CBO: Biden $15 An Hour Minimum Wage Will Cost 1.4 Million American Jobs

[Canon Shooter]

No, they won't.

If I'm selling 100 widgets a day, and I'm paying my employees $9.00, there's not going to magically be increased demand for widgets if I start paying them $15 an hour. Furthermore, the people who then get paid $15 an hour aren't magically going to have more buying power, simply because prices will go up and their $15 isn't going to go anywhere close to what they thought...

How much minimum wage labor is employed making widgets? Someone going from nine dollars an hour to fifteen dollars will spend more money in their local economy. Anyone making fifteen dollars an hour could afford to eat out more often.

You really are almost too stupid to converse with>>>

 

[hadit]

Politics do often make strange bedfellows. For example, Liberals hate corporations, and often blame them for putting 'mom & pop shops' out of business. On the other hand however, Liberals are in favor of Government stepping in and artificially raising the cost of labor, which ravages the same 'mom & pop shops' who are less capable of absorbing this distortion in the market process.

So in reality, Liberals are in FAVOR of government stepping in to assist corporations in driving small businesses OUT of business.



Not all liberals are idiots, but... wait, yeah they are.

Mom and pop shops are not the entities that benefit from ultra low wages.

That's fast food joints and at packing plants

Funny I just looked up mississippi/mcdonald's on indeed they are starting over minimum wage




Crew
McDonald’s
196,378 reviews
Booneville, MS 38829
Job
Company
Insights
Job details
Salary
$7.50 - $9.00 an hour

Crew - Booneville, MS 38829 - Indeed.com

McDonald’s

www.indeed.com

I believe this is the true driving fear behind the mad leap to double the MW, the proponents realize the federal MW is being revealed as irrelevant because cities and states are already setting their own MW higher. In fact, they should be demonstrating against and petitioning their local governments to raise the local MW, not Washington.

The "mad leap to double the minimum wage" is because it had not been raised for around decade and inflation still happened.

Have you ever tried to cook a turkey? To do it right, you start days before Thanksgiving thawing it out, then hours before dinner you put it in the oven and it roasts gently until you pull it out, carve it and everyone enjoys. Or, you can wait until Thanksgiving morning, Plop the frozen turkey in the oven and turn it up to 600 degrees. Think you'll get a good result?

Likewise, the economy can adjust to higher costs, if it has the time to do so. Double the MW overnight and it can't. 60%+ of the workforce earns $20/hr or less and most of them would either get or demand a big raise. In your fantasy, every worker would just get a big raise and go spend it but that's not reality. Reality is, SOME workers would get a raise while MANY others would get laid off, prices would rise sharply instead of gradually and a lot of companies would just close up, putting everyone out of work. I can't believe we still have to do this education.

Besides all of that, are not cities and states setting their own MW higher than the federal?

 

[Blues Man]

They might not be spending more money. Maybe they'll be smarter than you and save some and I never said they won't spend more but there is no multiplier.

And since the cost of everything will go up they won't be buying as much as you think they can and everyone who is already making 15 an hour will not be able to buy as much as before.

So the real question is whether or not there will be a net loss or a net gain.

Since many people will lose their jobs and people will be buying less because everything is more expensive I don't see the benefit of the government interfering with the MW. It should be a state matter.

They may save some more, but low wage labor tends to spend most of their income as a percentage of that income on immediate needs.

The minimum wage may double but that doesn't mean inflation will double the cost of goods. That is just right wing drama that hurts on the Poor if not outright hates on the Poor.

There is no question. Higher paid labor creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue under our progressive income tax regime. The multiplier means more jobs will be needed to replace those that were lost by the higher wage.

OK I never said the cost of goods would double so cut the fucking shit.

And the problem is minimum wage jobs aren't in high demand and never will be because any moron who can tie his shoes can get one. Even you

And there is no multiplier when people lose their jobs.

 

[Blues Man]

The multiplier effect doesn't apply in the case of simply paying someone more money.

The concept of the multiplier effect is this: I want a new factory. Now, not only will my employees be employed, but so will construction workers who build the factory, the guy who owns the lunch truck that sells to the construction crew every day, the food distribution people who sell food to the lunch truck guy, and so on.

The multiplier effect has nothing to do with the hourly wage of an employee...

Yes, it does. It means higher paid labor will create more in demand and generate more in tax revenue.

And, since you believe the hourly wage has nothing to do with multiplier effect, why is the CBO estimating the job losses they do?

no it won't because the people who make 15 an hour or more now will not be able to buy as much stuff

The CBO is forecasting a loss of jobs because they know that if labor costs increase then the cost of their products increase and people will buy less if that increase reaches a certain threshold

 

[Blues Man]

Higher paid labor creates more in demand

You keep belching up this nonsense yet you've never once tried to support it...

