it is; Only lousy Capitalists have a problem with it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *So there's that squishy word, "probably". That's Conservative code for; "Be prepared, I'm about to say something I pulled right outta my ass".*
> ...



*So raising the wages for *_*all *_*minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else.  Because, math.*

Cool. Let's make it $100/hr, because math.

*There's that phrase again, "I think..."  You're basing that thought on what, exactly?*

On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities.

*Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?*

Considering that fewer than 1 million workers make the Federal minimum wage, your question is fucking stupid.

*Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those.*

Oh, they ignore tax rates. DERP!

*Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.*

Well, they did. You claimed they didn't. You were wrong. Again.

*Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument*

Like you when you point out that Reagan's tax cuts occurred the month after the 1981 recession began, and blame the former for the latter.

*Again, why are you saying something that is *_*demonstrably *_*untrue? *

Pointing out your correlation=causation fallacy is demonstrably untrue? LOL!

*No, a higher MW would increase revenues.*

And after you subtract wage expenses, profits would be lower.

*So explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending,
*
When you force an employer to pay a worker worth $7.25/hr,$10/hr, or more, that newly unemployed worker will spend less.
*
This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...*

Liberals who don't understand economics and can't do math often feel that way when reality is explained to them.

*There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr.*

The correct minimum wage is $0.
*
I am not an economist.*

No fucking kidding.
*
All I know is that it's too low right now.*

Yes, your feelings are noted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



They'd cost less if slackers were removed from the rolls.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



*Yes, it is;*

Is that why you're able to pay all your employees that much?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> [
> Only through wealth.  There is plenty of demand for water in the Gobi Desert, by the poor.



So why is there not overwhelming supply? The neo-Marxists of the democratic party claim that demand is the catalyst for production, yet here we have demand and no product. How can this be possible?


----------



## Markle (May 31, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Like I said; bailout the wealthiest, and then let it trickle down. Only the wealthiest are, too big to not bailout.



Has anyone poor given you a job?  

Who has been bailed out?  The banks?  They repaid that with interest.  I wasn't in favor of that but I understood the reason.  As for the auto industry, that should never have happened.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 31, 2017)

Markle said:


> Has anyone poor given you a job?



In all fairness to danielpalos, virtually all of the customers buying weed from him are poor.



> Who has been bailed out?  The banks?  They repaid that with interest.  I wasn't in favor of that but I understood the reason.  As for the auto industry, that should never have happened.



The banks should not have either.


----------



## Markle (May 31, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Does the increase exceed inflation? Does it run the same? How will the cut to the increase in SNAP affect the 1.4 million veterans who are currently enrolled in the program?



As Uncensored2008 said, it is not a cut, it is a reduction in the rate of GROWTH.


----------



## Markle (May 31, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Really? Maybe you need to do some light reading, pal, and catch up to the rest of 2012. Conservatives deliberately tried to deceive people by pushing this paper whose authors had to lie, manipulate, and omit in order to get the conclusion their ideology had committed them to. Why do you think they didn't want their paper to be peer-reviewed??????? Obviously because doing so would have caught the deliberate data omissions and "spreadsheet errors" that produced the conclusion Conservatives wanted; that high government debt levels translate to slower growth. _*WHICH IS NOT TRUE AT ALL AND IS FAKE NEWS*_.
> 
> Soooooo...what that means is that if the thing Conservatives were relying on to make their arguments about government debt and spending was a fucking lie, doesn't that make those who spread the fucking lie, fucking liars themselves? And if they lied about that, why wouldn't they lie about other things? I don't feel like these are unfair questions to ask. You either went along with their conclusions because you are stupid, or you did it because you're a liar. Doesn't really matter to me which is which. I think both suck equally.



You state that high government debt levels translate to slower growth are FAKE NEWS.

Do you deny that the annual debt service on $20 TRILLION is at least double that of $10 TRILLION?  Where do you imagine the money comes from in order to pay that additional interest?  That money will come out of our economy, out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of those holding our IOU's.  Please explain how that does NOT slow our growth.


----------



## Markle (May 31, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Well, Costco manages to pay its workers nearly $21/hr on average_* right now, *_and they still manage to turn a profit. So if they can do it, why can't everyone else?
> 
> Of course, maybe you should just pay people in faith...since that seems to be the only thing guiding your philosophy.



As you know, you are lying about the salaries at Costco.  Their cashiers and asst. cashiers are paid between $13.00 and $15.00 per hour.  Consider that a cashier does have to be able to count.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Only in right wing fantasy; the left knows we are also paying for alleged, wars on crime, drugs, and terror.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


that's the plan, Stan.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Supply side economics, is about, "overwhelming supply".  There is simply, not enough demand.

Solving simple poverty, would ensure capital circulates in our Republic and engender positive multiplier effects.

For some on the left, it seems, "the poor only get around three fifths", "open interest" on "demand" options.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yeah, let us know how much tax you pay on your weed profits.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


commercial weed is about ten dollars an ounce, "right off the top".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Let me know when you pay any tax.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


i pay tax every time i buy something at any store.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.



According to whom?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nor is it economically feasible to have someone get paid $290/week to work the drive-thru.
> Based on supply and demand, it does seem feasible.



No it doesn't because taxpayers have to pick up the slack by providing welfare benefits to compensate for the low wage.  Basically, for every worker who gets welfare benefits, we are partially subsidizing that cost, which means we are partially subsidizing their profits.

Walmart, for example, pays its workers so little that taxpayers have to fork out about $5B in benefits and entitlements.  Walmart's _*profits*_ last year were about $14B.  So US taxpayers subsidize more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits.  Talk about the government picking winners and losers!




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages and in the same conditions those in Third World Nations get.
> Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers.



Nonsense.  Businesses already do that _*right now*_.  How many OSHA complaints are there a month to the Department of Labor?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They'd cost less if slackers were removed from the rolls.



Who are the slackers?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Let me know when you pay any tax.



We know that you don't pay any taxes because you don't have a job.  And we know that because you project that shit out on everyone else.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They'd cost less if slackers were removed from the rolls.
> ...


Right wingers with only third world excuses.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So raising the wages for _all _minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else.  Because, math.
> Cool. Let's make it $100/hr, because math.



Stop trolling and flaming.  You and I both know what I'm talking about here.  So all you're doing by exercising these kinds of hysterics is to prevent any serious debate from moving forward.  I'll just take your flaming as a concession on your part.  Wouldn't want your ego to get too bruised, right?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> There's that phrase again, "I think..."  You're basing that thought on what, exactly?
> On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities.



*But that's not a fact.*  That is what you "think", which would make it your *opinion* that isn't informed by any actual evidence.  There's nothing that shows raising the MW hurts low-skill workers.  In fact, from 2014 we know that raising wages results in faster job growth than not raising wages.  That's something you have been unable to reconcile in this thread.  So you just do what you always do; substitute your precious feelings in place of actual facts.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would businesses raise wages if there was no minimum wage?
> Considering that fewer than 1 million workers make the Federal minimum wage, your question is fucking stupid.



I'm not talking about just the federal minimum wage, and I notice how you cut that part out of my post from before in your response.  You did that because you are exercising sophistry.  You are trying to make this about the federal minimum wage, but I'm talking about the minimum wage.  So why are you doing that, knowing that many states have minimum wages above the federal one, yet still below the $14/hr it costs to provide basic assistance and benefits?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Conservatives say time after time that businesses look forward at upcoming tax rates and base their hiring on those.
> Oh, they ignore tax rates. DERP!



So which is it, do they or don't they?  Or is this just another instance of Conservative goalpost shifting?  I think that's the likely answer here.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, they didn't expand after Bush cut taxes.
> Well, they did. You claimed they didn't. You were wrong. Again.



LOL!  The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001.  They were passed in 2001.  Businesses forecast based on those tax cuts beginning in 2001, because that's what Conservatives always say they do!  *Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years*.  He would go on to lose net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts.  The Bush Tax Cuts did not spur hiring, the Bush Mortgage Bubble did.  But you are the one now tying the Bush Tax Cuts to the Bush Mortgage Bubble by misrepresenting the job growth.  Was that your intent?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Setting aside that ridiculously ludicrous premise, you are making a correlation-is-causation argument
> Like you when you point out that Reagan's tax cuts occurred the month after the 1981 recession began, and blame the former for the latter.



I never blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the 1981 recession.  I blamed the Reagan Tax Cuts for the *job loss that would occur throughout 1982.*




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Again, why are you saying something that is _demonstrably _untrue?
> Pointing out your correlation=causation fallacy is demonstrably untrue? LOL!



Follow the thread closer.  What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs.  However, the empirical evidence from 2014 shows the opposite.  So either 2014 is a freak outlier, or you're full of shit.  Which is it?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, a higher MW would increase revenues.
> And after you subtract wage expenses, profits would be lower.



Not if your revenues are higher.  What you have failed to prove is that consumption doesn't increase if wages increase.  When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money.  So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages.  So why are you doing that?  Why are you ignoring the _*YUGE*_ piece of the equation?  You are assuming revenues stay the same after a wage increase, and that's just not true.  So let's figure out why you think that?  *Why do you personally think raising wages does not translate to increased consumption, yet cutting taxes does???*




Toddsterpatriot said:


> o explain to me how raising someone's wage won't result in more spending,
> When you force an employer to pay a worker worth $7.25/hr,$10/hr, or more, that newly unemployed worker will spend less.



So again, you start off your argument with a flawed premise that has no base of support.  Your claim that jobs are lost when the minimum wage is raised is not supported by any empirical evidence, is it?  Your personal feelings are not empirical.  Job numbers are.  And we saw in 2014 that the states that raised their minimum wage had faster job growth than the states that didn't.  You also completely avoided the inherent contradiction within your own argument; that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't.  That's a self-contradiction that pretty much spikes your entire argument from the get-go.  So you are arguing a flawed position from a flawed premise that has no actual evidence to support it other than your personal feelings.  Such a snowflake!




Toddsterpatriot said:


> This is why everything you believe in is a crock of shit...
> Liberals who don't understand economics and can't do math often feel that way when reality is explained to them.



You're the one whose governing economic ideology is based on a Hollywood movie about ghostly ballplayers.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> There exists a middle ground that makes economic sense between $15/hr and $100/hr.
> The correct minimum wage is $0.



Idiot.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I am not an economist.
> No fucking kidding.



I don't pretend to be one either, unlike you who does and then just ignores the inherent contradictions in your own argument.  So why do you play pretend?  Is your ego that fragile that you must posture on internet message boards to feel better about yourself?  What a baby!


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Markle said:


> You state that high government debt levels translate to slower growth are FAKE NEWS.



Because it is fake news.  Conservatives were lying about it.  Here's the Bloomberg Article that perfectly explains _*how*_ they lied about it.  Take a read for yourself, and wallow in your own naivety.




Markle said:


> Do you deny that the annual debt service on $20 TRILLION is at least double that of $10 TRILLION?  Where do you imagine the money comes from in order to pay that additional interest?  That money will come out of our economy, out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of those holding our IOU's.  Please explain how that does NOT slow our growth.



So where was all this debt concern back in 2001 when you all erased a surplus and produced record deficits by cutting taxes?  We only have the debt today because _*you fucking assholes cut taxes in 2001, erasing a surplus and producing record deficits*_.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> [
> Supply side economics, is about, "overwhelming supply".  There is simply, not enough demand.
> 
> Solving simple poverty, would ensure capital circulates in our Republic and engender positive multiplier effects.
> ...



Again stoner boi, you have not a hint of a clue as to how supply side economics works, nor indeed how Keynesian theory works. You have a sum total of zero knowledge on the subject under discussion. 

Supply side economics as proposed by the brilliant economist Dr. Arthur Laffer holds quite simply that production is the single most important factor in economics. (Hence why I earned a Ph.D. in Supply Chain Management to augment my credentials rather than pursuing traditional economics.) The key to macroeconomics is equilibrium. This is the point that demand and supply intersect, which by necessity is the most efficient use of resources. 

Now you have never had an economics course, nor did you finish high school, but a universal truth is that scarcity drives all economic systems. To put it in a way you can understand, you as a dope dealer have had times where you couldn't get any pot to sell, supplies were short. What did that do to you dope dealing business? Did demand create a new supply of dope? On the other hand, if you get a shipment of 30 pounds in and can only sell a few ounces a week, you have a lot of capital tied up in weed that isn't moving - which you will end up smoking rather than selling.

So the goal in macroeconomics is to match the supply of goods with the demand. 







Now when demand increases, two things can happen, either prices increase to contain the scarcity of the goods, or supply increases to meet the demand. Supply side economics recognizes the fact that *only* an increase in production can result in an increase in supply. Demand will never, and cannot increase the supply of anything, only production can do this.  Hence supply side theory is axiomatically true. No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way. Demand does not increase supply, only production increases supply.  In a capitalist society, industrialists will generally monitor demand and increase production if possible, but it is not demand that creates supply, demand only creates opportunity for production. Production alone creates supply. Only the pot growers planting more Marijuana increase the amount of dope you can sell. Your stoner buddies cannot change the amount of weed on the market.

China, though a socialist country is a great example of supply side theory in action. During the heyday of Mao, about a third of the population was technically starving, lacking the food needed to maintain normal health. Mao as you know, ran a purely demand driven economy. The state accounted for demand and allocated production to what they viewed as goods needing supply. 90% of China was in abject poverty

After Nixon opened China, American companies began engaging in production in China. This production transformed the dictatorship to the point that starvation has been entirely eradicated and poverty is under 20%. It was production that changed the dynamic, Demand was irrelevant, the goods produced were not even offered to Chinese consumers. Production created jobs, jobs provided income. 

Supply side is about the role of production, not about "trickle down." 

The left has dishonestly used the term trickle down due to the supply side remedy to the business cycle. Under Keynesian economics, the response of monetary policy during economic down turns is to create fiat currency and large deficits to pump cash into the economy as a means of "priming the pump." Under the General Theory, Keynes advocated for this stimulus to go directly to individuals, the Roosevelt WPA is prime example, people were employed and paid by the government to build roads and bridges, money went directly to citizens. 

Now the Porkulus of Obama is quite different, the trillions of dollars he spent went to public employee unions, auto manufacturers, and other well connected looters, so his fiasco cannot be viewed as a Keynesian stimulus.

Supply side holds that the most effective way to end a recession is to stimulate production, since it is not demand that falters, but supply in a recession. (The poor still want a loaf of bread, they simply cannot afford it due rising prices). To stimulate production, the most direct route is to reduce the amount of capital that the government confiscates from business. This is accomplished by lowering taxes. 

One of the lies of the left is that lowering taxes has a unique impact on the public treasury; both a stimulus AND tax breaks have an impact. To claim that only lowering taxes has such and impact is highly dishonest.

Anyway, I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So raising the wages for _all _minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else.  Because, math.
> ...




When it comes to economics, I respect a total of two people on this board, Toro and Toddsterpatriot . To call Todd a troll is patently absurd.I grew bored with you long ago, he is more patient than I.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And apparently it's not feasible to pay them $15/hr either.
> ...



*According to whom?*

According to the market.
*
No it doesn't because taxpayers have to pick up the slack by providing welfare benefits to compensate for the low wage.* 

For every one of the million MW workers?

*Basically, for every worker who gets welfare benefits, we are partially subsidizing that cost,*

I agree, WalMart is partially subsidizing that welfare cost.


*Walmart, for example, pays its workers so little that taxpayers have to fork out about $5B in benefits*

HAVE to fork out?
You're right, WalMart should fire every employee on welfare.
How much will the government save in benefits then?

*Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages (as)....... those in Third World
*
Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers
*
Businesses already do that right now.*






DURR.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They'd cost less if slackers were removed from the rolls.
> ...



danielpalos.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Let me know when you pay any tax.
> ...



danielpalos whines that he should receive unemployment benefits to sit in the basement......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So raising the wages for _all _minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else.  Because, math.
> ...


*
LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001.*

And they were fully implemented in 2003

*What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs.*

Clearly.

*Not if your revenues are higher.* 

A business owner who sees his employee costs rise from $7.25 to $10.00, is going to see a revenue increase that offsets the 38% increase in wage expenses? Show me.
*
When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money.*

Are they going to spend any of it at work?
*
So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages.* 

No, I'm simply aware that the higher expense is much, much larger than the higher revenues.
Resulting in lower profits.

*that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't.*

The MW workers that don't lose their jobs will definitely increase their consumption.
The ones who lose their jobs and the ones who never get hired will consume less.
The businesses that now have less money will also reduce their consumption in other areas.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So raising the wages for _all _minimum wage workers (state and federal minimum wage) will certainly increase wages for everyone else.  Because, math.
> ...



*But that's not a fact.*

It is a fact, the government has made it illegal for an unskilled worker to sell his labor for $5/hr.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> When it comes to economics, I respect a total of two people on this board, Toro and Toddsterpatriot . To call Todd a troll is patently absurd.I grew bored with you long ago, he is more patient than I.



Wondering why you felt the need to respond to a post of which you weren't a part?  Seems like you only did so in order to preserve the fragile ego you have here.  That you simply cannot stand someone showing you up and making your argument fall apart on its face.  The debate was with regard to the minimum wage.  You all claim, with no evidence to support your position, that raising the minimum wage somehow hurts low wage workers.  No data to support that.  No evidence to back that claim up.  Nothing other than the flawed theory on which that claim is based.  There does exist plenty of evidence, however, showing that when the minimum wage is raised, job growth speeds up.  We know this because we saw it happen just three years ago when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages and saw job growth outpace the states that didn't.

So either 2014 is an outlier (and a pretty massive one at that since the sample size was 13 states + DC that amount to 30% of the total US population), or you guys are full of shit.

So which is it?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But that's not a fact.*
> It is a fact, the government has made it illegal for an unskilled worker to sell his labor for $5/hr.



No, it's not a fact.  You keep representing what you say is fact, but it's not at all.  You claimed that it was a fact that raising wages kills jobs.  That claim is demonstrably false, as evidenced in the jobs numbers from 2014 showing the 13 states that raised their MW had faster job growth than the 37 that didn't.  Now you're trying to redefine the parameters of what you were talking about, and I'm not going to let you.

Your claim:  "_*On the fact that making it illegal for someone to work for less than MW harms unskilled workers who are disproportionally minorities."
*_
You have no evidence to support that.  However, there is plenty of evidence showing that when the minimum wage is raised, job growth speeds up.  And we know this because 13 states did that in 2014.  You all said, at the time, that it would do exactly what you said above.  It didn't.  So either 2014 was an outlier of extreme proportions, or you're full of shit.

Which is it?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001.*
> And they were fully implemented in 2003



But you all say that businesses determine their expansions based on forward-looking at the tax rates.  Now you're saying that isn't the case, which pretty much undermines your entire taxation argument.  And further to that, 2003 was when Bush started deregulating the mortgage industry, and you yourself even said the growth was people fixing up their homes, or buying new ones with their tax cut money.  Of course, we know that's bullshit since household debt doubled during Bush the Dumber.  And furthermore, if you are trying to credit the tax cuts to employment growth -employment growth a result of the housing market- then you are tying tax cuts to the mortgage bubble.  Sooooo....that leaves you with a big, fat economic collapse to reconcile.  You can't claim the tax cuts created jobs (they didn't, Bush lost 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years), unless you credit the housing market to the tax cuts.  Since that's what spurred job growth beginning in late 2003.  So is that what you're now saying?  That the Bush Tax Cuts caused the housing bubble?  You wouldn't be the first to tie the two together.  Bush did so himself while campaigning in 2004.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> What you tried to say was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs.
> Clearly.



Of which there is no evidence to support you, whereas there exists empirical evidence that contradicts you (the 2014 job growth in the states that raised their MW).  So all you did was spread bullshit on the boards. 




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not if your revenues are higher.
> A business owner who sees his employee costs rise from $7.25 to $10.00, is going to see a revenue increase that offsets the 38% increase in wage expenses? Show me.



Sure!  If they run an effective business and can satisfy the demand in the consumer market.  If not, then they're probably not very good at running a business and shouldn't anyway.  If people have more money to spend because they are paid more, then what does that mean for revenues?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> When a low-wage worker gets paid more money, they spend that money.
> Are they going to spend any of it at work?



Depends where they work.  So now you're at least conceding the point that if people are paid more, they spend more.  Putting more in the hands of consumers most likely to spend that which they get increases consumer demand, which increases revenues.  Anyone who has ever run a business knows this.  So what's your excuse?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So you are ignoring the growth in revenues that come from increase consumption which comes from increased wages.
> No, I'm simply aware that the higher expense is much, much larger than the higher revenues.



But you cannot make that claim because you, yourself admit you don't know.  So why are you making a claim you know you cannot support?  Raising the minimum wage resulted in faster job growth (indicating more consumer demand) just three years ago.  So if you were wrong then, why would you be right now?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> that somehow reducing taxes increases consumption, yet increases wages doesn't.
> The MW workers that don't lose their jobs will definitely increase their consumption.



Why would anyone lose their job?  They didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages 3 years ago.  So was 2014 an outlier, or are you just full of shit?  The empirical evidence from 2014 would indicate that you're full of shit.  13 states that represented about 30% of the total population.  So you can't even argue the sample size was too small to draw a conclusion.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to economics, I respect a total of two people on this board, Toro and Toddsterpatriot . To call Todd a troll is patently absurd.I grew bored with you long ago, he is more patient than I.
> ...



I responded due to your absurd attack on someone clearly your superior in knowledge..

I've not seen you show anyone up. 

2014 is neither an outlier nor an indication to raising the wage of a minuscule percent of the population has a positive  impact on employment.  Employment improved in 2014 simply because we were finally emerging from the 2007 recession.

If you are claiming that 30% of the population earns minimum wage, you are mistaken.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *According to whom?*
> According to the market.



But it's not according to the market because the taxpayers are subsidizing part of those low wages through welfare and entitlement programs.  Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $5B a year to provide benefits to their workers because Walmart doesn't pay them enough.  Last year, Walmart made about $14B in profit.  So the taxpayers subsidized more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits in order to make sure their workers receive a living wage by combining the wage they get from Walmart with the benefits they get from the government.  If Walmart raised its worker pay by $5B collectively, US taxpayers would be spending $5B less on welfare benefits.

So wages are being kept artificially low by subsidizing corporate profits...as much as 33% in some cases (Walmart).  The question is; why do you think the market has set the true value of wages as low as it is?  Because the market knows that the taxpayers will be there to pick up the slack.  So there are only two solutions to this problem; do away with all welfare benefits (but the consequence of that is increased poverty and starvation) or raise wages.  You don't seem to know what you want...preferring instead to just perpetuate the current problem in order to complain about it.  Which would make your posts masturbatory.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> ANo it doesn't because taxpayers have to pick up the slack by providing welfare benefits to compensate for the low wage.
> For every one of the million MW workers?



So I am wondering why you keep staying with the federal minimum wage and not all minimum wages.  You know, of course, that the minimum wage varies by state.  So why are you trying to misrepresent minimum wage workers by excluding all those who have higher state minimum wages than the federal one?  I'll save you the time; you do that because it's the only way your stupid argument makes sense...by omitting and ignoring all the facts that undermine it.  Which would technically make you an ignoramus.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Basically, for every worker who gets welfare benefits, we are partially subsidizing that cost,
> I agree, WalMart is partially subsidizing that welfare cost.



No, no..._*we*_ are subsidizing Walmart's profits.  Walmart isn't paying shit. 




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Walmart, for example, pays its workers so little that taxpayers have to fork out about $5B in benefits
> HAVE to fork out?
> You're right, WalMart should fire every employee on welfare.
> How much will the government save in benefits then?



 So this is how you justify subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits?  It's clear you have no thoughtful argument to make based on that pathetic response above.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because businesses don't give a shit about their workers and would have them work for the same wages (as)....... those in Third World
> Any business that did that would have a difficult time hiring and retaining skilled workers



Except that they don't because the current labor market favors employers, not workers.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> I responded due to your absurd attack on someone clearly your superior in knowledge..



13 states + DC raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't.  So either that means 2014 is a pretty big exception to your rule, or your rule is full of shit.

So which is it?





Uncensored2008 said:


> 2014 is neither an outlier nor an indication to raising the wage of a minuscule percent of the population has a positive  impact on employment.



The 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 represent about 30% of the total US population.  So no, you're wrong as usual.  It's not a minuscule percentage.  Since when is 30% minuscule??????  Oh right, since you say so.  LOL.  What a tool.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> If you are claiming that 30% of the population earns minimum wage, you are mistaken.



I didn't say that...what I said was that those 13 states represent 30% of the total US population.  So the minimum wage raises in those states greatly impacted job growth.

The flipside is that _*you all claim raising the MW kills jobs*_.  The empirical data from 2014 shows that's not the case.  Which means your claim is *bullshit.*


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 130148



So, as usual, you fail to provide context for those numbers.  It's obvious why; placing those wages within the context of inflation would show that they haven't grown.  So why do you do things like that?  What's with that pathology and sophistry?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Employment improved in 2014 simply because we were finally emerging from the 2007 recession.



So it's just a coincidence that the 13 states that raised their MW in 2014 _*just happened to *_have faster job growth than the 37 who didn't?  You expect me to accept that conclusion?  That it was just a coincidence?  Get outta here, loser.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> 2014 is neither an outlier nor an indication to raising the wage of a minuscule percent of the population has a positive  impact on employment.



Then let's raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hr and see what happens.  Since raising wages in 2014 didn't lead to the job loss you all predicted, why would raising it to $15/hr nationally be any different?

Basically, since you were wrong in 2014, why would you be right today?  I don't feel like that's an unfair question to ask.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


A god supplies morals; where is the demand for more laws that primarily affect the poor.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> The 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 represent about 30% of the total US population.



So you are claiming every person in those 13 states and DC works for minimum wage?



> So no, you're wrong as usual.  It's not a minuscule percentage.  Since when is 30% minuscule??????  Oh right, since you say so.  LOL.  What a tool.



First off, you are dishonest, California did not raise the MW in 2014, they raised in in 2006, with graduated bumps one of which took effect in 2014.

Secondly, the percentage of men making minimum wage who are 25 or older is 0.7%, for women it is 1.1%

https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/mi...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

The population affected by changes is less than 2%, in fact using your 30% total population yields .018*.3 or 0.54% of the national population. Yet you claim this is significant.

I stopped conversing with you because you are a hack with an agenda who has no particular respect for facts.

Here is information you will ignore, since you are an ideologue who seeks only to promote the leftist agenda, regardless of facts.

{The minimum wage is not a “protection,” as progressives often style it. It doesn’t confer a “right” to be paid any amount of money, because nobody has an obligation to hire you. The minimum wage only says that it’s illegal to work for less than x, no matter how badly you need that job. To the extent the minimum wage is set above where the market clears on a given wage category, businesses will typically respond with some combination of raising wages, cutting hours, and laying people off. And, to the extent they respond by raising wages, the higher labor costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Many of the affected labor categories are in industries — such as supermarkets and food service — that provide necessaries to poor and rich alike, so the social costs are grossly regressive. If you want to see just how unfair the minimum wage is to poor people, consider the fact that those born into privilege enjoy a huge exemption from it — they can be interns in the profession of their choice. Recent college graduates can walk into the job of their dreams with no experience by offering their services for free as interns. This allows them to “get their foot in the door,” acquire valuable skills, and prove to their hoped-for employer that they’re worth hiring. Now imagine a recent immigrant asking for an “internship” at the local supermarket. Even if the supermarket is willing to open that door, the federal government slams it shut.

Read more at: How the Minimum Wage Hurts Poor People}


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Employment improved in 2014 simply because we were finally emerging from the 2007 recession.
> ...



Your claim (or rather the claim of the Soros hate sites that do your thinking for you) is false. Most of these states had raised their MW ages before 2014. I assure you that ThinkProgress (or whatever) included California in their 13 states, yet California passed their MW bill all the way back in 2006, with graduated increases phased in through 2016.

http://www.csgwest.org/annualmeeting/documents/MinimumWage-MarkMcKenzie.pdf

So again I point out you are being patently dishonest.

Further, despite the claims of the Soros hate sites you echo, the Seattle mess had a devastating effect on those who did earn the minimum.






Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage: Jobs Down, Unemployment Up. This Isn't Working, Is It?

Todd is far more patient than I. Once the opposition starts in with the usual lies, I generally pay little attention.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > 2014 is neither an outlier nor an indication to raising the wage of a minuscule percent of the population has a positive  impact on employment.
> ...



Let's raise it to $500 an hour and make everyone rich.

You progressives have it all figured out.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



As I said.

I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> So you are claiming every person in those 13 states and DC works for minimum wage?



No, but the claim that raising the MW kills jobs is disproved by the empirical evidence from the 13 states + DC that did raise theirs.  We can debate whether or not raising the minimum wage created jobs and faster job growth.  But we cannot debate that raising the MW kills jobs as that is disproved by the empirical evidence.  So to help you figure out what position you migrate to now, it's the position that raising the MW doesn't create jobs but doesn't cost jobs either.  That seems to be the position you now have, again, migrated from your previous position that it kills jobs when we know it doesn't by simply looking at the job growth in the states that raised their MW vs. the states that didn't.  That was just three years ago.  *So if you were wrong three years ago about raising the minimum wage costing jobs, why would you be right about it today?*




Uncensored2008 said:


> First off, you are dishonest, California did not raise the MW in 2014, they raised in in 2006, with graduated bumps one of which took effect in 2014.



I never said they did you goofball.  If you had bothered to actually open the link I provided for you, you'd get the full list of states that raised their MW in 2014.  Clearly, you didn't bother to open the link, which explains why your argument is just another regurtitation of what you said earlier.  The 13 states that did raise their MW were; Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.  So you worked from the assumption that CA was one of those 13 states.  You were wrong.  So how were you _*not*_ talking out of your ass just now?




Uncensored2008 said:


> Secondly, the percentage of men making minimum wage who are 25 or older is 0.7%, for women it is 1.1%



So is that the federal minimum wage, or the aggregate total of all the states with varying minimum wages?  I have been very clear in that I wasn't talking about raising just the federal minimum wage...but if that is raised above the minimum wage of all the other states (which raising it to $15/hr would do), then it affects more than just the narrow, myopic group you are trying to misrepresent here, right?  So everyone who makes $7.25/hr all the way up to $14.99/hr would see a wage increase if the federal minimum wage was raised to $15.  So I'm curious...why do you argue that way?  You know that states have varying minimum wages, with some higher than the federal minimum and some at the federal minimum.  If the federal minimum was raised from $7.25/hr to $15/hr, how many workers would that affect?




Uncensored2008 said:


> The population affected by changes is less than 2%, in fact using your 30% total population yields .018*.3 or 0.54% of the national population. Yet you claim this is significant.



Because you are excluding everyone who lives in states that had MW higher than the federal minimum wage.  You're only counting those who lived in states where the minimum _*was*_ $7.25/hr.  You're not counting the minimum wage workers in states that had a higher MW than the federal one.  What you did is called _*sophistry,*_ pal!




Uncensored2008 said:


> I stopped conversing with you because you are a hack with an agenda who has no particular respect for facts.



Your feelings and thoughts are not facts.  I don't respect them out of principle.  You are the one who disrespects facts.  Most notably when it comes to the empirical evidence that shows that the 13 states who raised their MW in 2014 didn't experience job loss, and in fact saw faster job growth than states that didn't.  Those are facts.  Your theory or belief system are not facts.  Facts are something you accept, not something you believe.  The fact that you think they are something you believe tells us all we need to know about who you are as a person; someone who has no grasp on the facts and is desperate to maintain that their belief system is factual, or fact-based.  It isn't.  _*If you were wrong about raising the MW 3 years ago, why would you be right about it today?*_


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Your claim (or rather the claim of the Soros hate sites that do your thinking for you) is false. Most of these states had raised their MW ages before 2014.



So then higher wages lead to faster job growth!  Thanks for the assist!  But those states did raise their minimum wages again in 2014.  And again, we were promised by those on the right that if they did, it would lead to job loss.  It didn't.  So what is the known fact that is indisputable?  The known fact that you cannot dispute is that states that raised their MW in 2014 saw faster job growth than states that didn't.  Now we can debate if that faster job growth had anything to do with the MW, and that is a debate I don't mind having.  What we cannot debate, however, is that raising the MW kills jobs because _*it is disproved by the job growth numbers from the states that raised their wages*_.  So your argument, that raising the minimum wage kills jobs, is disproved by the facts. 

You seem incapable of reconciling that inconvenience, and because you refuse to accept the facts, the rest of your post reads like a bunch of whining, ignorant bullshit.

As for your "chart" that supposedly shows negative effect on the Seattle economy, I counter that chart (which doesn't seem to include the rest of 2016...funny, that) with the monthly employment report for the city of Seattle from the BLS that shows a _*lower unemployment rate by nearly a full point*_ for the city of Seattle in April 2016 vs. April 2017.  So perhaps those jobs that were "lost" became better paying, full time jobs!  At least, that's what the facts seem to indicate.  Seattle's unemployment rate right now is just 3.3%, which is full employment.  So while I appreciate your chart there, what I don't appreciate is the fact that you didn't bother to place it in context and hoped I wouldn't either.

Sophistry.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage: Jobs Down, Unemployment Up. This Isn't Working, Is It?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...ment-up-this-isnt-working-is-it/#ec6cbf52b5cd

Hey you fucking asshole...maybe you want to use a resource that is a little more recent.  Not one that is 15 months old.  Here, for your reading pleasure, is the BLS employment report for the state of Washington and the city of Seattle.  Unlike your editorial from February 2016, this is from May 2017, so we have more data to look at and a better picture of what happened.  You do realize that time didn't stop in February 2016, right?

Opening the link from the BLS shows Seattle's unemployment rate for April 2017 is at 3.3%, which is 0.9% _*lower*_ than what the rate was in April 2016.

_*SLOPPY WORK ON YOUR PART!*_ 

In your rush to try to defend what is ultimately an indefensible position, you didn't bother to look at what the current rates are.  Only what they were 15 months ago.  So now that you have the facts, are you going to own up to your obvious attempt at deception?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Let's raise it to $500 an hour and make everyone rich.
> You progressives have it all figured out.



So it's sad that rather than have an intellectual debate about this, the best you can do is resort to screeching exaggerated hysterics.  The reason you don't raise the minimum wage up to $50/hr is because that is economically unfeasible for someone working a drive thru to get paid $2000/week.  Just as it is economically unfeasible for someone working a drive through to get paid $290/week.  There exists a reasonable middle ground between the two.  Whether that is $15/hr or $20/hr or whatever, I am not sure.  You and I both agree that some people are paid way too much to shovel audacious, unappetizing bullshit on American citizens...we just disagree on who those people are and where they work.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> I doubt you've read this much, I doubt you have the intellect or education requisite to grasp what I have written, but this is supply side economics.



"If you build it, they will come" - there, I summarized supply-side economics for everyone.  Just like Field of Dreams, it's fiction and magic!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But that's not a fact.*
> ...


*
No, it's not a fact.*

I can hire someone for $5/hr without breaking the law?
Are you sure?

*You claimed that it was a fact that raising wages kills jobs.  That claim is demonstrably false*

If someone produced $7.25 of added value per hour and you force an employer to pay them $10/hr or $15/hr they'd get to keep their job? Are you sure?
*
the 13 states that raised their MW had faster job growth than the 37 that didn't.*

That's awesome! So what?

*You have no evidence to support that.*

Sure I do.

_Here's what some experts are expecting:_

*1. It may increase unemployment among minority youth.*
_Because teenagers and young adults hold a disproportionately large share of low-wage jobs, they figure to be among the hardest hit, pushed out by older and better-educated workers who will be drawn by the higher pay offered by retail stores, food services and other businesses.  _

_That could hurt opportunities, especially for black teenagers, one of the most vulnerable groups in America. The __unemployment rate__ for African Americans ages 16 to 19, while down by almost half from 2010, still stands at 25%. That compares to 13.9% for white youth and 15.6% for Latino youth.

Four consequences of a $15 minimum wage_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *LOL! The Bush Tax Cuts started in 2001. They were passed in 2001.*
> ...



*But you all say that businesses determine their expansions based on forward-looking at the tax rates.*

The final individual tax rate cuts took place in 2003. Businesses were then looking at current tax rates.

*And furthermore, if you are trying to credit the tax cuts to employment growth*

You keep saying tax cuts don't help employment, despite the job growth we see after those cuts.
*
Sure!  If they run an effective business and can satisfy the demand in the consumer market.* 

McDonalds sees huge demand and employs lots of minimum wage workers.
How do they make up the 38% spike in employee expenses? Show me.
*
If people have more money to spend because they are paid more, then what does that mean for revenues?*

Does your claim depend on McDonalds employees buying more fries?
*
So now you're at least conceding the point that if people are paid more, they spend more.* 

You bet, MW workers who don't lose their jobs will spend more.
*
But you cannot make that claim because you, yourself admit you don't know.* 

I know that a 38% hike in payroll is going to reduce profits. Show me my error.
*
Raising the minimum wage resulted in faster job growth (indicating more consumer demand) just three years ago.*

You keep making that claim and you keep failing to provide proof.

*Why would anyone lose their job?* 

You admitted that paying a cashier $100/hr didn't make economic sense.
Were you lying?

*They didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages 3 years ago.*

No minimum wage workers lost their jobs when their wages were raised above their value added?
No automation was implemented to replace those suddenly unaffordable employees?

I'd love to see your evidence.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, it's not a fact.
> I can hire someone for $5/hr without breaking the law?
> Are you sure?



That isn't what we were debating and you know it.  Your claim was that raising the minimum wage kills jobs.  The jobs numbers from 2014 for the 13 states that raised their MW _*disprove that claim*_.  Now, you are trying to shift the goalposts to try a completely different debate - but we aren't done with the last one.  We won't be done until you admit that raising the minimum wage doesn't kill jobs.  We can debate whether or not it creates jobs, but we know for sure that it doesn't kill jobs, and we have the employment numbers to back that up.

So why do you try to shift the goalposts in the debate?  Is it because you have to maintain some charade where your ego gets inflated?  Is that what this is all about; your attitude, your allergic reactions to facts, your substitution of personal bias for fact?  It sure seems like it.  Get over yourself. 




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You claimed that it was a fact that raising wages kills jobs.  That claim is demonstrably false
> If someone produced $7.25 of added value per hour and you force an employer to pay them $10/hr or $15/hr they'd get to keep their job? Are you sure?



There's that word again, "if", which would indicate you are operating in the world of theory and hypothetical.  You don't need to do that, because we have empirical evidence that can settle the debate for us.  Your claim was that raising the MW kills jobs.  The facts from 2014 show that's not the case at all.  So you lean back on your "ifs" and "theories" and hypothetical bullshit arguments, but none of those change the empirical data we have showing that in 2014, states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't.
*
*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> the 13 states that raised their MW had faster job growth than the 37 that didn't.
> That's awesome! So what?



So it debunks your entire MW theory; that raising it kills jobs.  Clearly, that's not true at all, right?  If it were, then those states would have seen job loss, right?  They would have seen job growth below the other 37 states, right?  But they didn't.  So that puts the dagger through the heart of your argument.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have no evidence to support that.
> Sure I do.



No you don't.  Outdated links and opinion editorials are not evidence.  What is evidence are hard numbers.  Like the ones from the BLS that show states that raised their MW in 2014 had faster job growth than states that didn't.  A fact you seem incapable of reconciling, and one you have no answer for.  If your theory was true, wouldn't those states have seen job loss or slower job growth?  Why didn't they?  We can debate whether or not raising the MW created jobs faster than not raising it, but we cannot debate that raising the MW _*kills*_ jobs because the empirical evidence shows it didn't.  So you operate in this world of theory, magic, and faith...none of which are tangible enough to be used as legitimate points of debate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *According to whom?*
> ...


*
Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $5B a year to provide benefits to their workers*

I love moronic claims like that. Very persuasive. LOL!

*If Walmart raised its worker pay by $5B collectively, US taxpayers would be spending $5B less on welfare benefits.*

Bullshit.

