Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against the "Magical Accounting" of Trickle-Down Economics

[Dad2three]

Every dollar of deficit, adds a dollar to the debt.

And when the dollar NOT in the deficit is included, but is a payroll tax coming in, ALSO creates debt THOUGH it shrinks the deficit!!

When the payroll tax brings in $100 billion more than Social Security spends, the deficit for that year is $100 billion less than it would have been without Social Security. But the $150 billion deficit will still add $150 billion to the debt.

And your 60% lie about Social Security is still a lie.

lol, MORON. If social security brings in $100 billion a year more than costs, debt grows BUT the deficit is smaller!

The deficit is smaller, but still a deficit.
The deficit adds to the debt.
In my example, the deficit is $150 billion, the debt grows by $150 billion. Idiot.

MORON, the money coming into the BUDGET from payroll taxes is REVENUES which can, and DOES hide the INTRA GOV'T DEBT

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years

What was the percentage?

How many PRIVATE sector jobs did each $1 million in the tax cuts for the rich create?

More than Obama's tax hikes.

Weird, 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since Feb 2010? Dubya lost 1+ million with his 8 yars? When did Obama increase taxes? lol

_

Obama raised taxes with the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

I love the ironic name.

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since. Where Dubyaa and his $1.7+ TRILLION tax cut (during two wars), had US losing 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years

Yep, PROOF supply side 'works' (FOR THE TOP 1%ers)....

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since.

Weird, you think tax hikes create jobs.
Proof that Libs are economic illiterates.

 

[bripat9643]

She keeps making points against "Trickle Down", gotta love Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against the Magical Accounting of Trickle-Down Economics Mother Jones

Elizabeth Warren says "America's middle class is in deep trouble." Although general economic indicators are on the rise, the Massachusetts senator argued in a speech Wednesday morning, pay has stagnated for all but the richest Americans—and trickle-down voodoo economics and loose Wall Street regulation are to blame. And although Warren has given every indication that she's happy to remain in the Senate and pass on liberals' hopes that she'll run for president in 2016, her speech—at an AFL-CIO conference on wages—had the tone of a presidential campaign barnstormer.

Warren kicked off her address by noting that the current economic recovery, while real, hasn't helped most Americans. The stock market's up, but half the country doesn't own any stocks. Inflation is low, but that doesn't matter for millennials burdened by overwhelming student debt. Corporate profits have risen, but that hardly matters to people who work at Walmart and are paid so little that they still need food stamps, Warren said.
<more>

I would love to see her as president, but unfortunately she wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell if she ran. That's America for you. Most Americans aren't smart enough to know what's good for them.

True, but they are smart enough to not to vote for an outright commie like Fauxcahontas.

Um is that supposed to be Hillary? She's a centrist whether you like it or not. That's why she will likely win. You don't like her because she isn't a crazy, moronic, corrupt teabagger like Ted Cruz.

Liberal Dictionary:
================================
Centrist - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
pragmatist - liberal
moderate - liberal

 

[Dad2three]

Gawd you're a moron.

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted."

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

In your simplistic example, $90 came in thru income, business, import taxes and fees, etc.
$10 came in thru payroll taxes.
Spending was $101.
Your debt increased by $1, because your spending was more than your income.
Get an unrelated 5th grader to explain it to you. Doofus.

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

That money was spent also. That $10 in treasury bonds is worthless to the taxpayers. They are the ones who have to pay them off.

What a moron.

Sure the money IS spent, that was Reagan's idea when he went along with Greenspan's plan to 'save SS', when he really needed more revenues to hide the cost of tax cuts for the rich!

Sure the money IS spent, that was Reagan's idea when he went along with Greenspan's plan

That's how SS always worked, long before Reagan. There is no lockbox, Al Gore. LOL!

Yep, THAT'S why Ronnie needed to increase tax revenues from it, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich, though he only cut the top rate from 70% to 50% his first 6 years, by 1983, the US was starving for revenues.


lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every dollar of deficit, adds a dollar to the debt.

And when the dollar NOT in the deficit is included, but is a payroll tax coming in, ALSO creates debt THOUGH it shrinks the deficit!!

When the payroll tax brings in $100 billion more than Social Security spends, the deficit for that year is $100 billion less than it would have been without Social Security. But the $150 billion deficit will still add $150 billion to the debt.

And your 60% lie about Social Security is still a lie.

lol, MORON. If social security brings in $100 billion a year more than costs, debt grows BUT the deficit is smaller!

The deficit is smaller, but still a deficit.
The deficit adds to the debt.
In my example, the deficit is $150 billion, the debt grows by $150 billion. Idiot.