Every single time the minimum wage has gone up, unemployment has gone down. There is an ENORMOUS amount of pent up demand for goods and services for working Americans, but they lack the income to properly provide for their families, much less plan major purchases or savings.

The USA is the ONLY country in the first world where the numbers of people in the middle class is declining, and more people are falling back into poverty than are rising out of the middle class into wealth. A thriving middle class is a necessity for a healthly thriving first world economy.

Republican policies are killing the American middle class, as surely as the farmer killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, and to the same effect.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/san2017-26.pdf

Dems should follow Bill Clinton’s lead on minimum wage hike

One of the Democrats’ top priorities in the new Congress is a $15 minimum wage — a 107-percent increase over the current standard. Before embracing a federal wage mandate for which there&#821…

thehill.com

Yes, Dems held majority for almost every minimum wage raise

Eighty-one years ago, the American workforce was introduced to its first ever federal minimum wage. President Franklin D

www.politifact.com

Why the middle class is shrinking

Fewer millennials in 2019 are middle class compared to baby boomers when they were in their 20s.

www.marketwatch.com

Seven reasons to worry about the American middle class | Brookings

Eleanor Krause and Isabel Sawhill list seven reasons why the American middle class is in trouble.

www.brookings.edu

when was the last MW increase more than 100%?

It should have been keeping up with inflation for the last decade. It is a simple cost of living adjustment. Right wingers are nothing but drama queens by not asking for a tax break to help out with raise in the minimum wage.

No people like you should have been trying to get higher paying jobs instead of aspiring to never make more than minimum wage.

If you're 21 and only making minimum wage it's your own damn fault

 

[sealybobo]

CBO: Biden’s $15 Minimum Wage Would
Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

Why Do This? Because the Democrats know what's best for you...and because they CAN.


CBO: Biden's $15 Minimum Wage Would Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

So what? Biden is planning to create a bunch of new jobs in green energy, education, infrastructure and health care.

Putting money in people's pockets increases the demand for restaurants, home improvement, vacations, entertainment, new clothes, etc. and all those industries will have to go on a hiring spree to meet the demand.

and 900,000 lifted out of poverty.

I have looked over the last 20 years and I haven't found one President that has created one job other than a new position on his staff or cabinet. Over the same time span I have seen American entrepreneurs create thousands and thousands of new jobs.

The other thing you said is that it is going to bring 900,000 out of poverty which is great, however the CBO says that 1,400,000 will lose jobs, so our net will be a negative 500,000. So I'm not seeing that as a positive.

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

Sure he did. All those jobs were paid for with tax dollars. He had companies paying as high as 95% so they couldn't hire. Everything he did extended the GP.

WWII saved the day. Not FDR.

Why didn’t Afghanistan and Iraq save the day?

 

[Cellblock2429]

CBO: Biden’s $15 Minimum Wage Would
Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

Why Do This? Because the Democrats know what's best for you...and because they CAN.


CBO: Biden's $15 Minimum Wage Would Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

/——/ Dementia Joe is hard at work putting folks on the unemployment line. Thanks democRATs.
U.S. jobless claims total 793,000 vs. 760,000 estimate

 

[Lesh]

Politics do often make strange bedfellows. For example, Liberals hate corporations, and often blame them for putting 'mom & pop shops' out of business. On the other hand however, Liberals are in favor of Government stepping in and artificially raising the cost of labor, which ravages the same 'mom & pop shops' who are less capable of absorbing this distortion in the market process.

So in reality, Liberals are in FAVOR of government stepping in to assist corporations in driving small businesses OUT of business.



Not all liberals are idiots, but... wait, yeah they are.

Mom and pop shops are not the entities that benefit from ultra low wages.

That's fast food joints and at packing plants

Funny I just looked up mississippi/mcdonald's on indeed they are starting over minimum wage




Crew
McDonald’s
196,378 reviews
Booneville, MS 38829
Job
Company
Insights
Job details
Salary
$7.50 - $9.00 an hour

Crew - Booneville, MS 38829 - Indeed.com

McDonald’s

www.indeed.com

I believe this is the true driving fear behind the mad leap to double the MW, the proponents realize the federal MW is being revealed as irrelevant because cities and states are already setting their own MW higher. In fact, they should be demonstrating against and petitioning their local governments to raise the local MW, not Washington.

The "mad leap to double the minimum wage" is because it had not been raised for around decade and inflation still happened.

Have you ever tried to cook a turkey? To do it right, you start days before Thanksgiving thawing it out, then hours before dinner you put it in the oven and it roasts gently until you pull it out, carve it and everyone enjoys. Or, you can wait until Thanksgiving morning, Plop the frozen turkey in the oven and turn it up to 600 degrees. Think you'll get a good result?