*So wages are being kept artificially low by subsidizing corporate profits...*

If you're worried about the wages earned by low skilled and unskilled America workers, you should support deporting the millions of low skilled and unskilled illegal aliens who compete with them for jobs and suppress their wages.

*The question is; why do you think the market has set the true value of wages as low as it is?* 

Supply and demand. Boot the illegals and you reduce the supply.

*No, no...*_*we*_* are subsidizing Walmart's profits.*

If WalMart fired all their workers on welfare, how much will welfare payments decline?
*
Walmart isn't paying shit.*

WalMart income earned by welfare recipients doesn't reduce welfare benefits received?
Are you sure?
*
 So this is how you justify subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits?*

We're not paying WalMart shit.
But go ahead, cut out those subsidies, stick it to WalMart. DURR......

*Except that they don't*

My chart showed they aren't paying 3rd world wages.
Because your claim was stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 130148
> ...


*
So, as usual, you fail to provide context for those numbers.*

The context is that they don't pay 3rd world wages.

*So why do you do things like that?* 

I enjoy pointing out your errors.
*
What's with that pathology and sophistry?*

I would never say your idiocy is pathological.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But you all say that businesses determine their expansions based on forward-looking at the tax rates.*
> The final individual tax rate cuts took place in 2003. Businesses were then looking at current tax rates..



But they knew what those cuts were going to be in 2001, because they were in the legislation.  So you're not really making an argument here.  All you're doing is just restating that which I already stated and trying to claim that position as your own.  Furthermore, by pretending that job growth in 2003-4 was attributed to the tax cuts, you are also attributing them to the mortgage bubble, since that is what drove job growth during Bush.  So if as you say tax cuts create jobs, then that means the tax cuts created the mortgage bubble because that was the thing that was creating the jobs during Bush.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> And furthermore, if you are trying to credit the tax cuts to employment growth
> You keep saying tax cuts don't help employment, despite the job growth we see after those cuts.



Job growth attributed to the mortgage bubble, which Bush was inflating starting in 2003.  So if you want to say the tax cuts caused the housing bubble, you could.  BTW - are you also saying that the cuts that did go into effect in 2001 _*didn't*_ create jobs?  Because some of those taxes were cut that early.  Now you've moved the goalposts to say that it was the _*individual*_ cut that created jobs which begs the obvious question; since you're saying the cuts to the individual rates creates jobs, that means all the other tax cuts that were part of the Bush Tax Cuts don't?  Are you sure you want to make that argument?  Because the Bush Tax Cuts weren't just cuts on individual rates.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure!  If they run an effective business and can satisfy the demand in the consumer market.
> McDonalds sees huge demand and employs lots of minimum wage workers.
> How do they make up the 38% spike in employee expenses? Show me.



By those employees spending their money.  Duh.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If people have more money to spend because they are paid more, then what does that mean for revenues?
> Does your claim depend on McDonalds employees buying more fries?



No, they can simply spend the money at Burger King if they want.  Or Wendy's.  Or anywhere.  But in doing so, they are increasing those revenues and the workers at those places then may go to McDonald's with their higher wages.  It's called _*the free market*_.  Clearly you are still learning about it.

*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			So now you're at least conceding the point that if people are paid more, they spend more.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> You bet, MW workers who don't lose their jobs will spend more.



MW workers won't lose their jobs.  So again, you are making an argument from a false premise.  One that is not supported by any empirical evidence.  Whereas there is plenty of empirical evidence showing your argument is a bunch of bullshit.  And you know it.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> But you cannot make that claim because you, yourself admit you don't know.
> I know that a 38% hike in payroll is going to reduce profits. Show me my error.



If revenues increase, then that will make up for the gap.  Also, 13 states raised their MW in 2014 and those states had faster job growth than those that didn't.  So that means that the higher MW led to increased consumption, which led to increased demand, which led to more jobs.  That's what the data seems to show.  You don't have any data showing the opposite, which is why your argument is purely hypothetical and theory.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Raising the minimum wage resulted in faster job growth (indicating more consumer demand) just three years ago.
> You keep making that claim and you keep failing to provide proof.



I did provide proof.  Here's the article.  Maybe stop being so lazy and do the work.  What you have failed to show, using empirical evidence, is that raising the MW kills jobs.  No evidence exists, and one of your comrades tried to sneak by out-of-context links but was quickly smacked down by the simplest of Google searches.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would anyone lose their job?
> You admitted that paying a cashier $100/hr didn't make economic sense.
> Were you lying?



I never talked about raising the MW to $100/hr.  You did, and you did so in order to exercise sophistry because you have no coherent argument to make.  How about this, how about we raise it to $15/hr and go from there?  Let's see what happens if we do that.  Chances are, it's probably going to lead to faster job growth because demand will be increased thanks to consumers having more money to spend.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> They didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages 3 years ago.
> No minimum wage workers lost their jobs when their wages were raised above their value added?
> No automation was implemented to replace those suddenly unaffordable employees?



Nope.  If they did, then job growth wouldn't have happened.  But job growth in those states did happen, faster than in the states that didn't raise their wage.  So now your argument has been reduced to more hypotheticals, feelings, and theory.  But not fact.  That usually means you've got nothing to say.  No argument to make because no evidence exists to support it.  Whereas there is plenty of evidence that contradicts your beliefs, namely the empirical evidence from the MW hikes in 2014.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'd love to see your evidence.



Stop lying.  We know you don't care about evidence.  Besides, I've been providing you with links this whole time.  You've been the one who refuses to click on them...probably because doing so will result in you having to reconcile the fact that you're wrong.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The context is that they don't pay 3rd world wages.



Because of the minimum wage.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So why do you do things like that?
> I enjoy pointing out your errors.



By ignoring context you are pointing out _*my*_ errors?
*
*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's with that pathology and sophistry?
> I would never say your idiocy is pathological.



You're the one making deliberately deceitful arguments in order to stay relevant in a debate that has long passed by what little, if any, merits your argument had.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $5B a year to provide benefits to their workers
> I love moronic claims like that. Very persuasive. LOL!



But that's the truth.  Walmart employees receive about $5B in welfare and entitlement benefits because of their low wages.  Walmart made $14B in profit last year, which means more than 1/3 of Walmart's profit was subsidized by the taxpayer.  You have no problem with that, why?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If Walmart raised its worker pay by $5B collectively, US taxpayers would be spending $5B less on welfare benefits.
> Bullshit.



So sorry that the truth upsets you so much.  It's actually closer to $6B, but I'm being conservative.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So wages are being kept artificially low by subsidizing corporate profits...
> If you're worried about the wages earned by low skilled and unskilled America workers, you should support deporting the millions of low skilled and unskilled illegal aliens who compete with them for jobs and suppress their wages.



Well, most of those illegal immigrants came here on the same kind of visas that Trump uses to import foreign workers at his domestic resorts.  They just overstayed their visas.  He does that because he can pay those workers less and treat them worse than American workers.  Why do you think he's so protective of that H-1B Visa program?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The question is; why do you think the market has set the true value of wages as low as it is?
> Supply and demand. Boot the illegals and you reduce the supply.



So now it's the immigrants' fault?  Everyone's fault but yours, right?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, no..._we_ are subsidizing Walmart's profits.
> If WalMart fired all their workers on welfare, how much will welfare payments decline?



They won't decline at all if they hire workers back at those same rates.  Furthermore, can you actually make an argument outside of hypothetical?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Walmart isnt paying shit.
> WalMart income earned by welfare recipients doesn't reduce welfare benefits received?
> Are you sure?



No.  Walmart profits do not reduce welfare benefits.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So this is how you justify subsidizing more than 1/3 of Walmart's profits?
> We're not paying WalMart shit.
> But go ahead, cut out those subsidies, stick it to WalMart. DURR......



I'm not talking about cutting welfare.  I'm talking about raising wages so we don't have to provide welfare to those workers.  Why are you so insistent on paying for welfare for Walmart employees?  How stupid are you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But you all say that businesses determine their expansions based on forward-looking at the tax rates.*
> ...




*But they knew what those cuts were going to be in 2001, because they were in the legislation.*

Yeah, phasing in tax cuts is stupid. Cut them all at once.
*
Furthermore, by pretending that job growth in 2003-4 was attributed to the tax cuts,*

You said there was no job growth after the Bush tax cuts. You were wrong.

*Job growth attributed to the mortgage bubble,*

Not in the 60s or the 80s.
*
So if as you say tax cuts create jobs, then that means the tax cuts created the mortgage bubble*

Obama's jobs created a new mortgage bubble?

*By those employees spending their money.  Duh.*

If a McDs franchise sees a $100,000 increase in employee expenses, how does a $100,000 increase in revenue keep profits steady? Duh.
*
MW workers won't lose their jobs.* 

How do you know?

*So again, you are making an argument from a false premise.*

You mean the premise that you can raise the cost of something and not see a decline in demand? LOL!
*
I did provide proof.  **Here's the article.* 

Thanks for the link. Where in the article did it say employment grew because of the MW hike?
*
I never talked about raising the MW to $100/hr.*

You admitted it made no sense. Were you lying?
*
How about this, how about we raise it to $15/hr and go from there?* 

Feel free. At your own company.
*
Chances are, it's probably going to lead to faster job growth because demand will be increased thanks to consumers having more money to spend.*

Chances are, it's probably going to lead to slower job growth because demand will be reduced thanks to employers having less money to spend.
*
Nope.  If they did, then job growth wouldn't have happened.* 

You showed that job growth happened for minimum wage workers? Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The context is that they don't pay 3rd world wages.
> ...



*Because of the minimum wage.*






MW is why average wages are $26.43 an hour? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $5B a year to provide benefits to their workers
> ...



*But that's the truth. Walmart employees receive about $5B in welfare and entitlement benefits because of their low wages.*

How much would welfare payments be reduced if WalMart fired welfare recipients?

You never told me how much we'd save.......why are you running away from the question?
*
Well, most of those illegal immigrants came here on the same kind of visas that Trump uses to import foreign workers at his domestic resorts.* 

12 million illegal aliens overstayed their visas? LOL!
*
So now it's the immigrants' fault?* 

Illegal aliens don't add to the labor supply? Are you sure?

*Walmart profits do not reduce welfare benefits.*

WalMart payments to workers do.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > The 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 represent about 30% of the total US population.
> ...


Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. 

Say says, State Capitalism should supply a solution that involves, equal protection of the law regarding the supply concept of employment at will, in our at-will employment States, for unemployment compensation purposes; to ensure capital is supplied and circulates to conform to Adam Smith.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Say says, Gravity Payments can supply us with an answer.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Guys with gold influencing the markets; what a concept.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



So what you're saying is "Herpa derp deperity derp derp derpity?"

Very deep doper boi..


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> [
> Say says, Gravity Payments can supply us with an answer.



You don't make $70K a year slinging dope to kids, Danny?

You're not very good at what you do.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


only to dopeless wonders. 

State Capitalism can supply equal protection of the law to ensure full employment of capital resources in our economy; it really is that simple. 

With Labor having recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed; the laws of demand and supply will function more as described by Adam Smith.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


How can Labor ascertain if management is any good or not; management compensation?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> [
> only to dopeless wonders.
> 
> State Capitalism can supply equal protection of the law to ensure full employment of capital resources in our economy; it really is that simple.
> ...



State Capitalism? Is that made from "dry water?"

And you have not a clue what Adam Smith described.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Read the company financials. It's real clear whether management is any good or not based on EBIT.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


It happens via a public sector not a private sector.  

Full employment of resources via an Capital, hard working hand.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


That didn't work.  Whence any need for bailouts.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

I finally started going through your, "wall of text".  



> No amount of Keynesian stimulus to the public will alter supply in any way.



Solving a simple poverty of money in our Institution of money based markets, will do, just that.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Markle said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Maybe you need to do some light reading, pal, and catch up to the rest of 2012. Conservatives deliberately tried to deceive people by pushing this paper whose authors had to lie, manipulate, and omit in order to get the conclusion their ideology had committed them to. Why do you think they didn't want their paper to be peer-reviewed??????? Obviously because doing so would have caught the deliberate data omissions and "spreadsheet errors" that produced the conclusion Conservatives wanted; that high government debt levels translate to slower growth. _*WHICH IS NOT TRUE AT ALL AND IS FAKE NEWS*_.
> ...


yes, it is fake to the extent the right wing believes, lowering taxes and speculating on growth, is better than taxing the "one per mil" to balance the budget.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Markle said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Maybe you need to do some light reading, pal, and catch up to the rest of 2012. Conservatives deliberately tried to deceive people by pushing this paper whose authors had to lie, manipulate, and omit in order to get the conclusion their ideology had committed them to. Why do you think they didn't want their paper to be peer-reviewed??????? Obviously because doing so would have caught the deliberate data omissions and "spreadsheet errors" that produced the conclusion Conservatives wanted; that high government debt levels translate to slower growth. _*WHICH IS NOT TRUE AT ALL AND IS FAKE NEWS*_.
> ...


_But the authors stand by their conclusion that higher government debt is associated with slower economic growth.
_
No one is claiming, cutting taxes reduces the debt; just the opposite.  Yet, the right wing insists on being, "opposite".


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


_Supply side is about the role of production, not about "trickle down."
_
That only holds true for economics; not right wing fiscal policies.  Trickle down simply means, bailout the wealthiest (and their supply side mismanagement), and then let it trickle down to the poor.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I haven't taken you seriously since we debated the drug war on ArgueWithEveryone.  

And, Todd is just a troll.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure, "blame the poor guy with a hard argument work ethic".


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It is called, equal protection of the law and supply side economics, by the poor.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


I am claiming supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, not Any form of Trickle down.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Red herrings are all the right wing has.  

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.  Fifteen dollars an hour makes rational choice theory sense.


----------



## Markle (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> So where was all this debt concern back in 2001 when you all erased a surplus and produced record deficits by cutting taxes? We only have the debt today because _*you fucking assholes cut taxes in 2001, erasing a surplus and producing record deficits*_.



The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP.  By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP.

As to any surplus, I'm curious, how can that be when our debt has NEVER decreased?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 1, 2017)

Markle said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > So where was all this debt concern back in 2001 when you all erased a surplus and produced record deficits by cutting taxes? We only have the debt today because _*you fucking assholes cut taxes in 2001, erasing a surplus and producing record deficits*_.
> ...


Yet, the right wing still claims we can lower taxes.


----------



## Markle (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. Fifteen dollars an hour makes rational choice theory sense.



If the national minimum wage was raised to fifteen dollars per hour, specifically what would happen to the worker earning $15.00 per hour today?

What about the worker earning $25.00 per hour today.  Since the worker formerly earning $7.50 per hour, is now being given $15.00, a 100% increase, should the worker earning $25.00 per hour not be entitled to 100% increase as well?

And so on and so forth.  At the end of the day, we are back in exactly the same position.

I doubt there are any such details available but I'd  be curious to know how many employees it required on an assembly line to build a car 50 years ago and how many it takes today.

When I teach for our state association, my fee is limited to $250.00 per hour plus expenses, which makes that my fee exactly.  Since hourly wages are doubling, why would I not be entitled to $500.00 per hour and the engagements I book at $1,000. or $2,000 per hour, don't they double as well?


----------



## Markle (Jun 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Yet, the right wing still claims we can lower taxes.



Which increases revenues, as you well know.

The Laffer Curve


----------



## Markle (Jun 1, 2017)

The Derp said:


> 13 states + DC raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. So either that means 2014 is a pretty big exception to your rule[...]



Please show us your source and link proving your allegation.  That the 13 states + DC which raised their minimum wage are the 14 locations leading the nation in job growth.

I'm glad you pointed out so emphatically that there is no reason for the Federal Government to do anything since, properly, the states are doing it themselves.

Problem solved.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway. Fifteen dollars an hour makes rational choice theory sense.
> ...


The price inflation canard from the right wing?  How literally, incredible.

The dollar menu won't even double.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Yet, the right wing still claims we can lower taxes.
> ...


Dude; we are on the Wrong Side of the Curve; our massive debt, Proves it.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Markle said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > 13 states + DC raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. So either that means 2014 is a pretty big exception to your rule[...]
> ...


He provided links earlier; all you have is diversion.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Markle said:


> The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP.  By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP.



So, just curious, what was the National Debt in 2009, after 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts, and what was the % of GDP when Bush left office?  Why did you just skip over the Bush years?  Pretending they didn't happen?




Markle said:


> As to any surplus, I'm curious, how can that be when our debt has NEVER decreased?



Well, if you look at Treasury Statements on Public Debt you can see that some months the debt was reduced and other months it wasn't.  That's because government doesn't collect revenues all at once.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Markle said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > 13 states + DC raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't. So either that means 2014 is a pretty big exception to your rule[...]
> ...



States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says
States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says


*California Leads U.S. Economy, Away From Trump*
Whatever the president says, this state does the opposite. It's working.

California is the chief reason America is the only developed economy to achieve record GDP growth since the financial crisis of 2008 and ensuing global recession, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Much of the U.S. growth can be traced to California laws promoting clean energy, government accountability and protections for undocumented people. Governor Jerry Brown, now in his fourth term, considers immigrants a major reason for the state's success: "39 percent of us are Latino and the majority are from Mexico," 

California Leads U.S. Economy, Away From Trump


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Markle said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > So where was all this debt concern back in 2001 when you all erased a surplus and produced record deficits by cutting taxes? We only have the debt today because _*you fucking assholes cut taxes in 2001, erasing a surplus and producing record deficits*_.
> ...


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Yet, the right wing still claims we can lower taxes.
> ...



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

*Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves." 

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme." 


*Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*


*Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."*


*Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much." 

*Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."*

*Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."*

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > The 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 represent about 30% of the total US population.
> ...




I swear to God that this virus of conservatives not believing the facts right there in front of them is contagious-- and you have caught it big time. Just because you say something it doesn't change FACTS and make it so--that is how three year olds (or the Cheeto) expect life to be.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)




----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> I swear to God that this virus of conservatives not believing the facts right there in front of them is contagious-- and you have caught it big time. Just because you say something it doesn't change FACTS and make it so--that is how three year olds (or the Cheeto) expect life to be.



Thing is, I believe they know the facts.  I believe they even accept those facts.  But they are caught between the facts and their own egos, and that's why they have to exercise sophistry in this, and pretty much every other debate.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



You are one ignorant troll, that's for sure.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


What didn't work? And what bailouts are you referring to? Only well connected organizations that buy government officials get bailouts.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


ignorant about what?  you lost our drug war debate on AWE, for having nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> I finally started going through your, "wall of text".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Poverty of money?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


the one  where supply side managers had to lie to their stock holders to keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on _means tested_ corporate welfare.  

Unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, solves simple poverty.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


>



Not the right place to tell lies, hack boi.







Andrew Jackson was the last president to leave a surplus.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I finally started going through your, "wall of text".
> ...


Yes, under Any form of Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


know the difference between a budget surplus and debt?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, phasing in tax cuts is stupid. Cut them all at once.



So they knew what the tax cut was going to be in 2001, and re-forecast based on that in 2001.  That's what you're saying.  So, wondering why Bush and the Conservatives had to phase in the tax cuts, and why they didn't make them permanent?  Why was that?  Why did they have a sunset provision?  That doesn't make any sense unless they _*knew*_ the Bush Tax Cuts were going to spike the deficit and skyrocket the debt.  So they had to have passed the tax cuts knowing the negative effects those cuts would have on the budget, so they set a sunset provision in them.  So the premise that tax cuts "pay for themselves" is a false premise, isn't it?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said there was no job growth after the Bush tax cuts. You were wrong.



No, what I said was the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble.  You need to do a better job reading posts.  You do a lot of _*sloppy*_ work here.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Job growth attributed to the mortgage bubble,
> Not in the 60s or the 80s.



First of all,_* there was no job growth after the Reagan Tax Cuts in 1981*_.  In fact, unemployment skyrocketed starting the month the Reagan Tax Cuts were passed, and continued growing throughout 1982, bringing the unemployment rate up by more than 3% to 10.8% by December 1982.  And the 60's, the top tax rate was cut to 70%...so if you want to return to a 70% top tax rate, I'm fine with that.  But also keep in mind that government spending grew by 25% from 1961 to 1964 and then 50% from 1964 to 1968.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So if as you say tax cuts create jobs, then that means the tax cuts created the mortgage bubble
> Obama's jobs created a new mortgage bubble?



Nope.  The Bush Tax Cuts created the mortgage bubble, according to you.  You say the Bush Tax Cuts created jobs, but those jobs were created by the mortgage bubble.  So that means the Bush Tax Cuts created the mortgage bubble.  Bush even said so himself while campaigning in 2004.  Ouch.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> By those employees spending their money.  Duh.
> If a McDs franchise sees a $100,000 increase in employee expenses, how does a $100,000 increase in revenue keep profits steady? Duh.



Why would the increase be $100K?  And most likely, yes, revenues would increase for that McDonald's because it's not just McDonald's employees who see wage growth.  It's everyone who works up to whatever the new minimum wage is.  What's sad about your posts is that they seem to get dumber and dumber the more we get into this subject.  That's usually an indication that you aren't as versed on this topic as you think you are.  So you have to exercise sophistry and such in order toi stay relevant in a debate.  I mean at this point, you're pretty much just flaming out here like a troll.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> BMW workers won't lose their jobs.
> How do you know?



Because they didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages just three years ago.  Back then, you all said that they would lose jobs.  They didn't, which means you were wrong.  So if you were wrong just three years ago, why would you be right about the same subject today?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So again, you are making an argument from a false premise.
> You mean the premise that you can raise the cost of something and not see a decline in demand? LOL!



So again, we saw that 13 states raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states then saw faster job growth than the states that didn't.  If your premise is true, then the facts wouldn't be what they are.  So in your attempt to defend your position, you are deliberately ignoring the empirical evidence that exists that proves your argument wrong.  So the question now is; why do you keep making an argument you know is disproved by facts?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> I did provide proof.  Here's the article.
> Thanks for the link. Where in the article did it say employment grew because of the MW hike?



As I said, we can debate whether or not raising the MW creates jobs...and that's a debate I don't mind having.  We cannot, however, debate that raising the MW _*kills jobs*_ because we have empirical evidence showing it doesn't.  Your premise with regard to taxation is that if taxes are cut, consumption increases.  Well, how could that increase consumption, but paying people higher wages doesn't?  Your argument falls flat on its face when subject to even the slightest scrutiny.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I never talked about raising the MW to $100/hr.
> You admitted it made no sense. Were you lying?



Why did you call for raising it to $100/hr?  We know why...because exercising hysterics is all you drama queens can do.  Every time there is discussion about raising the MW, you all insist that doing so will kill jobs.  That hasn't happened.  Instead, job growth was _*faster*_ than if the MW wasn't raised.  At least, that's what the data tells us.  So how could states that raised their minimum wage have faster growth than states that didn't?  Do you have an answer for that question?  No, of course not.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Chances are, it's probably going to lead to faster job growth because demand will be increased thanks to consumers having more money to spend.
> Chances are, it's probably going to lead to slower job growth because demand will be reduced thanks to employers having less money to spend.



And you base that on what?  Certainly not on the jobs numbers from 2014.  So how do you reach that conclusion using facts and evidence?  You can't.  Which is why the conclusion you have is bullshit and why it was so easy to take it apart on this thread.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope.  If thy did, then job growth wouldn't have happened.
> You showed that job growth happened for minimum wage workers? Link?



All I showed was that job growth happened.  So it seems like those minimum wage workers graduated up to better paying jobs.  What didn't happen was that jobs were lost, despite you insisting they would.  So if you were wrong about that just three years ago, why would you be right about the same subject today?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > I swear to God that this virus of conservatives not believing the facts right there in front of them is contagious-- and you have caught it big time. Just because you say something it doesn't change FACTS and make it so--that is how three year olds (or the Cheeto) expect life to be.
> ...



Do you think Koch or Palios "know the facts?" Do you think either has read the "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money?" They or you can read it here, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes

Do you think either of them made it to Jr. High?

Look, you irritate me because you are dishonest. No theory can be analyzed unless it is honestly evaluated, because you are more concerned with promoting a political agenda than with discussing the factual merits of systems, you pervert the discussion.

But your two buddies are just flat out stupid, and you full well know it.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


You have to show where I am resorting to actual fallacies, not divert with Red Herrings.  And, I have read enough to not have to resort to fallacy; unlike those of the opposing view who resort to fallacy.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MW is why average wages are $26.43 an hour? LOL!



Yes, the average wage should be higher, but it's not because the minimum wage is so low, and states also have low wages.  The BLS just released their employment report for May, which showed wages grew just 0.2%, which is much worse than they grew during Obama's last two years.  Likewise, the jobs numbers for March and April were "dramatically" revised downward, and about 400,000 people left the labor force last month.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much would welfare payments be reduced if WalMart fired welfare recipients?
> You never told me how much we'd save.......why are you running away from the question?



Then who would work in Walmart's stores?  Why do you insist on making false questions and choices?  How about we deal in reality.  The _*reality*_ is that we subsidize at least 1/3 of Walmart's profits every year by providing welfare benefits to their workers.  If Walmart paid their workers enough that they didn't qualify for benefits, then Walmart would still make billions in profits, they just wouldn't make _*as much*_.  Boo hoo.  Someone call Puddles' Pity Party.






Toddsterpatriot said:


> Well, most of those illegal immigrants came here on the same kind of visas that Trump uses to import foreign workers at his domestic resorts.
> 12 million illegal aliens overstayed their visas? LOL!



The overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants are people who have overstayed their visas.  Is this yet _*another*_ subject you know nothing about, but are pretending you do?  66% of undocumented immigrants are people who overstayed their visas.  Visas like the ones Trump uses to import foreign workers to work at his domestic resorts.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So now it's the immigrants' fault?
> Illegal aliens don't add to the labor supply? Are you sure?



You're not going to find many Americans who will work the jobs illegal immigrants do for the wages illegal immigrants get and the working conditions illegal immigrants work in.  They tried in a couple states in the South and there were no takers.  Produce was literally rotting on the vine because there was no one to pick it.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Walmart profits do not reduce welfare benefits.
> WalMart payments to workers do.



Yes, if Walmart raised their wages for their workers.  But they don't.  So we continue having to subsidize their profits because...because...there's no good answer.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MW is why average wages are $26.43 an hour? LOL!
> ...


The low wage "service sector" seems to be holding wages back.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> ignorant about what?  you lost our drug war debate on AWE, for having nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.



I lost a drug war debate on AWE? 

Tell me, what is my position on the drug war?

You are entirely ignorant of even the most basic aspects of macro economics.  You don't know who the players are, what the major schools of thought are, what the words mean. You have never read the underlying texts that define the various systems. You've not read Keynes, Marx, Friedman, Von Mises, et al. You are the king of Malapropisms.

Look, I get that you're a troll.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ignorant about what?  you lost our drug war debate on AWE, for having nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.
> ...


Alcohol is socially acceptable unlike pot; and you don't care about any "wall of separation" regarding States' rights.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Do you think Koch or Palios "know the facts?" Do you think either has read the "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money?" They or you can read it here, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes


https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/

So this is just a distraction from the facts that show 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages, and those states + DC saw faster job growth than states that didn't.  Whether that job growth is attributed to the wage increases, we can debate.  But we can't debate that wage increases lead to _*job loss*_.  The empirical evidence from 2014 proves it doesn't.

So let's talk about the merits of your belief system; it's not based in fact (because the numbers from 2014 prove it isn't), it relies on flawed premises and magical thinking, and it has no evidence to support it.  All it has is a very devoted group of ideologues who are determined to be willfully ignorant of the facts.

So because of that, it's hard for anyone to take anything you say seriously.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

Markle said:


> [
> The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP.  By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP.
> 
> As to any surplus, I'm curious, how can that be when our debt has NEVER decreased?



It's the big lie technique. The Derp thinks if he repeats a lie often enough people will begin to believe it, particularly those too young to remember the actual events. JonCrotch thinks if he posts memes from the hate sites that he'll get a scooby snack.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> [
> Yet, the right wing still claims we can lower taxes.



Not on you, you don't pay any income taxes.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Sorry Cupcake, I get the rightards don't understand the difference with a YEARLY BUDGET versus debt by the US Gov't Cupcake

THE LAST GUY TO HAVE BUDGET SURPLUSES  (more money coming in than going out in a f/y) was BJ Bill, he  had 4 of them Cupcake, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


Nothing but red herrings and other forms of fallacies? 

What part of Any concept, do You believe i cannot support in my arguments with those of the, Opposing View?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Yes, i refuse to aid and abet, lousy capital management and have become, very good at tax avoidance.  

Only the right wing complains about taxes.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...




The willfully ignorant liar calling out people spanking him


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


Most high school drop outs get it more readily, than the "educated right wing".


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think Koch or Palios "know the facts?" Do you think either has read the "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money?" They or you can read it here, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes
> ...



I grasp that you have a talking point to recite, but your bullshit has been defeated by both Todd and I numerous times. The number of minimum wage earners is too low to have an impact on the economies of American states.

When you raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour, the impact that has on a worker already making $18 an hour is to degrade there purchasing power. Remember, in any market economy, equilibrium will be found. Changing the volume of fiat currency can never alter the value of goods and services, it will merely alter the value of the currency. When more dollars chase a finite pool of goods and services, the dollars will have value by the increase quantity.

If there are 12 eggs and 12 dollars in a market, each egg cost $1 dollar. But the government boss comes along and dictates that there be 24 dollars. Are there suddenly 24 eggs? Of course not, the only effect is that purchasing power of each dollar declines. Further, since the boss keeps most of added dollars for himself, after all that's why he added them., the purchasing power of the public is greatly reduced.  The value of the egg doesn't change, it still has the same number of calories and protein, only how many dollars an egg can buy is changed.

The same holds true with your minimum wage idiocy. Value is static. The value added to a process by a person pressing icons on a cash register while talking to a drive-through customer is static. If the government boss dictates that the dollars paid to that person increase, the only possible effect is to devalue the dollars. In a large and complex economy like ours, the impact of this hits primarily those making 10 to 20% over minimum wage, as they get no more dollars, but must survive in a market where their dollars have less worth due to arbitrary flooding by the government bosses.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> [
> The willfully ignorant liar calling out people spanking him



How does mindlessly posting memes from the Soros hate sites "spank" anyone?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Or at least you two have convinced yourselves that you do...


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> I grasp that you have a talking point to recite, but you bullshit has been defeated by both Todd and I numerous times. The number of minimum wage earners is too low to have an impact on the economies of American states.



So you're only counting people who made the federal minimum wage.  Of course, you do know that states have varying minimum wages.  So you're only counting those who made the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, but of the 13 states that raised their minimums, how many of those had a minimum wage of $7.25 before their raised them?  Not many.  So you are purposefully leaving out the people who made the state minimum wage that was higher than the federal one.  Why do you do that?  Why don't you count all the minimum wage workers, including those whose state minimum wage is higher than the federal one?




Uncensored2008 said:


> When you raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour, the impact that has on a worker already making $18 an hour is to degrade there purchasing power.



Again, this is all in theory and we've come to learn that Conservative theory and actual fact are mutually exclusive things.  You cited an editorial about Seattle raising their minimum wage to $15/hr.  You pointed to the slight increase in unemployment that happened during a specific period, but you failed to use current numbers which showed that after Seattle raised their MW, their unemployment dropped by nearly a full point between April 2016 and April 2017.  So why did you leave that information out?  Was it just your way of exercising the sophistry you are known for?  Was it because you had to make a point rather than admit you're full of shit?  I am tired of Conservatives Conservasplaining their failed economic theories.  We all know they're bunk.  Why are you still making them?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



*"The number of minimum wage earners is too low to have an impact on the economies of American states."*


Yet EVERY TIME a min wage hike is proposed the right wing screams it will KILL THE US ECONOMY *shaking head*


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Weird IF you could show ANYTIME CONservative economics EVER worked (except for the richest) you'd have something to stand on, you don't Buttercup 


Soro's huh? Yep that guy who LOVES him some democracy is bad, but Putin is LOVED by the right wingers *shaking head*


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Markle said:


> If the national minimum wage was raised to fifteen dollars per hour, specifically what would happen to the worker earning $15.00 per hour today?



Nothing.  Maybe they will get a raise because of all the revenues and growth that comes from a minimum wage increase, increases demand which puts pressure on wages to go upward.  We were promised by the right-wing that if the minimum wage was raised, it would kill jobs.  That isn't the case, and we have empirical evidence from just three years ago that proves it isn't the case.  So since we have that data, why are you still coming to conclusions as if we don't?




Markle said:


> What about the worker earning $25.00 per hour today.  Since the worker formerly earning $7.50 per hour, is now being given $15.00, a 100% increase, should the worker earning $25.00 per hour not be entitled to 100% increase as well?



All workers are due wage increases since wages have remained largely stagnant for 37 years when placed within the context of inflation.  The point of raising the MW to $15/hr is that doing so reduces the need for welfare spending, which saves taxpayers money.  Do you not want taxpayers to save money?  You cannot have low wages and no social safety net.  You can only have one or the other.  So it's time to make a choice.




Markle said:


> When I teach for our state association, my fee is limited to $250.00 per hour plus expenses, which makes that my fee exactly.  Since hourly wages are doubling, why would I not be entitled to $500.00 per hour and the engagements I book at $1,000. or $2,000 per hour, don't they double as well?



What does your (pretend) wage have to do with that of a drive-thru worker at McDonald's?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Markle said:


> Which increases revenues, as you well know.



No, tax cuts _*do not increase revenues*_.  Tax cuts _*reduce*_ revenues...which is why after the Bush Tax Cuts, the surplus was turned into record deficits, and after the Brownback Tax Cuts in Kansas, their surplus vanished and was replaced with record deficits too.

Explain to all of us how cutting taxes increases revenues, yet raising wages doesn't.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Weird IF you could show ANYTIME CONservative economics EVER worked (except for the richest) you'd have something to stand on, you don't Buttercup



Conservative economics are a joke because they are based on feelings, faith, and theory...not actual fact.  Conservatives think "if you build it, they will come" is a viable guiding economic philosophy.  It may have worked in the movies, but that's because it's _*fiction*_.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



Oh wow, you posted another meme from a hate site.

You are impressive, RotCrotch!


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You are entirely ignorant of even the most basic aspects of macro economics.  You don't know who the players are, what the major schools of thought are, what the words mean. You have never read the underlying texts that define the various systems. You've not read Keynes, Marx, Friedman, Von Mises, et al. You are the king of Malapropisms.



So with you, no debate can happen in actual facts...instead, you seem to want to insist your theory is on equal footing with the empirical evidence we have.  That your personal beliefs and feelings are the equivalent to facts we know.  So you name-drop, but what you don't do is really tie those theories from the folks you are name-dropping to the facts on the ground.  The minimum wage is one of those subjects where you do that.  You insist your _*theory*_, that raising the MW kills jobs, is fact...however, the _*reality*_ shows that when 13 states raised their minimum wage, they saw faster job growth than states that didn't.  We can debate whether or not those faster growth rates had anything to do with the increase to the MW, but we cannot debate the premise that raising wages kills jobs _*because the empirical evidence from 2014 shows it doesn't*_.

So what happens to your theory if the data and facts don't support it?  It gets debunked.  And that's where we are right now.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Oh wow, you posted another meme from a hate site.
> You are impressive, RotCrotch!



Stop being such a snowflake!

Fact is that most of what you believes seems to fall apart as soon as it is subject to the _*slightest*_ scrutiny.  You prefer to operate in this world where your personal feelings are the equivalent to empirical evidence.  That's delusion.  You continue believing nonsense, even when that nonsense is clearly disproved by the reality.  So why do you do that?  Do you just have a mental condition that prevents you from admitting you are wrong?  Is your ego really that fragile?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



 Fuhrer Soros loves him some fascism, as do you. 

Here is something for you to ponder, Brown Shirt.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> [
> 
> Conservative economics are a joke because they are based on feelings, faith, and theory...not actual fact.  Conservatives think "if you build it, they will come" is a viable guiding economic philosophy.  It may have worked in the movies, but that's because it's _*fiction*_.



Do you honestly think that the slogans you spew are a valid retort to the mountains of facts you have been provided?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Fuhrer Soros loves him some fascism, as do you.



So calling a _*Holocaust survivor *_a fascist is antisemitism and flaming.  It shows you're not really serious about this debate, and I think you know that we know that.  

So that begs the question; if you're not serious, why are you here?  Is it just a way for you to feel better about yourself?  Is your ego really that fragile?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Do you honestly think that the slogans you spew are a valid retort to the mountains of facts you have been provided?



You haven't provided any facts.  You are one confused person.  Your personal theory is not fact.  Your personal feelings are not fact.  What is fact is the job growth numbers in 2014 that showed the states that raised their MW had faster job growth than those that didn't.  You've been unable to reconcile that _*fact*_ with your personal belief system.  So that's probably why you flame out, exercise sophistry, and generally act like an asshole on the boards.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Fuhrer Soros loves him some fascism, as do you.
> ...



Soros is a COLLABORATOR, not a survivor.

Here’s the 60 Minutes Interview George Soros Scrubbed From the Internet - Trading with The Fly

Jesus the shit you hacks try to pull.

This is what I mean by pointing out that you are patently dishonest.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you honestly think that the slogans you spew are a valid retort to the mountains of facts you have been provided?
> ...



Well okay, you just go ahead and lie then.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


>



Unsustainable bubbles are cool!


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Soros is a COLLABORATOR, not a survivor.



Soros was how old during the Holocaust?  And BTW - Conservatives loved Hitler.  They even held a rally for the Nazi at Madison Square Garden.  "America First" was an American fascist saying.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Well okay, you just go ahead and lie then.



I didn't lie about anything.  I think you're getting confused.  Your beliefs and feelings are not facts.  Your MW theory, about how raising it kills jobs, is disproved by the facts from just 3 years ago.  So why are you still saying stuff you know isn't true?  Is it an ego thing?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Unsustainable bubbles are cool!



So then why is it that Conservatives are the ones who give us those bubbles?  Dotcom bubble in 2000 thanks to the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997, Mortgage bubble in 2004-7 thanks to Bush deregulating the mortgage industry and his tax cuts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, phasing in tax cuts is stupid. Cut them all at once.
> ...



*So, wondering why Bush and the Conservatives had to phase in the tax cuts, and why they didn't make them permanent?*

Because they listened to the stupid liberal whining.
And because of the stupid budget rules.
Phase ins are stupid. People delay some actions if they know taxes will be lower, later.

*So the premise that tax cuts "pay for themselves" is a false premise, isn't it?*

So they don't pay 100% for themselves. So what?
What portion comes back?

*Instead, job growth was *_*faster*_* than if the MW wasn't raised.* 

If only you had proof.

*No, what I said was the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble.* 

You said there was no job growth. You were wrong.

*First of all,*_* there was no job growth after the Reagan Tax Cuts in 1981*_*.*

Liar.

*And the 60's, the top tax rate was cut to 70%...so if you want to return to a 70% top tax rate*

I want tax cuts, not hikes.
In the 60s the top rate was cut by 21/91, 23%.
We should cut our current top rate by 23%.
*
The Bush Tax Cuts created the mortgage bubble,*

You said the cuts created jobs which created the bubble.
Now you're claiming that cutting the top rate from 39.6% down to 35% created a bubble?


*Why would the increase be $100K?*

If you increase wage expenses by $100K, the increase is $100K.
If you want to show a $10K increase in expense will be offset by an increase of $10K in revenues, great, show your math.

*Because they didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages just three years ago.* 

You didn't show MW employment before and after the hike. Try again?

*So again, we saw that 13 states raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states then saw faster job growth than the states that didn't.*

Changes in total employment disprove the supply/demand curve?
Quick, alert the Nobel committee, you're a shoe in for a prize in economics.

*As I said, we can debate whether or not raising the MW creates jobs...and that's a debate I don't mind having.* 

Great.
Does raising it to $15/hr lose jobs? Does raising it to $30 lose jobs? Does raising it to $50 lose jobs?
If you ever get to yes, as the rate rises, you've lost the debate.

*And you base that on what?* 

I base employers having less money on your insistence on raising their costs. You know, math.