MORON, the money coming into the BUDGET from payroll taxes is REVENUES which can, and DOES hide the INTRA GOV'T DEBT

All revenue reduces the amount the government has to borrow, idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure the money IS spent, that was Reagan's idea when he went along with Greenspan's plan

That's how SS always worked, long before Reagan. There is no lockbox, Al Gore. LOL!

Yep, THAT'S why Ronnie needed to increase tax revenues from it, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich, though he only cut the top rate from 70% to 50% his first 6 years, by 1983, the US was starving for revenues.


lol

Tell me again about the 60%. Moron.

 

[Dad2three]

How many PRIVATE sector jobs did each $1 million in the tax cuts for the rich create?

More than Obama's tax hikes.

Weird, 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since Feb 2010? Dubya lost 1+ million with his 8 yars? When did Obama increase taxes? lol

_

Obama raised taxes with the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

I love the ironic name.

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since. Where Dubyaa and his $1.7+ TRILLION tax cut (during two wars), had US losing 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years

Yep, PROOF supply side 'works' (FOR THE TOP 1%ers)....

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since.

Weird, you think tax hikes create jobs.
Proof that Libs are economic illiterates.

Did I say that Bubba? No the POSIT was supply side under Dubya, where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times, DIDN'T create the jobs promised. Just like there is ZERO proof Reagan's did anything but increase debt. Weird you can't grasp that!

 

[Dad2three]

And when the dollar NOT in the deficit is included, but is a payroll tax coming in, ALSO creates debt THOUGH it shrinks the deficit!!

When the payroll tax brings in $100 billion more than Social Security spends, the deficit for that year is $100 billion less than it would have been without Social Security. But the $150 billion deficit will still add $150 billion to the debt.

And your 60% lie about Social Security is still a lie.

lol, MORON. If social security brings in $100 billion a year more than costs, debt grows BUT the deficit is smaller!

The deficit is smaller, but still a deficit.
The deficit adds to the debt.
In my example, the deficit is $150 billion, the debt grows by $150 billion. Idiot.

MORON, the money coming into the BUDGET from payroll taxes is REVENUES which can, and DOES hide the INTRA GOV'T DEBT

All revenue reduces the amount the government has to borrow, idiot.

Sure, no need to worry about the intra Gov't debt it creates right? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More than Obama's tax hikes.

Weird, 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since Feb 2010? Dubya lost 1+ million with his 8 yars? When did Obama increase taxes? lol

_

Obama raised taxes with the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

I love the ironic name.

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since. Where Dubyaa and his $1.7+ TRILLION tax cut (during two wars), had US losing 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years

Yep, PROOF supply side 'works' (FOR THE TOP 1%ers)....

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since.

Weird, you think tax hikes create jobs.
Proof that Libs are economic illiterates.

Did I say that Bubba? No the POSIT was supply side under Dubya, where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times, DIDN'T create the jobs promised. Just like there is ZERO proof Reagan's did anything but increase debt. Weird you can't grasp that!

where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times,

You never did explain how much Bush cut their taxes, percentage-wise......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the payroll tax brings in $100 billion more than Social Security spends, the deficit for that year is $100 billion less than it would have been without Social Security. But the $150 billion deficit will still add $150 billion to the debt.

And your 60% lie about Social Security is still a lie.

lol, MORON. If social security brings in $100 billion a year more than costs, debt grows BUT the deficit is smaller!

The deficit is smaller, but still a deficit.
The deficit adds to the debt.
In my example, the deficit is $150 billion, the debt grows by $150 billion. Idiot.

MORON, the money coming into the BUDGET from payroll taxes is REVENUES which can, and DOES hide the INTRA GOV'T DEBT

All revenue reduces the amount the government has to borrow, idiot.

Sure, no need to worry about the intra Gov't debt it creates right? lol

Explain why intra-Gov't debt worries you.

 

[Dad2three]

Sure the money IS spent, that was Reagan's idea when he went along with Greenspan's plan

That's how SS always worked, long before Reagan. There is no lockbox, Al Gore. LOL!

Yep, THAT'S why Ronnie needed to increase tax revenues from it, to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich, though he only cut the top rate from 70% to 50% his first 6 years, by 1983, the US was starving for revenues.


lol

Tell me again about the 60%. Moron.

Yes, when Ronnie increased SS taxes in 1983, when he doubled SS taxes on the self employed, the overall total increase in SS tax revenues was 60%,

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, 11+ million PRIVATE sector jobs since Feb 2010? Dubya lost 1+ million with his 8 yars? When did Obama increase taxes? lol

_

Obama raised taxes with the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

I love the ironic name.