Likewise, the economy can adjust to higher costs, if it has the time to do so. Double the MW overnight and it can't. 60%+ of the workforce earns $20/hr or less and most of them would either get or demand a big raise. In your fantasy, every worker would just get a big raise and go spend it but that's not reality. Reality is, SOME workers would get a raise while MANY others would get laid off, prices would rise sharply instead of gradually and a lot of companies would just close up, putting everyone out of work. I can't believe we still have to do this education.

Besides all of that, are not cities and states setting their own MW higher than the federal?

Well there ya go. No one is proposing the MW be doubled overnight. It would be done incrementally.

Glad you're on board

 

[easyt65]

Joe ran on being compassionate and a hard worker who would fight for the Middle Class. Now it seems he is attempting to 'humanely' put the Middle Class out of its misery by wiping it out.

 

[Claudette]

CBO: Biden’s $15 Minimum Wage Would
Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

Why Do This? Because the Democrats know what's best for you...and because they CAN.


CBO: Biden's $15 Minimum Wage Would Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

So what? Biden is planning to create a bunch of new jobs in green energy, education, infrastructure and health care.

Putting money in people's pockets increases the demand for restaurants, home improvement, vacations, entertainment, new clothes, etc. and all those industries will have to go on a hiring spree to meet the demand.

and 900,000 lifted out of poverty.

I have looked over the last 20 years and I haven't found one President that has created one job other than a new position on his staff or cabinet. Over the same time span I have seen American entrepreneurs create thousands and thousands of new jobs.

The other thing you said is that it is going to bring 900,000 out of poverty which is great, however the CBO says that 1,400,000 will lose jobs, so our net will be a negative 500,000. So I'm not seeing that as a positive.

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

Sure he did. All those jobs were paid for with tax dollars. He had companies paying as high as 95% so they couldn't hire. Everything he did extended the GP.

WWII saved the day. Not FDR.

Why didn’t Afghanistan and Iraq save the day?

It was WWII dummy. 1940-1945.

 

[sealybobo]

CBO: Biden’s $15 Minimum Wage Would
Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

Why Do This? Because the Democrats know what's best for you...and because they CAN.


CBO: Biden's $15 Minimum Wage Would Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

So what? Biden is planning to create a bunch of new jobs in green energy, education, infrastructure and health care.

Putting money in people's pockets increases the demand for restaurants, home improvement, vacations, entertainment, new clothes, etc. and all those industries will have to go on a hiring spree to meet the demand.

and 900,000 lifted out of poverty.

I have looked over the last 20 years and I haven't found one President that has created one job other than a new position on his staff or cabinet. Over the same time span I have seen American entrepreneurs create thousands and thousands of new jobs.

The other thing you said is that it is going to bring 900,000 out of poverty which is great, however the CBO says that 1,400,000 will lose jobs, so our net will be a negative 500,000. So I'm not seeing that as a positive.

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

Sure he did. All those jobs were paid for with tax dollars. He had companies paying as high as 95% so they couldn't hire. Everything he did extended the GP.

WWII saved the day. Not FDR.

Why didn’t Afghanistan and Iraq save the day?

It was WWII dummy. 1940-1945.

How did the war save the day then but wars in 2000s didn’t save the day?

Fdr saved the day after the war by raising taxes on the rich and using the money to build infrastructure

 

[sealybobo]

Ford was doing it in the late 90s and enjoying record profits. So was gm and Chrysler.

That's why I and tens of millions of other Americans have been driving Japanese cars for decades now.

I remember the first Japanese imports were greeted with derision and that they were the butt of many jokes. It didn't take long for the quality to meet up with the low price and now they're here to stay. It's a big blow when your competition has the reputation for better quality and lower prices than you do. I have to wonder about our intrepid poster. How many times has he chosen to purchase goods made by non-union companies because it was cheaper and he got the same or better quality? It ultimately comes down to the consumer. He's in the driver's seat and if he wants unions, he'll buy from union companies.

I buy ford. Of course I have the A plan but even without I looked into if there was a cheaper foreign car and guess what? There isn’t. They’re just as expensive.

 

[Mr Natural]

How did the war save the day then but wars in 2000s didn’t save the day?

Fdr saved the day after the war by raising taxes on the rich and using the money to build infrastructure

and pay for the war.

We don't do that anymore. We just put our military escapades on the country credit card and cut taxes on the billionaires.

 

[sealybobo]

.The first time the 'we will lose jobs if the minimum wage is raised' argument was used was in 1938..when FDR got the wage raised to .25 cents an hour.