*All I showed was that job growth happened.*

Yes, I noticed your failure to post the proof of your claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How much would welfare payments be reduced if WalMart fired welfare recipients?
> ...



*Then who would work in Walmart's stores?*

Other people.
So how much do welfare expenses decrease?
*
Yes, if Walmart raised their wages for their workers.* 

The wages WalMart currently pays to current workers reduces welfare payments.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Unsustainable bubbles are cool!
> ...



*So then why is it that Conservatives are the ones who give us those bubbles?*

Bubbles have always happened and will always happen.
The one that is currently expanding in China is an ugly one.
I'd stand back if I were you.

As far as the recent bubbles, if the Internet bubble had popped a couple years earlier, we wouldn't have to hear about Clinton's awesome "surplus" and if the RE bubble had popped a couple of years later, Obama would have been a one term failure instead of a two term failure.

*Mortgage bubble in 2004-7 thanks to Bush deregulating the mortgage industry*

You'll have to tell me more about this claim.
Do you feel that pushing banks, Fannie and Freddie to vastly expand lending to poorer people is an example of deregulation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Newt Gingrich really held the line on Clinton's spending wishes.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


some jobs are "tied to the minimum wage"; thus, that tide will lift those boats.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> [
> Soros was how old during the Holocaust?  And BTW - Conservatives loved Hitler.  They even held a rally for the Nazi at Madison Square Garden.  "America First" was an American fascist saying.



Conservatives loved a guy who had a centrally planned and managed economy under a totalitarian dictatorship that denied individual rights and instead provided only group privilege?

If that's true, why do Conservatives not back the democrats who follow the identical platform today?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> [
> 
> So then why is it that Conservatives are the ones who give us those bubbles?  Dotcom bubble in 2000 thanks to the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997, Mortgage bubble in 2004-7 thanks to Bush deregulating the mortgage industry and his tax cuts.



Wait, you're claiming the housing bubble started in 2004? 



I thought you claimed that you didn't lie?

Or is this one of those definition issues, where a lie is anything that opposes the party and truth is anything that promotes the party?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Fuhrer Soros loves him some fascism, as do you.
> ...



Soros is a fascist. He promotes the agenda of fascism. Your abject ignorance is irrelevant.

I'll give you a hint sparky, the one who told you that "fascist" means "conservative" was lying to you. You may be astounded to find that Mussolini was not an advocate of property rights and free market economics....


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


you are confusing the right wing, with democrats.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


the problem is, simply cutting taxes, is merely speculating on our economy.  why not cut the drug war, if the right wing, is so, fiscally responsible?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


neither is our "national socialist" right wing, with their, war on drugs.  

Nothing like having our erstwhile, federales, eloign with our property.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...




Despite your blatant lies about AWE, I have always opposed the war on people who use certain drugs.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...




The "right wing" is "socialist?" 

If you don't get help at Charter, get help somewhere..


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


no lies; you really did have nothing but red herrings.

the problem is, simply cutting taxes, is merely speculating on our economy. why not cut the drug war, if the right wing, is so, fiscally responsible?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


yes, the right wing is for, "ditching Capitalism at Every Opportunity, for their Socialism on a National basis."

i am used to the "feast or famine" approach.  So, now, i cannot afford to have problems and when I have money, I can always find capital solutions.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



What the fuck are you jabbering about?

You lied about AWE, fess up scumbag.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


economics, dear;

the _ problem_ is, simply cutting taxes, is merely speculating on our economy. why not cut the drug war, if the right wing, is so, _fiscally responsible_?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I'll note you ignored YOUR POSIT Cupcake


"*The number of minimum wage earners is too low to have an impact on the economies of American states."


*
Yet EVERY TIME MW increase is brought up the right wingers whine it's going to kill the US economy


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Weird, you mean Obama was trying to reset the Russian/US relations and RIGHTFULLY said he had more flexibility after he spanked Romney Buttercup?



As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time —* “particularly with missile defense” — until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.*

“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.

*“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,*” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.

“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.


Horrible to be honest right Buttercup?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Mountains of facts? Sorry Cupcake ALL you give is right wing debunked theories and lies


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Yet only Clinton/Obama lowered the deficits handed to them in the past 60 years, Go figure Cupcake


"President Clinton’s 1993 budget bill—officially known as the *Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. OBRA, which mainly raised taxes on wealthy people but also raised the gas tax, extended limits on discretionary spending and cut back on some mandatory spending*, was signed into law on August 10, 1993. *Just five months prior, the Congressional Budget Office projected a 1998 deficit of $360 billion. One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. *The CBO explained the dramatic improvement this way: “*For the first time in two and one-half years, the deficit projections have taken a decided turn for the better… The reconciliation act deserves most of the credit for the improvement over the long run.”* Indeed, of the $160 billion improvement from March to September of that year, CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion. In fact, OBRA turns out to have been the single largest contributor to the 1998 surplus."


Sorry Cupcake

Not So Fast, Newt  - Center for American Progress


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




Talk about being dishonest Cupcake:


*Given that Soros — born in 1930 — was only nine years old when World War II began and 14 when the war ended in Europe in 1945, *

FACT CHECK: Was George Soros an SS Officer in Nazi Germany?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You'll stick to your lies huh Buttercup?


* Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)*

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank&#8217;s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (GSE'S BUY FROM BANKSTERS BUBBA)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*

*WEIRD HOW THE CLOSEST THE US HAS COME TO "FREE MARKETS" DON'T NEED REGULATORS ON THE BEAT SINCE THE FIRST GOP GREAT DEPRESSION, WE HAD RONNIE'S S&L CRISIS AND DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE RIGHT BUTTERCUP? Just a coincidence?*



,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Yet only Clinton/Obama lowered the deficits handed to them in the past 60 years,*

Yes, $9.3 trillion of added debt, very responsible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



*Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)*

Yeah, pushing homes on people who can't afford them is a really bad idea.
It's bad when Dems do it, it's bad when Republicans do it.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




Sure he did  Buttercup, that's why Clinton had to veto the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut after BJ Bills first surplus Buttercup



Take Presiden*t Clinton’s 1993 budget bill (PASSED WITHOUT A SINGLE GOP VOTE)—officially known as the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. OBRA, which mainly raised taxes on wealthy people but also raised the gas tax, extended limits on discretionary spending and cut back on some mandatory spending*, was signed into law on August 10, 1993. Just five months prior, the Congressional Budget Office projected a 1998 deficit of $360 billion. One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. The CBO explained the dramatic improvement this way: “For the first time in two and one-half years, the deficit projections have taken a decided turn for the better… *The reconciliation act deserves most of the credit for the improvement over the long run.” Indeed, of the $160 billion improvement from March to September of that year, CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion. In fact, OBRA turns out to have been the single largest contributor to the 1998 surplus.*

Not So Fast, Newt  - Center for American Progress


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yet, the right wing prefers to claim cutting taxes is Always the solution, regardless of which side of the curve we are on.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...





Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush's President's Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

"The Presidents Working Group's March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets* clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007."*



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. *This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "*

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf



Q Why is it commonly called the subprime bubble ?

A Because the Bush Mortgage Bubble coincided with the explosive growth of Subprime mortgage and politics. Also the subprime MBS market was the first to collapse in late 2006*. In 2003, 10 % of all mortgages were subprime. In 2006, 40 % were subprime. This is a 300 % increase in subprime lending. (and notice it coincides with the dates of the Bush Mortgage bubble that Bush and the Fed said)*
*FACTS on Dubya's great recession




*


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yep, UNFUNDED TAX CUTS, UNFUNDED WARS AND UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION CBO SAYS COST AS MUCH AS OBAMACARES 2013-2020, WHICH WAS 100% FUNDED, HAS CONSEQUENCES CUPCAKE, As well as cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble like Dubya did 

BET YOU CRIED WHEN RONNIE TRIPLED THE DEBT RIGHT CUPCAKE?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Weird how the "party of responsibility" NEVER accepts responsibility for THEIR FAILED POLICIES 


YES, I CAN SEE HOW THIS WAS THE DEMS FAULT


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




MAYBE next time the GOP should understand Banksters WILL NOT SELF REGULATE Cupcake? You know having underwriting standards like Bill and Barry had, unlike Ronnie/Dubya?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 2, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 2, 2017)

It is time for the poor and what remains of our middle class to tell the rich to fuck themselves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
yet, the right wing prefers to claim cutting taxes is Always the solution,*

And cutting spending....a lot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
Yep, UNFUNDED TAX CUTS,*

I agree, Bush should have cut spending when he cut taxes.
*
OBAMACARES 2013-2020, WHICH WAS 100% FUNDED*

Yeah, great plan, imploding as we speak.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 2, 2017)

Matthew said:


> It is time for the poor and what remains of our middle class to tell the rich to fuck themselves.



Tell them all you want.
They'll laugh at you, just like we all laugh at you.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 3, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...


socialism on a national basis and "hate on the poor", is all the right wing is good at.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 3, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


lol.  cut the drug war, right wingers, not food stamps for the poor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 3, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Dude, don't bogart that joint.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 3, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> [
> 
> Weird, you mean Obama was trying to reset the Russian/US relations and RIGHTFULLY said he had more flexibility after he spanked Romney Buttercup?
> 
> ...



So we have ACTUAL collusion by Obama, yet you fascist think we should go after Trump, despite there not being a hint of evidence....

I get it, collusion is only bad if the other side does it...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 3, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



I posted VIDEO from 60 minutes, Nazi boi.

You will lie no matter what...


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 3, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why not, i "worked for it".


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 3, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



The problem I have with what you post is that it is so rarely true.






The Bubble started in 1997. 

The link to the Fed doesn't work and SURE the fuck doesn't say what you posted.

{
One of the few positive developments from the housing bubble is that many mainstream economists have recognized the pernicious role played by the Federal Reserve. Indeed, some analysts on CNBC have discussed the outright abolition of the Fed.

The case against the Fed is straightforward: In an attempt to jumpstart the economy out of recession, Greenspan slashed the federal funds target from 6.5% in January 2001 down to a ridiculous 1% by June 2003. After holding rates at 1% for a year, the Fed then steadily ratcheted them back up to 5.25% by June 2006. The connection between these moves by the central bank, versus the pumping up and popping of the housing bubble, seemed to be more than just a coincidence. On the contrary, it looked like a classic example of the Misesian theory of the business cycle, in which artificially low interest rates lead to malinvestments, which then require a recession to correct.}

Did the Fed Cause the Housing Bubble?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 3, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Nothing but special pleading?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 3, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


The Fed implements monetary policy which lags, fiscal policy by Congress.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 3, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...





LMAOROG, Newest talking point from Breitbart huh Cupcake?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 3, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Sorry Cupcake:


*Given that Soros — born in 1930 — was only nine years old when World War II began and 14 when the war ended in Europe in 1945, *


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 3, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




Sure Buttercup, Sure

*DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SUBPRIME BUBBLE WAS ABOUT AND WANT TO CONFLATE IT WITH HOUSING PRICES BUTTERCUP?? SERIOUSLY?*




Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

 A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From* Bush’s President’s Working Group* on Financial Markets March 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets *clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”*



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. *This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007*. "


LINK WORKS CUPCAKE, TRUMPOV'S ADMIN MUST'VE TAKEN DOWN LAST LINK


Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis


*WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE BUTTERCUP*

*Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up*





*The boom and bust was global.* Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (*ultra-low rates,* securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. *Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. 


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom



Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards

WAPO

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


Jun 16, 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops 
*
According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). *In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history.
In come the waves
*

*
FED RESERVE HUH CUPCAKE?


Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


" after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. "


When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

RIGHT WING AEI

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/04/wa...sy-regulation-that-caused-the-housing-bubble/


According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?



....As a matter of fact, the share of non-prime mortgage over total mortgage originations went from about 20% in 2001 to more than 50% in 2006 (Panel a),* *experiencing the largest increase in 2004, while the Fed was already tightening its monetary policy stance.* A similar pattern emerges in issuance of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), whose share sharply increased in the 2003-06 period (Panel b). *Moreover, the share of high-LTV ratio mortgages in the US spiked in 2005 (Panel c), two years after the beginning of monetary-policy tightening.* Finally, while the level of perceived risk increased sharply starting in 2004, banks began to ease their lending standards in 2003 and did so even more in the 2004-05 period (Panel d

*In the context of our model and according to this evidence, regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures are largely to blame for the occurrence and the severity of the Great Recession. Only by assuming that the Fed was the sole institutional guardian of financial stability, or at least the main one, is it possible to contend that monetary policy is to blame for the 2007-09 financial crisis and the ensuing Great Recession.*

*http://www.voxeu.org/article/federal-reserve-breeding-next-financial-crisis*
*


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

*
"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."
*
Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them. 
*


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 3, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST WAS CAUSED BY US FEDERAL RESERVE BUT NOT THE BANKSTERS, THAT'S YOUR POSIT? Though I give Fed Reserve 20% blame for not doing more, SUBPRIMES SHOT UP 300% IN ONLY 4 YEARS CUPCAKE 




November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market



Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

*2007 $1.3 trillion*

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in *2003: $332 billion*

*Percentage increase from 2003: 292%*


*Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%*
*
*


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 3, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




Can you Klowns go back to at least blaming it on the poor and minorities Cupcake, at least then you'll stay true to a decades long trend, versus creating even more myths, Federal Reserve? lol


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 3, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. *

That's awful!
How did Bush and those mean Republicans weaken underwriting standards?

*
Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards*

Wait a second, someone weakened their standards with no help from Bush or Congress?

Makes your constant whining look even sillier than it already did, eh?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 3, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




Sorry Cupcake thought even the brain deadest rightie would understand who was in charge of SEC, OCC, FBI, etc...


*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." 


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional 440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
*PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING*


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards*
*
FACTS on Dubya's great recession*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 3, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse*

Pushing homes on people who can't afford them is a stupid, big government idea, whether it's done by Republicans or by Democrats.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 3, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Sure Buttercup, especially when you gut regulators on the beat like GOP (Ronnie/Dubya) do right Cupcake? Glad to see you're back to the meme that it was poor people though


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 3, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


*
especially when you gut regulators*

Gut regulators?

*Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
*
DERP!

*Glad to see you're back to the meme that it was poor people*

Yes, poorer people buying homes that the government, Dems and Republicans, pushed on them.
It was in all the papers. Moron.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 3, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Hey Dumbass, REGULATORS COULD'VE REIGNED IN THOSE MORTGAGE BROKERS THAT DID 80% OF THE LOANS (THAT'S WHAT WAS MEANT BY LENDING STANDARDS), INSTEAD DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATES WHO WANTED TO REIGN IN THE PREDATORY LENDERS, BY INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE. ALL 50 STATES SUED (AND WON TOO LATE IN 2009)...


Yes AFTER Dubya was warned in 2004 of an "epidemic of mortgage fraud that could rival the S&L crisis" Dubya gutted them by 1/3rd. As well as HIS regulators on the beat turning a blind eye to the Banksters WHO WERE UNDER TRADITIONAL BANKING REGULATIONS   

No Cupcake, it was actually Banksters loaning to old white guys who were flipping that drove Dubya's bubble. Who knew old white guys NEVER want to pay their bills  (except those of US watching the GOP the past 36 years).....

FACTS on Dubya's great recession


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 3, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards
*
DERP!


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 3, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




*Yes Moron, BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES NOT CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES LIKE CRA DUMBSHIT!*



Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

*Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye*

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the *1863* National Bank Act to issue formal opinions* preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

WAPO

Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime*



*SORRY CUPCAKE*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 3, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*BUT they were subject to OCC, SEC, ETC RULES*

Why don't you post up some of those OCC and SEC rules on mortgage underwriting? Dipshit.
*
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.*

Predatory lending led to the mortgage bubble and collapse? LOL!
Your claims keep getting dumber.

*In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act*

Why are you talking about banks when your own source said it was not banks who had the much weaker lending standards? Is it because you're stupid?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Hey Douche, what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING (NINA, NINJA, 1% Start rates, etc)


OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. *The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks.* *The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.



But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.

*
////Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect.* But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP  SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED SO OFTEN CUPCAKE?



*
...This was but one of many instances of state posses sounding early alarms about the irresponsible lending at the heart of the current financial crisis. Federal officials brushed aside their concerns. *The OCC and its sister agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), instead sided with lenders. The beneficiaries ranged from now-defunct subprime factories, such as First Franklin Financial, to a savings and loan owned by Lehman Brothers, the collapsed investment bank.


*
Some states, including North Carolina and Georgia, passed laws aimed at deterring rash loans only to have *federal authorities undercut them.* In Iowa and other states, mortgage mills arranged to be acquired by nationally regulated banks and in the process fended off more-assertive state supervision. In Ohio the story took a different twist: State lawmakers acting at the behest of lenders squelched an attempt by the Cleveland City Council to slow the subprime frenzy.


*....The Bush Administration and many banks clung to what is known as "preemption." It is a legal doctrine that can be invoked in court and at the rulemaking table to assert that, when federal and state authority over business conflict, the feds prevail—even if it means little or no regulation.


They Warned Us About the Mortgage Crisis


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?


*

*



*


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



June 29, 2009

*SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN BUSH-ERA PREEMPTION RULE -- BUT DECISION IS TOO LATE TO IMPACT SUBPRIME MORTGAGE MESS*


Although the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling today in _Cuomo v. Clearing House Association_ won’t garner anywhere near the attention being given to the Court’s other 5-4 decision today, _Ricci v. DeStefano_, the ruling in _Clearing House_ i*s an important one that will help states protect their citizens through enforcement of fair lending laws. The ruling is also the death knell for one of the remaining vestiges of the Bush Administration’s aggressive pro-preemption campaign that protected corporate interests at the expense of both our federalist system and everyday Americans.*
*
Supreme Court Strikes Down Bush-Era Preemption Rule -- But Decision is Too Late To Impact Subprime Mortgage Mess | Constitutional Accountability Center



*


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 4, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Why learn the theory of fishing, only catch red herrings?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 4, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


it is why i try to rely, on market based metrics and the, "nothing but repeal" and red herrings, of the other, "market participants".  Only the right prefers fantasy to objective, market based metrics.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 4, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Which increases revenues, as you well know.
> ...


we have massive debt;  cutting taxes just adds to the debt for the "short term gratification" of a micro-boom.   Yet, the dope-less wonders on the right wing, want to drug test the poor for welfare benefits.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 4, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> [
> it is why i try to rely, on market based metrics and the, "nothing but repeal" and red herrings, of the other, "market participants".  Only the right prefers fantasy to objective, market based metrics.



Alright troll, this one I will respond to.

What "market metrics" does a person who thinks there is "state capitalism  " rely on?

This I have got to see...


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 4, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Mixed market based metrics in our mixed market economy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 4, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*what don't you get about Dubya stopping Banksters from using PREDATORY LENDING*

We're talking about non-banks with crappy underwriting.
Get back to me when you sober up.

*OCC RULES I GAVE YOU CUPCAKE*

Moron, OCC regulates banks, not non-banks.

_The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks and federal savings associations as well as federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

OCC: About the OCC
_
Dipshit.

*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU RIGHT WINGERS COULD EVEN KEEP  SHOWING UP AFTER GETTING SPANKED 
*
You're talking about getting spanked, after referencing Spitzer?
That's hilarious!!!


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




YOUR DODGES NOTED CUPCAKE.  

Funny how you Klowns want to do "both siderismn" NS when clearly it was Dubya and HIS policies that allowed thew Banksters to create a SUBPRIME MORTGAGE BUBBLE as he cheered on their WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE Cupcake  

*Who regulates mortgage lenders?*

Who regulates mortgage lenders? | Investopedia


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





*White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire*


"Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.

*“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"


*
..Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an “ownership society,” in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.
*
But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.

So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

And he pushed to allow first-time buyers to qualify for federally insured mortgages with no money down.* Republican Congressional leaders and some housing advocates balked, arguing that homeowners with no stake in their investments would be more prone to walk away, as Mr. West did. Many economic experts, including some in the White House, now share that view.
*
The president also leaned on mortgage brokers and lenders to devise their own innovations. “Corporate America,” he said, “has a responsibility to work to make America a compassionate place.”*


And corporate America, eyeing a lucrative market, delivered in ways Mr. Bush might not have expected, with a proliferation of too-good-to-be-true teaser rates and interest-only loans that were sold to investors in a loosely regulated environment.

*“This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman, who advised Republican presidents and led the savings and loan bailout in the 1990s. “To make the market work well, you have to have a lot of rules.”

NYT

Bush’s Philosophy Stoked the Mortgage Bonfire






*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 4, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Yes, your previous errors are obvious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 4, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsey said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”-"
*
Yup. Dems didn't want to stop it either.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Sure Cupcake, Sure

Thanks to Dubya cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble the US lost $16 trillion of wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes were foreclosed WooHoo GOP sure do know how to take care of an economy


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What power did the Dems have again Cupcake?

Why is it under Ronnie and Dubya we saw the 2 worst Bankster created crisis's since the GOP's first great depression Cupcake?



*Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, (BARNEY) Frank Says*

JUNE 2004

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


*So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame Dubya*


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 4, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Bush is to blame for bubbles in other countries? LOL!

Do you ever pull your head out? The methane is warping your brain.
Give the little guy a break.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 4, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*What power did the Dems have again Cupcake?*

The Dems wanted to stop the bubble, but couldn't, because they had no power? LOL!


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




READING ISSUES CUPCAKE? AGAIN


*Thanks to Dubya cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble *the US lost $16 trillion of wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes were foreclosed WooHoo


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 4, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




More of your right wing BS. I'm shocked Buttercup


WHAT POWER DID THE DEMS HAVE TO STOP RONNIE'S S&L CRISIS OR DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE CUPCAKE?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 4, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Thanks to Dubya cheering on the Banksters world wide credit bubble 
*
Yes, Bush said to banks all over the world, make stupid loans.
That's why the bubble was world wide.

DERP!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 4, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*WHAT POWER DID THE DEMS HAVE TO STOP RONNIE'S S&L CRISIS*

Well, the Dems held the House during Reagan's 2 terms, and the Senate his last 2 years.
I don't recall them saying anything about it then. Do you? Link?

*OR DUBYA'S SUBPRIME BUBBLE*

When you show me Dems trying to limit mortgage lending during Bush's terms,
I'll stop telling you that you're a fucking moron.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 4, 2017)

Only the right wing claims to "love the poor", while reducing food stamp benefits and lowering taxes for the rich.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How did Bush and those mean Republicans weaken underwriting standards?



By not enforcing them.  Regulators work for the Executive Branch.  Who runs the Executive Branch?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because they listened to the stupid liberal whining.
> And because of the stupid budget rules.
> Phase ins are stupid. People delay some actions if they know taxes will be lower, later.



Stupid budget rules, how so?  The fact that the Bush Tax Cuts increase the deficit?  And that's why they had the sunset provision?  So if the Bush Tax Cuts increased the deficit, then that means tax cuts create deficits.  And why would they listen to liberals at all?  Conservatives controlled all three branches of government.  They didn't need liberals to go along with them, and all the liberals voted against the Bush Tax Cuts.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So the premise that tax cuts "pay for themselves" is a false premise, isn't it?
> So they don't pay 100% for themselves. So what?



So that means there's no economic benefit to doing them.  So if they don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs, and increase debt, _*why do them at all?  *_And no portion "came back", hence the deficits that appeared after taxes were cut.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Instead, job growth was _faster_ than if the MW wasn't raised.
> If only you had proof.



We have the empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't.  Whether or not that job growth is attributed to the MW hike, we can debate.  However, your argument that raising the MW kills jobs is not something we can debate *because it isn't true.*




Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, what I said was the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble.
> You said there was no job growth. You were wrong.



NO!  I said the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble.  Re-read the thread.  You do a lot of sloppy work here.  Is that on purpose?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> First of all,_ there was no job growth after the Reagan Tax Cuts in 1981_.
> Liar.



The Reagan Tax Cuts were signed into law August 1981.  Unemployment for July 1981 was 7.2%.  It would then climb up to 10.8% by December _*1982*_, one year into the Reagan Tax Cuts taking effect, and 16 months after they were signed into law.  So if unemployment went from 7.2% to 10.8%, does that mean there are more people employed than before?  Yes or no? 




Toddsterpatriot said:


> And the 60's, the top tax rate was cut to 70%...so if you want to return to a 70% top tax rate
> I want tax cuts, not hikes.



Then why did you invoke a tax cut that set the rate to 70%?  Sloppy work, as usual.  Stop rushing.  Use your words.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Bush Tax Cuts created the mortgage bubble,
> You said the cuts created jobs which created the bubble.
> Now you're claiming that cutting the top rate from 39.6% down to 35% created a bubble?



No, the bubble is what created the jobs.  But remember, Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years, and lost 460,000 private sector jobs overall.  And I'm not the one who claimed it caused the bubble, _*Bush was*_.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> TWhy would the increase be $100K?
> If you increase wage expenses by $100K, the increase is $100K.



No, where are you getting the $100K from?  Or did you just pull that number out of your ass?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because they didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages just three years ago.
> You didn't show MW employment before and after the hike. Try again?



Ummmm....that's because unemployment _*declined*_.  So I don't know what you're trying to get at here.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So again, we saw that 13 states raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states then saw faster job growth than the states that didn't.
> Changes in total employment disprove the supply/demand curve?
> Quick, alert the Nobel committee, you're a shoe in for a prize in economics.



We are talking about the unemployment rate.  You all claimed it would go up if the MW was raised.  It didn't for 13 states.  So why are you still pretending as if it did?  Sophistry, that's why.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> As I said, we can debate whether or not raising the MW creates jobs...and that's a debate I don't mind having.
> Great.
> Does raising it to $15/hr lose jobs? Does raising it to $30 lose jobs? Does raising it to $50 lose jobs?
> If you ever get to yes, as the rate rises, you've lost the debate.



No one is proposing raising it to $30 or $50/hr.  Seattle raised theirs to $15/hr and they have 3.3% unemployment.  You know that now because I gave you the most recent info, after you and your comrades tried to lie about it before.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> And you base that on what?
> I base employers having less money on your insistence on raising their costs. You know, math.



Less money?  Since their revenues are increasing thanks to increased consumption, why would they "have less", and what would they do with the money they have anyway?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> All I showed was that job growth happened.
> Yes, I noticed your failure to post the proof of your claim.



Well, the empirical evidence is the proof.  Those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't raise their MW.  You all say that the opposite would happen, but it didn't.  So that's why you argue in theory and not in fact.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Other people.
> So how much do welfare expenses decrease?



For the same wage as the previous ones?  What are you saying here?  You make no sense.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, if Walmart raised their wages for their workers.
> The wages WalMart currently pays to current workers reduces welfare payments.



No, it doesn't.  We pay $6B to provide welfare to walmart workers.  If they raised the wages, we would spend less.  So I am not sure what argument you're making, but it's stupid.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So then why is it that Conservatives are the ones who give us those bubbles?*
> Bubbles have always happened and will always happen.



So this is your first problem.  Nothing happens by accident in our economy.  Everything happens for a reason.  The bubbles didn't just appear out of nowhere, they were created by taking specific actions.  The dotcom bubble was caused by the 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut, and the Bush mortgage bubble was created by the deregulation of the mortgage industry and the Bush Tax Cuts.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> As far as the recent bubbles, if the Internet bubble had popped a couple years earlier, we wouldn't have to hear about Clinton's awesome "surplus" and if the RE bubble had popped a couple of years later, Obama would have been a one term failure instead of a two term failure.



But we do hear about the surplus, and the Bush Mortgage Bubble popped.  Nothing Clinton did led Bush's regulators to cease enforcement of lending standards for subprime loans beginning in 2004.  Those regulators, who work for the Executive Branch, ceased enforcement of lending standards.  That's why subprime growth exploded.



*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Mortgage bubbe in 2004-7 thanks to Bush deregulating the mortgage industry
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> You'll have to tell me more about this claim.
> Do you feel that pushing banks, Fannie and Freddie to vastly expand lending to poorer people is an example of deregulation?



First of all, GSE's were _*prohibited*_ from purchasing risky subprime loans thanks to a Clinton HUD rule in 2000.  Bush reversed that rule in 2004, and that's why GSE's resumed purchasing risky subprimes.  It should be noted, however, that GSE subprime loans performed markedly better than their private sector counterpart:

_"Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%."
_​So the GSE's and the CRA were not responsible for the Bush Mortgage Bubble that appeared in 2004 and popped by 2007.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Newt Gingrich really held the line on Clinton's spending wishes.



Conservatives lost the shutdown battle and had to accept the extra $300B of spending Clinton had in his budget.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Conservatives loved a guy who had a centrally planned and managed economy under a totalitarian dictatorship that denied individual rights and instead provided only group privilege?



Yep.  They loved his racism and antisemitism.  Not much has changed for Conservatives since.




Uncensored2008 said:


> If that's true, why do Conservatives not back the democrats who follow the identical platform today?



Democrats do not have that platform.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wait, you're claiming the housing bubble started in 2004?



It did start in 2004.  

When you look at this chart, what is it you see?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Soros is a fascist. He promotes the agenda of fascism. Your abject ignorance is irrelevant.



Explain how Soros is a fascist, but Trump using the Presidency to enrich his businesses is not?




Uncensored2008 said:


> I'll give you a hint sparky, the one who told you that "fascist" means "conservative" was lying to you. You may be astounded to find that Mussolini was not an advocate of property rights and free market economics....



Fascist = Conservative = Teabag = "Libertarian" = Klansman = Republican


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *yet, the right wing prefers to claim cutting taxes isAlways the solution,*
> And cutting spending....a lot.



Hold on, though...tax cuts were originally pitched as "paying for themselves".  If you are _*now*_ saying that spending has to be cut in order for tax cuts to work (?), then that means there is no economic benefit to cutting taxes.  Which means there is another reason Conservatives want to do so...that reason is to manufacture budget deficits that are then used as an excuse to cut spending.  Those spending cuts are almost always operational, and cause programs to fail.  Then Conservatives point to those failing programs as an excuse to sell them off to private interests who profit off them at our expense, while not producing any better outcomes than before.  You can look at private prisons and charter schools to see the failure of right-wing ideology in action.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Yep, UNFUNDED TAX CUTS,*
> I agree, Bush should have cut spending when he cut taxes.



Why?  Spending has nothing to do with the effect of tax cuts.  You are saying that in order for tax cuts "to work", spending has to be cut?  How so?  Your argument _*makes no fucking sense*_.  So you are saying tax cuts _*don't*_ pay for themselves by way of increased consumption, and that spending has to be cut because...because...why?  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> OBAMACARES 2013-2020, WHICH WAS 100% FUNDED
> Yeah, great plan, imploding as we speak.



If it is imploding (which it isn't), it's because Conservatives are taking deliberate actions to sabotage it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How did Bush and those mean Republicans weaken underwriting standards?
> ...



*By not enforcing them*

Which standards did they not enforce wrt Countrywide, for instance?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which standards did they not enforce wrt Countrywide, for instance?



Take your pick; no income verification, robo-signing, some subprimes issued _*didn't even have names on whose loan it was*_.  Wall Street was churning out as many subprimes as they could so they could package those subprimes into securities to sell on the secondary and tertiary mortgage markets.  That's how those markets got inflated so quickly.

Go watch _*The Big Short*_.  It does a fantastic job of explaining how the subprime bubble started, how it grew, and how it popped. It's on Netflix now.  Should be required viewing for every American.  

Plus, it's got Margot Robbie in a bathtub...so there's that:


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives loved a guy who had a centrally planned and managed economy under a totalitarian dictatorship that denied individual rights and instead provided only group privilege?
> ...



So we will find conservatives of the time praising Hitler?  Do tell?

Of course leading PROGRESSIVES are a different story. Darling of the Progressive Left Henry Ford FAWNED over Hitler. Radical Left Priest and close confidant of FDR, Father Charles Coughlin thought Hitler was the best man ever born, he shared the vision of how humans should be dealt with. Open Communist Eugene Debs praised Hitler as the leader the world needed. And of course Huey Long, the Marxist Labor leader of "Share the Wealth" was a vocal advocate of Hitler.

In fact, your Big Lie trying to convert Fascism to Conservatism didn't even start until academics in the 1950's were desperate to justify their continued preaching of Marxism in the face of the never ending atrocities committed by their beloved Marxists.

Your Big Lie has failed. Fascism is a form of socialism, always was, always will be.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, you're claiming the housing bubble started in 2004?
> ...


A dip in 2000 due to the Clinton recession, followed by a rapidly expanding bubble.starting in 2001.

What do you see, a pony? A dragon? Santa Claus?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2017)

Tehon said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



But you are giving the rich who don't need them tax breaks and shifting the tax burden on the masses, all while cutting social services and programs that benefit the poor.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> So we will find conservatives of the time praising Hitler?  Do tell?



Here ya go!

*In February 1939 Kuhn and the Bund held their largest rally in Madison Square Garden—ironically, one which marked the beginning of the end for the organization. In front of a crowd of 22,000, flanked by a massive portrait of George Washington, swastikas and Americans flags, Kuhn attacked President Roosevelt for being part of a Bolshevik-Jewish conspiracy, calling him “Frank D. Rosenfeld” and calling his New Deal the “Jew Deal”. Three thousands members of the Ordnungsdienst, the militant arm of the Bund, were on hand and fistfights broke out in the crowd among those who had come to heckle Kuhn.*​
Here's a terrific book that goes into detail at how the Conservatives loved Hitler so much, they tried to prevent the US from getting involved in WWII.




Uncensored2008 said:


> Of course leading PROGRESSIVES are a different story. Darling of the Progressive Left Henry Ford FAWNED over Hitler. Radical Left Priest and close confidant of FDR, Father Charles Coughlin thought Hitler was the best man ever born, he shared the vision of how humans should be dealt with. Open Communist Eugene Debs praised Hitler as the leader the world needed. And of course Huey Long, the Marxist Labor leader of "Share the Wealth" was a vocal advocate of Hitler.



Father Coughlin _*was no ally of FDR*_.  In fact, Coghlin would routinely take to the airwaves to rail against Roosevelt's New Deal *starting in 1934*.  You don't know _*anything*_.  Why are you just making stuff up????  Such a liar.




Uncensored2008 said:


> Your Big Lie has failed. Fascism is a form of socialism, always was, always will be.



No, it's not.  Fascism and socialism are two completely different things.  You don't know anything, yet you still exercise sophistry.  The simplest of Google searches undermines every point you make...like how you made a lying point about the MW being raised in Seattle.  You _*deliberately*_ did not use Seattle's current unemployment rate, choosing instead to use a link that is 15 months old to make the false argument that Seattle's MW increase led to unemployment.  _*It didn't*_.  So you lied.  So if you lied about that, why would you be telling the truth about anything else???


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> A dip in 2000 due to the Clinton recession, followed by a rapidly expanding bubble.starting in 2001.



How do you get that from this chart that shows just subprime mortgage origination?  *You don't know anything you are talking about. * You're just a bullshitter, aren't you??  You pretend to know about economics, but you don't, do you?  You're just posturing and pretending on an internet board because you are so insecure you need validation.  Pathetic.




Uncensored2008 said:


> What do you see, a pony? A dragon? Santa Clause?



I see a subprime bubble appearing in 2004.  Look at the chart again.  Actually read it this time:






So that doesn't show anything about the economy or recessions.  This chart shows just subprime mortgage originations.  And as you see, it remained pretty consistent and steady until 2004, when it shot upward.

You have no response to this chart because it demolishes your attempt to blame Clinton for the mortgage bubble, when the blame lies squarely on Conservatives who were running the show in 2004.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> A dip in 2000 due to the Clinton recession, followed by a rapidly expanding bubble.starting in 2001.
> What do you see, a pony? A dragon? Santa Claus?



I think you need glasses because this chart does not show that.  This chart shows subprime mortgage origination.  Clearly you can see that those origination spike beginning in 2004.  I think you recognize that but are trying to pretend the chart says something else when it doesn't.  You do that because you are not an honest person and because you have nothing to support your failed belief system, which I am taking apart here with every post.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> A dip in 2000 due to the Clinton recession, followed by a rapidly expanding bubble.starting in 2001.
> What do you see, a pony? A dragon? Santa Claus?



So were you deliberately misreading and misunderstanding that chart because you don't want to admit you are wrong?  Because that's how it's coming across.






Also, no atonement from you on the lie about Seattle's MW either.  You tried to lie on the board and say that after Seattle's MW hike, they had job loss, but you failed to use current numbers, choosing instead to use a link from 15 months ago that is no longer relevant.  

BTW - Seattle's unemployment rate is nearly a full point lower today than it was one year ago.

Will you admit you deliberately attempted to deceive?  Of course not.  Because you are a shameless fraud.


----------



## Tehon (Jun 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No I'm not, lol. I'm advocating an end to the system of labor exploitation known as capitalism.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Tehon said:


> No I'm not, lol. I'm advocating an end to the system of labor exploitation known as capitalism.



Good luck trying to explain anything to these frauds.  Conservatives lie constantly, exercise sophistry, and willfully and deliberately mislead because their arguments cannot stand on their merits.  Every single Conservative posting on this thread is a fraud.  And they know it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > No I'm not, lol. I'm advocating an end to the system of labor exploitation known as capitalism.
> ...


I'm a liberal too.  Can't be too hard to convince me.  I agree we need to break capitalism.  Do you know how to do that?  You stop having lots of babies.  When we do that then the American corporations that run our government will tell the government to give families tax breaks for having kids and corporations will start paying parents a wage that promotes having more kids.  If we keep pumping out cheap labor and consumers they'll never stop fucking us.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > So we will find conservatives of the time praising Hitler?  Do tell?
> ...




My god but you are an idiot.

{Father Coughlin first took to the airwaves in 1926, broadcasting weekly sermons over the radio. By the early 1930s the content of his broadcasts had shifted from theology to economics and politics. Just as the rest of the nation was obsessed by matters economic and political in the aftermath of the Depression, so too was Father Coughlin. Coughlin had a well-developed theory of what he termed "social justice," predicated on monetary "reforms."* He began as an early Roosevelt supporter, coining a famous expression, that the nation's choice was between "Roosevelt or ruin."* Later in the 1930s he turned against FDR and became one of the president's harshest critics. His program of "social justice" was a very radical challenge to capitalism and to many of the political institutions of his day. }

Social Security History

A bit of advice, less hack, more fact.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> I'm a liberal too.  Can't be too hard to convince me.  I agree we need to break capitalism.  Do you know how to do that?  You stop having lots of babies.  When we do that then the American corporations that run our government will tell the government to give families tax breaks for having kids and corporations will start paying parents a wage that promotes having more kids.  If we keep pumping out cheap labor and consumers they'll never stop fucking us.



You are not a liberal, you are a Stalinist, a fascist. You advocate the opposite of liberty, the control of people's lives and finances by the authoritarian state. The primary attribute of a liberal is advocacy of Laissez Faire Capitalism.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> My god but you are an idiot.



FROM YOUR OWN FUCKING QUOTE:

*Later in the 1930s he turned against FDR and became one of the president's harshest critics.*​
That turn against FDR started_* in 1934.*_


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a liberal too.  Can't be too hard to convince me.  I agree we need to break capitalism.  Do you know how to do that?  You stop having lots of babies.  When we do that then the American corporations that run our government will tell the government to give families tax breaks for having kids and corporations will start paying parents a wage that promotes having more kids.  If we keep pumping out cheap labor and consumers they'll never stop fucking us.
> ...


Go ahead and try to re define words.  You sir are the fascists.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You are not a liberal, you are a Stalinist, a fascist. You advocate the opposite of liberty, the control of people's lives and finances by the authoritarian state. The primary attribute of a liberal is advocacy of Laissez Faire Capitalism.



And you're a fucking fraud and a liar...someone who exercises sophistry because there are no merits to anything you believe.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Go ahead and try to re define words.  You sir are the fascists.



He's a sophist.  That's all anyone on the right is these days.  They make deliberately misleading arguments then scurry and scamper away when those arguments are subject to the _*slightest*_ scrutiny.

They're* all *frauds, *and they know it.*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > My god but you are an idiot.
> ...



And?

You lefties turn on each other. Despite your prevarication, Coughlin  was a huge supporter of FDR, and a dedicated Marxist. Coughlin became disillusioned because FDR did not embrace Marxism to the extent Coughlin wanted.

REMEMBER Derp, the question was whether the right, or the left were the supporters of Hitler in America. The Communists were fully behind Hitler until he turned on Stalin. And why not, the governmental and economic systems are nearly identical. In fact what Stalin ultimately adopted in the USSR was Fascism. Marxism doesn't work. 

I provided a list of prominent Progressives who were backers of Hitler, which deflates your lie that Nazism is associated with the right. It was in fact you of the left who praised it. The idea that all things including people are the rightful property of the state is the same message you preach today. Hitler had the same message that the democratic party promotes at this very moment.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > You are not a liberal, you are a Stalinist, a fascist. You advocate the opposite of liberty, the control of people's lives and finances by the authoritarian state. The primary attribute of a liberal is advocacy of Laissez Faire Capitalism.
> ...



You calling someone else a liar or a fraud is laughably ironic, not to mention insanely ignorant.

{The doctrine of _laissez-faire_ became an integral part of nineteenth-century European liberalism.[13] "Just as liberals supported freedom of thought in the intellectual sphere, so were they equally prepared to champion the principles of free trade and free competition in the sphere of economics. The state was to be merely a passive policeman, protecting private property and administering justice, but not interfering with the affairs of its citizens. Businessmen, and particularly British industrialists, were quick to associate these principles with their own economic interests."[13] Many of the ideas of the physiocrats spread throughout Europe, and were adopted to a greater or lesser extent in Sweden, Tuscany, Spain, and after 1776 in the newly created United States. Adam Smith, author of _The Wealth of Nations_, met Quesnay and acknowledged his influence.[28]}

Laissez-faire - Wikipedia


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> And?



And thus, once he became President, FDR was at odds with Coughlin who opposed the New Deal, opposed Social Security, opposed involvement in WWII.

In other words, he was a Conservative.




Uncensored2008 said:


> REMEMBER Derp, the question was whether the right, or the left were the supporters of Hitler in America. The Communists were fully behind Hitler until he turned on Stalin.



Well that's just stupid and wrong.  The Nazis criminalized and purged Communists out of the government in Germany. You're just kinda making it all up as you go, right?  That's what you do, after all.  Because you are a sophist.




Uncensored2008 said:


> I provided a list of prominent Progressives who were backers of Hitler



No one you listed was a liberal.  However, there were plenty of Conservatives who backed Hitler, like Charles Lindbergh.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Go ahead and try to re define words.  You sir are the fascists.
> ...



They've mastered fake news.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You calling someone else a liar or a fraud is laughably ironic



But you are a liar and a fraud.  Your sophistry is on display for everyone to see on this thread...particularly the part where you claimed Seattle's minimum wage hike killed jobs there and you supported it with an editorial from 15 months ago.  Seattle's current unemployment rate is nearly a full point below what it was just one year ago.

You thought you could sneak that lie on through, didn't you?  And since pointing out the lie, you have yet to atone or apologize for being deliberately dishonest.  Because you were.  And you even know it.  It takes self-awareness to be a sophist, and you are clearly self-aware.  You _*knew*_ that info you posted about Seattle was 15 months old, so why did you post it knowing we could just look at the current figures?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> They've mastered fake news.



Well, they are a bunch of fakes, frauds, and phonies.  They come on the message boards and pretend to have all this knowledge and experience, but their stories, like their beliefs, can't hold to the _*slightest*_ scrutiny.  They know it, but they don't care because they have no shame.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> <Russian Active Measure>



And look at the attempt by the right-wing sophist here to try to change the subject entirely.  Not gonna let it happen, pal.  We are going back way before all of this to the minimum wage debate we had that you suddenly and strangely abandoned once I pointed out how you lied by posting outdated information.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > They've mastered fake news.
> ...



Agree.

1. His record on jobs. When it comes to jobs, Trump has added 317,000 in two full months so far. His pace of job gains is almost exactly the same as what happened last year under President Obama. It's early days, but the economy has yet to be turbocharged like Trump promised.

2. His executive orders. Trump says he is saving the coal industry and enacting "Hire American" policies. He has signed several executive orders along those lines, but just about everyone -- even coal executives -- agree the coal jobs aren't coming back. 

3. His trade deals. Perhaps the biggest surprise in Trump's first 100 days is how much he has toned down on trade. Yes, his administration has already slapped tariffs on Canadian lumber, but he isn't ripping up NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that he says "destroyed" America.

4. His tax plan. As promised, the White House tax plan includes cuts for middle and moderate income folks, but the rich and corporations get even more goodies.  "The majority of the benefits go to high-income people,

A typical middle class family would save about $1,000 on their taxes, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis of the tax plan Trump pitched on the campaign trail. In contrast, a family in the top 1% would save about $215,000 and family in the top 0.1% would save over $1 million.

Not very impressive at all.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> [
> And thus, once he became President, FDR was at odds with Coughlin who opposed the New Deal, opposed Social Security, opposed involvement in WWII.
> 
> In other words, he was a Conservative.



He was Marxist, you lying twat. He criticized FDR for not going far enough with "Social Justice," a term you of the far left still use to this day.




> Well that's just stupid and wrong.  The Nazis criminalized and purged Communists out of the government in Germany. You're just kinda making it all up as you go, right?  That's what you do, after all.  Because you are a sophist.



Really?

{Long plans to be a candidate of the Hitler type for the presidency in 1936.}

Huey Long - Wikipedia

You lying little fuck you.

Your Big Lie has failed, accept that facts have crushed your bullshit.



> No one you listed was a liberal.  However, there were plenty of Conservatives who backed Hitler, like Charles Lindbergh.





So in your alleged mind, "liberal" means "good" and "conservative" means "bad," with no other meaning accruing to them?

{There was a panic in 1907, and C. A. Lindbergh swung into action with a campaign for investigation of his great enemy, the “money trust.” The newspapers began to work him over. He stored up thousands of clippings denouncing him as a demagogue, a “dangerous radical and dissenter.” He fought, fruitlessly, the Federal Reserve Bill of 1913 and published a book called _Banking and Currency _in support of his views. In 1915 he was in at the birth of the Farmers League, a political group which was launched in Minnesota, scored its first successes in North Dakota in 1916, and then turned and drove a wedge into C.A.'s home state with our entry into war. Lindbergh and the League,* till then fundamentally progressive, socialistic, and anti-money,* at once acquired an antiwar and anti-Britain following—still and always based, in Lindbergh's view, on the suspicion of collusion between British and Wall Street finance. They lined up a heavy farm and labor vote. C. A. Lindbergh ran for Governor of Minnesota on the Farmers League ticket in 1918, and it was a wild, bitter campaign.}

The Stacks: How Charles Lindbergh Became the First Crackpot Celebrity

If you were constrained from lying, you would fall silent.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Here's the link from the sophist poseur who tried to make the laughable argument that Seattle's MW hike to $15/hr killed jobs.  Note the date from the editorial to which he linked: February 13, _*2016*_.

And here is the latest jobs data from the BLS for the State of Washington and the city of Seattle.  Note the date that this covers *April 2017*.

Unemployment in Seattle for April 2017 was 3.3%, which is down 0.9% from April 2016.

So Uncensored lied.  Deliberately.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



One of us supports a centrally planned and managed economy. Is that you, or I?

One of us supports group privilege over individual rights. Is that you, or I?

One of use supports laws that criminalize "hate speech" and movies that offend the party, Is that you, or I?

The Big Lie has failed, SIlly Bonobo.

Fascism exactly defines what you of the democratic party promote in 2017.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> He was Marxist, you lying twat. He criticized FDR for not going far enough with "Social Justice," a term you of the far left still use to this day.



By "social justice", Father Coughlin was advocating for discrimination against immigrants so it was "social justice" for native white people.  Coughlin was a fierce anti-immigrant Conservative who opposed taking in Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany (sounds familiar...who today is opposed to taking in refugees from war-torn regions and genocide?  Oh right _*YOU GUYS*_).  He also opposed the New Deal and Social Security.  So just like your fellow Conservative comrade, you are doing sloppy work.  Anyone can very easily research Father Coughlin and find that he was very anti-immigrant, anti-New Deal, anti-Social Security, and anti-US involvement in WWII.  *He was also a raging anti-semite* (probably why Nazis were so endearing to him) and racist.

Do you just lie because you know no one will hold you accountable?




Uncensored2008 said:


> Really?
> {Long plans to be a candidate of the Hitler type for the presidency in 1936.}
> Huey Long - Wikipedia
> You lying little fuck you.
> Your Big Lie has failed, accept that facts have crushed your bullshit.



So who won the election in 1936?  Oh right, FDR.  So what point are you trying to make?  Huey Long _*allied himself with Father Coughlin*_, who was anti-FDR beginning in 1934.

It's like you know the facts, but you are choosing to deliberately get them wrong.  Why?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> One of us supports a centrally planned and managed economy. Is that you, or I?



It's you...because you want to hand it over to corporations who will consolidate and form monopolies.  Like what Trump is going to try to do to the air traffic controllers.  Make no mistake; Conservatives absolutely support a centrally planned and managed economy...only instead of the government doing it, it's oligarchs who profit at our expense.




Uncensored2008 said:


> One of us supports group privilege over individual rights. Is that you, or I?



That is you.  You're the ones who want to take away a woman's right to choose what she does with her body while also exercising white privilege.  You quite literally want to put government in the middle of people's lives.




Uncensored2008 said:


> One of use supports laws that criminalize "hate speech" and movies that offend the party, Is that you, or I?



That would be you guys again.  Look at the reaction you snowflakes had over an all-female screening of _*Wonder Woman*_.  Oh and the Kathy Griffin thing...it gave you Conservatives all the vapors and many of you were calling for her to be executed.




Uncensored2008 said:


> The Big Lie has failed, SIlly Bonobo. Fascism exactly defines what you of the democratic party promote in 2017.



The only lie here is that Conservatism is a valid belief system.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Because they listened to the stupid liberal whining.
> ...



*Stupid budget rules, how so?*

The budget rules that say tax cuts have to be paid for to be permanent.
Any other budget rule that favors increased spending.

*And why would they listen to liberals at all? *

I agree, listening to stupid liberals is stupid.

*So that means there's no economic benefit to doing them.*

There is no economic benefit if they don't pay for themselves 100%? That's a stupid claim.
What if they pay for themselves 50%?
That means there is no economic benefit?
Is that your claim? Seriously?
*
So if they don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs*

If they pay for themselves 50%, that means they don't create jobs?
Is that your claim? Seriously?

*We have the empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't.* 

Great. Now post empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster MW job growth than states that didn't. 

I want tax cuts, not hikes.

*Then why did you invoke a tax cut that set the rate to 70%?* 

Because it was a tax cut.
*
No, where are you getting the $100K from?*

Pick any number you please. Then explain how an identical rise in revenues leaves profit unchanged.
Show all your work. ROFLMAO!
*
We are talking about the unemployment rate.* 

We're talking about a government mandated increase in wages.
When you increase the price of something, you decrease the demand. Econ 101.
If you think raising the MW doesn't decrease the demand for MW workers, submit your
work for publication. You'll be in the running for a Nobel.

*No one is proposing raising it to $30 or $50/hr.*

Because the job losses would be too obvious.

*Less money?* 

Yes, raise their MW costs by 30%, that reduces the cash they have to buy other things.
*
Since their revenues are increasing thanks to increased consumption*

If their expenses increased by $10,000 do you think their revenues will increase by $10,000? Why?

*and what would they do with the money they have anyway?*

The money they have now buys equipment, supplies, pays interest on debt, pays rent, pays dividends to owners.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Other people.
> ...



*For the same wage as the previous ones?*

Why not? Now that they got rid of all their workers on welfare, how much do welfare expenses decrease?


*No, it doesn't.  We pay $6B to provide welfare to walmart workers.*

Great. Fire those workers, how much does the $6B fall? Spell it out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *So then why is it that Conservatives are the ones who give us those bubbles?*
> ...



*First of all, GSE's were *_*prohibited*_* from purchasing risky subprime loans thanks to a Clinton HUD rule in 2000.*

Show me.

*Bush reversed that rule in 2004, and that's why GSE's resumed purchasing risky subprimes.*

When the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages, was that an example of deregulation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Newt Gingrich really held the line on Clinton's spending wishes.
> ...



Was that more or less than Clinton wanted to spend?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *yet, the right wing prefers to claim cutting taxes isAlways the solution,*
> ...



*If you are *_*now*_* saying that spending has to be cut in order for tax cuts to work (?),*

Tax cuts work. Spending cuts work. Let's do both.

*that reason is to manufacture budget deficits that are then used as an excuse to cut spending.* 

I don't need an excuse to cut spending. The government spend a much too large percentage of GDP.
Cut spending now. A lot.

*Those spending cuts are almost always operational, and cause programs to fail.* 

We need to cut programs, now. Lots of them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Yep, UNFUNDED TAX CUTS,*
> ...


*
Why?*

Because the government spends, and wastes, way too much.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Which standards did they not enforce wrt Countrywide, for instance?
> ...


Modern times.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Which standards did they not enforce wrt Countrywide, for instance?
> ...


*
Take your pick; no income verification*

What was the regulation on income verification that Countrywide violated?

*Wall Street was churning out as many subprimes as they could*

Of course they were, the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy so many of them.


*Go watch *_*The Big Short*_*.* 

I watched it. It was okay. Had a couple of errors, fewer than most movies about finance.
Don't remember it saying much about the Fed or the GSEs.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


so is Any mixed-market economy; it is mostly, State Capitalism "managed" by a legislature and an executive branch.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


The dot com bubble had to happen to increase incomes for a mortgage bubble.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...


Current public policy encourages the poor to have more kids, instead of be more ready to take advantage of any available, (job) opportunities.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


US national socialists had to give up a lot, to not be confused with True national socialists.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are nothing but, command economics.  

Only the right wing never seems to be able to distinguish.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


End the Drug War, right wingers or Y'all Own it.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Stupid budget rules, how so?*
> The budget rules that say tax cuts have to be paid for to be permanent.
> Any other budget rule that favors increased spending.



So you are now admitting tax cuts do not pay for themselves.  OK.  So if they don't pay for themselves, then there is no economic benefit to them.  So why do them at all?  If they did what you all promise they would do, increase consumption, then they would pay for themselves from the pretend economic activity that would come from them, right?  So by putting a sunset provision on them, Conservatives are tacitly admitting they make no economic sense.  So then why even do them at all?  To manufacture budget deficits that are used as an excuse to cut spending that you lack the courage and/or support to repeal through legislation.  Which would make the entire premise of your argument a bunch of bullshit.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And why would they listen to liberals at all? *
> I agree, listening to stupid liberals is stupid.



Maybe they should start listening to liberals since Conservatives seem incapable of balancing a budget after cutting taxes.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			So that means there's no economic benefit to doing them.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> There is no economic benefit if they don't pay for themselves 100%? That's a stupid claim.



The stupid claim was that they would pay for themselves at all.  You need to reconcile that before moving the goalposts.  You all promised that if taxes were cut, there would be so much economic activity that we would have surpluses as far as they eye could see.  But now, since that was a bullshit claim, you've moved the goalposts again, lowered the bar, to make a self-defeating argument in favor of a policy _*to which there is no positive empirical evidence to support*_.  You're the ones who say tax cuts pay for themselves, that they will be a shot of adrenaline into the economy, that they will create jobs...even though they don't.  So why are you still making those claims?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> hat if they pay for themselves 50%?



But they don't.  So instead of arguing in hypothetical and theory, let's debate in reality.  We know the effects of tax cuts, both long and short term.  They're universally negative.  I'm beginning to think you support them because they're two syllables and you can spell it.  You haven't even proven they pay for themselves 1% (because they don't).  You first need to establish they do that before you can start making wider claims and shift those goalposts again and again and again ad infinitum.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			So if they don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> If they pay for themselves 50%, that means they don't create jobs?



*They don't even pay for themselves 50%, and you haven't shown any proof they do.*  In fact, all the proof shows the opposite; that they end up costing everyone more and increase the deficit.  Which is what happened most recently in Kansas, and 15 years ago nationally.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			We have the empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Great. Now post empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster MW job growth than states that didn't.



I did that.  It is *literally* the title of from NPR:

*States That Raised Minimum Wage See Faster Job Growth, Report Says*
_New data released by the Department of Labor shows that raising the minimum wage in some states does not appear to have had a negative impact on job growth, contrary to what critics said would happen.

*In a report on Friday, the 13 states that raised their minimum wages on Jan. 1 have added jobs at a faster pace than those that did not.*_​




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I want tax cuts, not hikes.



You don't even know _*why*_ you want them.  I think you just want them because it's two syllables, seven letters, and you can spell it.  Every other excuse you give gets smacked down by facts.  You're left with just rhetoric.  When someone adheres to ideology over facts, that makes them an ideologue and ignoramus.  So congrats on being 2-for-2 in suckiness.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Then why did you invoke a tax cut that set the rate to 70%?
> Because it was a tax cut.



But it was to 70%, which is much higher than it is now.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			No, where are you getting the $100K from?
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pick any number you please



No, no.  We aren't arguing in your make-believe hypothetical fantasy land.  We are talking in terms of reality.  You are now admitting that you're pulling your argument right from your fat ass.  So why do you do that?  Simple; because you are insecure and need validation that only posting anonymously on an internet message board can give you.  You wouldn't dare make these claims IRL because doing so would result in your humiliation.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			We are talking about the unemployment rate.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're talking about a government mandated increase in wages.



And your claim was that increase in wages would kill jobs, but _*all the evidence*_ from just three years ago says the opposite.  So your theory does not align with the facts.  And you have yet to account for that massive discrepancy.  If what you're saying is true, those 13 states that raised their MW 3 years ago would not have seen the faster job growth than the 37 states that didn't.  It's _*your*_ principle that is disproved by facts.  So that means either the facts are wrong, or you are.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you think raising the MW doesn't decrease the demand for MW workers, submit your
> work for publication.



13 states + DC raised their MW in 2014 and those 13 states + DC saw faster job growth than the 37 that didn't.  So you need to re-examine your misunderstanding of economics, loser.  If what you are saying is true, then those states would not have seen job growth faster than the others.  If what you're saying is true, those states wouldn't have seen job growth _*at all*_.  But they did.  So how do you account for that?


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			No one is proposing raising it to $30 or $50/hr.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Because the job losses would be too obvious.



Because your argument has no validity unless we are talking in those terms you are defining.  But no one has said they want to raise it that high.  You created a straw man for the purpose of this debate _*because you are a sophist and cannot have a legitimate debate on the merits because your beliefs *__*have no merits*_.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Less money?
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, raise their MW costs by 30%, that reduces the cash they have to buy other things.



Not if they're seeing an increase in sales, which they would.  Which happened in those 13 states + DC and is reflected in the faster pace of job growth when they raised their MW in 2014.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Since their revenues are increasing thanks to increased consumption
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> If their expenses increased by $10,000 do you think their revenues will increase by $10,000? Why?



Well, their revenues would probably increase by more because of the free market and people spending their money where they want.  Again, 13 states + DC raised their MW and those states + DC saw faster job growth than the states that didn't.  That means revenues went up, forcing businesses to expand and hire more.  They only could do that because their sales (revenue) increased as a result of consumers spending more money because _*they have more to spend*_.



*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			and what would they do with the money they have anyway?
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> The money they have now buys equipment, supplies, pays interest on debt, pays rent, pays dividends to owners.



But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand.  No business is going to expand just because.  They expand when there is a need to do so.  This is your "if you build it, they will come" philosophy of economics.  And just like the movie, it's pure fantasy.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why not? Now that they got rid of all their workers on welfare, how much do welfare expenses decrease?



But who is replacing the workers they just fired and what rate are they paying them?


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			No, it doesn't.  We pay $6B to provide welfare to walmart workers.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Great. Fire those workrs, how much does the $6B fall? Spell it out.



So who is Walmart foing to hire to replace the workers they just fired?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *First of all, GSE's were *_*prohibited*_* from purchasing risky subprime loans thanks to a Clinton HUD rule in 2000.*
> Show me.



*You make it so easy for me!!! * I expect an apology and atonement for the fact that you aren't well-versed in this, or any other topic:

From the Washington Post, June 10th, 2008:
_"(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."_​
You're welcome.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Bush reversed that rule in 2004, and that's why GSE's resumed purchasing risky subprimes.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> When the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy crappy mortgages, was that an example of deregulation?



When Bush did it, yes.  That would be an example of deregulation.  Bush reversed that 2000 Clinton rule in 2004, and GSE's purchased billions in risky subprime loans they previously were prevented from purchasing by Clinton.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Was that more or less than Clinton wanted to spend?



Was it more or less than Gingrich wanted?  And BTW - Congress writes the budget, not Clinton.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If you are *_*now*_* saying that spending has to be cut in order for tax cuts to work (?),*
> Tax cuts work. Spending cuts work. Let's do both.



But tax cuts don't work and you have no proof they do.  In fact, there is tons of evidence that says they don't work.  Most recently, Kansas.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			that reason is to manufacture budget deficits that are then used as an excuse to cut spending.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't need an excuse to cut spending. The government spend a much too large percentage of GDP.



So that judgement is wholly arbitrary.  There is no magic % of what the government should or shouldn't spend as a percentage of GDP.  Just whatever you pull out of your fat ass, I guess.  Again, you do that because you don't really know what you're talking about, so you speak in broad strokes but lack detail.  That's because you're sloppy in your work.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cut spending now. A lot.



What do you want to cut?  Social Security, Medicare, and Defense make up about 90% of the budget.  So explain how cutting those programs will produce any positive economic benefits.  I'll save you the time; _*you cannot*_.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Those spending cuts are almost always operational, and cause programs to fail.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> We need to cut programs, now. Lots of them.



Which ones?  Medicare?  Social Security?  Defense?  And what does cutting them accomplish, exactly?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why?*
> Because the government spends, and wastes, way too much.



That's your opinion.  Not fact.  Your opinion is not fact.  Your opinion is worthless, since we all know you are exercising as much sophistry as you can to try and give yourself an out in this debate.

I'm not gonna let you, though.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Take your pick; no income verification*
> What was the regulation on income verification that Countrywide violated?



That the income was verified.  Duh.



*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Wall Street was churning out as many subprimes as they could
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course they were, the government forced Fannie and Freddie to buy so many of them.



Not the government, _*Conservatives and Bush*_.  And GSE loan performance was more than *6 times better* than those of private label issuers.  GSE-backed loans defaulted at a rate of 4% from 2005-7.  Private label-backed loans defaulted at a rate of 26% from 2005-7.  So the problem wasn't GSE's.  The problem were the private labels.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Go watch
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> _*The Big Short*_*.*
> I watched it. It was okay. Had a couple of errors, fewer than most movies about finance.
> Don't remember it saying much about the Fed or the GSEs.



You weren't paying attention, clearly.  Watch it again.


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 5, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...


Not working class people.  Nothing about our society encourages people to have more than 1 or two kids.  If a middle class family does that today that couple can forget about helping their kids go to college or ever retiring.  

Poor people don't give a fuck because they are already poor.  In fact having more kids gives them more benefits.  But who's trying to encourage them to have more kids other than the corporations who love the market flooded with cheap labor?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Poor people don't give a fuck because they are already poor.  In fact having more kids gives them more benefits.  But who's trying to encourage them to have more kids other than the corporations who love the market flooded with cheap labor?



Religious Conservatives.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Stupid budget rules, how so?*
> ...



*So you are now admitting tax cuts do not pay for themselves.*

I've always said that except for capital gains tax rate cuts and income tax rate cuts from high levels, they don't pay for themselves.

Just as I've always said, the purpose of the cuts isn't to pay for themselves.
The purpose is to increase jobs, grow GDP and let people keep more of their own money.

Are we on the left side of the Laffer Curve?

I don't care, I think we need to cut rates.
Cut individual rates. Cut capital gains rates. Cut corporate rates.

*So if they don't pay for themselves, then there is no economic benefit to them.* 

Bullshit.

*So why do them at all?* 

The purpose is to increase jobs, grow GDP and let people keep more of their own money.
*
So by putting a sunset provision on them, Conservatives are tacitly admitting they make no economic sense.*

That provision was because of the moronic budget rules.

*Maybe they should start listening to liberals*

Nope. Liberals are morons and should never be listened to.

*The stupid claim was that they would pay for themselves at all.*

If tax rates are cut to an extent that lets people $100 billion more of their own money, how much does the additional increase in GDP raise government revenues?

*But they don't.* 

If the number isn't 50%, what is the number?
*
We know the effects of tax cuts, both long and short term.  They're universally negative.* 

Of course. You feel any dollar people keep is a lost opportunity for government to spend that dollar.
That's one of the reasons why Hillary lost.

*You haven't even proven they pay for themselves 1% (because they don't).* 

People keep more of their own money and that never causes more economic growth?
I know it was painful for you to fail Econ 101 two or three times, but that's no reason to remain ignorant your entire life.

*But it was to 70%, which is much higher than it is now.*

But the cut led to faster growth. Just as those cuts always do.
1920s, 1960s, 1980s, 2000s.

*We aren't arguing in your make-believe hypothetical fantasy land.  We are talking in terms of reality.* 

Awesome! Take a real employment cost number, add a number to that cost.
Look at the real revenue number. Add the same number to revenues that you added to cost.
Tell me how your 2 profit margins compare.
Use math.
Ask an adult if you must.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why not? Now that they got rid of all their workers on welfare, how much do welfare expenses decrease?
> ...



*But who is replacing the workers they just fired*

People who aren't collecting welfare.
How much do welfare payments shrink now that the government isn't subsidizing WalMart's profit?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Stupid budget rules, how so?*
> ...



*But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand.* 

There's no demand and you insist they shell out more for employee expenses?

You're dumber than I first suspected.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *First of all, GSE's were *_*prohibited*_* from purchasing risky subprime loans thanks to a Clinton HUD rule in 2000.*
> ...


*
"(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."*

Ummmm....thanks!
What that means is HUD made them buy a certain percentage of crappier loans, but didn't give them credit for loans with "abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay"
Not quite the prohibition you claimed.

Then.......


_In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, __the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending__. _


_Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes,__ the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers__. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing._

They required them to buy more of the crappier loans.  The opposite of deregulation.......and.....
_
But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising. _

_That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent._

Wow! The government required them to buy over half their mortgages from the crappy end of the pool.

Yup, whenever the government tells you what to buy, that's a sure sign of deregulation. DERP!

*I expect an apology*

I'm sorry, I thought you were smarter than a 5th grader.....I was wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Was that more or less than Clinton wanted to spend?
> ...



*Was it more or less than Gingrich wanted?*

It was more. So much for the credit you've been giving Clinton for budget rectitude, eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Take your pick; no income verification*
> ...



*That the income was verified. Duh.*

Show me the reg. Duh.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


How many, "welfare to legislature" stories are there, under any form of Capitalism?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> [
> It's you...because you want to hand it over to corporations who will consolidate and form monopolies.  Like what Trump is going to try to do to the air traffic controllers.  Make no mistake; Conservatives absolutely support a centrally planned and managed economy...only instead of the government doing it, it's oligarchs who profit at our expense.



Ah lying, the primary attribute of you Fascists.

No Herr Himmler, I don't support government supported monopolies the way you do.

You see, the ONLY way that a monopoly is possible is for the government to support it. Without government, anything save a natural monopoly is impossible. In a free market, monopolies or near monopolies such as GM will collapse under their own inefficiency. They only way they survive is when the state steps in to crush their competition or make massive transfers of cash from the public to the well connected. as Obama did.



> That is you.  You're the ones who want to take away a woman's right to choose what she does with her body while also exercising white privilege.  You quite literally want to put government in the middle of people's lives.



While abortion has not come up, I'm betting you deny 13th amendment protections to hated Christians. The group called LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ is FAR, FAR more important than individual liberty.

Bake the cake slave, amirite?




> That would be you guys again.  Look at the reaction you snowflakes had over an all-female screening of _*Wonder Woman*_.



Oh just look at you lie, Nazi boi. Neither I nor any other Conservative here is the Taliban. In fact, it's YOU fuckers that have and continue to back ISIS and other Islamic terrorists,

So what have we learned?


You're a total fucking liar
You say what you think will further the goals of your fascist party regardless of facts
You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 5, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are nothing but, command economics.
> 
> Only the right wing never seems to be able to distinguish.



You are an idiot, which is actually better than that lying little fuck the derp.

{
*What is a 'Command Economy'*
A command economy is a system where the government, rather than the free market, determines what goods should be produced, how much should be produced and the price at which the goods are offered for sale. The command economy is a key feature of any communist society. Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union are examples of countries that have command economies, while China maintained a command economy for decades before transitioning to a mixed economy that features both communistic and capitalistic elements.}

Command Economy

You should go back to high school and try to earn the GED.

The Derp is without ethics, no hope for the pile of shit.


----------



## Markle (Jun 5, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Dude; we are on the Wrong Side of the Curve; our massive debt, Proves it.



Yeah, WAY beyond your ability to comprehend.  Got it!


----------



## Markle (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> So, just curious, what was the National Debt in 2009, after 8 years of Bush Tax Cuts, and what was the % of GDP when Bush left office? Why did you just skip over the Bush years? Pretending they didn't happen?



Great, here is what I posted:  "The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP. By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP."

The GDP at the end of the year 2008 was $10,025 and 67% of our GDP.  Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama took office in January of 2009 so he owns that year.  If you make a claim that President Obama doesn't own 2009, then you agree that President Bush does not own 2001.


----------



## Markle (Jun 5, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The price inflation canard from the right wing? How literally, incredible.
> 
> The dollar menu won't even double.



So, in your opinion, if all wages double, the menu at your MacDonalds does not?  Exactly how would that work?


----------



## Markle (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> First of all,_* there was no job growth after the Reagan Tax Cuts in 1981*_. In fact, unemployment skyrocketed starting the month the Reagan Tax Cuts were passed, and continued growing throughout 1982, bringing the unemployment rate up by more than 3% to 10.8% by December 1982. And the 60's, the top tax rate was cut to 70%...so if you want to return to a 70% top tax rate, I'm fine with that. But also keep in mind that government spending grew by 25% from 1961 to 1964 and then 50% from 1964 to 1968.



The Unemployment rate went from 7.6%, up to 9.7% in 1982 when his tax cuts took effect.  As you know, from there it fell annually until his last year in office 1988 to 5.5%.  Inflation from 10.38% down to 4.14%.  Thirty-year mortgage rates from 18+% in 1981 down to 10.34% in 1988.


----------



## Markle (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Yes, the average wage should be higher, but it's not because the minimum wage is so low, and states also have low wages. The BLS just released their employment report for May, which showed wages grew just 0.2%, which is much worse than they grew during Obama's last two years. Likewise, the jobs numbers for March and April were "dramatically" revised downward, and about 400,000 people left the labor force last month.



How much have the average wages increased during the first two years of the Trump Administration?

Strange, people leaving the labor force was not important the past eight years.  Go figure.


----------



## Markle (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> That turn against FDR started_* in 1934.*_



FDR, miserable failure with regard to our economy.  He extended the Great Depression by seven years.


----------



## Markle (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Here's the link from the sophist poseur who tried to make the laughable argument that Seattle's MW hike to $15/hr killed jobs.  Note the date from the editorial to which he linked: February 13, _*2016*_.
> 
> And here is the latest jobs data from the BLS for the State of Washington and the city of Seattle.  Note the date that this covers *April 2017*.
> 
> ...



It hasn't gone up to that figure yet.


----------



## Markle (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Was it more or less than Gingrich wanted? And BTW - Congress writes the budget, not Clinton.



When was the requirement for the President to submit a budget to Congress halted?


----------



## Markle (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Which ones? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? And what does cutting them accomplish, exactly?



How about this.  Eliminate all plans that overlap.

We have EIGHTY programs that supposedly serve people living below the welfare level.

Do you think we really NEED that many?  Do you think that at least fifty or sixty of them overlap and could be done away with or merged with several other programs?


----------



## task0778 (Jun 5, 2017)

Markle said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > That turn against FDR started_* in 1934.*_
> ...



Obama pretty much did the same thing for the Great Recession.   Lucky for him fracking took off and kept us slightly above zero economic growth.


----------



## Markle (Jun 5, 2017)

The Derp said:


> That the income was verified. Duh.



Nope.  There were called no doc loans for a reason.  you simply stated how much you made and presto, loan approved.  It was well known in the business that if you could not get a customer approved anywhere else, take them to Countrywide, they'd write the loan.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> Nope.  There were called no doc loans for a reason.  you simply stated how much you made and presto, loan approved.  It was well known in the business that if you could not get a customer approved anywhere else, take them to Countrywide, they'd write the loan.



That's what I said.  And the trouble was in the private labels (like Countrywide), just like I said too.  GSE-backed loans performed more than 6 times better than their private label counterparts (4% default for GSE loans vs. 26% default for private label loans).  To blame the mortgage crisis on GSE's is to ignore the facts of GSE loan performance.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 6, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



What an interesting story, Herr Spear.  How does that work for capital intensive ventures, such as energy, and potable and waste water management.  Should those firms, also compete with, competing infrastructure.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 6, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are nothing but, command economics.
> ...


Her Himmler, there is no "free market" for alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they Only exist, Because, Herr Say, says so.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Dude; we are on the Wrong Side of the Curve; our massive debt, Proves it.
> ...


why do believe we have such massive debt?  Your, total comprehension.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The price inflation canard from the right wing? How literally, incredible.
> ...


In right wing fantasy?

All wages will not be doubling.  The right wing is not that good; Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages, not minimum wages.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > That turn against FDR started_* in 1934.*_
> ...


Just economic ignorance; much like the right wing, actually prefers.  We have the largest economy in the World, now; and even the South, is "electrified".


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jun 6, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> [
> 
> What an interesting story, Herr Spear.  How does that work for capital intensive ventures, such as energy, and potable and waste water management.  Should those firms, also compete with, competing infrastructure.



You ask if ENERGY should compete, as the prior administration pumped hundreds of billions from taxpayers to Elon Musk and other well connected looters, all in the name of alternative energy?

Apparently Barack Obama thought that competing infrastructure was good. Are you calling your god a liar?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So you are now admitting tax cuts do not pay for themselves.*
> I've always said that except for capital gains tax rate cuts and income tax rate cuts from high levels, they don't pay for themselves.
> Just as I've always said, the purpose of the cuts isn't to pay for themselves.
> The purpose is to increase jobs, grow GDP and let people keep more of their own money.



OK, but increasing jobs and growing GDP would be "paying for themselves" in increased economic activity, would it not?  That's what you're saying.  What you've failed to prove is that cutting taxes actually does those things.  You haven't proven that beyond rhetoric, which is why we are still on the subject. And Capital Gains Tax Cuts don't pay for themselves either.  They cut Capital Gains Taxes in 1997 and it produced the dotcom bubble.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are we on the left side of the Laffer Curve?
> I don't care, I think we need to cut rates.
> Cut individual rates. Cut capital gains rates. Cut corporate rates.



So you support a policy that you admittedly have no idea of its economic impact, nor do you care about it.  So it is a question of philosophy and nothing more.  So you aren't making an economic argument.  You're not making a fiscal argument.  You're not making an academic argument.  You're making an *emotional argument.*  So your guiding economic philosophy is based on emotion.  That's no way to run an economy.  
_*
*_

*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			So if they don't pay for themselves, then there is no economic benefit to them.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bullshit.



You say they don't pay for themselves in one breath, then in the next breath you promise they create jobs and grow GDP, _*which would mean you think they do pay for themselves*_.  So you really need to make up your mind what it is you believe, because you are jumping from one position to another with no justification while contradicting your own post within itself!  Increased economic activity leads to increased revenues, thus, claiming tax cuts grow GDP and create jobs is _*also*_ claiming they pay for themselves.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			So why do them at all?
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> The purpose is to increase jobs, grow GDP and let people keep more of their own money.



Even though after all the tax cuts over the last 37 years, household debt has skyrocketed which would indicate people _*don't*_ get to "keep" more of what they earn.  Quite the opposite, actually.  People get a tax cut, then go into debt.  How could that be the case if what you're saying is true?


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			So by putting a sunset provision on them, Conservatives are tacitly admitting they make no economic sense.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> That provision was because of the moronic budget rules.



Budget rules that exist for a reason.  A reason you Conservatives demanded.  That reason being any legislation that increases the deficit requires 60 votes to pass the Senate.  That was _*Conservatives*_ who put that rule into place.  Now you're saying the rule you clowns fought so hard for is suddenly stupid when it prevents you from exploding the deficit and debt?  LOL!  


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			Maybe they should start listening to liberals
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope. Liberals are morons and should never be listened to.



Even though they've been right about everything; right about tax cuts not creating jobs.  Right about Saddam not having WMDs.  Right about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy.  Is there anything Conservatives have said or proposed over the last 37 years that has turned out as they predicted?  No.  Wrong about hyperinflation.  Wrong about Obamacare.  Wrong about Saddam.  Wrong about tax cuts "paying for themselves".  Wrong about deregulation.  Wrong about climate change.  Wrong about gay marriage.  Wrong about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the wealthy.  The list goes on and on and on...



*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			The stupid claim was that they would pay for themselves at all.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> If tax rates are cut to an extent that lets people $100 billion more of their own money, how much does the additional increase in GDP raise government revenues?



So again, there's that word "if"...meaning you want to make an argument in the realm of hypothetical.  The _*reality*_ is that every time taxes were cut over the last 37 years, household debt skyrocketed.  So if what you're saying is true, that wouldn't be the case.  How do you account for the growth of household debt following tax cuts if people "keep more of what they earned"?  It would seem to prove the opposite to your conclusion and rhetoric; that cutting taxes leads to growth of household debt...because that is precisely what has happened over the last 37 years.  Cutting taxes doesn't seem to make any economic sense.  You are conceding they do not "pay for themselves", which means they do not generate enough economic activity to offset their costs.  Which means they don't create jobs, they don't grow GDP...instead, they cause deficits.  Then those deficits are used as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage and/or support to repeal through legislation.  Basically, you practice fiscal terrorism; you deliberately attack the budget in order to force through an ideological imperative.  That's fiscal terrorism.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			But they don't.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> If the number isn't 50%, what is the number?



Zero.  We know this because household debt skyrockets after tax cuts, which means the tax cuts themselves result in a loss.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			We know the effects of tax cuts, both long and short term.  They're universally negative.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course. You feel any dollar people keep is a lost opportunity for government to spend that dollar.
> That's one of the reasons why Hillary lost.



At the end of the day, the cashier at Best Buy does not care from where the dollar came to purchase the flat screen TV.  Doesn't matter to Best Buy if the person buying the TV works for the government, or works for a private corporation.  All they care about is that customer has money to spend.  What we've seen from 37 years of right-wing trickle-down bullshit is consumers having to go into debt.  Household debt _*doubled*_ during Bush the Dumber. So that means these tax cuts that don't pay for themselves don't generate the promised economic activity.  If they did, then there wouldn't be deficits from them (because the economic activity from "unleashing" consumers from the tax burden would translate to more revenues to make up the gap).  You're saying now that tax cuts produce deficits because they do not fully generate the revenue to offset the cost from the cuts.  That's what it means when you say "tax cuts pay for themselves".  You are saying they generate jobs and GDP growth, which would mean they are generating revenues from the taxes from those sales.  But you're admitting that isn't the case; that tax cuts do not generate enough jobs and/or GDP growth to offset their costs.  Which means there isn't a viable economic argument for them.  Hence why you make an _*emotional*_ argument instead.  So many emotions!  Such a snowflake!


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			You haven't even proven they pay for themselves 1% (because they don't).
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> People keep more of their own money and that never causes more economic growth?



Philosophy vs. Reality.

Philosophy is that they will spend more if they get a tax cut
Reality is that they go into debt

That's what the empirical data shows over the last 37 years.  So no, there is no economic growth that comes from the tax cuts.  If there were, then revenue would exceed the baseline from the tax cuts.  But it doesn't.  Which is why Bush erased a surplus and produced four record deficits that doubled the debt in 8 years, when we could have paid it off in 9 if you had done _*literally nothing*_ to the tax code.  Conservatives couldn't even do _*nothing*_ right.  SAD!


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			But it was to 70%, which is much higher than it is now.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> But the cut led to faster growth. Just as those cuts always do.



You can't prove that.  And if there was growth, it was because the rate was at 70%.  So if you want to go back to that rate, I'm fine with that.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			We aren't arguing in your make-believe hypothetical fantasy land.  We are talking in terms of reality.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Awesome! Take a real employment cost number, add a number to that cost..



Again, you are working from the assumption that consumption does not increase if there is a wage increase _*and that is just not true*_.  Consumption increased in the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014 and we know this because those states saw faster job growth than states that didn't.  So higher wages = more consumer spending = more revenues for businesses = business expanding to meet increased demand = more jobs.

The empirical evidence shows those states had faster job growth than states that didn't raise their wages.  So the cost of labor was more than offset by the cost of increased economic activity.  What increased economic activity in those states that saw faster job growth?  Wasn't tax cuts because those states didn't cut taxes...it was wage growth.  Wage growth led to increased consumer demand which led to businesses expanding in order to meet that demand; hence faster job growth.

Let's stop pretending you know what you're talking about.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> People who aren't collecting welfare



But if they're paying the same rates they paid before, then those people would be collecting welfare.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand.*
> There's no demand and you insist they shell out more for employee expenses?



Raising wages increases demand, which leads to job growth, because people have more money to spend.  That's what we saw happen in 2014, when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages.  We will see the same thing happen again this year because 19 states raised their MW on January 1st.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What that means is HUD made them buy a certain percentage of crappier loans, but didn't give them credit for loans with "abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay"



Right, which meant *they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them.*  And they didn't buy those loans.  Which is why GSE loan performance was 6 times better than that of private labels from 2005-7.  Only 4% of GSE-backed loans defaulted from 2005-7, whereas 26% of private label-backed loans defaulted from 2005-7.  It's inconvenient facts like that, which seem to unravel any argument you make.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.



So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here.  GSE loan performance was 6 times better than private label loan performance during the bubble.  When you look at this chart, what is it you see?  Because I see GSE delinquencies a fraction of that of the private labels.  Do you have a problem reading charts?  I know it can be complex because of all the colors.  I don't want to overwhelm you.  How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble when the chart below shows their delinquency rate is a fraction of those from private labels.
_




_




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wow! The government required them to buy over half their mortgages from the crappy end of the pool.



So, as usual, you ignore the facts.  And the facts show that the GSE-backed loans (the ones you are talking about here) defaulted at rates that were a fraction of what private-label loans were defaulting.  That's what the facts say.  So you say GSE's were responsible for the housing bubble, yet GSE loans performed no better or worse than they did prior to the bubble.  That's what the data says.  So here is another example of reality clashing with Conservative fantasy.  The _*fantasy*_ is that GSE's were responsible for the delinquent loans that caused the bubble to pop, whereas the _*reality*_ is that GSE loan performance was exponentially better than that of private labels, and saw delinquency rates no better or worse than prior to the bubble.  Hence, GSE's were not responsible for the collapse.  Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:









Toddsterpatriot said:


> I expect an apology
> I'm sorry, I thought you were smarter than a 5th grader.....I was wrong.



I'm smarter than you, that's for fucking sure.  Also, not sloppy like you either.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It was more. So much for the credit you've been giving Clinton for budget rectitude, eh?



I'm giving Clinton credit for winning the shutdown fight.  Conservatives opposed Clinton's budgets and tried to throw them out of whack by passing a $700B tax cut that Clinton vetoed.  Of course, that tax cut would end up getting passed in 2001, and as expected, the surplus was erased and turned into record deficits while 841,000 private sector jobs were lost between 2001-4, and 460,000 private sector jobs were lost between 2001-9.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 6, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


How many competing solar panels on one roof?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand.*
> ...


The right wing prefers to, "hate on the poor" by reducing foodstamps and blaming the poor, for poor lifestyle choices, while actually being poor.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> Great, here is what I posted:  "The National Debt in 2001 was $5.8 TRILLION and 58% of our GDP. By the end of 2016 fiscal year, the debt will be $20+ TRILLION and be 105+% of our GDP."The GDP at the end of the year 2008 was $10,025 and 67% of our GDP.  Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama took office in January of 2009 so he owns that year.  If you make a claim that President Obama doesn't own 2009, then you agree that President Bush does not own 2001.



Great!  So now you can explain why you are so concerned about debt since it has had no effect on our economy despite right-wingers claiming it does.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> The Unemployment rate went from 7.6%, up to 9.7% in 1982 when his tax cuts took effect.  As you know, from there it fell annually until his last year in office 1988 to 5.5%.  Inflation from 10.38% down to 4.14%.  Thirty-year mortgage rates from 18+% in 1981 down to 10.34% in 1988.



His tax cuts took effect January 1982.  Unemployment would grow from 7.2% the month the tax cuts were passed, up to 10.8% by December 1982, 12 months after the tax cuts went into effect.

Between 1981 and 1988, the Fed lowered interest rates and Congress increased spending.  Reagan would also raise taxes 11 times.  So you are pretending that the 1981 tax cut is responsible for the growth over the next 8 years, and you do that because you are a sophist.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> How much have the average wages increased during the first two years of the Trump Administration?



Trump hasn't been President for two years.  He's been President for 5 months.  Wage growth since Trump took over has been poor.  Last month, wage growth was at its lowest in over two years.




Markle said:


> trange, people leaving the labor force was not important the past eight years.  Go figure.



I didn't say it was important, I was just submitting it as fact.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> FDR, miserable failure with regard to our economy.  He extended the Great Depression by seven years.



No he didn't.  Right-wingers are desperate to rewrite history in order for their failed policies to have credibility.  No, FDR didn't extend the Great Depression, and you cannot explain how he did.  You just say things that you expect people to accept as fact, but they're not.  I am challenging your claim on this.  I doubt you could support it using your own words.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> It hasn't gone up to that figure yet.



Ahhhh, but we hear from right-wingers that businesses always forecast based on x, y, z variables.  And that they plan their hiring and firing based on those variables like tax rates, wages, etc.  

So you're trying to have it both ways...you're trying to claim that businesses do that sort of long-range forecasting, but you're also saying they don't.  So which is it?  Do they or don't they?  Can you even bother to have goalposts that don't get moved each time you respond on this thread?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> When was the requirement for the President to submit a budget to Congress halted?



The budget the President submits isn't the budget Congress votes on.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Markle said:


> How about this.  Eliminate all plans that overlap.



So you have no fucking idea, do you?  You are just a lazy person who cannot think of what to cut, so instead you just lob our generalities that lack detail and specifics.  You're sloppy.  So if you have no idea, why are you responding as if you do?  Fact is, you cannot think of anything to cut so that's why you pick an arbitrary amount, speak in vague generalities, and lack any detail of specifics.  The hallmarks of a _*lazy person making a lazy argument*_.

Conservatives are all sorts of lazy these days.




Markle said:


> We have EIGHTY programs that supposedly serve people living below the welfare level.



If those people were paid more, then they wouldn't have a need to use welfare.  But you oppose raising the minimum wage, which makes your argument a circle jerk.  You complain about people using welfare, yet you oppose raising wages which would move those people _*off*_ welfare since welfare is determined by income.  So why don't you explain to all of us how your argument isn't just mental masturbation????




Markle said:


> Do you think we really NEED that many?  Do you think that at least fifty or sixty of them overlap and could be done away with or merged with several other programs?



If you cut welfare, then that means _*all*_ those red states who use the welfare block grant to plug their deficit holes (and all red states do that...all of them) would have to raise taxes from the artificially low rates they're at now in order to balance their budgets.  Which means all those businesses and people who live in those states because their rates are so low would leave because the only incentive to stay (low tax rates) would be removed because states would have to make up for the loss of the welfare block grant they all raid to balance their budgets.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You ask if ENERGY should compete, as the prior administration pumped hundreds of billions from taxpayers to Elon Musk and other well connected looters, all in the name of alternative energy?



And the result is that there are more solar jobs now than there are coal, oil, and natural gas _*combined*_.  The cost of solar energy has also been dramatically lowered since 2009.  It's obvious that renewables are where the market is heading, and good on Obama for recognizing that trend.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Just saw this...

One year after the implementation of Seattle's new MW law, the increase in prices the right-wing predicted never came to pass.  Another empty promise from the empty heads on the right.

*From the University of Washington (4/18/16):*
*Early analysis of Seattle’s $15 wage law: Effect on prices minimal one year after implementation*
_Most Seattle employers surveyed in a University of Washington-led study said in 2015 that they expected to raise prices on goods and services to compensate for the city’s move to a $15 per hour minimum wage._

_But a year after the law’s April 2015 implementation, the study indicates such increases don’t seem to be happening._

_The interdisciplinary Seattle Minimum Wage Study team, centered in the Evans School for Public Policy & Governance surveyed employers and workers and scanned area commodity and service prices. The team’s report found “little or no evidence” of price increases in Seattle relative to other areas, its report states._​
How much more evidence do we need to fully discredit Conservative economics?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *So you are now admitting tax cuts do not pay for themselves.*
> ...



*but increasing jobs and growing GDP would be "paying for themselves" in increased economic activity*,

You caught me, they partially pay for themselves.

*What you've failed to prove is that cutting taxes actually does those things.* 

Except when taxes are cut.

*So you support a policy that you admittedly have no idea of its economic impact*

Except for the increased growth and additional jobs.

*then in the next breath you promise they create jobs and grow GDP, *_*which would mean you think they do pay for themselves*_*.*

It's true, they partially pay for themselves. Even Obama admitted that.

*Even though after all the tax cuts over the last 37 years, household debt has skyrocketed*

It's true, in a growing economy, people borrow more.

*Budget rules that exist for a reason.* 

Yes, to favor spending and discourage tax cuts.

*Cutting taxes doesn't seem to make any economic sense.* 

Not to someone like you who thinks all government spending is good and all private spending is a waste.

*So again, there's that word "if"...meaning you want to make an argument in the realm of hypothetical.* 

Until a $100 billion tax cut is passed, of course it's hypothetical. So why are you afraid to answer the question?
Are you a pussy, hypothetically?

*Again, you are working from the assumption that consumption does not increase if there is a wage increase *_*and that is just not true*_*.* 

Nope. I'm working from the assumption that you don't look at both sides of the ledger and that your understanding of business and economics is shit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > People who aren't collecting welfare
> ...



Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.
Now that WalMart isn't being subsidized, how much do welfare payments decrease?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But they're not going to do any of that unless there is demand.*
> ...



*Raising wages increases demand,*

So does cutting taxes.

*because people have more money to spend.* 

See, we agree.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.



Why not?  Is it because Walmart is paying them more?  If they are paying them the same, then those workers would collect the same welfare the other workers collected that you just fired.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > What that means is HUD made them buy a certain percentage of crappier loans, but didn't give them credit for loans with "abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay"
> ...



*Right, which meant *_*they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them.*_

They had already made the loans. Per your source.
*
And they didn't buy those loans.*

They did, at the end of the bubble, to the tune of 56% of their purchases.

*So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here*

HUD didn't make them buy more weak mortgages? LOL!
P.S. it's from your own source. Moron.

*How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble*

Over half their purchases were weak mortgages. You think that leaves them blameless?
Do you understand supply and demand? LOL!

*Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:*

They were recovering from their accounting scandals. They ramped up their purchases just in time to catch more of the foamy top of the bubble.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It was more. So much for the credit you've been giving Clinton for budget rectitude, eh?
> ...


*
I'm giving Clinton credit for winning the shutdown fight.*

You bet. He won more spending. So much for budget rectitude.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Raising wages increases demand,
> So does cutting taxes.



No it doesn't.  Cutting taxes doesn't increase demand.  We know this because Bush cut taxes and then proceeded to lose 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years.  Do you support tax cuts because it's two syllables and you can spell it?  There's certainly no economic, fiscal, or academic argument to make in their favor.  So all that's left is emotion.  Why are you so emotional?  Such a snowflake!




Toddsterpatriot said:


> because people have more money to spend.
> See, we agree.



No we don't.  Cutting taxes results in most consumers having to spend more out of pocket for things like education and health care.  Like what happened in Kansas...the Board of Regents for KS' State University program had to raise tuition costs because state funding was cut as a result of the tax cuts that produced record deficits for Kansas when we were promised the tax cut would be "a shot of adrenaline" into the Kansas economy (they weren't) and that they would "pay for themselves" (they didn't).

Your attempt at sophistry notwithstanding.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.
> ...



They're all young people living at home or workers who have higher paid spouses.

How much does the government save now that the welfare collecting former employees are now entirely dependent on welfare?
Is it a $6 billion savings? More? Spell it out!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Raising wages increases demand,
> ...



*No it doesn't. Cutting taxes doesn't increase demand.*

Why not?
If your after tax income goes up $100 because your wages increased or your taxes decreased, how does the extra $100 know the difference?

*There's certainly no economic, fiscal, or academic argument to make in their favor.* 

It increases the money in people's pockets. That's a good thing.
Why do you hate it when people have more money?

*Cutting taxes results in most consumers having to spend more out of pocket for things like education and health care.* 

Cutting my federal taxes has nothing to do with my local property taxes of the cost of my healthcare.
You're lying.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




*"They had already made the loans"*

Sorry Cupcake GSE's don't make loans 


*GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance*

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. * Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market*. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else. 


Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio. In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better.* On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better.  *

GSE Critics Ignore Loan Performance


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Right, which meant _they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them._
> They had already made the loans. Per your source.



No, that is not per my source.  You're saying they made the loans before they made the loans!  Did they make those loans from 2001-2004?  Nope.  Again, your sophistry is showing.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> And they didn't buy those loans.
> They did, at the end of the bubble, to the tune of 56% of their purchases.



At the end of the bubble, the poor loans had already been made and defaulted.  And GSE loan performance was no better or worse than prior to the bubble.  So GSE's made good loans, private labels (your guys) made shitty ones.  You have been _*unable to reconcile the facts that show GSE loan performance remained the same throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble*_, whereas private label performance got much, much worse.  You don't reconcile that because doing so would undermine your argument that the loans GSE's made were the ones responsible for the collapse.  The loan performance data shows _*that is not the case at all, and GSE loan performance during the bubble was the same as it was prior to the bubble*_.




*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> HUD didn't make them buy more weak mortgages? LOL!



There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.  GSE loan performance throughout the Bush Mortgage Bubble was the same as it was prior to the Bush Mortgage Bubble.  *THAT IS WHAT THE FACTS SHOW YOU ASSHOLE.





*
So why is it that you absolutely refuse to accept the facts?  Is your ego that fragile that you have to literally ignore things that undermine your belief system?  Are you that much of a snowflake?  Get over yourself.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> How can you come to the conclusion that GSE's bear any blame for the mortgage bubble
> Over half their purchases were weak mortgages. You think that leaves them blameless?!



They weren't "weak" mortgages.  Why?  Because they didn't default at rates higher than before the bubble.  Again, that's in the chart that you seem determined to ignore because it destroys everything you are arguing here.  So here's another instance of Conservative _*fantasy*_ clashing with reality.  Conservatives think that because private labels issued garbage subprimes, that means all subprimes are garbage.  But the GSE loan performance shows that isn't the case at all.  You seem unable to reconcile that, which is why you are flaming out big time on this thread.  You are struggling to support your claim that the mortgages the GSE's made were "weak".  They weren't.  GSE mortgages had the same delinquency rates during the bubble than prior to it...and in some cases, the delinquency rate was _*lower*_ than before the bubble.  Which means the mortgages GSE's were buying _*were not weak, as the borrowers didn't enter delinquency at rates higher than before the bubble*_.

When faced with these facts, you choose to ignore them.  Which makes you an ignoramus.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Also, GSE market share was cut from 70% of the market in 2003 to 40% of the market by 2005:
> They were recovering from their accounting scandals. They ramped up their purchases just in time to catch more of the foamy top of the bubble.



No.  You are wrong.  First of all, whatever was going on in the accounting at the GSEs had no bearing on the number of subprime loans GSE's backed.  The reason the GSE market share dropped to 40% by 2005 was because private labels were increasing their subprime originations.  From 1993-2003, there were 1.1 million subprimes issued, which comes to about 110,000 a year.  From 2004-2006, there were 800,000 subprimes issued, which comes to about 266,000 a year.  So what reduced GSE market share was the amount of subprime loans that private labels were issuing.  More than double the number there was before.  In 3 years, Conservatives issued nearly as many subprimes as were issued in the ten years prior.  

You're just making things up as you go.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No it doesn't. Cutting taxes doesn't increase demand.
> Why not?



Because to pay for tax cuts (since they don't pay for themselves), spending is cut which forces consumers to spend more out of pocket on health care and education.  Which is exactly what happened in Kansas with their state colleges.  Conservatives cut taxes, deficits appeared, spending was cut to close deficits, tuition costs rise, students and parents have to borrow more to make up for the increase in tuition.

Cutting taxes only leads to deficits and debt.  Nothing else.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> There's certainly no economic, fiscal, or academic argument to make in their favor.
> It increases the money in people's pockets. That's a good thing.



It doesn't do that.  What it does is force people to go into debt because now they have to borrow more to pay for increased costs thanks to spending cuts to pay for tax cuts (since tax cuts don't pay for themselves and never will).  Which is exactly what happened the last 37 years of doing this shit.  You are in denial, substituting your emotions and theory for fact.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cutting taxes results in most consumers having to spend more out of pocket for things like education and health care.
> Cutting my federal taxes has nothing to do with my local property taxes of the cost of my healthcare.



No, when you cut federal taxes what ends up happening is that you run massive deficits, then you posture over the deficits your tax cuts created and propose cuts to pay for them because tax cuts *don't pay for themselves and never have.  *And it would absolutely have an effect if Medicaid were cut, which is what Conservatives are proposing.  Cutting Medicaid will increase out of pocket costs for the 49,000,000 people on the program, most of whom are elderly and disabled people on fixed incomes.  So why do you hate people so much that you want to make them go into debt because they got sick?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



State *TANF Spending* in FY 2015. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (*TANF*) Program is a *$16.5 billion block grant to states, territories*, and eligible tribes to provide assistance to low-income families and support a range of services to improve employment and other child and family outcomes.

SAME AMOUNT IT WAS IN 1995 AFTER "WELFARE REFORM" CUPCAKE

How States Use Federal and State Funds Under the TANF Block Grant


*Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance*
Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



*Sorry Cupcake GSE's don't make loans *

You got me, they had already bought the mortgages.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Right, which meant _they wouldn't buy those loans if they're not getting credit for them._
> ...


*
No, that is not per my source.*

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

From Post #1077

Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

Moron.
*
At the end of the bubble,*

In 2006, 56%. Durr.

*There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.* 

The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No it doesn't. Cutting taxes doesn't increase demand.
> ...



*Because to pay for tax cuts (since they don't pay for themselves), spending is cut*

The spending is never cut. That's why we have deficits. DURR.
*
No, when you cut federal taxes what ends up happening is that you run massive deficits*

See, you admit they don't cut spending.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



Yes, I love that moronic "study".
When WalMart fires all the welfare recipients, we'll save billions on welfare.
How many billions?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



So we'll save $6 billion? More?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The ones Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies required Cupcake? You know when Dubya dropped Clinton's 2000 rule on subprimes and then Dubya REQUIRING F/F to go from 50% to 56% AND buy $440 billion in MBS's?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> but increasing jobs and growing GDP would be "paying for themselves" in increased economic activity,
> You caught me, they partially pay for themselves.



But do they even do that?  We don't know.  There's no real way to quantify it.  It certainly didn't happen when Bush cut taxes, and it certainly didn't happen when Brownback cut them either.  So I am questioning the premise that they even _*partially *_pay for themselves.  Seen no evidence to support that claim.  What we do know is that they produce deficits and increase household debt.  Neither of those would indicate they "pay for themselves" even partially.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> What you've failed to prove is that cutting taxes actually does those things.
> Except when taxes are cut.



Just because you say so doesn't make it so.  Bush cut taxes and then lost 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years (841,000 after 4 years).  There exists no evidence to support the claim that cutting taxes creates jobs or grows GDP.  It's purely fantasy.  Cutting taxes just results in higher costs for middle and lower income folks because they have to make up for the revenue deficit by cutting spending in states where there is a BBA.  So just like what happened in Kansas, state institutions have to raise fees to cover the funding gap.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So you support a policy that you admittedly have no idea of its economic impact
> Except for the increased growth and additional jobs.



Which you are unable to connect to tax cuts.  And which didn't happen anyway.  Bush cut taxes in 2001, by 2004 he lost 841,000 private sector jobs.  By 2008, he lost 460,000 private sector jobs.  You keep saying tax cuts increase growth but even you admitted that growth isn't the full cost of those tax cuts, and that you have no idea if they even have an effect.  Your _*faith*_ is that they do...but that's just faith.  Faith is not a guiding economic philosophy.  There is plenty of evidence showing that when taxes are cut, household debt increases.  We saw it happen during Reagan and then during Bush the Dumber.  It sounds to me like your governing economic belief system is crossing your fingers and saying a prayer to God.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> then in the next breath you promise they create jobs and grow GDP, _which would mean you think they do pay for themselves_.
> It's true, they partially pay for themselves. Even Obama admitted that.



You haven't proven they partially pay for themselves.  And did Obama really say that, or are you pretending he did?  We already know you make things up as you go, exercise sophistry, and are generally dishonest in how you debate.  So what did Obama _*really*_ say vs. what you claim he said?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Even though after all the tax cuts over the last 37 years, household debt has skyrocketed
> It's true, in a growing economy, people borrow more.



But I thought you opposed debt?  So this is a flip-flop on your part.  Try to get some consistency in your message, pal.  If what you say is true, that tax cuts give people more money to spend, then why would household debt skyrocket?  That would mean people _*don't*_ have more money to spend, and have to go into debt in order to spend.  So what are they going into debt for?  Education and Health care.  Two things that are always cut first.  60% of all personal bankruptcies prior to the ACA were medical related.  With an expanded Medicaid, that figure would have been much lower.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Budget rules that exist for a reason.
> Yes, to favor spending and discourage tax cuts.



Same rules apply for spending as for tax cuts; if it increases the deficit, it needs 60 votes.  So stop whining, snowflake, and get better policy.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cutting taxes doesn't seem to make any economic sense.
> Not to someone like you who thinks all government spending is good and all private spending is a waste.



So your straw man arguments are getting even weaker the more we get into this.  The reason cutting taxes doesn't make economic sense is that they do not increase revenue or jobs above the baseline.  All they do is create deficits and debt; both government and individual...government runs bigger deficits, and individuals go into debt.  That's what happens every time taxes have been cut over the last 37 years.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So again, there's that word "if"...meaning you want to make an argument in the realm of hypothetical.
> Until a $100 billion tax cut is passed, of course it's hypothetical. So why are you afraid to answer the question?



I'm not afraid to answer anything.  You're the one who refuses to answer questions.  You're the one who even refuses to accept facts when they are presented to you.  You do that because you cannot argue in real terms on this subject (or any other, it seems).  Everything you argue has to be in this hypothetical, insulated world where you can control all the circumstances.  In other words, _*a fantasy*_.  We cut taxes by more than that just 16 years ago, and the result was a loss of 841,000 private sector jobs after 4 years, 460,000 private sector jobs lost after 8, the erasing of a surplus, 4 record deficits including the largest deficit of all time, the doubling of the debt, a mortgage bubble that Bush and the Conservatives (including you) have tied to the tax cuts, the worst economic growth in 80 years, and an inevitable economic collapse.  That's the legacy of tax cuts.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Again, you are working from the assumption that consumption does not increase if there is a wage increase _and that is just not true_.
> Nope. I'm working from the assumption that you don't look at both sides of the ledger and that your understanding of business and economics is shit.



You're just flaming out, is what you're doing.  An increase in revenues from increased sales because people have more money to spend offsets any labor costs that come from a wage increase.  We know this _*because we saw it happen 3 years ago, in the states that raised their MW starting January 1st, 2014.*_


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best, highest tranches in the bunch which is why they outperformed the private guys who bought the crap during Dubya pushing the Banksters subprime bubble.

They were done under by Dubya "believing" markets self regulate and Dubya's policy towards F/F



Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
*Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals*
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule
*Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans*
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
*Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets*
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


THINK F/F LIVE IN A BUBBLE AND AREN'T EFFECTED BY BAD GOP POLICY LIKE THE REST OF US ARE CUPCAKE?

FACTS on Dubya's great recession


----------



## GHook93 (Jun 6, 2017)

failsafe said:


> Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> Here is the way things work in the U.S.  Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA!  We are "supposed" to live in a democracy.  But the business world rules your lives.  How many people in business did you vote for.  Do you vote for business or government.  People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live.  That is the government's job.
> 
> I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs.  If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves.  Also, want to see something interesting?  Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.



Tax the poor? Are you serious. It is the middle and upper class that get hit with the taxes. I say quit killing the middle class with taxes. We pay the buck of the budget killing property taxes and unlike the lower class we pay income taxes! The poor get food, housing, school, medical and many other subsidies.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Or you Klowns could get off the casino capitalism the US has used for 40+ years where all the benefits go to the richest Cupcake?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Giving people living wages vs requiring them to live off the Gov't Cupcake?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Perhaps just get the welfare queen Walton's off the public teet and pay enough to support their workers Buttercup?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So we'll save $6 billion? More?



No, you won't save anything if Walmart hires workers at the same rates they did before.  So all those new Walmart workers, who get paid the same wages as the ones before, would all qualify for welfare.

You get that, right?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> The ones Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies required Cupcake? You know when Dubya dropped Clinton's 2000 rule on subprimes and then Dubya REQUIRING F/F to go from 50% to 56% AND buy $440 billion in MBS's?



It should be noted, though, that _*even with*_ the GSE's buying those subprimes, delinquency rates for GSE's remained virtually the same (and even went down a couple years).  So not all subprimes were equal in their suckiness.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

GHook93 said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...



You mean those " lucky duckies" in the bottom* half of America who receive 11% of ALL US income, *down from 18% in 1980 pre Reaganomics? That's almost $5,000 more per family, think that would help?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > The ones Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies required Cupcake? You know when Dubya dropped Clinton's 2000 rule on subprimes and then Dubya REQUIRING F/F to go from 50% to 56% AND buy $440 billion in MBS's?
> ...




GSE's got the best of the best "tranches" in their bundles, they got  paid off first in default


----------



## The Derp (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.
> The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?



First of all, they were already government-sponsored (What the "G" and "S" stand for in "GSE").  Secondly, the delinquency rates for subprimes connected to GSE's _*was unchanged from pre-mortgage bubble levels*_.  In fact, in some cases, the delinquency rate was _*lower*_ than it was pre-bubble, and as much as 6x better than the delinquency rate of private labels.  

What that means is that the loans the GSE's had from 2004-7 performed the same (or better) than the loans they had prior.  That's what the facts show.  So you are trying to lay blame on the GSE's because of their market share, but you are ignoring the loan performance of GSE-backed loans. Are you intentionally ignoring them?  It sure seems to be the case.

_*So why are you ignoring the GSE loan performance?*_  Easy; because it undermines your attempt to pin blame on the GSE's for the negligence Conservatives had when it came to policing lending standards among private labels.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Jun 6, 2017)

GHook93 said:


> failsafe said:
> 
> 
> > Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here.  Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes.  The Poor!  Slavery in action.  The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
> ...


*Don't Let the Liberal/Conservative Axis Spin You Dizzy*

The "poor" are puppets of the guillotine-fodder HeirHeads. Eliminate birth privileges and this whole nightmare will be over.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


supply side economics only supplies.  demand side economics, demands.  tax cuts don't demand anything and who benefits most, from tax cuts.  

increasing the minimum wage will enable more people to spend more money.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > but increasing jobs and growing GDP would be "paying for themselves" in increased economic activity,
> ...



*But I thought you opposed debt?*

I opposed debt? Like it violates the Koran?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



*Sorry Cupcake, the GSE bough the best of he best*

Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.

It was awesome! LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



How many people are you paying a living wage?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



I agree, stop giving WalMart employees welfare.

We'll save billions!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So we'll save $6 billion? More?
> ...



*No, you won't save anything*

Sure we will.

_"It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers."_

If Walmart fired 100 of their poor workers, would the taxpayers save $301,500 or $581,500?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > There were no weak mortgages you shitbag.
> ...



The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?

Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's they had very little subprimes, those they did have were the cream of the crop BECAUSE they got the top (best) tranches 

Wish Dubya hadn't cheered on the Banksters credit bubble AS he fought all 50 states wanted to have regulators on the beat right Cupcake?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thanks to CONservative economics the past 40 years, "winner take all", very few Cupcake, mostly union, Gov't or those with higher education. Sure wish instead of keep rewarding the "job creators", the GOP would want to increase wages at the bottom 90% instead like we had post WW2-1979...


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Sure Cupcake and be that much closer to a 3rd world nation that CONservative policies are bound to send US too


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Don't understand TENS OF MILLIONS of homes were under water after Dubya cheered on the Banksters credit bubble Cupcake? Yep, lose 40%-60% home values as we saw 2008-2011 in a LOT of the US and people tend to walk away EVEN QUALITY LOANS THAT HAD UNDERWRITING LIKE GSE'S DID 

Not very good with this economic thing Buttercup?

*"GSE loans had a delinquency rate of 6.2% in 2008 versus 28.3% for non-GSE or private label loans."*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Actually even though Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies forced GSE's to buy up MBS's*

I know, the Dems resisted that every step of the way.

*those they did have were the cream of the crop*

Absolutely! That's why the Treasury and Fed had to give them a couple of hundred billion dollars.
Not a loser in the bunch, eh?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




For the 3rd time Cupcake, what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again??? Nice dodge on which party had the Executive branch though Cupcake 



Don't understand that after 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies the US lost $16+ TRILLION in wealth, 7 million jobs and 10 million homes being foreclosed as the economy dumped 9%+ the last quarter of 2008, the housing economy was dumping??? MIGHT hurt the GSE's and their holdings Cupcake?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*what power did the Dems have during Dubya's reign again???*

Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Don't understand what power of the minority in Congress is Cupcake?  



Barney Frank:


June 17th, 2004
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a *Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes,* said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.

*The new rule compels the companies to put 57 percent of their mortgage financing by 2008 toward homes for people with incomes no greater than area median income*. Fannie Mae and Freddie, the two largest U.S. mortgage finance companies, must currently meet a 50 percent threshold. 

*The White House “could do some harm if you don't refine the goals,'' said Representative Barney Frank



Frank's comments echo concerns of executives at the government-chartered companies that the new goals will undermine profits and put new homeowners into dwellings they can't afford. “
*
At their outer edges they become counterproductive –there are not loans to make that will get repaid,'' Freddie Mac Chief Executive Richard Syron said Monday in an interview, referring to the new financing rule. 

*Frank said the administration is aiming to reduce the role of the two companies in mortgage financing, and has seized on the higher goals “as a useful stick by which to beat Fannie and Freddie.'' 


HINT EXEC BRANCH HAS HUD, OCC, SEC, GSE, ETC WHICH IS HOW RONNIE FAILED WITH THE S&L CRISIS ALSO, YOU KNOW "MARKETS SELF REGULATE" BS


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?



https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies*

Yes, Barney didn't want banks to lend more to low income people. Hilarious!!!

Thanks for the laughs, chuckles.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Didn't read the link huh Cupcake?

*Frank and housing industry representatives such as Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Homebuilders, say the White House rules fail to focus financing on multifamily housing and other market segments. *


The regulations also don't address a decline in refinancing and other market changes, they said. “We don't see how these goals in any way put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into specific types of affordable housing,'' Howard said. 

The association, which represents Centex Corp., Toll Brothers Inc. and about 215,000 other companies in the housing industry, plans to ask for a 60-day extension of the public comment period, Howard said. *Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further, but it doesn't make sense to push them in an undifferentiated way.''*

https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf

*In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."


The 2005 bill included Frank objectives, which were to impose tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing. 


Frank and Mike Oxley achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and it passed the House.

But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. "If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley (R) told Frank. 


Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia
Frank Seeks Antidote to Republican Amnesia


ANYTHING ELSE CUPCAKE?

*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*Referring to the housing goals and the two companies, Frank said, “we want to push them further,*

Thanks. When you prove my point, I don't have to.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 6, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Sure Cupcake, take it out of context, it's ALL you have. 

Are you EVER going to get tired at nipping out our heels and actually get into the debates Cupcake?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 6, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 6, 2017)

Tax cuts supply more disposable income; but, only the wealthiest benefit the most.  

A higher minimum wage benefits more people and grows our economy.

Retained wealth by the one percent, may be expatriated.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Nah Cupcake, just tired how right wingers like you ALWAYS try to simplify things by taking it out of context 

I guess it's just the way your bumper sticker brains work


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.!



The mortgages the GSE's bought had delinquency rates no worse (and in some cases better) than prior to the bubble.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I agree, stop giving WalMart employees welfare.
> We'll save billions!!



But then you'll have millions of workers in poverty.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *No, you won't save anything*
> Sure we will.
> _"It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 worker."_
> If Walmart fired 100 of their poor workers, would the taxpayers save $301,500 or $581,500?



Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired.  Unless you're raising wages, you're not changing anything.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?
> Have you always been a fucktard? Is it the result of a recent brain injury? I'm truly curious.



Hey you stupid fucking moron...do you just not understand numbers?  The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged (and in some cases, even better) than the rates prior to the mortgage bubble.  You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument.  And your argument is stupid.  It's not informed by anything, clearly.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
> Is that what they would have done if they controlled the House and Senate, stopped his home ownership push for poor people?



So rather than talk in hypothetical "what ifs", which I know you prefer to speak in terms of, let's talk in reality.  The _*reality*_ is that in 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government.  2004 was also the year the Bush Mortgage Bubble started, with subprimes shooting up from 8.3% of all mortgages in 2003 to 20.9% of all mortgages by 2004 to 22.7% of all mortgages by 2005.  Over the same period, GSE market share went from 70% in 2003 down to 48% in 2004 down to 40% by 2005.

And Conservatives cheered it on the entire time with Larry Kudlow even calling those in 2005 warning about the housing bubble, "bubbleheads".

Conservatives were wrong then, so why would they be right today?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Did they need power to stop W's home ownership idiocy?
> ...


i would prefer to assume, but know i should check for those, "twice a day" moments.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Nah Cupcake, just tired how right wingers like you ALWAYS try to simplify things by taking it out of context
> I guess it's just the way your bumper sticker brains work



He's a sophist and he knows it.  He knows his belief system is a load of crap...he doesn't care.  The reason he doesn't care is because no one has ever held him accountable for anything in his privileged life.  His parents were probably of the ilk that gave him all sorts of participation trophies to boost his snowflake ego, and who told him that so long as he believed in himself, he was right.  That's why he ignores facts.  That's why he makes deliberately deceptive arguments.  That's why all Conservatives do the same thing; they're a bunch of snowflakes with fragile egos who simply have never been held to account for anything, or exercise any personal responsibility in their lives.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

And now we just got word in from Kansas.  Moderate Republicans and Democrats have come together to override Brownback's veto of their repeal of his disastrous tax cuts.  Here's why:







Tax cuts cause deficits.  There's your proof.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, when the government forced them to buy crappy mortgages, they only bought the best crappy mortgages.!
> ...



I know, they only needed a couple of hundred billion dollars to cover their awesome subprimes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, stop giving WalMart employees welfare.
> ...



But by firing their welfare recipient employees, we'll stop subsidizing WalMart's profit.
And save billions in welfare.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *No, you won't save anything*
> ...



*Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired.*

We'd save a bunch. Just hire replacements not on welfare.
Easy peasy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The government took over the GSEs and gave them $100s of billions because they only bought good mortgages?
> ...



*The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged*

Hey, fucktard, are you not familiar with all the money the government had to send to the GSEs because of mortgage defaults?
I don't care if they had the best delinquency rates in the history of forever.

HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

*You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument.* 

My argument is the GSEs were forced to buy at least 50% of their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool.
Such a huge buyer plays a large part in inflating a bubble. To meet the demand for these crappy mortgages, not only from GSEs, but also from private label MBS securitizers, firms like Countrywide were even giving mortgages to clowns like you.

Scary, I know.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know, they only needed a couple of hundred billion dollars to cover their awesome subprimes.



So this is how you reconcile the fact that the GSE subprimes had delinquency rates no worse (and in some cases even better) than those rates prior to the bubble?  That inconvenient fact pretty much destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble.  They weren't, clearly, as they defaulted at rates the same as, or better than, those issued pre-bubble.

The problems were in the subprimes issued by private labels and backed by private labels.  

So why are you ignoring that very vital information?  Because you have a narrative you have to preserve in order to avoid accountability for your flawed argument and premise, all in service of your fucking ego.

Get over yourself.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired.*
> We'd save a bunch. Just hire replacements not on welfare.



Income is how someone qualifies for welfare.  Do you even know that?  Doesn't seem like it.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged*
> Hey, fucktard, are you not familiar with all the money the government had to send to the GSEs because of mortgage defaults?
> I don't care if they had the best delinquency rates in the history of forever.



So it doesn't sound like you even understand what a delinquent mortgage is.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You ignore GSE loan performance because it completely undermines your stupid argument.
> My argument is the GSEs were forced to buy at least 50% of their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool.



And those mortgages had the same default rates as the ones prior to the bubble, and in some cases were even better.  And they were forced to buy those by Bush who was desperate to inflate a mortgage bubble to cover for the failure of his tax cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them.  Your entire argument falls apart because the mortgages the GSE's were "forced to buy" defaulted at the same rates as the mortgages they bought prior to the bubble.  You have been _*unable*_ to reconcile those figures.  In fact, you wholly ignore them specifically _*because*_ they undermine your argument.  So you exercise sophistry and pretend you don't even see them.  Pathetic and SAD!  At this point, why are you even responding to this thread?  It's clear you are outclassed.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Such a huge buyer plays a large part in inflating a bubble.



But those mortgages were not the ones that caused the market to collapse because they weren't delinquent.  That's the part you are leaving out because including it would contradict your entire premise.  You are a sophist, and not a very good one at that.  You can't even do sophistry correctly.  That's how much of a failure you are as a person.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I know, they only needed a couple of hundred billion dollars to cover their awesome subprimes.
> ...


*
destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble.* 

I didn't say they were responsible. I said their huge purchases contributed to the bubble.
Even if we had privatized the GSEs and eliminated any possibility of a government guarantee of their securities and even if Congress didn't force them to buy crappy mortgages, the bubble would still have happened.
It probably would have been smaller. We'll never know.

Your claim that they didn't buy crappy mortgages, despite all the links, yours included, that show they were forced to buy 50%-56% subprimes is silly.

*The problems were in the subprimes issued by private labels and backed by private labels.*

The problem was both private and GSE purchases feeding the bubble.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired.*
> ...



*Income is how someone qualifies for welfare.*

So reducing their income, by firing them, would actually increase the government's welfare expense. Good point.

It shows the complete idiocy of blaming WalMart for welfare expense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *The delinquency rates for the mortgages GSE's bought were unchanged*
> ...



*And those mortgages had the same default rates as the ones prior to the bubble*

Yup, those crappy mortgages were crappy even before the bubble burst.
*
And they were forced to buy those by Bush*

Yup. And the Dems fought to stop him. Oh, right, they liked it too.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




*"HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!"
*
All paid back and paying down the deficits today Cupcake
*

"My argument is the GSEs were forced to buy at least 50% of their mortgages from the subprime end of the pool."*

Bad argument Cupcake, they weren't forced to buy that much from the subprime pool by Dubya but buy for affordable housing goals 

They were losing market share GREATLY as the Dubya bubble exploded, has that  *"a large part in inflating a bubble"* Cupcake?


"The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a* high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06."*

....Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — *grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006*. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.




WAPO

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [But by firing their welfare recipient employees, we'll stop subsidizing WalMart's profit.
> And save billions in welfare.



No we won't because those workers qualify for welfare benefits if they are getting the same wages as the ones before.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Taxpayers would save nothing if Walmart had to hire workers to make up for the workers it fired.*
> We'd save a bunch. Just hire replacements not on welfare.



But income is how you qualify for welfare.  You get that, right?  Why are you being a sophist here?  It's obvious you know you are, so why are you doing it?  Is it an ego thing?  An attention thing?  A trolling thing?  If you have nothing to contribute, why are you even posting?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



*All paid back*

What was paid back? The hundreds of billions they were lent? LOL!

Yes. They paid back the money they needed to cover all the crappy mortgages they had purchased.

*they weren't forced to buy that much from the subprime pool by Dubya*

They were forced to buy over 50% crappy mortgages.

*They were losing market share GREATLY as the Dubya bubble exploded*

Yes they were.

*These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.”*

Yup. And Fannie and Freddie were very large buyers.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble.*
> I didn't say they were responsible. I said their huge purchases contributed to the bubble.



No, the bubble was inflated by garbage subprimes.  The subprimes the GSE's were buying were not garbage, as they had the same (or better) delinquency rates as those prior to the bubble.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your claim that they didn't buy crappy mortgages, despite all the links, yours included, that show they were forced to buy 50%-56% subprimes is silly.



My links _*don't say that*_.  In fact, my links say _*the opposite*_, that the mortgages the GSE's bought had the same or better delinquency rates than the ones they bought prior to the bubble.

*You are purposefully ignoring GSE loan performance because it undermines your argument completely.  And because you are an egomaniac, you cannot admit it.
*



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The problem was both private and GSE purchases feeding the bubble.



Nope.  Just the private labels.  GSE subprime mortgages performed at the same rate (or better) as they did prior to the bubble.  The bubble was being inflated by the private labels, who issued nearly 2 1/2 times as many subprimes per year from 2004-7 than they did the ten years prior.  Just because private labels were issuing garbage subprimes didn't mean _*all*_ subprimes issued were garbage.  And we know that because we can look at the delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans vs. private label-backed loans.  Once again, the reality of the numbers trips up your bad argument, leaving you with nothing but rhetoric and invective.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [But by firing their welfare recipient employees, we'll stop subsidizing WalMart's profit.
> ...



When they fire the welfare recipients they'll replace them with young people living with parents and spouses of working people. Not a welfare recipient in the bunch.

How much will welfare expenses decrease?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Income is how someone qualifies for welfare.*
> So reducing their income, by firing them, would actually increase the government's welfare expense. Good point.
> It shows the complete idiocy of blaming WalMart for welfare expense.



You are being a sophist here.  You completely understand what I'm saying but are pretending you don't.  That means you're a pretty shitty person.  You must be very lonely.

When Walmart hires workers at the wages they do, those workers qualify for welfare benefits.  So no matter what, you are subsidizing Walmart profits.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And those mortgages had the same default rates as the ones prior to the bubble*
> Yup, those crappy mortgages were crappy even before the bubble burst.



No they weren't!  We know this in the delinquency rates:







So once again, you completely ignore the facts.  The facts show that the delinquency rates for the GSE's remained constant throughout the bubble, and much better than private labels.  If you're going to ignore the chart, fine.  Just know that doing so makes you look completely wrong and clueless.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> And they were forced to buy those by Bush
> Yup. And the Dems fought to stop him. Oh, right, they liked it too.



In 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government.  Furthermore, the argument you seem to be making _*now*_ is that everyone should have known better than to trust Conservatives with our economy.  If that is the argument you are making, then fine.  It's one I actually agree with.  But I doubt that's your intent.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble.*
> ...



*No, the bubble was inflated by garbage subprimes.*

The GSEs bought huge numbers of garbage subprimes.

*The subprimes the GSE's were buying were not garbage, as they had the same (or better) delinquency rates as those prior to the bubble.* 

Bullshit. Delinquency rates spiked across the board, especially among subprimes.

despite all the links, yours included, that show they were forced to buy 50%-56% subprimes is silly

*My links *_*don't say that*_*.* 

Bullshit.

_That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years*, from 50 percent to 56 percent.* John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and "must do more."

In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals.

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis
_
That's your Wapo link.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When they fire the welfare recipients they'll replace them with young people living with parents and spouses of working people. Not a welfare recipient in the bunch?



LOL!  Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income.  You don't know much about this subject, do you?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [When they fire the welfare recipients they'll replace them with young people living with parents and spouses of working people. Not a welfare recipient in the bunch.



Talk about an arrogant, know-nothing post.  This is the prime example as to why nothing Conservatives say can be taken seriously.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Income is how someone qualifies for welfare.*
> ...



*When Walmart hires workers at the wages they do, those workers qualify for welfare benefits.* 

Bullshit.
A healthy 20 year old who isn't disabled doesn't qualify for welfare just because they work for WalMart.

*You completely understand what I'm saying*

You're saying WalMart wages are to blame for welfare expenses.
I'm saying if WalMart stopped employing those welfare recipients, the government would spend more
on welfare, not less.

You completely understand what I'm saying but are pretending you don't.  That means you're a pretty shitty person.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *And those mortgages had the same default rates as the ones prior to the bubble*
> ...



*The facts show that the delinquency rates for the GSE's remained constant throughout the bubble,*

None of the delinquency rates remained constant in that chart. LOL!
*
In 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government.* 

Yup. And the Dems never fought against Bush's push to extend mortgages to poor people.
They agreed with it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [When they fire the welfare recipients they'll replace them with young people living with parents and spouses of working people. Not a welfare recipient in the bunch.
> ...



Pointing out your idiocy makes you sad.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, the bubble was inflated by garbage subprimes.
> The GSEs bought huge numbers of garbage subprimes.



No, they didn't.  The subprimes the GSE's bought weren't garbage.  They had the same delinquency rates (or better) as those prior to the subprime bubble, and we know this because these are facts.  You ignore the chart showing the delinquency rates for no other reason than it destroys your argument _*completely*_.  GSE loan performance is the Achilles' heel to your argument.  So why are you ignoring the chart?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The subprimes the GSE's were buying were not garbage, as they had the same (or better) delinquency rates as those prior to the bubble.
> Bullshit. Delinquency rates spiked across the board, especially among subprimes.



Only the subprimes issued by private lenders.  Here's the chart (that you continue to ignore) showing loan performance across the various entities:






The GSE's have the _*lowest*_ delinquency rates.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bullshit.



So you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.  No one is denying that GSE's bought more of those affordable-housing loans.  But what _*you are denying*_ is that those loans performed _*exactly the same or better*_ than the loans issued pre-bubble.  Nowhere in anything you quoted does it say the loans those GSE's bought were toxic.  In fact, the data from the loan _*performance*_ indicates that the loans GSE's bought were sound, healthy, and had low delinquency rates.  So yes, GSE's bought more loans, but _*no*_, those loans were not the ones that defaulted and caused the bubble to pop.

I don't think you even understand what it is you are saying.  Because you are either a sophist or an ignoramus.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The facts show that the delinquency rates for the GSE's remained constant throughout the bubble,*
> None of the delinquency rates remained constant in that chart. LOL!



Yes they did you fucking idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7), which is what we are talking about.  Do you even know how _*to read*_?  Is this thing you're doing just an act?  How could someone be so obtuse without intent?  This is why I call you a sophist; because you are making deliberately and knowingly fallacious arguments while ignoring facts.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> In 2004, Conservatives controlled all three branches of government.
> Yup. And the Dems never fought against Bush's push to extend mortgages to poor people.
> They agreed with it.



Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse.  It was all the Conservatives who took out loans to flip houses and make a quick buck who caused this to happen.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pointing out your idiocy makes you sad.



The only idiocy here is yours, pal.

You seem unable to grasp the fact that welfare eligibility is determined by income.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When they fire the welfare recipients they'll replace them with young people living with parents and spouses of working people. Not a welfare recipient in the bunch?
> ...



*Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income.*

Bullshit.

*Cash Assistance*_




_
*Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)*_ provides temporary financial and Healthcare Coverage for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children. TANF provides financial assistance to pay for food, shelter, utilities and expenses other than medical._

https://abe.illinois.gov/abe/access/accessController?id=0.21984854296717937

Plenty of WalMart employees don't qualify for welfare in Illinois based solely on their income.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble.*
> I didn't say they were responsible. I said their huge purchases contributed to the bubble.



To which you are wrong.  The mortgages that caused the bubble were the ones that went delinquent.  GSE-backed loans had delinquency rates the same throughout the bubble years.  You ignore GSE loan performance because it's the only way your bullshit argument makes sense.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your claim that they didn't buy crappy mortgages, despite all the links, yours included, that show they were forced to buy 50%-56% subprimes is silly.



So here's more of your sophistry on display.  Not every subprime loan was crappy.  A subprime loan only became crappy when the borrower failed to repay (delinquency).  From 2004-7, the delinquency rates for GSE-backed subprime loans remained at the levels prior to 2004, whereas delinquency and default rates for private labels skyrocketed.  So you are trying to lump in all subprimes together as part of a guilt-by-association argument, but you're being knowingly dishonest when you do that.  A "garbage loan" in this context is a loan that defaults or goes into delinquency.  Risk isn't what we're talking about.  Not now, when we know the actual figures and facts.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The problems were in the subprimes issued by private labels and backed by private labels.
> The problem was both private and GSE purchases feeding the bubble.



No, you have failed to pin GSE's because you ignore loan performance.  GSE-backed loans performed at the same rates they did before the bubble.  Private label loans didn't.  Fact.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

*So I say this:  *Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income.
*You say this:  *Bullshit.
*But then you also say this:  *Plenty of WalMart employees don't qualify for welfare in Illinois based solely on their income.

So it is determined by income, then.  You contradict yourself *in your own fucking post!*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *The facts show that the delinquency rates for the GSE's remained constant throughout the bubble,*
> ...



*Yes they did you fucking idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7),*

Fuck you're a moron.

During a period of rapidly rising home prices, it was difficult to lose your home, you'd refinance or sell it first.

We're talking about the performance of these crappy mortgages after the bubble burst.

You know, the part of your chart where delinquency rates across the board spiked.
Even the GSEs. Which is why they needed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury and Fed.

*Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse.* 

Great. So what? They played a part. An ever larger part of the bubble as the GSEs, and private issuers, demanded more and more in a chase for yield.

*It was all the Conservatives who took out loans to flip houses*

Yeah, that conservative American Indian Senator from Massachusetts is a pisser, eh?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're saying WalMart wages are to blame for welfare expenses.
> I'm saying if WalMart stopped employing those welfare recipients, the government would spend more
> on welfare, not less.



Problem is that welfare eligibility is determined by income.  So if you fire Walmart workers, but then hire new workers at the same rate, those new workers still qualify for welfare.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *destroys your entire premise; that the GSE loans were responsible for the bubble.*
> ...



The bubble popped 2008-2009. Your chart shows delinquencies rising across the board then. DURR.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> *So I say this:  *Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income.
> *You say this:  *Bullshit.
> *But then you also say this:  *Plenty of WalMart employees don't qualify for welfare in Illinois based solely on their income.
> 
> So it is determined by income, then.  You contradict yourself *in your own fucking post!*



Yes, in my post.

*Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)*_ provides temporary financial and Healthcare Coverage for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children.
_
If you have low income, aren't pregnant and have no children, you don't qualify in Illinois.
Thanks for proving you can't read.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes they did you fucking idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7),
> Fuck you're a moron.
> During a period of rapidly rising home prices, it was difficult to lose your home, you'd refinance or sell it first.



You are making the assumption that people were buying homes with these loans _*to live in*_.  That's not true at all.  These loans were being handed out to people as part of a scheme in order to flip houses and make money off that house flipping.  You are doing the sophist thing by trying to lump in those folks who got loans _*but paid those loans*_ with those who didn't, and declaring all of them equal.  You do that _*because you are a sophist*_.  GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.  And private labels ramped up their subprime lending beginning in 2004.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're talking about the performance of these crappy mortgages after the bubble burst.



NO!  We are talking about the mortgages _*that caused the bubble to burst*_.  Those were the ones issued by private labels that had default & delinquency rates 6x higher than those of GSE-backed loans.  You're trying to shift the argument to _*after*_ the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over _*what caused*_ the bubble to burst _*and why*_.  This is just more of that goal-post shifting, parameter-redefining sophistry you exercise constantly.  What happened _*after*_ the bubble burst is not relevant to what caused the bubble to burst in the first place.  What caused the bubble to burst in the first place was all those garbage private-label subprimes that went into delinquency.  That's why the chart I showed below shows delinquency rates for private label loans grow _*before*_ the delinquency rates of GSE-backed loans grew.








GSE delinquencies don't start growing until late 2007, well after the bubble popped.  In fact, from 2006-7, as delinquency rates for private label loans was increasing, delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans were _*decreasing*_.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> You know, the part of your chart where delinquency rates across the board spiked.
> Even the GSEs. Which is why they needed hundreds of billions of dollars from the Treasury and Fed.



The part you are purposefully leaving out is _*when*_ those rates started growing.  The chart clearly shows that there was a waterfall effect; delinquency rates for private labels start growing mid-2006, but delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans start growing at the end of 2007.  That's because the housing market bubble burst thanks to the private label loans, and the ripple effect in the housing market was then felt by the other types of loans as housing values dropped, forcing millions "underwater".  But they only went "underwater" _*after*_ the private label loans had already defaulted and popped the bubble.

So you gloss over the facts that show the private label loans were the ones defaulting _*first*_.  And their ripple effect was felt by the other entities as those private label loans defaulted, the houses they covered went into foreclosure, which caused the values of everyone else's homes to drop, the job loss that came from the bubble burst, and the subsequent recession that _*only then*_ saw people default on loans from other entities.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mortgages to poor people aren't the ones that caused the collapse.
> Great. So what? They played a part. An ever larger part of the bubble as the GSEs, and private issuers, demanded more and more in a chase for yield.



But the GSE loans are not the ones that caused the bubble to pop.  They only started defaulting after the bubble had already popped and because of foreclosures driving down property values, driving down demand for housing, which killed jobs, which caused more people to lose their homes.

All because Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts when it wasn't.  That's the whole reason we had a bubble in the first place.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The bubble popped 2008-2009. Your chart shows delinquencies rising across the board then. DURR.



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!  The bubble popped in 2007, jackass, not 2008.  That's why you see delinquency rates for private-label loans start growing _*in 2006*_.  

Seriously, I know you know you're being dishonest.  So why are you continuing to do it?  Does it really mean that much to you?  Are you so defensive like this because you recognize that once we pull the thread here, the entire Conservative sweater begins to unravel and your ego cannot handle that?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)*_ provides temporary financial and Healthcare Coverage for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children._
> If you have low income, aren't pregnant and have no children, you don't qualify in Illinois.



Not for TANF, but you do for SNAP, which was another program on that page that you didn't bother to mention in your post.  So why did you just not mention it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they did you fucking idiot, during the Bush Mortgage Bubble years (2004-7),
> ...



*GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.*

Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.
*
You're trying to shift the argument to *_*after*_* the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over *_*what caused*_* the bubble to burst*

They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.
The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.
Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.
It's no mystery.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)*_ provides temporary financial and Healthcare Coverage for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children._
> ...




You said, "Welfare eligibility is solely determined by income"

I just showed you a program that isn't.

Why can't you answer my question?
If WalMart fired every welfare recipient and replaced them with non-recipients, how much will welfare costs decline?

Are you afraid to answer because it will expose the idiocy of your subsidy claim?


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Your total BS premises have REPEATEDLY been demolished Cupcake, all you have is TRYING to move the goals posts and slight of hand or LIES. 

The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault, both premises are BS based on empirical data and history.

ONE party supports "markets self regulate" BS. One party was in charge of the executive branch who had oversight of the Banksters during the time period the Banksters credit bubble blew up. One party had Dubya's home ownership society credit bubble that fed off of housing ALWAYS going up "belief"  and dropping underwriting standards, completely!

GSE's did get caught up thanks mainly to Dubya's policies that forced F/F to buy the MBS's or allowing them to chase the Banksters drive to the bottom, which clearly F/F were lagging on as they lost market share AND the private markets securitizers went from 10% in 2003 to 40% by 2006 of ALL new mortgages, a 400% increase in just a few years. 

But you "keep believing" in your failed ideology and trying to spread blame around and play the victim for the Banksters Cupcake


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 7, 2017)

Markle said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Which ones? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? And what does cutting them accomplish, exactly?
> ...


Why not solve simple poverty on an at-will basis.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why not simply jail employers who don't hire enough labor?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The Derp said:
> ...



*The entire premise YOU support is Gov't created the Bankster BUBBLE AND both parties are equally at fault,*

Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.
Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.
He was wrong.
So were the Dems who agreed it was a great idea.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Yeah Cupcake you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters subprime bubble 

Hint when Dems push more people to become homeowners, they do it with GOOD OVERSIGHT and good outcomes

GOP? Not so much

BTW, Dubya didn't care how it turned out, he was just more interested in hiding his failed economic policies by cheering on the ponzi scheme!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*you keep "believing" the Dems had ANY power to stop Dubya cheering on the Banksters*

The Dems had no power to stop Bush from doing what the Dems also wanted to do.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Sure Cupcake, the Dems fought ALL 50 states who wanted to reign in predatory lenders, GUTTED the FBI white collar division (MORTGAGE FRAUD DIV) by 1/3rd, REVERSED CLINTON'S 2000 RULE THAT FORBID F/F FROM USING SUBPRIMES FROM COUNTING TOWARDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS, etc

Keep "believing what the Dems wanted was UNREGULATED FREE MARKET BS CUPCAKE


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




* National housing trust fund.* Crowley's group also will work to pass an alternative approach to affordable housing production that was *introduced in 2000 by Democratic presidential candidate Kerry. This national housing trust fund would create a dedicated source of money to build 1.5 million affordable rental units over 10 years, its backers say.*

While *the administration says the trust fund would duplicate other HUD programs and unwisely takes funds from an FHA mortgage insurance fund, *Crowley and her allies say the idea would work.

In the *House, trust fund legislation has 214 co-sponsors, but the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee has not allowed it to come up for a vote*, Crowley said.

One of the coalition's big pushes next year will be to line up enough votes to bring the bill to the House floor.


WAPO


Industry Plans To Keep Up The Pressure (washingtonpost.com)



In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, *wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."*
*

YEAH CUPCAKE, THE SAME GOALS *SHAKING HEAD*

*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



Which Dems wanted to stop the push for more low-income home owners?
Gimme a list.......

*Keep "believing what the Dems wanted was UNREGULATED FREE MARKET BS*

Forcing banks to make crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
Forcing the GSEs to buy crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
Dems supported both.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 7, 2017)

I am just glad, the right wing, Owns the drug war.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Your BS noted Cupcake

*(BARNEY) Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."



(BARNEY) Frank and housing industry representatives such as Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Homebuilders, say the White House rules fail to focus financing on multifamily housing and other market segments. *The regulations also don't address a decline in refinancing and other market changes, they said. “We don't see how these goals in any way put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into specific types of affordable housing,'' Howard said. The association, which represents Centex Corp.,
*

Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says
https://democrats-financialservices...s/112/06-17-04-new-fannie-goals-bloomberg.pdf


Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)*

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
*Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals*
*Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule*
*Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans*
*Lowering down payment requirements to 0%*
*Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets*
*Giving away 40,000 free down payments*
*PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING*


*But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.*


*THINK F/F LIVE IN A BUBBLE AND AREN'T EFFECTED BY BAD GOP POLICY LIKE THE REST OF US ARE CUPCAKE?*


FACTS on Dubya's great recession


*FORCING BANKS? CUPCAKE, CUPCAKE, CUPCAKE *shaking head**


*The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks*. They developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors. Who bought these high risk loans? Mostly pension funds and Insurances seeking higher returns who lost almost half of the pension funds value and the public that depended on those funds for retirement. 




*Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks*. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 7, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> I am just glad, the right wing, Owns the drug war.




Wait another 20-30 years and the right will be blaming the libs for that TOO though


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 7, 2017)

Requiring a work ethic in an at-will employment State, is unlawful.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 7, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JonKoch said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...












The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, in January 2011, concluded _"the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: *Widespread failures in financial regulation"*_
_*







Conservatives Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis


*
The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, *occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.*

*Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis - Center for American Progress*_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 7, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JonKoch said:
> ...



*BARNEY) Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."*

Thanks. Best laugh I've had this week.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.
> Of course it was. Originally the GSEs only bought conforming loans.



Even the loans GSE's bought _*during the bubble*_ performed exponentially better than those from private labels.  The chart shows that the private labels were the ones that went bad first, and the ripple effect downstream caused _*all mortgages*_ to increase in delinquency rates, not just GSE-backed mortgages.  Cause and effect.  The cause was the defaulting of the private label mortgages starting in 2006, and the effect was the bubble pop which had the ripple effect of causing mortgages from _*all entities*_ to increase their delinquency rates.  Had there not been a pop of the private label subprimes, there would not have been an economic collapse.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're trying to shift the argument to _after_ the bubble burst, that way you can gloss over _what caused_ the bubble to burst
> They ran out of crappy risks to lend to.



No, because they could just fabricate subprime loans with no documentation.  Which is exactly what they did.  The bubble burst because those garbage loans they made started entering delinquency as early as mid-2006.  That's what the chart shows.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Fed raised rates from 1% in June 2004 to 5.25% in July 2006.



And housing continued to grow.  Raising the Fed interest rates wasn't what caused the garbage subprime mortgages to start defaulting in late 2006, the adjustable rates on those mortgages were the cause.  Again, they cover this in _*The Big Short*_, the movie you say you saw but clearly didn't.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crappy risks couldn't keep up their adjustable payments.



Adjustable payments that were so, independent of what the Fed rate was.  It's these details you leave out because you do a lot of sloppy work.  Whether that is intentional or not, I'm not sure.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 8, 2017)

Unequal protection of the law for the poor under Any form of Capitalism, simply Because they can't afford it; is not very _social_ and is_ Contract_ually, unacceptable.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 8, 2017)

JonKoch said:


> BTW, Dubya didn't care how it turned out, he was just more interested in hiding his failed economic policies by cheering on the ponzi scheme!



That's exactly right.  That's why all the actions taken to inflate a housing bubble started in 2003-4.  The economy was not growing as promised, and Bush was desperate for good economic news ahead of the 2004 election.  They correctly surmised that housing is a terrific economic multiplier.  So they took a series of _*deliberate actions*_ to create and inflate a mortgage bubble in time for the 2004 election so the economy (which had shed 841,000 private sector jobs after Bush's first four years) was not a campaign issue.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Forcing banks to make crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
> Forcing the GSEs to buy crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
> Dems supported both.



Banks _*were not forced to make loans*_.  There is no line you can point to in the CRA or the revision to the CRA in the 90's that "forced banks to give loans".  You will not be able to find one line of text from either of those legislation that forced banks to do anything.  Now, banks got _*incentives*_ for handing out affordable housing loans, but those loans were strictly regulated which is why their delinquency rates for loans subject to CRA rules were so much lower than that of private labels who were not subject to CRA rules.  Of the top 25 lenders during the subprime mortgage bubble, only 1 was subject to CRA rules.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.



Bubbles don't happen "just because".  Every bubble has a reason behind why it appeared.  The dotcom bubble was caused by the Capital Gains Tax Cut.  The housing bubble was caused by the deliberate actions Bush took in 2003-4 to deregulate the mortgage industry to inflate a bubble to cover for the failure of his tax cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them.  Leaving the responsibility for bubbles to invisible forces is akin to magical thinking and why your economic policy cannot be taken seriously.  Everything in our economy, just like our climate, happens for a reason.  Nothing happens by chance, coincidence, or just because.  That's lazy thinking.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bush thought it would be a great idea to use government coercion to push more people into homes.



Bush wasn't inflating a bubble to put people in homes...Bush was inflating a bubble to make the economy look like it was growing when it wasn't.  841,000 private sector jobs were lost in his first four years.  Economic growth was the worst in 80 years.  The surplus was erased and turned into record deficits.  Bush needed the bubble because without it, the economic malaise as a result of his failed tax policy would have continued.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 8, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Dems had no power to stop Bush from doing what the Dems also wanted to do.



So I argue this premise itself is wrong.  Democrats safely and securely grew the housing market throughout the 90's.  It wasn't until Bush started taking deliberate steps and actions in 2003-4 that the housing market started growing faster.  The reason is obvious; housing is a good economic multiplier, and the economy was struggling after his tax cuts, so Bush inflated a mortgage bubble to make the economy _*look like*_ it was growing as a result of his tax cuts when it wasn't.  That's why he tied his tax cuts to the growth in the housing market while campaigning in 2004.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 8, 2017)

Providing for the general welfare, means taxing the rich to not have to cut foodstamps for the poor.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 8, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Providing for the general welfare, means taxing the rich to not have to cut foodstamps for the poor.



If the poor were paid more money, they would qualify for fewer welfare benefits.  It's really that simple.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 8, 2017)

The Derp said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Providing for the general welfare, means taxing the rich to not have to cut foodstamps for the poor.
> ...


I agree with you; however, Capitalism has a Natural Rate of Unemployment.  

That needs to be solved for, to solve simple poverty in our Republic.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2017)




----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 10, 2017)

The Derp said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Providing for the general welfare, means taxing the rich to not have to cut foodstamps for the poor.
> ...



wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off. There is no free lunch


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 10, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off. There is no free lunch




And they were paid less, prices would go down and they'd be better off.

And you say there's no free lunch . . .


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 10, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The price inflation canard?  What is the surcharge amount.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.



WRONG!  Seattle raised its MW and didn't see the corresponding increase in pricing you all predicted.

So we have a _*real-world*_, _*empirical*_ evidence showing your prediction about rising prices is wrong.  So we're back to the ongoing debate of Conservative _*fantasy*_ vs. _*Reality*_.  The _*fantasy*_ is that raising wages leads to increased prices.  The _*reality*_ is that it doesn't.  We know because we have empirical evidence from just one year ago.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 12, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.
> ...


That only happens when, "smaller businesses" can't afford to hire entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms, as the case may be.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.
> ...





The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.
> ...


A liberal will be illiterate there is no free lunch. A jet plane costs more than an apple because the costs are more. Cost determines price. 1+1=2


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


So does, Gravity, regarding Payments.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.
> ...


Got it so in liberal idiot land the higher the wages the lower the prices!!


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> A liberal will be illiterate there is no free lunch. A jet plane costs more than an apple because the costs are more. Cost determines price. 1+1=2



So let's get away from theory and deal in _*reality*_.  The _*reality*_ is that Seattle raised their MW and didn't see corresponding price increases as your theory would dictate.  So does that mean Seattle is an outlier, or is your theory bullshit?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Got it so in liberal idiot land the higher the wages the lower the prices!!



No one ever said that.  But higher wages means more consumption, and more consumption means more demand, and more demand means more jobs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Got it so in liberal idiot land the higher the wages the lower the prices!!
> ...


 Totally illiterate of course perfectly typical of a liberal. Higher wages mean higher consumption by the people who get the higher wages and lower consumption by people who pay for the higher wages so no net benefit is possible No free lunch is possiblesee why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Totally illiterate of course perfectly typical of a liberal. Higher wages mean higher consumption by the people who get the higher wages and lower consumption by people who pay for the higher wages so no net benefit is possible No free lunch is possiblesee why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance



Talk about illiterate!  Wage raises are not a zero-sum game, and any economist will tell you that.  There are more people at the low end of the income ladder than those at the top.  And because there are more at the bottom, if you increase the amount those people have to spend by raising their wages, then they increase consumption, which increases demand, which increases jobs and increases wages.

You keep harping out "free lunch", but it doesn't sound like you know what that phrase actually means in this context.

Paying people more means they will spend more.  Seattle's MW increase is proof.  You all said that if Seattle raised their MW, there would be job loss and price increases.  You were wrong on both counts.  So does that mean Seattle is an exception to your theory, or does it mean your theory is complete bullshit?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Totally illiterate of course perfectly typical of a liberal. Higher wages mean higher consumption by the people who get the higher wages and lower consumption by people who pay for the higher wages so no net benefit is possible No free lunch is possiblesee why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance
> ...


The Theory that a jet plane costs more than an apple because the jet plane has higher costs to manufacture is not bullshit


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Totally illiterate of course perfectly typical of a liberal. Higher wages mean higher consumption by the people who get the higher wages and lower consumption by people who pay for the higher wages so no net benefit is possible No free lunch is possiblesee why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance
> ...


 Many of the people who work at say Walmart are similar to the people who shop at Walmart so when you raise the wages of Walmart employees you raise the wages of Walmart customers Who are as poor as Walmart workers.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> he Theory that a jet plane costs more than an apple because the jet plane has higher costs to manufacture is not bullshit



Your theory was that raising wages would lead to corresponding price increases.  The _*empirical evidence*_ from Seattle's MW hike says the opposite.  

So either Seattle is an exception of immense proportions, or you're full of shit.

I'm inclined to believe the latter.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > he Theory that a jet plane costs more than an apple because the jet plane has higher costs to manufacture is not bullshit
> ...


 Of course a jet plane costs more than apple and of course conservatives look at Seattle and say it cost jobs and liberals look at Seattle and say it didn't Econ 101 tells you who is correct


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > he Theory that a jet plane costs more than an apple because the jet plane has higher costs to manufacture is not bullshit
> ...


I am inclined to believe you're a communist and the minimum wage is just one of 1001 interventions in the capitalist system you want because you lack the IQ as a  typical liberal to understand how capitalism works


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Of course a jet plane costs more than apple and of course conservatives look at Seattle and say it cost jobs and liberals look at Seattle and say it didn't Econ 101 tells you who is correct



Conservatives would be _*wrong*_.  Seattle's unemployment rate today is nearly a full point lower than it was just one year ago, and two points lower than before the MW hike.

So your theory is bullshit, isn't it?  If what you theorize is true, Seattle would have seen an increase in unemployment, but they didn't.  They saw a decrease.

So that means your theory is bullshit.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> I am inclined to believe you're a communist and the minimum wage is just one of 1001 interventions in the capitalist system you want because you lack the IQ as a  typical liberal to understand how capitalism works



Way to flame out, troll.  You make a claim, that claim isn't supported by facts, so you pretend your claim is fact.

Conservatives are such snowflakes!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > I am inclined to believe you're a communist and the minimum wage is just one of 1001 interventions in the capitalist system you want because you lack the IQ as a  typical liberal to understand how capitalism works
> ...


It's not a fact that a jet plane has a higher price than an apple because the jet plane his higher cost to manufacture????


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> It's not a fact that a jet plane has a higher price than an apple because the jet plane his higher cost to manufacture????



We aren't talking about that.  You made the claim that raising the minimum wage leads to increased prices.  The empirical evidence from Seattle's MW hike shows the opposite.  

So either the data is completely wrong on Seattle, or your theory is bullshit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a fact that a jet plane has a higher price than an apple because the jet plane his higher cost to manufacture????
> ...


 As I said Liberals will look at Seattle one way in Conservatives will look at it another the truth can be found in economics 101 there is no free lunch when you raise cost imports you raise prices so no net benefit free lunch is possible.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 12, 2017)

*As I Predicted, Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise Is Reducing Employment*





Tim Worstall ,  

 CONTRIBUTOR

I have opinions about economics, finance and public policy.  







Shutterstock

We've been debating the effects of raising the minimum wage for some time now, and specifically there's been a back and forth between me and various acolytes of Nick Hanauer over what the minimum wage rise in Seattle will do to employment prospects there. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Serving the most destinations from the New York area.
Legal: Flight schedule subject to change.
Promoted by United 


My claim was, by the standards of basic and conventional economics, entirely uncontroversial. A rise in the price of something will lead to people purchasing less of that thing. So a rise in the price of low-skill labor will lead to employers purchasing less of low-skill labor.




Gallery 
*11 Jobs That Pay Over $100,000*
Launch Gallery
12 images

The claim is not (and never has been) that raising Seattle's minimum wage will cause the economy to become some howling wasteland of huddled masses desperately looking for a job. It is that with a higher minimum wage there will be less low-skill employment than without a raise in that minimum wage. And yes, of course the effects of a minimum wage are going to be marginal when laid against all the other things that can happen to a labor market. (But remember that all economics happens at the margins.)

This is, as I said, conventional economics. And yet I've been pilloried as "not getting it" by those who believe in some alternative universe where the simplicity of economics do not hold.

But now we have a report on exactly what has been happening in Seattle's labor market.

Seattle’s labor market has thrived since the city became the first major metropolis in the country to pass a law setting its minimum wage on a path to $15 per hour.

The city’s job-growth rate has been triple the national average, for example.

Much of that success, though, can be attributed to trends separate from the minimum-wage law itself, such as the growth of Seattle’s tech sector and its construction boom, according to a new report that University of Washington researchers presented to the City Council on Monday.

I have no problem with any of that. Employment is up, unemployment is down. But those other factors entirely swamp the effects of a minimum wage change. The report also notes:

Pay for low-wage workers climbed more in real Seattle than in synthetic Seattle, while their employment rate and hours climbed slightly less.

That's the important finding here. Employment rates and hours climbed because the economy is booming. But they climbed less in areas where the minimum wage was raised than they did in areas where it was not. The difference between those two is the employment lost to the higher minimum wage.



It's worth quoting from the report itself in detail and at length because they explain their points very well:

This report presents the short-run effects of the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance on the Seattle labor market. The Seattle Minimum Wage study team at the University of Washington analyzed administrative records on employment, hours, and earnings from the Washington Employment Security Department to address two fundamental questions:

1) How has Seattle’s labor market performed since the City passed the Minimum Wage Ordinance, and particularly since the first wage increase phased in on April 1, 2015?

2) What are the short-run effects of the Minimum Wage Ordinance on Seattle’s labor market?

While quite similar at first glance, these two questions address very different issues and require very different methods to answer. The first question can be studied with a simple before/after comparison. Although the comparison is simple, it risks conflating the impact of the minimum wage with other local trends. Many things have happened in Seattle’s labor market since June 2014, most of them having little or nothing to do with the minimum wage itself. The City has enjoyed steady expansion in tech sector employment, and a construction boom fueled by rising residential and commercial property prices. Even the weather – a key determinant of economic activity in the Puget Sound region – was favorable in 2015, with record-low precipitation in the early months of the $11 minimum wage. The before-after comparison can tell us the net impact of all these simultaneous trends, but this comparison cannot distinguish among them.

Our second question – the more important one for purposes of evaluating the policy – aims to isolate the impact of the minimum wage from all the other regional trends seen over the same time period. Whereas the first question asks “are we better off than we were when Seattle raised the minimum wage” and requires only a simple comparison of yesterday to today, the second asks “are we better off than we would have been if Seattle had not adopted a higher minimum wage?” To answer it requires imagining how the local economy would look in absence of a Minimum Wage Ordinance.

While it is impossible to directly observe what would have happened if no wage ordinance had been implemented, this report uses widely accepted statistical techniques to compare Seattle in its current state—with the presence of the Minimum Wage Ordinance—to an image of what Seattle might have looked like today if not for the Minimum Wage Ordinance. We take advantage of data going back to 2005 to build a model of the way Seattle’s labor market typically works. We also take advantage of data on nearby regions that did not increase the minimum wage to better understand how other factors might have influenced what we observe in the City itself.


That's exactly what we want to know and that's exactly how to find out. Of course we're interested in how the labor market has done overall. But when we want to consider the impact of the minimum wage rise then we want to try to isolate the impact of the minimum wage rise. This means trying to strip out all of the other things which have been happening in the labor market.

The way to do this is to look at broadly similar economies under broadly similar circumstances (at least as close to each other as we can manage), one with the minimum wage rise and one without. Fortunately Seattle's minimum wage rise applies only to Seattle, not the surrounding area. Thus by contrasting the outcomes in the two areas we can isolate the effect only of the minimum wage rise in Seattle.

So, the result is:

In a region where all low-wage workers, including those in Seattle, have enjoyed access to more jobs and more hours, Seattle’s low-wage workers show some preliminary signs of lagging behind similar workers in comparison regions.

The minimum wage appears to have slightly reduced the employment rate of low-wage workers by about one percentage point. It appears that the Minimum Wage Ordinance modestly held back Seattle’s employment of low-wage workers relative to the level we could have expected.

Hours worked among low-wage Seattle workers have lagged behind regional trends, by roughly four hours per quarter, on average.*

Low-wage individuals working in Seattle when the ordinance passed transitioned to jobs outside Seattle at an elevated rate compared to historical patterns.

Recommended by Forbes


*As We've Been Saying, California's Minimum Wage Rises Increase Unemployment*

*America's Worst Minimum Wage Pundit*

*Bernie Sanders Commits The Democratic Party Platform To The Disastrous $15 An...*

*Don't Raise The Minimum Wage And Kill Jobs - Increase The EITC Instead*

MOST POPULAR

*Photos: The Richest Person In Every State*

*Aldi To Spend $3.4 Billion Making Americans Very Much Richer - Just Like Walmart...*

MOST POPULAR

*Photos: The 10 Most Dangerous U.S. Cities*

MOST POPULAR

*Use A Side Gig To Fund Retirement*


Which is absolutely fascinating, isn't it? And note that the reduction in employment growth accords very well with David Neumark's estimations of the elasticity of labor demand. The actual wage rise (so far) was about 10%. The employment drop was about 1%. So, an elasticity of about -0.1%. Neumark has teen minimum wage elasticity at about 0.15% (in other papers, as far up as -0.2%).

Finally, note what my prediction was:

No one at all has ever doubted that it is possible to increase employment and the minimum wage at the same time. The impact of the general economy is usually going to be larger than the impact of the minimum wage. The impact of that general economy could mean that employment rises, stays the same or falls, whatever happens to the minimum wage. But that’s not the interesting thing we’d like to know. Which is, what is the effect of raising the minimum wage on unemployment? Freed from the impacts of everything else happening in the economy? And there the standard answer is that it will raise unemployment and no, no one has managed to come up with a convincing case against this standard wisdom.

And the prediction in a simpler form:

Please do note though what is the prediction. Not that there’s going to be a wiping out of employment opportunities, nor that the economy of Seattle is going to become a howling wasteland. Rather, that less human labor will be employed at $15 an hour than would have been employed if the minimum wage had not risen to that amount.

That is a prediction about what will happen with the full-wage rise. Today's paper is a study of what has happened with the intermediate rise.

So it seems that I was right. The rise in the minimum wage is reducing the amount of employment compared to what would happen without the minimum wage rise. This is going to come as news to those acolytes of Nick Hanauer, but then there is a reason why fellow Forbes contributor Adam Ozimek calls Hanauer America's worst minimum wage pundit.


_*The original report initially stated "Hours worked among low-wage Seattle workers have lagged behind regional trends, by roughly four hours per week, on average" but was later edited to say the average was per quarter, not per week. The text has been changed accordingly. _



Send Us Feedback

Reprints & Permissions


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> As I said Liberals will look at Seattle one way in Conservatives will look at it another the truth can be found in economics 101 there is no free lunch when you raise cost imports you raise prices so no net benefit free lunch is possible.



NO!  There is only one way to look at Seattle, and that's within the facts like the unemployment rate.  You can't look at the unemployment rate different ways.  There is only the rate.  Since Seattle's MW hike, the rate has _*declined*_, which would mean all the crowing from the right-wing about MW wage hikes is a load of bullshit.

Do you accept that Seattle's unemployment rate is lower now than before the MW hike, yes or no?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> *As I Predicted, Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise Is Reducing Employment*



LOL!  Fucking _*hilarious*_ that you use a link from February 2016, and not the most recent jobs data.  You did that because you are a sophist.  You make deliberately false or misleading arguments, and omit information that undermines your point.  How do I know it's from February 2016?  _*Because another Conservative on this thread tried to squeak this bullshit in.  *_So I'm wondering _*why you left the date out of your post*_ when you copied-and-pasted that trash?  Did you do that because you knew it was outdated and thought you could slip it by?  Because you knew the most recent employment information contradicted you but you have an ego to preserve?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> <Sophistry>



So this Conservative copied-and-pasted a Forbes article from February 2016 (it's June 2017, BTW) that supposedly claimed Seattle's MW increase killed jobs.  However, if you look at the unemployment for Seattle from April 2016 to April 2017, you find unemployment declining by 0.7%.  Which means the link the right-wing Russian troll posted was an attempt at sophistry.  The data in your link ends at February 2016.  But it's June 2017, *so why did you omit all the employment data from March 2016 to May 2017?
*
The answer is obvious; you're a sophist.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> <Russian Active Measures>



I don't even think _*you*_ fully read this thing you copied-and-pasted.  Not that it matters, anyway.  Seattle's MW hike has been in effect for a while now, covering the period in your copy-and-paste, plus another 16 months into the present.

Seattle's unemployment:

April, 2017:  2.6%
April, 2016:  3.3%
April, 2015:  3.2%

The minimum wage hike started April, 2015.  Is unemployment lower or higher as of April 2017 than April 2015?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


It worked for Henry Ford. Only lousy capitalists complain.


----------



## JonKoch (Jun 12, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




Sure Cupcake, sure


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 13, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > wrong of course if they were paid more prices would go up and they would be no better off.
> ...



Intelligent people don't need studies to show that a Rolls-Royce costs more than an appleApple because of higher production costs

There are also many studies that prove a rising minimum wage reduces low-skilled employment. This isn't a US phenomenon either. Across Europe, there are higher unemployment rates in countries that have minimum wages.

Higher labor costs render low-skilled workers unemployable as it removes their key competitive advantage-cost. As a result, they are being replaced by machines. This is part of the wider issue of automation.

A 2013 study from the University of Oxford concluded that 47% of jobs in the US will likely be automated over the next two decades.

A 2017 report by McKinsey that looked at the ability of machines to replace human labor drew the same conclusion. The report found that 59% of all manufacturing tasks could be automated using current technology. The most exposed sector is food service, where 73% of tasks could be automated.

The inflation-adjusted minimum wage peaked back in 1968. However, it seems to be doing more harm than ever today. This is partly because of technological advancement, which has accounted for 88% of the 5 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000.

Unless we stop seeing "political-sense" attempts to raise minimum wages, we are likely to see a lot more Flippy's very soon.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 13, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway, dear.

and,

America has near record 5.8 million job openings


----------



## The Derp (Jun 13, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Intelligent people don't need studies to show that a Rolls-Royce costs more than an apple  because of higher production costs



Not what we're talking about.  We are talking about minimum wage earners.  Your theory is that raising their wages will result in price increases, and the empirical evidence from Seattle's MW hike proves that theory is crap.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 13, 2017)

The right wing doesn't even believe in being legal to the laws of demand and supply.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 13, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The right wing doesn't even believe in being legal to the laws of demand and supply.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 14, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


More expensive labor means Capital has to seek gains from efficiency.

simply because, Say, says so.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 17, 2017)

It must be nice, to be able to establish a petty cash fund, for political purposes.



> The disclosure does not reveal when the investments were sold. However, a spokesman said in December that Trump had liquidated his entire stock portfolio in June 2016, around the time he began pouring millions into his presidential campaign.
> 
> Trump retains assets worth at least $1.4 billion, new disclosure shows



Why does Mr. Trump need a tax break for the rich and reduce social benefits for the poor, via public policy?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Intelligent people don't need studies to show that a Rolls-Royce costs more than an apple  because of higher production costs
> ...


No it doesn't I already explained that both sides find the numbers they want from your unscientific experiment. Science tells you an apple costs less than a Rolls Royce.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > GSE loan performance was far, far better than private label loan performance.
> ...



*Raising the Fed interest rates wasn't what caused the garbage subprime mortgages to start defaulting in late 2006, the adjustable rates on those mortgages were the cause.*

Ummm...when the Fed raised rates, the index adjustable mortgages were based upon rose.
Moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Forcing banks to make crappy loans is not UNREGULATED FREE MARKET.
> ...



*Banks *_*were not forced to make loans*_*.*

They were forced to make crappy loans...or buy crappy loans made by others.
GSEs were forced to buy crappy loans too.
*
Of the top 25 lenders during the subprime mortgage bubble, only 1 was subject to CRA rules*

During a bubble, everyone gets into the action.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bubbles happen whether the government makes them worse or not.
> ...



*Bubbles don't happen "just because".*

They do. Human nature....positive feedbacks....look at history.

*Bush wasn't inflating a bubble to put people in homes*

But putting all those people into homes inflated the bubble.

*The surplus was erased *

Yeah, I miss the Internet Bubble too.

*and turned into record deficits.* 

Until Obama. His record deficits made Bush look like a skinflint.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 18, 2017)

The Derp said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Totally illiterate of course perfectly typical of a liberal. Higher wages mean higher consumption by the people who get the higher wages and lower consumption by people who pay for the higher wages so no net benefit is possible No free lunch is possiblesee why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance
> ...


*
Paying people more means they will spend more. Seattle's MW increase is proof. You all said that if Seattle raised their MW, there would be job loss





Seattle's 2.9% Unemployment Rate Tells Us Nothing About The Effects Of Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise
*
LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 18, 2017)

Matthew said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The right wing doesn't even believe in being legal to the laws of demand and supply.
> ...



When did corporations get a trillion tax cut?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Why have a capital gains preference that doesn't work to create jobs booms.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



So no trillion dollar tax cut? Thanks.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ummm...when the Fed raised rates, the index adjustable mortgages were based upon rose.
> Moron.



No, the adjustable rates rose in addition to the Fed rates rising. The fed didn't raise interest rates to 20%.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No capital gains preference for firms that don't hire _any_ labor that asks, in _right to work_ States.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They were forced to make crappy loans...or buy crappy loans made by others.



No they weren't!  There is no line from any legislation that forces banks to make loans _*at all*_.  Now, they got _*incentives*_ for making loans, but it was wholly voluntary.  Furthermore, the loans made that were backed by GSE's had delinquency rates _*no better or worse*_ during the bubble as before it.  And those delinquency rates were very low...particularly when compared to non-GSE backed loans that had deqlinquency rates much higher.  Once again, here's the chart that you cannot debate or deny:






No banks were forced to make the Subprime ARMs or Subprime Loans.  They _*chose*_ to make those loans and as you can see in the above chart, those private label loans defaulted en masse first beginning in 2006.  all other loans didn't start entering delinquency until after the private-label loans.  Which means the private-label loans drove the mortgage bubble and caused it to pop.






Toddsterpatriot said:


> GSEs were forced to buy crappy loans too.



GSE loans performed the same and/or better during the bubble than prior to the bubble, as the above chart shows.  So the loans GSE's backed weren't crappy because what makes a crappy loan?  The borrowers inability to repay it.  The chart above indicates that it wasn't GSE's that made crappy loans.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of the top 25 lenders during the subprime mortgage bubble, only 1 was subject to CRA rules
> During a bubble, everyone gets into the action.



Nope!  Magical thinking alert!  Lazy man's thinking alert!  It is wholly lazy and ignorant to throw your hands up in the air, make a generalized claim, and hope it sticks.  That's what you're doing here.  There was plenty of GSE-backed subprime lending prior to the bubble, and that lending was steady, consistent, and dependable.  It wasn't until Conservatives took over that things went to shit.  They went to shit because Conservative economic trickle-down policy didn't work, and Bush and the Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing when it wasn't, otherwise they would get hammered in the 2004 election.  So they inflated a housing bubble, plunged the middle class into debt, and eventually collapsed the economy.  All because their tax policy didn't deliver on any of the promises made of it.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Bubbles don't happen "just because".*
> They do. Human nature....positive feedbacks....look at history.



Yes, look at history.  The dotcom bubble, for example, was caused by the cut to Capital Gains Taxes in 1997.

The mortgage bubble was caused by the tax cuts, and deregulation of the mortgage lending industry.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bush wasn't inflating a bubble to put people in homes
> But putting all those people into homes inflated the bubble.



No!  Again, if you had watched _*The Big Short*_, you would have known that wasn't the case at all!  It wasn't putting people into homes, it was about getting people to buy as many homes as they could, sometimes multiple homes.  Loan performance for GSE-backed loans (aka "poor people loans") was the same and/or better than loan performance prior to the bubble as the below chart shows:








Toddsterpatriot said:


> The surplus was erased
> Yeah, I miss the Internet Bubble too.



Surplus wasn't caused by the Internet Bubble, it was caused by increased taxation and an economy that had been growing throughout the 90's.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Until Obama. His record deficits made Bush look like a skinflint.



Wrong, wrong, wrong.  It was Bush who set a record of _*four*_ all-time-high deficits in his 8 years.  None of Obama's deficits were larger than Bush's last deficit.  Bush also set _*four record deficits*_ during his term; 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009.  The deficits for each of those years was an all-time high.  So just like what happened in Kansas, Conservatives cut taxes, erased a surplus, produced record deficits, and didn't result in growth.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Seattle's 2.9% Unemployment Rate Tells Us Nothing About The Effects Of Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise*LOL!



LOL indeed!  You made the claim that _*raising*_ Seattle's MW would kill jobs.  That claim is false, even your Op-Ed says so.  We can debate whether or not raising the MW increased employment, but we cannot debate that raising the MW killed jobs because it didn't in Seattle when you all said it would.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Seattle's 2.9% Unemployment Rate Tells Us Nothing About The Effects Of Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise*LOL!
> ...


With the "funny money or statistics" of our Ux system; it may not matter as much.  Normally, there would be less capital need for labor at a higher cost in the short-run, and greater demand from higher paid labor, in the long run.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Seattle's 2.9% Unemployment Rate Tells Us Nothing About The Effects Of Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise*



The main thrust of your Op-Ed:  _Rather, that raising the price of low end labour would lead to less low end labour being employed. 
_
Less low-end labor being employed because they transitioned from low-end labor to higher-end labor.  So yes, there are fewer low-wage jobs *because they have been replaced with higher-paying jobs.  And that's a bad thing, why?*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm...when the Fed raised rates, the index adjustable mortgages were based upon rose.
> ...



*No, the adjustable rates rose in addition to the Fed rates rising.*

Every index that ARMs were based on rose as the Fed raised rates.
Of course, in addition, teaser rates expired.

*The fed didn't raise interest rates to 20%.*

They didn't have to,  raising FFs 4.25% was enough to burst the bubble.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They were forced to make crappy loans...or buy crappy loans made by others.
> ...



*GSE loans performed the same and/or better during the bubble than prior to the bubble, as the above chart shows*

Yup, the GSEs bought a better quality crappy loan. Still needed hundreds of billions from the government.

*So the loans GSE's backed weren't crappy because what makes a crappy loan?  The borrowers inability to repay it.*

Yup, defaults on GSE MBS required hundreds of billions to rescue them.

*There was plenty of GSE-backed subprime lending prior to the bubble, and that lending was steady, consistent, and dependable.*

Sure, while the bubble inflated, even crappy loans performed well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Seattle's 2.9% Unemployment Rate Tells Us Nothing About The Effects Of Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise*LOL!
> ...



*You made the claim that *_*raising*_* Seattle's MW would kill jobs.*

It kills MW jobs. Obviously. As shown here.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Every index that ARMs were based on rose as the Fed raised rates.



The increase of the rate _*separate from the Fed*_ is what we are talking about.  There's the Fed rate, which rose, but the adjustable rate was going to rise regardless of what the Fed did.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course, in addition, teaser rates expired.



Right, and those teaser rates expiring wasn't based on what the Fed rate was/is.  Those teaser rates were going to expire anyway.  In fact, that was the plan.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The fed didn't raise interest rates to 20%.
> They didn't have to,  raising FFs 4.25% was enough to burst the bubble.



The Fed raising interest rates had no bearing on the expiration of the teaser rates.  Those expired separate and mutually exclusive of the Fed rate.  As we saw in the chart, the mortgages that went into delinquency first were those from private labels (the ARMs).  When those went delinquent, it had a waterfall effect on all other mortgages.  That's why you see the delinquency rates for all other mortgages increase _*later*_, after the private-label ones.  This was observable in the market as those homes that had ARMs defaulted, which caused values for the homes not bought with ARMs to go underwater.  Add to that the job loss from a real estate bubble popping and that's how all other mortgages ended up being affected.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup, the GSEs bought a better quality crappy loan. Still needed hundreds of billions from the government.



Well, they are _*government-sponsored*_ entities, after all.  I don't deny that _*some*_ mortgages from the GSE's defaulted, but those were _*after the fact*_.  They only defaulted because of all the private-label subprimes that defaulted beginning in 2006, which drove down home prices, caused job loss which caused more delinquencies because people lost their jobs, and thus lost their ability to repay their mortgages.  Again, you see GSE-backed loans rising in delinquency beginning mid-_*2008*_, whereas private label subprimes began rising in delinquency mid-_*2006*_.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So the loans GSE's backed weren't crappy because what makes a crappy loan?  The borrowers inability to repay it.
> Yup, defaults on GSE MBS required hundreds of billions to rescue them.



Only because the private-label subprimes caused the market to collapse, and the downstream effect on home prices hurt _*all*_ mortgages.  But GSE's didn't cause the private label market to collapse.  That was the fault of private labels.  GSE's loan defaults were the consequence of a housing market popping.  It wasn't just GSE's that saw their delinquency rates rise after the private label bubble popped, it was _*all mortgages*_.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> There was plenty of GSE-backed subprime lending prior to the bubble, and that lending was steady, consistent, and dependable.
> Sure, while the bubble inflated, even crappy loans performed well.



GSE loans performed better than private-label loans, as the chart shows.  So your attempt to pin the blame of the mortgage bubble, even partially, on GSE's is wrong.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It kills MW jobs. Obviously. As shown here.



It _*replaces*_ MW jobs with better paying jobs.  So why do you want only MW jobs?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Every index that ARMs were based on rose as the Fed raised rates.
> ...



*The increase of the rate *_*separate from the Fed*_* is what we are talking about.* 

I'm talking about the Fed bursting the bubble by raising rates.

*There's the Fed rate, which rose, but the adjustable rate was going to rise regardless of what the Fed did.*

Plenty of people had adjustables with no teaser rates or adjustables where the teaser had already expired.
If your first "non-teaser rate" was 6% and then the Fed raised rates 4%, your adjustable, depending on how long it was between adjustments, was going to rise a decent amount.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, the GSEs bought a better quality crappy loan. Still needed hundreds of billions from the government.
> ...



*Well, they are *_*government-sponsored*_* entities, after all.*

And all their awesome crappy mortgages still required hundreds of billions in government funds.

*Only because the private-label subprimes caused the market to collapse, and the downstream effect on home prices hurt *_*all*_* mortgages.*

The GSE's awesome crappy mortgages were hurt by other mortgages? Weird.

*But GSE's didn't cause the private label market to collapse.*

Who said they did?
*
GSE's loan defaults were the consequence of a housing market popping*

GSE purchases of crappy loans helped inflate the bubble, not surprising the collapse hurt the buyers of crappy loans.
*
GSE loans performed better than private-label loans, as the chart shows.* 

They bought a better class of crappy loans than some. So what?

*So your attempt to pin* *the blame of the mortgage bubble, even partially, on GSE's is wrong.*

50% or more of the GSE purchases were from the dodgy end of the pool, of course they contributed to the bubble.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It kills MW jobs. Obviously. As shown here.
> ...



*It *_*replaces*_* MW jobs with better paying jobs.*

Raise MW from $9/hr to $12/hour and you end up with fewer jobs. Durr.

*So why do you want only MW jobs?*

Why do you want to harm young, unskilled minority workers by pricing them out of the job market?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 'm talking about the Fed bursting the bubble by raising rates.



Which would be completely wrong.  The bubble didn't burst because the Fed raised its interest rates.  The bubble burst because the teaser ARM rates expired and the borrowers couldn't repay. 




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Plenty of people had adjustables with no teaser rates or adjustables where the teaser had already expired.



First of all, you're gonna need to prove this because it sounds to me like a bunch of made-up Conservative shit.  Highly suspicious.  Private-label Subprimes started entering delinquency around Mid-2006.  Those loans were the ones issued from 2004-5, and 2006 is when the teaser rates on those mortgages expired.  As we learned, most of the subprimes issued from 2004-6 were from private labels, and 24 of the top 25 subprime lenders weren't even subject to CRA rules.  You keep trying to blame everyone but Conservatives for the mortgage bubble popping.

Here's what happened:

Private-Label subprimes jumped massively beginning in 2004 - these subprimes by and large were ARMs
By mid-2006, _*after the teaser rates on those ARMs expired*_, delinquency rates for subprimes shot up
The resulting foreclosures over the next two years negatively affected home prices, which resulted in borrowers being "underwater"
Because the housing bubble was the only driving force during Bush's years, as soon as the housing market cooled, the job loss started
The job loss led to foreclosures, which is why you don't start seeing delinquency rates for all non-private loans climb until nearly 2 years after the subprime delinquency rate rose.
So that means all the other loans; GSE-backed, FHA, non-prime were affected by the defaulting in the private-label subprimes that started defaulting in 2006, _*as the friggin' chart below shows*_:






That's why you cannot compose an honest response to the above chart.  It completely undermines every argument you are making about what was responsible for the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse. 


The question now is, why are you ignoring the facts?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If your first "non-teaser rate" was 6% and then the Fed raised rates 4%, your adjustable, depending on how long it was between adjustments, was going to rise a decent amount.



LOL!  Complete and total sophism here.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And all their awesome crappy mortgages still required hundreds of billions in government funds.



So you've moved the goalposts in what you're arguing.  You _*used*_ to argue that GSE's were responsible for the collapse.  Then, your argument shifted that they were _*partially*_ responsible for the collapse. _* Now*_, your argument is that they weren't responsible for the collapse, yet the government spent hundreds of billions in government funds.  Well yeah, they had to because the GSE-backed loans started defaulting because the private-label loans defaulted first and caused housing prices to plummet, which cooled the housing market, which killed jobs, which led to foreclosures, which resulted in the GSE's having to get "bailed out".  But they are not the ones that started that snowball, and just like regular loans, GSE-backed loans, FHA loans, etc. defaulted as the recession hit.  Again, that's why you see the delinquency rate for all non-private labels loans grow nearly 2 years _*after*_ the private-label loans grew in their delinquency rates.  Here's the chart _*yet again.  *_*In all the posts in this thread, you have been unable to reconcile your argument with these facts:*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 'm talking about the Fed bursting the bubble by raising rates.
> ...



*Which would be completely wrong. The bubble didn't burst because the Fed raised its interest rates.*

It totally burst because the Fed raised rates.

*First of all, you're gonna need to prove this because it sounds to me like a bunch of made-up Conservative shit. *

Fine. What was a typical teaser rate period on a mortgage back in 2005-2006?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The GSE's awesome crappy mortgages were hurt by other mortgages? Weird.



They weren't crappy mortgages.  Delinquency rates were the same or better during the mortgage bubble.  GSE's saw delinquencies the same that non-GSE, non-prime loans saw.  The chart is the proof.  Why are you so allergic to the chart?  Why do you argue as a sophist?  There's no reason to.  At this point, you're doing more harm to your cause.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> But GSE's didn't cause the private label market to collapse.
> Who said they did?



YOU DID!  Originally, you did.  Then you shifted the goalposts as you became more informed.  Now, I don't even think you know what argument you're making because every time you post, it just seems like you're flailing more and more, trying to land a punch of some kind.  That's why you argue as a sophist, as I pointed out above.

So if GSE's didn't cause the collapse, *what did?*





Toddsterpatriot said:


> GSE purchases of crappy loans helped inflate the bubble, not surprising the collapse hurt the buyers of crappy loans.



BULLSHIT!  GSE market share was cut _*in half*_ during the bubble years of 2004-7.  They weren't inflating the bubble.  They weren't even _*helping*_ to inflate the bubble.  GSE loans performed the same, or better, than they did prior to the bubble.  They only entered delinquency as a consequence of the bubble burst, which was driven by those private-label subprimes.  I'm going to keep posting this chart until you accept it, or reconcile it:











Toddsterpatriot said:


> GSE loans performed better than private-label loans, as the chart shows.
> They bought a better class of crappy loans than some. So what?



The loans they bought were no better or worse than the ones prior to the bubble.  _*That's the point you are missing*_.  You have this inherent belief that GSE loans were crappy.  They weren't.  Clearly, the chart above proves they weren't.  In fact, the chart above shows GSE-backed loans performed the best, even before the bubble started.  The chart goes all the way back to 1998. Since 1998, GSE-backed loans performed better _*than all other loans*_.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So your attempt to pin the blame of the mortgage bubble, even partially, on GSE's is wrong.
> 50% or more of the GSE purchases were from the dodgy end of the pool, of course they contributed to the bubble.



You sure about that?  Because GSE loans defaulted at rates much, much lower than those of private labels.  In fact, you allege the loans they bought were "dodgy", but those loans didn't default in 2006, like the private-label subprimes did.  In fact, GSE loans defaulted at rates below 3% during the bubble while everyone else had much higher default rates.  Again, this is in the chart.  Not sure why you have such a hard time accepting it.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Raise MW from $9/hr to $12/hour and you end up with fewer jobs.



LOL!  Sophism alert.

Sure, you end up with fewer MW jobs because the MW is higher, but you end up with more higher wage jobs.  So raising the MW resulted in better paying jobs.  OK, and your argument is....?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why do you want to harm young, unskilled minority workers by pricing them out of the job market?



Who says they'd be priced out?  Seattle's experience tells us that raising the MW trades MW jobs for better-paying jobs. 

If what you're saying is true, the unemployment rate would have risen.  But it didn't.  So either the rate is false, or your argument is.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It totally burst because the Fed raised rates.



This is the part where you _*prove*_ it.  The fact that we're XX posts deep in this thread and you haven't says all we need to know about your position. ARM rates rise absent of whatever the Fed does. 




Toddsterpatriot said:


> First of all, you're gonna need to prove this because it sounds to me like a bunch of made-up Conservative shit.
> Fine. What was a typical teaser rate period on a mortgage back in 2005-2006?



12-18 months.  Which means the mortgages issued beginning in 2004 (not 2005, because 2004 is when lending standards were "dramatically weakened"), would start defaulting in late 2005-mid 2006 which...wouldn't you know...is precisely when delinquencies start rising for ARMs _*in the chart*_:






So...thanks (?) for helping me prove my point.  Teaser rates for ARMs lasted between 12-18 months.  Subprimes had "dramatically weakened" lending standards beginning in 2004.  Subprimes went from 110,000 issued a year in 2003, to 266,000 issued a year beginning in 2004.  GSE-backed loans performed at the same rate until the recession started which led to job loss, which led to foreclosures.  The recession was caused by the collapse of the housing market which started in Mid-2006, as we see in the chart above where delinquency rates for ARMs suddenly started shooting upwards.  No other loans than the subprimes saw their default rates rise in 2006...they wouldn't start seeing their rates rise until late 2007 and into 2008.  That's what the chart shows.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And all their awesome crappy mortgages still required hundreds of billions in government funds.
> ...



*So you've moved the goalposts in what you're arguing. You *_*used*_* to argue that GSE's were responsible for the collapse.*

Nope. Never did. Because I actually understand markets, bubbles and history.

*Then, your argument shifted that they were *_*partially*_* responsible for the collapse.*

Nope. Never did. Partially responsible for the bubble? Hell yes!!!!

Here's the chart _*yet again.  *_*In all the posts in this thread, you have been unable to reconcile your argument with these facts:
*
Which of my actual arguments do you feel is refuted by that chart?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The GSE's awesome crappy mortgages were hurt by other mortgages? Weird.
> ...



*They weren't crappy mortgages.*

They were. The GSEs were forced, by Congress and HUD, to make 56% of their purchases from the subprime market in order to meet affordable housing goals.
*
The loans they bought were no better or worse than the ones prior to the bubble.* 

They were worse. They weren't conforming loans.

*You have this inherent belief that GSE loans were crappy.  They weren't.* 

56% of their purchases were subprime, crappy mortgages, compared to the high quality conforming loans they used to buy.

*Clearly, the chart above proves they weren't.*

The chart doesn't show that their crappy mortgages were good.

*In fact, the chart above shows GSE-backed loans performed the best*

Sure, 44%-50% of their loans were high-quality, conforming mortgages.

*You sure about that?*

You bet. Your own link is my source.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope. Never did. Because I actually understand markets, bubbles and history.



You say that, but you never take any of that into account.  It's all "magical" for you...things happen for no reason, "invisible hand", woo-wap-da-bam.  Unfortunately, just like physics, nothing happens for no reason.  Everything that happens in our economy does so because of specific actions taken.  Nothing is by chance, it's all by design.  You may as well say elves grow the economy because it's just as magical as thinking things happen for no reason.  So the argument, like the tax cut argument, seems to shift and redefine its parameters as you find each position you argue less defensible as you make them.  It's easier for lazy people to just throw up their hands and say "just because" or "the will of God" because they are accustomed to fantastical thinking, intellectual laziness, and sloppy work.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope. Never did. Partially responsible for the bubble? Hell yes!!!!



Not even a little bit.  The "bubble" were the subprimes, not the GSE-backed loans because it was the subprimes that went delinquent *first*.  _*You are ignoring GSE loan performance, why?*_




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which of my actual arguments do you feel is refuted by that chart?



That GSE's played _*any*_ role in the bubble.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Raise MW from $9/hr to $12/hour and you end up with fewer jobs.
> ...



*Sure, you end up with fewer MW jobs because the MW is higher*

Welcome to reality. Thanks for admitting your previous error.

*but you end up with more higher wage jobs.*

I've always said that the MW workers who didn't lose their jobs benefit from their higher wages.

*Who says they'd be priced out?* 

The market.
*
If what you're saying is true, the unemployment rate would have risen.*

Among MW workers, the unemployment rate was higher than it would have been absent the MW increase.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It totally burst because the Fed raised rates.
> ...


*
ARM rates rise absent of whatever the Fed does.*

LOL! No they don't.

If you said, "Teaser rates rise absent of whatever the Fed does", you'd sound less ignorant.

*Which means the mortgages issued beginning in 2004 (not 2005, because 2004 is when lending standards were "dramatically weakened"), would start defaulting in late 2005-mid 2006 which...wouldn't you know...is precisely when delinquencies start rising for ARMs *_*in the chart*_*:*





ARMs issued when the FF rate was 1% had rising defaults after the FF rate hit 5%+?
Shocking!!!


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They were. The GSEs were forced, by Congress and HUD, to make 56% of their purchases from the subprime market in order to meet affordable housing goals.



A "crappy" mortgage would indicate that mortgage went into delinquency.  That's what makes a "crappy" mortgage.  The delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans _*remained consistent throughout the bubble and only grew along with all other mortgages once the recession started*_.  Those delinquency rates were far, far below their private-label counterparts.  That's undeniable.  

So your problem is you cannot reconcile your argument that GSE loans were "crappy" since their delinquency rates weren't.  That's where your argument runs straight into a wall.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The loans they bought were no better or worse than the ones prior to the bubble.
> They were worse. They weren't conforming loans.



GSE loans weren't entering delinquency when the private-label ones did.  So they weren't worse.  They were the same as they were before.  That's why their delinquency rate stays consistent as the delinquency rates for private-label loans increased.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have this inherent belief that GSE loans were crappy.  They weren't.
> 56% of their purchases were subprime, crappy mortgages, compared to the high quality conforming loans they used to buy.



A mortgage is only "crappy" if it enters delinquency.  And GSE-backed loans didn't see a rise in their delinquency rates _*until after*_ the private label loans started defaulting, which led to a drop in housing prices, which led to a cooling of the housing market, which led to job loss as housing was the _*only*_ thing keeping Bush's economy afloat from 2004-7.  You're trying to apply the standard for GSE-backed loans to their performance.  But you're ignoring their performance.  GSE-backed loans perform better than all other kinds of loans.  Period.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Clearly, the chart above proves they weren't.
> The chart doesn't show that their crappy mortgages were good.



So they're not "crappy" then, they're good.  You can't be both.  A "crappy" loan (re:  a loan responsible for the collapse) is only crappy if the borrower can't repay it.  The chart shows that the GSE-backed loans were definitely not "crappy" because the borrowers repaid them at rates far better than all other types of loans.  Including non-prime loans.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> In fact, the chart above shows GSE-backed loans performed the best
> Sure, 44%-50% of their loans were high-quality, conforming mortgages.



See!  Here's another instance of goalpost moving!  Like clockwork!  Why is it that GSE loans didn't see an increase in delinquency at the same time as private-label subprimes?  If what you're saying is true, the line on that chart for the GSE's would have increased earlier, and at much sharper rates.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure, you end up with fewer MW jobs because the MW is higher
> Welcome to reality. Thanks for admitting your previous error.



No, you're just being a sophist.  The data from Seattle shows that MW workers moved to higher-paying employment.  If you say that raising the MW kills MW jobs, then you must reconcile that statement with the rest of the sentence...that in killing MW jobs, it raised higher-paying employment.  Otherwise, the unemployment rate would have risen.  Did it?  No.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> but you end up with more higher wage jobs.
> I've always said that the MW workers who didn't lose their jobs benefit from their higher wages.



You are saying someone "loses" a job if they go from a MW job to a higher-paying one.  That is why I call you a sophist.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who says they'd be priced out?
> The market.



So here's more of that "magical thinking".  Going from MW to higher-paying jobs is a bad thing, why?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If what you're saying is true, the unemployment rate would have risen.
> Among MW workers, the unemployment rate was higher than it would have been absent the MW increase.



You sure about that?  Let's see some facts.  Use Seattle since that's the specific case we're talking about.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Never did. Because I actually understand markets, bubbles and history.
> ...



*You say that, but you never take any of that into account. It's all "magical" for you...things happen for no reason,*

Never said anything was magical. There is always a reason. A big one is human nature.

*Nothing is by chance, it's all by design.* 

Design? That's funny.

*Not even a little bit.* 

_For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market. _

_"That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a disaster." _

_In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals. _

_"The market knew we needed those loans," said Sharon McHale, a spokeswoman for Freddie Mac. The higher goals "forced us to go into that market to serve the targeted populations that HUD wanted us to serve," she said._

How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

In 2004, the year you said standards declined, the GSEs bought 44% of the subprime mortgages written that year. In 2005, standards still weak, right? They bought 33% of all new subprimes.

Not even a little bit? Your ignorance astounds me more, every time you post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They were. The GSEs were forced, by Congress and HUD, to make 56% of their purchases from the subprime market in order to meet affordable housing goals.
> ...



*A "crappy" mortgage would indicate that mortgage went into delinquency.* 

Nope. A crappy mortgage would be one, for instance, that was given to someone with a low credit score with a very low, or no, downpayment. The technical term for a crappy mortgage is subprime.

Not all crappy mortgages defaulted. Not all conforming mortgages escaped default.

*Those delinquency rates were far, far below their private-label counterparts.  That's undeniable.* 

Again, that's not surprising considering they bought better mortgages.

*your problem is you cannot reconcile your argument that GSE loans were "crappy"*

Your own source showed the government forced them to buy 50% subprime loans, rising to 56% subprime loans. This isn't a claim I manufactured.

*GSE loans weren't entering delinquency when the private-label ones did.  So they weren't worse.*

They were worse than the ones they bought pre-bubble, obviously.

*And GSE-backed loans didn't see a rise in their delinquency rates *_*until after*_* the private label loans started defaulting*

Yeah, their crappy loans took longer to default. And?

*So they're not "crappy" then, they're good.* 

A few hundred billion dollars in government bailout funds disprove your claim.

*See!  Here's another instance of goalpost moving!* 

The goalpost has always been, the GSEs were forced to buy 50%-56% crappy loans.

*Why is it that GSE loans didn't see an increase in delinquency at the same time as private-label subprimes?*

They bought the cream of the crap.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, you end up with fewer MW jobs because the MW is higher
> ...


*
The data from Seattle shows that MW workers moved to higher-paying employment.*

MW workers who didn't lose their jobs make more under a higher MW.
Look up "tautology".

*If you say that raising the MW kills MW jobs,*

It does, obviously.
Look up "supply-demand curve"

*You are saying someone "loses" a job if they go from a MW job to a higher-paying one.* 

No. I'm saying if you raise the MW some workers who made the old wage, and were employed, will be unemployed and won't benefit from the new, higher wage. Some workers who would have been hired, at the old wage, won't be hired under the higher wage. 

*Going from MW to higher-paying jobs is a bad thing, why?*

That'd be a good thing.

Among MW workers, the unemployment rate was higher than it would have been absent the MW increase.

*You sure about that?  Let's see some facts.
*
Pretty sure.

_So, our prediction is that underneath all of the national effects of the state of the economy and so on we would expect places with a higher minimum wage to have, at minimum, slower growth in minimum wage jobs if not no or even a shrinkage of the sector. And we would expect that process to start when the higher minimum wage is announced, not comes in. And finally we would go and look for that in the restaurant sector._

_Which is exactly what Mark Perry is doing here:_





_Sadly our information is not perfect here. The details of restaurant employment in Seattle only are only published annually (I think, it might be once every two years). So, we are using the numbers for the Seattle MSA, which includes areas without the minimum wage rise. Not correct but the best we've got so far. And as those are the numbers that Sherman is using we're OK with that. And as one of the crew from Nick Hanauer's Civic Skunk Works points out, that is all we've got at present:_

_@worstall_ _@Mark_J_Perry_ _@AEI_ _@Forbes__ Live by the MSA, die by the MSA. But no, that's a silly data set by which to judge Seattle._

_— Goldy (@GoldyHA) __January 8, 2016_

_So, with the best information we've got, we look at the difference in job growth in local payrolls, in national ones, in restaurant ones outside the higher minimum wage area and in restaurant jobs inside the (imperfectly measured) higher minimum wage area. And it really does have to be said that the evidence we've got supports our case. Because we are seeing a lower growth in minimum wage jobs, in that restaurant industry, inside the area with the higher minimum wage than we are seeing of general job growth in that area, in national job growth, in restaurant job growth in roughly that area than without the higher minimum wage. Most certainly, this best information we have does not contradict our basic claim._

Once More Into The Breach On This Seattle Minimum Wage And Jobs Theory


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 19, 2017)

Don't make the poor poorer and the rich richer on an Institutional basis right wingers; y'all Only think You look fiscally tough.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Never said anything was magical. There is always a reason. A big one is human nature.



You mean the human condition of greed, right?  Yeah, Conservatives never take that into account.  But no, it's not general "human nature".  The spending done by those humans is the consequence of something else.  In the case of the Bush Mortgage Bubble, it was using your home as an ATM because tax cuts didn't cause wages to rise or jobs to be created, and to afford things like college or health care, people took out second or third mortgages on their homes.  Something they wouldn't have to do if, according to you, they got a tax cut.  So....whoops!




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Design? That's funny.



The Bush Mortgage Bubble was absolutely by design.  Conservatives had promised that the Bush Tax Cuts would lead to all this growth and revenue and jobs, and that didn't happen.  So in 2003-4, Bush and the Conservatives took several deliberate steps to create a mortgage bubble to make the economy look like it was growing in advance of the 2004 election when it really wasn't.  That's why Bush tied his tax cuts to the growth of the housing market while campaigning in 2004.  Without the growth of that housing bubble, the Bush economy was the weakest since the Great Depression:










Toddsterpatriot said:


> For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.



But again, their mortgages were good and didn't enter delinquency.  So they weren't the cause.
_
_


Toddsterpatriot said:


> In 2004, the year you said standards declined, the GSEs bought 44% of the subprime mortgages written that year. In 2005, standards still weak, right? They bought 33% of all new subprimes.



So you proved their market share was dwindling, and the delinquency numbers show that the GSE-backed loans remained steady and consistent.  They only started entering delinquency once the recession started, but they didn't cause the recession to start.  That was the fault of private label loans.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope. A crappy mortgage would be one, for instance, that was given to someone with a low credit score with a very low, or no, downpayment. The technical term for a crappy mortgage is subprime.



But if the borrower can pay it, who cares?  It's not crappy if the borrower can repay.  A subprime may be _*riskier*_, but it's only crappy if it enters delinquency, which would turn the security it backed toxic, which is what caused the collapse of the secondary mortgage markets, which caused the credit freeze, which caused the recession.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not all crappy mortgages defaulted. Not all conforming mortgages escaped default.



So I see what you're doing...you're applying your own standard to "crappy".  You are interchanging "crappy" with "risky".  Sure, those subprimes were _*riskier*_, but the risk paid off for the GSE's since their mortgages entered delinquency at rates far below that of private labels.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Again, that's not surprising considering they bought better mortgages.



So did they buy "crappy" mortgages, or did they buy "risky" mortgages?  There's a difference.  Subprimes were risky, but private-label subprimes were crap.  They were crap because they entered delinquency at rates far higher than their GSE counterparts.  So you need to make up your mind; did the mortgages GSE's backed cause delinquencies or not?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your own source showed the government forced them to buy 50% subprime loans, rising to 56% subprime loans. This isn't a claim I manufactured.



Rising to 56% when?  After the private label subprime market had already popped.  And what of the loan performance for the GSE-backed loans?  Consistently better than that of private labels.  Hence, GSE-backed loans were not responsible for the bubble or the pop of that bubble.  Just like all mortgages, they were swept up in the aftermath of the _*private label*_ mortgages defaulting and the recession.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> They were worse than the ones they bought pre-bubble, obviously.



NO THEY FUCKING WEREN'T!  That's why the line on the chart below for GSE's remains steady and consistent as the line on the chart for private label subprimes and subprime ARMS shot up:






Default rates for GSE's rose in the aftermath of private labels popping the bubble, along with _*all other kinds of mortgages*_.  So GSE loans were no worse than they were prior to the collapse and bubble, as the chart shows.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> eah, their crappy loans took longer to default. And?



No, they fucking didn't!  *Look at the goddamned chart! *The defaulting of GSE-backed loans started the same time the defaulting of all other loans happened, _*as the fucking chart above shows*_.  So just like all the other non-subprime mortgages, GSE-backed ones entered delinquency at the same time as other loans because there was a recession that caused job loss which caused borrowers to not be able to repay.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> A few hundred billion dollars in government bailout funds disprove your claim.



They had to get the bailout because the private label subprime bubble popped mid-2006, and the resulting delinquencies and foreclosures led to a drop in home prices, which led to a cooling of the market, which led to job loss because the only growth that happened from 2004-7 was because of the housing bubble.  Job loss means the borrowers weren't able to repay, which means their mortgages entered delinquency.  Because GSE's are _*government-sponsored*_, they had to get bailed out.  But they wouldn't have had to have been bailed out if private label subprimes hadn't created and popped a bubble.  Again, that's why _*delinquency rates for all mortgages rose starting in 2008*_.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MW workers who didn't lose their jobs make more under a higher MW.



Why would they lose their jobs?  That didn't happen in Seattle.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> It does, obviously.



Except that the unemployment rate for Seattle has declined since the MW was raised.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> No. I'm saying if you raise the MW some workers who made the old wage, and were employed, will be unemployed and won't benefit from the new, higher wage.



But why would they be unemployed?  This is the part you gloss over.  Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle.  In fact, it created jobs as the unemployment rate declined.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Some workers who would have been hired, at the old wage, won't be hired under the higher wage.



Why not?  A business  only hires a worker if there is demand.  If revenues are increasing because people are spending more, because they have higher wages, you're saying a business wouldn't hire a new worker to meet the increased demand?  What kind of business would do that?  That's stupid.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> That'd be a good thing.
> Among MW workers, the unemployment rate was higher than it would have been absent the MW increase.



So here's the problem...you can't be unemployed _*and*_ be a minimum wage worker.  So your argument is an example of cognitive dissonance; you say that the unemployment rate is higher among MW workers, but you can't know that because if someone is unemployed, *then they're not a MW worker!*




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So, our prediction is that underneath all of the national effects of the state of the economy and so on we would expect places with a higher minimum wage to have, at minimum, slower growth in minimum wage jobs if not no or even a shrinkage of the sector. And we would expect that process to start when the higher minimum wage is announced, not comes in. And finally we would go and look for that in the restaurant sector.