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since. Where Dubyaa and his $1.7+ TRILLION tax cut (during two wars), had US losing 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years

Yep, PROOF supply side 'works' (FOR THE TOP 1%ers)....

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since.

Weird, you think tax hikes create jobs.
Proof that Libs are economic illiterates.

Did I say that Bubba? No the POSIT was supply side under Dubya, where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times, DIDN'T create the jobs promised. Just like there is ZERO proof Reagan's did anything but increase debt. Weird you can't grasp that!

where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times,

You never did explain how much Bush cut their taxes, percentage-wise......

You never did provide ONE job Dubya';s tax cuts for the rich provided, besides Dubya's, of course!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Envy much? Too bad you're too stupid and too much of a wimp to qualify for Safety Retirement.

We earn what we have, rescuing stupid people like you, and wondering every shift if some asshole with a gun is intent on doing harm to others; or 'cause he's too much a coward to put the gun in his own mouth and wants LE to do it for him.

I'll bet there's a long line of people who would do your job with a much smaller pension and health benefits more in line with the private sector. Most private sector jobs don't even offer a pension.

What makes you think you actually deserve what you are paid?

Yes, how dare the Gov't NOT race to the bottom as fast as the private sector, don't you know we need more money in the hands of the 1%ers

So government leeches are entitled to more than the people who pay their salaries? Is that what you really wanted to admit? I would rather have money go to the 1% who earned it than the 5% who make up the government workforce.

You get what you pay for

Pay for bottom of the barrel employees you get bottom of the barrel employees

Wrong. The most you'll ever get is what you paid for. In the case of government employees, you get much less.

You just insulted all employees in the private sector by calling them "bottom of the barrel." It's no surprise that a tick on the ass of society like you would look down your nose at the people who pay your salary.

As usual, you're full of shit. The only difference between a civil servant and a private sector employee is who signs their check.

Your hate for government and government employees has history. If I had to guess, you applied for a civil service job and either failed the written test or couldn't meet the minimum qualifications (MQ's).

 

[Dad2three]

lol, MORON. If social security brings in $100 billion a year more than costs, debt grows BUT the deficit is smaller!

The deficit is smaller, but still a deficit.
The deficit adds to the debt.
In my example, the deficit is $150 billion, the debt grows by $150 billion. Idiot.

MORON, the money coming into the BUDGET from payroll taxes is REVENUES which can, and DOES hide the INTRA GOV'T DEBT

All revenue reduces the amount the government has to borrow, idiot.

Sure, no need to worry about the intra Gov't debt it creates right? lol

Explain why intra-Gov't debt worries you.

You mean how debt increases when payroll taxes hide the REAL cost of Gov't and conservatives push the costs down the road to be paid for by their kids/grandkids???

Thanks for agreeing, debt ISN'T deficits added up and HW Bush increased debt by about 60% (over $1.5+ trillion) in his 4 years!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama raised taxes with the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

I love the ironic name.

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since. Where Dubyaa and his $1.7+ TRILLION tax cut (during two wars), had US losing 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years

Yep, PROOF supply side 'works' (FOR THE TOP 1%ers)....

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since.

Weird, you think tax hikes create jobs.
Proof that Libs are economic illiterates.

Did I say that Bubba? No the POSIT was supply side under Dubya, where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times, DIDN'T create the jobs promised. Just like there is ZERO proof Reagan's did anything but increase debt. Weird you can't grasp that!

where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times,

You never did explain how much Bush cut their taxes, percentage-wise......

You never did provide ONE job Dubya';s tax cuts for the rich provided, besides Dubya's, of course!

You never did provide ONE job Dubya';s tax cuts for the rich provided

Bush only cut taxes for the rich? According to what definition of rich? Link?

 

[Wry Catcher]

YOU'RE A MORON. WORLD CLASS, BUT STILL A MORON BUBBA!

Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt, lol

Adding deficits DOESN'T amount to US debt

Yes it does.

Gawd you're a moron.

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted."

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

BUDGET

$100 A YEAR COMING IN

$101 GOING OUT

Deficit of $1 , BUT if $10 of the money coming in was PAYROLL taxes to pay for SS let's say, you grew your debt by $11 dollars. Have a 5th grader explain it to you Bubba

In your simplistic example, $90 came in thru income, business, import taxes and fees, etc.
$10 came in thru payroll taxes.
Spending was $101.
Your debt increased by $1, because your spending was more than your income.
Get an unrelated 5th grader to explain it to you. Doofus.

And the $10 that went into the budget BUT actually bought US treasury bonds (debt)? lol

That money was spent also. That $10 in treasury bonds is worthless to the taxpayers. They are the ones who have to pay them off.