Did anyone lose their job when he did that?

Several decades of good economic years, along with minimum wage increases over the last 83 years, I'm guessing...not really

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe "Voodoo economics" candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.

World war II not the new deal or higher taxes

How?

 

[sealybobo]

That is true. If the union label still meant better quality, people would pay more for their goods. When non-union shops produce the same or better and charge less, they can't sell their goods.

But that's not what happened.

We had the "Walmarting of the nation".

Lower quality shit sold super cheap and made in China

The problem was the unions were not producing superior products. The unions and poor quality work allowed Japan automakers a door into the United States market. The same can be said of other industries. The union leaders got greedy, made ties with the mob, wanted more money for workers and made it almost impossible for a company to rid it's self of bad employees. The workers suffered because of the unions greed.

Unions could still be relevant, but they have to adapt to a new world. They can't keep acting like they're stuck in 1932 with a target rich environment.

I don’t think they do

 

[Claudette]

CBO: Biden’s $15 Minimum Wage Would
Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

Why Do This? Because the Democrats know what's best for you...and because they CAN.


CBO: Biden's $15 Minimum Wage Would Result in a Loss of 1.4 Million Jobs

So what? Biden is planning to create a bunch of new jobs in green energy, education, infrastructure and health care.

Putting money in people's pockets increases the demand for restaurants, home improvement, vacations, entertainment, new clothes, etc. and all those industries will have to go on a hiring spree to meet the demand.

and 900,000 lifted out of poverty.

I have looked over the last 20 years and I haven't found one President that has created one job other than a new position on his staff or cabinet. Over the same time span I have seen American entrepreneurs create thousands and thousands of new jobs.

The other thing you said is that it is going to bring 900,000 out of poverty which is great, however the CBO says that 1,400,000 will lose jobs, so our net will be a negative 500,000. So I'm not seeing that as a positive.

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today's dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

We even stopped investing in the intellectual infrastructure of this nation: college education. A degree that a student in the 1970s could have paid for by working as a waitress now means incurring massive and life-altering debt for all but the very wealthy. Reagan, who as governor ended free tuition at the University of California, put into place the foundations for the explosion in college tuition we see today.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts | Common Dreams

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

Sure he did. All those jobs were paid for with tax dollars. He had companies paying as high as 95% so they couldn't hire. Everything he did extended the GP.

WWII saved the day. Not FDR.

Why didn’t Afghanistan and Iraq save the day?

It was WWII dummy. 1940-1945.

How did the war save the day then but wars in 2000s didn’t save the day?

Fdr saved the day after the war by raising taxes on the rich and using the money to build infrastructure

No he extended the GD with everything he did. No one could hire when they were being taxed at 95% or better. WWII brought us out of it because we had to produce the machines for war. We produced like no other country could have done. That's what saved us. Not FDR.

Do some research. I did. I used to think FDR was a great POTUS. After researching him and the GD I found out different.

 

[easyt65]

When is ANYONE going to mention the fact that Minimum Wage Jobs were NEVER meant to pay wages that would support a family, pay for a house, send kids to college, fund 401K retirement accounts, etc...?!


'Oh no, someone brought up THE most important point in this argument. What do we do?'

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I buy ford. Of course I have the A plan but even without I looked into if there was a cheaper foreign car and guess what? There isn’t. They’re just as expensive.

Perhaps, but they are better built and you have less problems with Japanese vehicles; at least that's my experience and every Japanese vehicle owner I know says the same thing.

One of the first things I noticed about my first Toyota was the windshield washing fluid lines. There are none. The squirters are in the hood of the car, not on the wiper arm. This is valuable up north because those things constantly freeze in the winter. I used to buy special expensive windshield washer fluid that didn't freeze. Now I just use regular windshield washing fluid and never had that problem since.

 

[Mr Natural]

Who's going to do the work of the 1.4 million?

It's not as if employers keep surplus workers around the shop just in case.

 

[Blues Man]

I buy ford. Of course I have the A plan but even without I looked into if there was a cheaper foreign car and guess what? There isn’t. They’re just as expensive.

Perhaps, but they are better built and you have less problems with Japanese vehicles; at least that's my experience and every Japanese vehicle owner I know says the same thing.

One of the first things I noticed about my first Toyota was the windshield washing fluid lines. There are none. The squirters are in the hood of the car, not on the wiper arm. This is valuable up north because those things constantly freeze in the winter. I used to buy special expensive windshield washer fluid that didn't freeze. Now I just use regular windshield washing fluid and never had that problem since.

I've owned Subarus and Toyotas but I wasn't impressed with either.

I'm on my 3rd Ford Pickup and my 4th Jeep and I haven't has any major issues with either.