Key word in your cut-and-paste:  "*prediction*".  And again,* you are using numbers from 2016.*  Why not use numbers from *2017?*  Oh right, because doing so would undermine your argument.

So I'm wondering why you feel the need to use outdated information?  Is it because there's nothing from the current numbers that supports your argument?  So you use something that is nearly 18 months old and you thought, what, that you could slip it by me?  Try again and this time, use numbers from 2017.  In fact, the BLS has April 2017 numbers for the city of Seattle.  Why not use those?  Oh right, because that would mean you'd have to actually do work and couldn't do the typical, rushed, sloppy work you're accustomed to doing.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 20, 2017)

How about more, cogency and conciseness.  If the right wing doesn't believe, _walls_ of text; 

it will be easier to debunk their custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from morals, of having nothing but the fallacy of nothing but repeal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 20, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Never said anything was magical. There is always a reason. A big one is human nature.
> ...



*You mean the human condition of greed, right?*

Greed, fads, trend following and more.
*
So they weren't the cause.*

Their purchases of crappy mortgages helped feed the bubble.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 20, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. A crappy mortgage would be one, for instance, that was given to someone with a low credit score with a very low, or no, downpayment. The technical term for a crappy mortgage is subprime.
> ...



*But if the borrower can pay it, who cares?*

Exactly.

*It's not crappy if the borrower can repay.*

I already said, not all subprime loans default.

*A subprime may be *_*riskier*_*, but it's only crappy if it enters delinquency,*

Subprime loans are subprime, whether they default or not.

*Sure, those subprimes were *_*riskier*_*, but the risk paid off for the GSE's*

Hundreds of billions in government funds point out your error.

*So did they buy "crappy" mortgages, or did they buy "risky" mortgages?*

They bought crappy mortgages. Up to 56% of their total purchases. 

*did the mortgages GSE's backed cause delinquencies or not?*

Mortgages, good or bad, do not "cause delinquencies".

*Rising to 56% when?*

From 50% in 2004 to 56% in 2008.

*And what of the loan performance for the GSE-backed loans?* 

What of it? Half of them or more, from 2004 and earlier, were conforming loans.

*Consistently better than that of private labels.* 

Conforming loans. Duh.

*Hence, GSE-backed loans were not responsible for the bubble or the pop of that bubble.* 
_
In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent._

In four years, they bought over half a trillion in subprime loans. Adding to the bubble.

*NO THEY FUCKING WEREN'T!* 

Mortgages bought during the bubble, with skyrocketing home prices, lower down payments and weaker borrowers were most certainly worse than mortgages bought pre-bubble.

Without a doubt.

*That's why the line on the chart below for GSE's remains steady and consistent*

Yes, your ignorance of what the chart says is obvious to me.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Their purchases of crappy mortgages helped feed the bubble.



No, it didn't because the bubble were *private-label subprimes*.  They're the thing that popped mid-2006 that ended up having a downstream effect on all other mortgages.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 20, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MW workers who didn't lose their jobs make more under a higher MW.
> ...



*Why would they lose their jobs?*

If you're paid $9/hr but produce $11/hr in added value, you keep your job.
If you're paid $12/hr but produce $11/hr in added value, not so much.

*Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle.* 

It appears to have slowed the growth of low-end jobs.

*Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle.  In fact, it created jobs as the unemployment rate declined.*

I'd love for you to show me how making something more expensive increases the demand for it.

*A business  only hires a worker if there is demand.* 

A business  only hires a worker if they produce more value than their expense to the business.
*
If revenues are increasing because people are spending more,*

Do you feel revenues increase less than expenses, as much as expenses or more than expenses?
Feel free to use a hypothetical.
Let me know if I need to define hypothetical for you.

*So here's the problem...you can't be unemployed *_*and*_* be a minimum wage worker.* 

Which is why workers who are priced out of the job market by the MW hike aren't helped by the hike.

*Key word in your cut-and-paste:  "prediction".* 

Yes. They predicted what the hike would do to jobs/job creation and examined data after the hike was announced and implemented.
*
And again, you are using numbers from 2016.  Why not use numbers from **2017?* 

Find 2017 numbers that refute the numbers thru 2016. Post them. Prove your claim. Or don't.

*So I'm wondering why you feel the need to use outdated information?*

I posted what I found. Feel free to do the same.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 20, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Their purchases of crappy mortgages helped feed the bubble.
> ...



*No, it didn't*

Making $515 billion available to make more subprime loans doesn't increase the number of subprime loans?

How many times did you fail Econ 101 before you gave up?


----------



## The Derp (Jun 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But if the borrower can pay it, who cares?*
> Exactly.
> *It's not crappy if the borrower can repay.*
> I already said, not all subprime loans default.
> ...



So, not "crappy", just _*risky*_.  A crappy loan would be a loan that a borrower couldn't or didn't repay.  Risky and crappy are not interchangeable.  GSE's may have bought _*risky*_ loans, but the risk paid off.  Delinquency rates for GSE-backed loans remained the same (or were slightly better) during the bubble as before it.  The bubble was in the private-label subprimes, which popped in mid-2006 (again, we know that because that's what the delinquency data tells us).  You are trying to say GSE-backed loans contributed to the private-label subprime bubble, but by their very nature of being GSE-backed loans, they weren't a part of that bubble, nor did they contribute to it.  That's why they are separated out from private-label subprimes in this chart:









Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure, those subprimes were _riskier_, but the risk paid off for the GSE's
> Hundreds of billions in government funds point out your error.



The bailout of the GSE's was the aftermath of the recession caused by the popping of the private-label subprime bubble.  The mortgages that had to be "rescued" from the GSE's were a consequence not of their inherent risk, but of the cooling of the housing market, which precipitated a credit freeze, which precipitated a recession, which precipitated job loss, which precipitated foreclosures.  But again, the "original sin" was the explosion in private-label subprime lending, something GSE's were not a part of.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So did they buy "crappy" mortgages, or did they buy "risky" mortgages?
> They bought crappy mortgages. Up to 56% of their total purchases.



Not crappy, _*risky*_.  There's a difference.  But GSE loan performance was unchanged during the bubble, and only rose along with all other mortgages as the recession started and caused all the job loss.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> did the mortgages GSE's backed cause delinquencies or not?
> Mortgages, good or bad, do not "cause delinquencies".



What causes a delinquency?  The borrower not repaying.  And which borrowers were not repaying _*first*_?  The ones who got the subprime ARMs from private labels.  When those homes went into foreclosure, it drove down the prices for all the other, non-subprime ARMs.  That left many "underwater" on their mortgage.  Those foreclosures also had the added effect of cooling the housing market, which was Bush's only growth in his entire presidency.  So when the housing market cools, all the economic activity from that housing market cools, which leads to job loss, which leads to more foreclosures, and the community enters a death spiral of foreclosures, job loss, foreclosures, job loss...all _*non-prime, GSE-backed, and FHA*_ loans entering delinquency was a _*consequence*_ of the subprime ARM bubble popping.  So that's why the "bubble" wasn't a general or generic housing bubble, it was specifically a subprime bubble and it was specifically a _*private-label*_ subprime bubble.  Otherwise, all other types of mortgages would have entered delinquency at the same time as the private-label subprimes.  _*But they didn't*_.  So all those other loans entered delinquency because the subprime bubble popped.  And the subprime bubble was grown by private labels, not the GSE's.  Because if it were the GSE's, then their loans would have entered delinquency the same time the private label subprimes did.  _*But they didn't*_.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rising to 56% when?
> From 50% in 2004 to 56% in 2008.



So what was it in 2003?  And what was it in 2005?  And 2006?  And 2007?  Wait, you know what?  We already know because we have these facts:  So you just exercised _*sophism*_ _*again*_ because you are a natural-born liar and cheat.  So yes, it did go up to 56% by 2008, but it dropped down to 40% for 2005 and 2006, and was previously 70% in 2003.  So you deliberately and pourposefully left out the numbers that put your numbers into perspective.  So why do you do that?  Why do you purposefully and deliberately leave information out of your argument?  The answer is, of course, because you are a sophist.









Toddsterpatriot said:


> And what of the loan performance for the GSE-backed loans?
> What of it? Half of them or more, from 2004 and earlier, were conforming loans.



But if they were even partially responsible for the subprime bubble, then they would have seen their delinquency rate rise _*at the same time*_ private-label subprime delinquency rates were rising. * But they didn't. *So what does that mean for your argument?  That it's bullshit.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Hence, GSE-backed loans were not responsible for the bubble or the pop of that bubble.
> In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent.



Did those loans default in greater rates?  No.  You see delinquencies rising amid private label subprimes, but not GSE-backed subprimes.  So there's a disconnect in your argument.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 20, 2017)

Walls of text don't deter the right wing; why should any other walls deter persons with more of a work ethic than that.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mortgages bought during the bubble, with skyrocketing home prices, lower down payments and weaker borrowers were most certainly worse than mortgages bought pre-bubble.



The mortgages the GSE's were buying were the same pre-bubble as they were during the bubble.  We have the delinquency figures to tell us that.  So you again, are ignoring the facts.  Why?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's why the line on the chart below for GSE's remains steady and consistent
> Yes, your ignorance of what the chart says is obvious to me.



The chart here clearly shows the subprime bubble popped beginning in 2006 as delinquency rates for private-label subprimes rose.  All other loans, including GSE-backed loans, FHA loans, and non-prime loans saw their delqinuency rates rise _*nearly two years after the rates for private label subprimes began to rise*_.  Which means, quite clearly, that the private label subprimes were responsible for the bubble and not the GSE's.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Making $515 billion available to make more subprime loans doesn't increase the number of subprime loans? How many times did you fail Econ 101 before you gave up?



I don't even think you know what economics is!  Again, GSE-backed loans didn't default until the recession started, they didn't cause it.  That was all the Conservative-backed private label subprime lending that popped in 2006 when delinquency rates for those loans started to rise.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 20, 2017)

It was public policy to command economize the expanding housing market.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 20, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why would they lose their jobs?*
> If you're paid $9/hr but produce $11/hr in added value, you keep your job.
> If you're paid $12/hr but produce $11/hr in added value, not so much.



So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose?  Seems that the added value would increase by $3 if you are increasing the wage by $3.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle.
> It appears to have slowed the growth of low-end jobs.



Which is what we want, right?  Better-paying jobs?  Do you not want those?  What's your position?  That we should keep the minimum wage where it is so there are jobs that pay so low, people become eligible for welfare?  Because that's what you're arguing whether you realize it or not.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Raising the MW didn't kill jobs in Seattle.  In fact, it created jobs as the unemployment rate declined.
> I'd love for you to show me how making something more expensive increases the demand for it.



LOL!  I've done this _*countless times*_ but what's another one, right?  If you are paying people more, they are spending more.  If they're spending more, that means your business revenues increase.  So while you may be paying labor more, you're also taking in more revenue because that labor is spending their money.

_*YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS*_.  When that wild claim was debunked by the unemployment rate for the city of Seattle (as well as the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014), you shifted your argument to claim that raising the MW kills MW jobs.  Even though you support that claim with 18-month old figures that do not include the most recent employment data showing Seattle's unemployment rate is lower now than it was before the MW hike.  By nearly a full point.  Now your argument seems to be that we should preserve low-paying jobs because...because...not sure why you think that.  You haven't made that point clear.  The reason is because it's a shitty point to have in the first place, putting you in the uncomfortable position of having to simultaneously defend low wages while ignoring the empirical evidence showing no negative effect on employment.

_*So why are you using out-dated information to make your point?*_  Why not use Seattle's April or May 2017 jobs numbers?  That gives you an accurate view of the employment picture for the city of Seattle more than 24 months after their rose their MW.  But you didn't.  I want to know why?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> A business  only hires a worker if there is demand.
> A business  only hires a worker if they produce more value than their expense to the business.



If you cannot afford to pay a living wage, then you cannot afford to be in business.  Asking people to work minimum wage for 40 hours a week so you can own a business is _*entitlement*_ at its most obscene.  You are requiring workers use their lives to subsidize your entitlement to own a business.  If it's a job worth doing, it's a job that is worth being paid enough to live.  $8.25 isn't enough to live, and it qualifies you for several welfare programs including SNAP.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If revenues are increasing because people are spending more,
> Do you feel revenues increase less than expenses, as much as expenses or more than expenses?



More.  *That's what the employment growth in states and cities that raised their MW experienced*.  So if those places are seeing growth in employment after a MW increase, that would mean that businesses were _*expanding by hiring more workers*_.  Which would mean revenues more than offset the increase in expenses from a wage increase.  But that's just according to the facts.  I'm sure your fantasy has a completely different theory that never works in practice.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So here's the problem...you can't be unemployed _and_ be a minimum wage worker.
> Which is why workers who are priced out of the job market by the MW hike aren't helped by the hike.



Were they priced out, or did they just get better paying jobs?  It would seem the latter is the case.  Are you being purposefully obtuse?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Key word in your cut-and-paste:  "prediction".
> Yes. They predicted what the hike would do to jobs/job creation and examined data after the hike was announced and implemented.
> nd again, you are using numbers from 2016.  Why not use numbers from 2017?
> Find 2017 numbers that refute the numbers thru 2016. Post them. Prove your claim. Or don't.



No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers.  By arguing like this, you are admitting that your argument doesn't stand to scrutiny because you're not even using the most recent data!  So that begs the obvious question:  _*Why *_aren't you using the most recent data?  Is it a question of laziness?  Is it a question of sophism?  Is it a question of intellectual dishonesty?  Is it a question of ignorance?  Why do you do that?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So I'm wondering why you feel the need to use outdated information?
> I posted what I found. Feel free to do the same.



So, laziness and sloppiness are not a defense.  Grow up and act like an adult.  Do the actual work.  You are knowingly and deliberately acting shady in this debate because you very obviously know your position is wrong.  But you have too much pride/hubris/arrogance to admit it, so you do things like deceptively remove any information that doesn't support your conclusion.  Exactly what Rogoff and Reinhart did with their "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper.  Like them, you do that omission and willful ignorance intentionally.  My question is; _*Why*_?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 20, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *But if the borrower can pay it, who cares?*
> ...



*A crappy loan would be a loan that a borrower couldn't or didn't repay.*

That would be a defaulted loan. Plenty of crappy loans get repaid.

*GSE's may have bought *_*risky*_* loans, but the risk paid off.* 

The GSEs lost tens of billions on the crappy mortgages they bought. Bizarre definition for "paid off", eh?
*
You are trying to say GSE-backed loans contributed to the private-label subprime bubble,*

Yes, spending over half a trillion (with a T) dollars on subprime mortgages definitely contributed to the subprime bubble.
*
but by their very nature of being GSE-backed loans, they weren't a part of that bubble*

You'll have to explain what you mean by the nature of GSE-backed loans.
I expect your explanation to be humorous.

*That's why they are separated out from private-label subprimes in this chart:*

Which line in that chart represents GSE subprimes only?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 20, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Why would they lose their jobs?*
> ...



*So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose?*

Why would it? Does a burger flipper make more burgers at $12/hr than at $9/hr? Why?

*Seems that the added value would increase by $3 if you are increasing the wage by $3.*

This is why liberals are so bad at economics.
If an employee adds $3 more value, that extra $3 is available to be divided between employees and owners.

If you mandate and extra $3 expense, where does it come from?
The obvious choices are from owners and employees.
It comes from employees when suddenly unaffordable head count is reduced.
It come from owners who see reduced profitability.
In some cases, enough of a reduction to cause business closure.

But no, simplistically increasing wages does nothing to increase value added.

*Which is what we want, right?  Better-paying jobs?*

Of course we want better paying jobs.

*What's your position?  That we should keep the minimum wage where it is so there are jobs that pay so low, people become eligible for welfare?* 

My position is the minimum wage hurts those low-skilled workers who don't produce enough added value to justify hiring them at that wage.
If a minority teen is only worth $5/hr, he will never get hired at $10/hr.
What do you suggest we do to help those young, inexperienced workers who can't reach that first rung on the economic ladder?

*LOL!  I've done this *_*countless times*_* but what's another one, right?*

You haven't. Not even once.

Use a commodity as an example. Like gasoline.
If you raise the price of gasoline does the demand for it rise? Or fall?
If you raise the price of labor does the demand for it rise? Or fall?

If you took an econ class you'd have seen a supply/demand curve.
It's clear, if you saw one, you never understood it.

*If you are paying people more, they are spending more.  
If they're spending more, that means your business revenues increase.* 

If I pay my employees $100 more, how much does my revenue increase?
How do you know?
*
So while you may be paying labor more, you're also taking in more revenue because that labor is spending their money.*

If my revenue increases as much as my costs increase, I'm still less profitable.

*YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS*. 

Only because it does.

*When that wild claim was debunked by the unemployment rate for the city of Seattle (as well as the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014),*

Unless that rate was only measuring MW unemployment, it doesn't disprove my claim.

*you shifted your argument to claim that raising the MW kills MW jobs.* 

That's always been my claim in regards to MW hikes. Never shifted my argument.

*Now your argument seems to be that we should preserve low-paying jobs because...because...not sure why you think that.* 

If a $10/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $15/hr?
If a $15/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $25/hr?
If a $25/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $35/hr?

If you admit that jobs would be lost at some point with those higher rates, you have to understand how
some workers are hurt by MW. If not the fired workers that you can see, the never hired workers that you can't.
Or, you don't see that. Because liberals are bad at economics.

*If you cannot afford to pay a living wage, then you cannot afford to be in business.* 

Exactly! And screw all those workers who had a job before and now have none, eh comrade?

How much less welfare will the government pay those guys now?

Do you feel revenues increase less than expenses, as much as expenses or more than expenses?

*More.  **That's what the employment growth in states and cities that raised their MW experienced**.
*
That's funny, because the employment growth doesn't measure revenues or expenses.

*No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers.*

Find more recent numbers that prove your claim. Or don't.
Like I give a fuck if you never post any proof of your claim.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 20, 2017)

What happened to "laissez-fair", right wingers.  Only Mr. Say, said so, not "market based economics."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 20, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Why would they lose their jobs?*
> ...



*No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers.*

Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.

*By arguing like this, you are admitting that your argument doesn't stand to scrutiny because you're not even using the most recent data!* 

I don't have more recent data. If you can find more recent data that drills down as deeply as my source, post it.
Show that the older data that supports my argument is no longer valid.
Until you do, my old data, the only data, wins.

*So, laziness and sloppiness are not a defense.*

I agree, your lack of opposing data is no defense.
*
Grow up and act like an adult.  Do the actual work.*

I posted data. You do some work and post newer data. Or pout about mine. LOL!

*But you have too much pride/hubris/arrogance to admit it*

I freely admit that you haven't posted data that refutes mine.
It must be because you know your position is wrong.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> DERP:  No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers.
> ZTODDSTER:  Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.



So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur?  I guess we'll just take that as a concession that you were trying to exercise sophism in order to push an ideological agenda that isn't supported by facts.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> By arguing like this, you are admitting that your argument doesn't stand to scrutiny because you're not even using the most recent data!
> I don't have more recent data.



You mean you don't have recent data that supports your argument.  You can very easily go to the BLS and pull figures for Washington State as well as the City of Seattle.  This took me literally 5 seconds to find on a Google search.  Your laziness is not an excuse.  If you are too lazy and sloppy to do the hard work of being informed, then we don't have much to talk about.  Put in some effort, if possible.  Take some personal responsibility for yourself and your argument.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Until you do, my old data, the only data, wins.



I did post new numbers from a BLS link earlier in this thread.  _*You chose to ignore that*_.  So again, your laziness and sloppiness is not an excuse for why you exercise sophism.  Try again.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Grow up and act like an adult.  Do the actual work.
> I posted data.



No, you posted outdated data that was 16 months old!  Now you seem to be telling me you're too lazy to update your recent numbers, choosing to rely on a link you didn't bother to fully vet, to carry your pathetically weak argument in favor of minimum wage jobs.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> But you have too much pride/hubris/arrogance to admit it
> I freely admit that you haven't posted data that refutes mine.
> It must be because you know your position is wrong.



First of all, your "data' is all make-believe.  You actually haven't posted any data, you've just posted right wing Op-Eds because you're too lazy to do the work yourself, so you have to rely on others to do the misleading work for you, then play dumb, lazy, and ignorant when it's brought up that your numbers are way out of date by nearly 18 months!!

Your argument seems to be that raising the MW kills MW jobs because they aren't MW jobs anymore, and that you want to keep MW jobs because...because...not sure why.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *A crappy loan would be a loan that a borrower couldn't or didn't repay.*
> That would be a defaulted loan. Plenty of crappy loans get repaid.



Then they weren't crappy loans, then.  They were _*risky*_ loans, but clearly the risk was unfounded since the GSE's had delinquency rates far below their private label counterparts...a fact your argument has been unable to reconcile.  Also the fact that delinquency rates for GSE loans rose the same time as all other non-subprime loans did, nearly 2 years after the subprime loans entered delinquency, so it was quite obviously the private label subprimes that inflated and popped the bubble.  If the GSE's had played a part in it, then they would have seen delinquency rates rise the same time as the subprime rate rose, _*but they didn't*_.  Therefore, GSE's were not responsible, even partially, for the bubble and collapse.  They were swept up in it, just like all other non-subprime mortgages.  _*That is what the data shows*_.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> GSE's may have bought _risky_ loans, but the risk paid off.
> The GSEs lost tens of billions on the crappy mortgages they bought. Bizarre definition for "paid off", eh?



No, the mortgages they bought weren't crappy.  The mortgages they bought that entered delinquency did so because of the recession caused by the subprime bubble popping mid-2006.  The subprime bubble GSE's were not involved with.  The GSE-backed loans entered delinquency nearly two years _*after*_ the subprime bubble popped, when the recession started.  That is actually what happened.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> You are trying to say GSE-backed loans contributed to the private-label subprime bubble,
> Yes, spending over half a trillion (with a T) dollars on subprime mortgages definitely contributed to the subprime bubble.



Again, GSE-backed loans didn't enter delinquency until nearly 2 years after private label subprimes did.  That's in the chart I've posted dozens of times that for some reason you feel the need to ignore because it undermines everything you're saying.  The bubble was among private-label subprimes, which is why their delinquency rates rose mid-2006 while GSE-backed loans didn't until 2008 because of the recession caused by the subprime bubble popping.  The facts ruin the knowingly sophist and false narrative you're trying to construct.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> but by their very nature of being GSE-backed loans, they weren't a part of that bubble
> You'll have to explain what you mean by the nature of GSE-backed loans.
> I expect your explanation to be humorous.



Look at the chart.  It answers your stupid question:






See how the private label subprimes start spiking their delinquency rate mid-2006?  Now, when in the timeline do the delinquency rates start to rise for GSE's?  Be honest now, it's right there, color-coded for you.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's why they are separated out from private-label subprimes in this chart:
> Which line in that chart represents GSE subprimes only?



GSE subprimes are included in the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lines.  Again, if their subprimes had been a part of the bubble, _*you would see movement on the green and purple lines at the same time the blue lines start rising, *__*but you don't*_.  Hence, GSE-backed loans didn't enter delinquency until after the recession started.  In fact, as you see in the chart, as the blue lines go up, the purple and green lines actually go _*down*_ slightly.  If what you're saying is true, then those lines would have ticked up when the blue lines ticked up, _*but they don't*_.  So because they don't, what does that mean?  Use your words, now.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose?
> Why would it? Does a burger flipper make more burgers at $12/hr than at $9/hr? Why?



So you're not factoring the added value of _*labor*_ into the product?  So then why are you all saying that if the MW is raised, it will raise prices?  That self-contradictory argument starts your position off on the wrong foot.  You say that raising the MW will raise prices (thus, adding _*value*_), then you turn right around and make a completely opposite and self-contradicting argument.  Were you intending to do that?  Added value includes the added value of labor.  As you all say, that's what is baked in the price for consumers.  Yeesh.  I am tired of watching right-wingers use arguments that contradict their other arguments almost unwittingly.  Surely this isn't an accident.  Surely this is some form of performance art and I'm supposed to be amused or entertained by the cognitive dissonance?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Seems that the added value would increase by $3 if you are increasing the wage by $3.
> This is why liberals are so bad at economics.
> If an employee adds $3 more value, that extra $3 is available to be divided between employees and owners.



Now you're just making up arbitrary standards that you redefine in order to fit into whatever argument you're attempting to make. 




Toddsterpatriot said:


> But no, simplistically increasing wages does nothing to increase value added.



A-HA!  Then if that's the case, you cannot make the claim that raising wages leads to increased prices!  You add the value of the labor into the pricing.  So what we have here is a typical Conservative cognitive dissonance argument.  On the one hand, you say that raising wages will lead to a raise in prices....then on the other hand, you say that raising wages doesn't add value to the product that labor is producing.  See the cognitive dissonance?  It's not just this argument where you make that a thing; you do it in virtually every argument you make.  When you increase wages, you are adding to the value of the product the labor created.  That is the argument you all have been making with regard to raising the MW.  You all say that raising the MW raises prices.  Well, what is a price increase but an increase in value.  So if you are raising prices because you raise wages, _*you are increasing the value of the product*_.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Whih is what we want, right?  Better-paying jobs?
> Of course we want better paying jobs.



Well, you don't seem to want them.  You're lamenting the loss of MW jobs because the wage increases.  You're arguing _*for*_ minimum wage jobs, why?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's your position?  That we should keep the minimum wage where it is so there are jobs that pay so low, people become eligible for welfare?
> My position is the minimum wage hurts those low-skilled workers who don't produce enough added value to justify hiring them at that wage.



But you said yourself it's the market that sets the wage, and if you are increasing the value of the product by increasing the cost of labor of that product, then the labor that produced the product adds to the product's value.  That's what your argument is whether you realize it or not.  It's not a judgement on what a worker deserves, it's what the value of the product is after the wage increase.  And the value of the product is more because the cost of labor to produce the product is more, according to your theory, right?  So how can you say that raising the MW raises prices, but also say that increasing labor wages doesn't increase the value of the product that labor produces?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you are paying people more, they are spending more.
> If they're spending more, that means your business revenues increase.
> If I pay my employees $100 more, how much does my revenue increase?



Depends on if the wages for all other labor is increasing as well.  Minimum wage increases don't apply to just one business, they apply to all of them.

*
*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> So while you may be paying labor more, you're also taking in more revenue because that labor is spending their money.
> If my revenue increases as much as my costs increase, I'm still less profitable.



_*Keyword:  "IF"*_.  _*If *_you are a good business owner then you should be able to capitalize on increased demand and expand your business.  _*If*_ you are a shitty business owner, then you don't.  Not everyone who owns a business is good at owning a business.  Most businesses fail not because of taxes or wages, but because the people running them don't know what they're doing.  It is grotesque entitlement to say that you can only own a business if you pay people wages that they cannot live on without getting some kind of income-based benefit from the government.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS.
> Only because it does.



But the employment data from Seattle as well as the 13 states that raised their MW in 2014 prove otherwise.  So either the employment figures are wrong, or you are.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> When that wild claim was debunked by the unemployment rate for the city of Seattle (as well as the 13 states + DC that raised their MW in 2014),
> Unless that rate was only measuring MW unemployment, it doesn't disprove my claim.



MW unemployment isn't a thing.  If someone is unemployed, _*they're not a MW worker*_.  So how about you use actual figures from the BLS, not ones made up by some Conservative editorial, mmmmkay?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> you shifted your argument to claim that raising the MW kills MW jobs.
> That's always been my claim in regards to MW hikes. Never shifted my argument.



No, you just said up there: 

_*ME:  YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED RAISING THE MW KILLS JOBS. 
YOU:  Only because it does.*_​
You tried to wiggle the parameters of what you meant, afterwards in retrospect.  Your argument was plainly that raising the MW kills jobs, and the employment data says it doesn't.  Is Seattle's unemployment rate lower now than it was in April 2015, when they raised their MW, yes or no?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Now your argument seems to be that we should preserve low-paying jobs because...because...not sure why you think that.
> If a $10/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $15/hr?
> If a $15/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $25/hr?
> If a $25/hr MW doesn't destroy low-paying jobs, why not raise it to $35/hr?



Maybe we should.  Maybe we start with raising it to $15 like Seattle did and go from there.  Your problem is that you are too dogmatic to even admit that raising the MW helped employment in the 13 states that raised theirs in 2014, and Seattle in 2015.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > DERP:  No, no...you are responsible for using the most recent numbers.
> ...



*So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur.*

Sorry, too much cut and pasting.

Derp---Were they priced out, or did they just get better paying jobs? 

Todd---Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.

*You mean you don't have recent data that supports your argument.*

I mean I don't have more recent data.
Stop whining and find more recent data that supports your argument.

*You can very easily go to the BLS and pull figures for Washington State as well as the City of Seattle.  **This took me literally 5 seconds to find on a Google search.* 

If that was as detailed as the info I found, it might help your claim.





Try again? Or just whine some more. You're good at that.
Finding relevant data....not so much.

*I did post new numbers from a BLS link earlier in this thread.  *_*You chose to ignore that*_*.* 

I'm not ignoring your irrelevant data, just pointing out its irrelevancy.

*First of all, your "data' is all make-believe.*

Feel free to tell it to Tim Worstall, it was from his article.
I'm sure he'll waste as much of his time trying to educate you as I have.

Once More Into The Breach On This Seattle Minimum Wage And Jobs Theory

You can read his more current post, but I doubt you'll understand it either.....

_The propagandists up in the North West have essayed another adventure in their proof about how lovely the Seattle minimum wage rise is. They’re doing so in the same simplistic manner they’ve been trying to prove this for some time now and the answer is the very simple one that I and others have been giving for that same time now. We cannot answer the question of whether a minimum wage rise increases unemployment or not by just looking at the coincidence of a minimum wage rise and a change in the unemployment rate. We’ve got to construct some method of measuring only the effect of the minimum wage rise, not the other 97 million things going on in an economy._

_This thus is just not telling us what we want __to know__: _

_New data: Seattle City min wage drives its Unrate…to near record low of 2.9%. __@NickHanauer_ _@ritholtz_ _@KIRO7Seattle_ _pic.twitter.com/tKLj1oOqhx_

_— Invictus (@TBPInvictus) __April 5, 2017_

_Sure, it’s lovely that unemployment in Seattle dips under 3%. But an attempt to tie that drop in the unemployment rate to the minimum wage isn’t going to work. For we can as easily note that the unemployment rate has dropped everywhere in the US over this same time period and the minimum wage hasn’t risen everywhere over that time period. We’ve not even got a consistent correlation between minimum wages and unemployment that is._

_What we’ve actually got to do is try to work out some method of what would have happened in Seattle from all of the effects of everything else other than the minimum wage, then compare it to what did happen with the minimum wage. The difference between these two will be the effect of the minimum wage rise._

_Seattle City Council know this, which is why they asked the University of Washington to run exactly such a study. It’s possible that I’ve missed the latest update but I think not. And that latest result says __the following__:_

_In a region where all low-wage workers, including those in Seattle, have enjoyed access
to more jobs and more hours, Seattle’s low-wage workers show some preliminary signs
of lagging behind similar workers in comparison regions.
 The minimum wage appears to have slightly reduced the employment rate of
low-wage workers by about one percentage point. It appears that the Minimum
Wage Ordinance modestly held back Seattle’s employment of low-wage workers
relative to the level we could have expected._

_The specific effect of the minimum wage alone upon employment seems to be negative._

_Worth noting what my original prediction was. Specifically I pointed out that it would not lead to some howling wasteland where once an economy stood. Rather, that raising the price of low end labour would lead to less low end labour being employed. Quite why the propagandists are so irate over this observation is difficult to understand. If I said that raising the price of apples would mean people bought less apples they’d have shrugged their shoulders in agreement. The only goods we know of where rising prices increase demand are Giffen Goods–and there rising demand from rising prices is what makes them Giffen Good, gives them the name. So far the only such Goods we’ve identified are the basic carbohydrate stodge in peasant subsistence societies. It’s possible that other things are, even that labour is but we’d need very much more proof of this than Nick Hanauer’s cheerleaders resolutely ignoring absolutely everything everyone tries to tell them._

_Seattle’s falling unemployment rate tells us absolutely nothing about the effects of Seattle’s minimum wage rise. After all, national unemployment rates have fallen too but minimum wages haven’t risen across the country._

Seattle's 2.9% Unemployment Rate Tells Us Nothing About The Effects Of Seattle's Minimum Wage Rise

*Your argument seems to be that raising the MW kills MW jobs because they aren't MW jobs anymore*

No, you moron, raising the MW kills minimum wage jobs because not everyone is worth the MW.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *A crappy loan would be a loan that a borrower couldn't or didn't repay.*
> ...



*No, the mortgages they bought weren't crappy.*

They needed a few hundred billion in government funds, because all their mortgages were good.

Nah, it sounds stupid no matter who says it.

*Again, GSE-backed loans didn't enter delinquency until nearly 2 years after private label subprimes did.*

Yet their $515 billion added to the bubble. Obviously.

*Look at the chart.*

I did, it doesn't explain what you mean by the nature of GSE-backed loans.

Which line in that chart represents GSE subprimes only?

*GSE subprimes are included in the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lines.* 

Unless you find the GSE subprimes only, your chart doesn't support your claim.
Because added GSE conforming loans to GSE subprimes is a really stupid way to discuss subprimes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose?
> ...



*So you're not factoring the added value of *_*labor*_* into the product?*

You're confusing cost of labor with value of labor.
You think paying a burger flipper $12/hr versus $9/hr will magically make the burgers more valuable.
It only makes them more expensive to produce.

*MW unemployment isn't a thing.* 

MW employment is. So how much did it change after the MW hike was announced/implemented?
My source actually tried to find that employment change. You've failed to do the same.

*Maybe we start with raising it to $15 like Seattle did and go from there.* 

Maybe we should. After all, destroying the economy by government edict is a liberal thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So, why would the added value not rise if the wage rose?
> ...



But no, simplistically increasing wages does nothing to increase value added.
*
A-HA! Then if that's the case, you cannot make the claim that raising wages leads to increased prices!* 

You've discovered that just because the cost of your inputs rose, you can't automatically raise your prices.
Congrats!
Now that you know that, what happens to newly unprofitable businesses?
Is it okay that you've eliminated all their jobs? Because that's what you're pushing for.

*On the one hand, you say that raising wages will lead to a raise in prices*

In some cases, for some goods. In other cases, not at all.
*
then on the other hand, you say that raising wages doesn't add value to the product that labor is producing.* 

You clearly have no clue what value added even means. I'm embarrassed for you.

What you need to do is take the cost of all your inputs.
I'll give you a hypothetical, so you can whine some more.

If your widget, that's a hypothetical product, takes $1 of raw materials, $1 of labor and $1 of capital investment and you can sell it for $5, you have $2 of value added.

Now, in idiot liberal world, that's you, the government raises the cost of your labor to $2 and an idiot liberal, still you, thinks that that means the $5 widget is suddenly worth $6.
An idiot liberal, you again, thinks that revenue will automatically rise because minimum wage workers will magically increase their purchases of your widget.
An idiot liberal, you again, thinks that if purchases of your widget increase as much as your labor costs increased, that your profitability will remain the same....or even increase.


----------



## The Derp (Jun 21, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur.
> Sorry, too much cut and pasting.
> Derp---Were they priced out, or did they just get better paying jobs?
> Todd---Employees who aren't worth the higher rate get priced out.



So who are the people getting "priced out"?  The declining unemployment rate in Seattle would seem to indicate the opposite.  If all these MW workers were "priced out", then surely that would be reflected in a rising unemployment rate, correct?  So your argument seems to be that raising the MW leads to better paying jobs for everyone.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 21, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur.
> ...



*So who are the people getting "priced out"?*

People who were worth the old rate but aren't worth the new rate.

*If all these MW workers were "priced out", then surely that would be reflected in a rising unemployment rate, correct?* 

You'd have to look at MW employment at the old rate and MW employment after the new rate was announced/implemented. Correct?

*So your argument seems to be that raising the MW leads to better paying jobs for everyone.
*
My argument seems to be that raising the MW leads to some people losing their jobs or never getting hired.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 21, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So your response to me pointing out that you weren't using recent numbers is to write a non-sequitur.
> ...



Seattle is far from a scientific experiment with one variable held constant but we do know it's pure madness to claim minimum wages don't matter when robots are taking jobs every day, Walmart is struggling for survival against Amazon everyday, 20 million jobs already went to China because of lower wages, the basic law of supply and demand says when you raise price demand falls, and when a minimum wages makes it illegal to hire anyone not worth the minimum wage .


----------



## Markle (Jun 21, 2017)

The Derp said:


> No he didn't. Right-wingers are desperate to rewrite history in order for their failed policies to have credibility. No, FDR didn't extend the Great Depression, and you cannot explain how he did. You just say things that you expect people to accept as fact, but they're not. I am challenging your claim on this. I doubt you could support it using your own words.



I can, but why waste my time?  Besides, this provides the sources and links.

*FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate*
By Meg Sullivan  August 10, 2004

Category: *Research*

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.


*After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.*


"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. *"We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."*


In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.


"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."


Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.


In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.


Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.


"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."


The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.


Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.


Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.


"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"


NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.


"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."


Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.


The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936.


The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935.


*As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.*


Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.


Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.


"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."


-UCLA-

LSMS368


Read more:  *FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate*


----------



## Markle (Jun 21, 2017)

The Derp said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Bubbles don't happen "just because".*
> ...








You've lost all these same bogus points dozens of times.  Loser!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 21, 2017)

The Derp said:


> The declining unemployment rate in Seattle would seem to indicate the opposite.



actually it could indicate 100 things.


----------



## Markle (Jun 21, 2017)

Derp is an amusing character.  He believes that by repeating the same lies, over, and over, and over ad nausea, the facts will somehow change in his favor.  A clue to Derp, they do not.

Democrats actions leading to Mortgage Collapse B.B.

From New York Times
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


From Bloomberg News
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis - Club Cobra


The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs, ie Fannie, Freddie etc.)
Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs


Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Democrats of Financial Crisis; Meltdown


The Wall Street Journal Barney’s Rubble
Barney's Rubble


Mashup of Maxine Waters & Barney Frank - Then Vs. Now


Embedded media from this media site is no longer available



The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street
Steve Kroft On Credit Default Swaps And Their Central Role In The Unfolding Economic Crisis 
The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street


*Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 ALONE, here dating back to 2001!*  Duplicate of Whitehouse.archives   Bush Called For Reform 17 Times In 2008 | Sweetness & Light


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 21, 2017)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Public policy.  Just lousy management. Why not excise the wage difference in taxes from expatriate firms that leave for cheaper wages.


----------



## Tehon (Jun 24, 2017)

Uncensored2008 said:


> First off, that isn't what is meant by "trickle down," secondly I believe you are poorly coopting a thesis I have stated many times here and to my classes regarding supply side. Are you familiar with Says law?
> 
> Essentially the iPhone proves Says law in practical terms. In 2003 there was no demand for smart phones that could run applications. The ignorant trolls that claim demand is that basis of economic advance would then be forced to state the iPhone does not exist, since there was no demand to drive it
> 
> ...


You actually admit to indoctrinating students with this garbage!

Go back to school and try again. There is a difference between production being the source of demand generally (Say's Law) and production creating its own demand specifically (pure Uncensored bullshit).

Say: A Treatise on Political Economy, Book I, Chapter XV | Library of Economics and Liberty

It is worth while to remark, that a product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value. When the producer has put the finishing hand to his product, he is most anxious to sell it immediately, lest its value should diminish in his hands. Nor is he less anxious to dispose of the money he may get for it; for the value of money is also perishable. But the only way of getting rid of money is in the purchase of some product or other. Thus, the mere circumstance of the creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products.

I.XV.9
For this reason, a good harvest is favourable, not only to the agriculturist, but likewise to the dealers in all commodities generally. The greater the crop, the larger are the purchases of the growers. A bad harvest, on the contrary, hurts the sale of commodities at large. And so it is also with the products of manufacture and commerce. The success of one branch of commerce supplies more ample means of purchase, and consequently opens a market for the products of all the other branches; on the other hand, the stagnation of one channel of manufacture, or of commerce, is felt in all the rest.


----------