What a moron.

Who do you think owns Treasury Bonds?

 

[Dad2three]

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since. Where Dubyaa and his $1.7+ TRILLION tax cut (during two wars), had US losing 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years

Yep, PROOF supply side 'works' (FOR THE TOP 1%ers)....

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since.

Weird, you think tax hikes create jobs.
Proof that Libs are economic illiterates.

Did I say that Bubba? No the POSIT was supply side under Dubya, where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times, DIDN'T create the jobs promised. Just like there is ZERO proof Reagan's did anything but increase debt. Weird you can't grasp that!

where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times,

You never did explain how much Bush cut their taxes, percentage-wise......

You never did provide ONE job Dubya';s tax cuts for the rich provided, besides Dubya's, of course!

You never did provide ONE job Dubya';s tax cuts for the rich provided

Bush only cut taxes for the rich? According to what definition of rich? Link?

AGAIN, THE POSIT

LOL

 

[Wry Catcher]

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since. Where Dubyaa and his $1.7+ TRILLION tax cut (during two wars), had US losing 1+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years

Yep, PROOF supply side 'works' (FOR THE TOP 1%ers)....

Weird, yet we've seen MILLIONS of jobs created since.

Weird, you think tax hikes create jobs.
Proof that Libs are economic illiterates.

Did I say that Bubba? No the POSIT was supply side under Dubya, where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times, DIDN'T create the jobs promised. Just like there is ZERO proof Reagan's did anything but increase debt. Weird you can't grasp that!

where tax rates on the rich lowest sustained in modern times,

You never did explain how much Bush cut their taxes, percentage-wise......

You never did provide ONE job Dubya';s tax cuts for the rich provided, besides Dubya's, of course!

You never did provide ONE job Dubya';s tax cuts for the rich provided

Bush only cut taxes for the rich? According to what definition of rich? Link?

Nice deflection. How many jobs did the Bush tax cuts provide? Zero, of course he created jobs by expanding government (Homeland Security) and did so by increasing the annual deficit and the debt.

 

[bripat9643]

I'll bet there's a long line of people who would do your job with a much smaller pension and health benefits more in line with the private sector. Most private sector jobs don't even offer a pension.

What makes you think you actually deserve what you are paid?

Yes, how dare the Gov't NOT race to the bottom as fast as the private sector, don't you know we need more money in the hands of the 1%ers

So government leeches are entitled to more than the people who pay their salaries? Is that what you really wanted to admit? I would rather have money go to the 1% who earned it than the 5% who make up the government workforce.

You get what you pay for

Pay for bottom of the barrel employees you get bottom of the barrel employees

Wrong. The most you'll ever get is what you paid for. In the case of government employees, you get much less.

You just insulted all employees in the private sector by calling them "bottom of the barrel." It's no surprise that a tick on the ass of society like you would look down your nose at the people who pay your salary.

As usual, you're full of shit. The only difference between a civil servant and a private sector employee is who signs their check.

Your hate for government and government employees has history. If I had to guess, you applied for a civil service job and either failed the written test or couldn't meet the minimum qualifications (MQ's).

Right, in one case a criminal signs a check paid for with looted funds. In the other case a business owner signs a check paid for by producing goods and services that consumers purchase voluntarily.

You're right, the fact that you work for the government is a disgrace in my eyes. You're a looter and a usless tick on the ass of society.

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, how dare the Gov't NOT race to the bottom as fast as the private sector, don't you know we need more money in the hands of the 1%ers

So government leeches are entitled to more than the people who pay their salaries? Is that what you really wanted to admit? I would rather have money go to the 1% who earned it than the 5% who make up the government workforce.

You get what you pay for

Pay for bottom of the barrel employees you get bottom of the barrel employees

Wrong. The most you'll ever get is what you paid for. In the case of government employees, you get much less.

You just insulted all employees in the private sector by calling them "bottom of the barrel." It's no surprise that a tick on the ass of society like you would look down your nose at the people who pay your salary.

As usual, you're full of shit. The only difference between a civil servant and a private sector employee is who signs their check.

Your hate for government and government employees has history. If I had to guess, you applied for a civil service job and either failed the written test or couldn't meet the minimum qualifications (MQ's).

Right, in one case a criminal signs a check paid for with looted funds. In the other case a business owner signs a check paid for by producing goods and services that consumers purchase voluntarily.

You're right, the fact that you work for the government is a disgrace in my eyes. You're a looter and a usless tick on the ass of society.

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.

As the FCIC staff reports demonstrate fairly conclusively, it was the shadow banking system’s unregulated private securitization of mortgages that caused the financial crisis, not affordable housing policies.


Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress