Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Earn? Always in the mind of the beholder
The accusation is that minimum wages were cut. I want to know where and when in this country they were cut. I am not concerned about your third world country, that isn't the issue in this thread.
When the minimum wage does not rise for inflation, it is, in effect, a pay cut. And the minimum wage has not risen according to inflation since the 1960's.
Derplike bailing out banks and corporations that couldn't run themselves? Good point. Lost 11B to GM and all they did was invest overseas.. I wonder if they would have invested here if we didn't have the highest corporate tax rate in the world?Libtards? Hilarious. It's making a comeback.Nope. I meant what I said, he's more pro-white than 99.99% of white libtards."Token" I believe is the term you're looking for.Walter Williams is honorary white.Why is allowing people who EARN money to keep it, considered handing people money? What of my money is considered your money?I have news for the ultimate business man of all time, El Dumpster. Handing corporations money through tax cuts do not create jobs. Corporations hire people when they have a need.
If you want to create jobs, increase the demand for the products corporations supply. You do that by cutting taxes for the the middle & lower class people. They will spend that money & thereby increase demand.
If you want to bring those overseas corporate profits, end the tax break that said those profits aren't taxed until they bring them home.
Then, consider how much money Trump will profit from this tax break. Conflict of interest.
This tax break will not help struggling companies that make no or little profit.
It will actually reduce some investments. Corporatioins buying equipment, etc get a tax write off worth 35% & now that write off is only worth 15%.
'Trump is only helping himself.
View attachment 123411 View attachment 123412
Insults, Dead giveaway for limited education
It is not a cut in pay in effect or otherwise and no one cuts the pay. It may buy you less but that isn't a pay cut. You are playing semantics and it is a dishonest approach given they way she put forth the statement that you failed to quote for very obvious reasons.
What is really interesting about derp here, is that he told another poster that he had me on his IGGY(ignore) list. Can you imagine that he LIED to that other poster? Go figure.Why is allowing people who EARN money to keep it, considered handing people money? What of my money is considered your money?
The facts show that when taxes are cut, household debt rises. So your theory here is a load of bullshit when viewed outside the emotional spectrum. And boy, are Conservatives emotional.
What is really interesting about derp here, is that he told another poster that he had me on his IGGY(ignore) list.
Now when more people have their own money in hand, how can household debt increase, unless that household is full of liberals
Do they spend more than they take in, like liberals in government, or do they spend less so they can pay off their debt like conservatives?
What is really interesting about derp here, is that he told another poster that he had me on his IGGY(ignore) list.
You must be confusing me with someone else. I never put people on ignore. Putting people on ignore is a sign of ignorance. Conservatives have put me on ignore, but only do so because they are emotional.
Now when more people have their own money in hand, how can household debt increase, unless that household is full of liberals
Here's how: tax cuts result in revenue cuts. Revenue cuts produce deficits. Conservatives then point to the deficits caused by their tax cuts as an excuse to cut spending. Spending cuts are almost always in education and health care, which forces the middle class to go into debt to afford things like college.
Plus, we have the empirical evidence of the Bush Tax Cuts which saw a massive spike in household debt. Notice how household debt shoots up in the mid-80s, plateaus through the 90's, and then spikes again in the early 00's. Those sharp spikes coincide with the tax cuts. Bush the Elder and Clinton raised taxes and household debt held steady.
Your screen name is so spot on.Do they spend more than they take in, like liberals in government, or do they spend less so they can pay off their debt like conservatives?
Neither...they go into debt in order to afford rising costs as a result of government funding drops. So the Feds cut education aid to the states, which results in the states having to raise tuition, which causes students and parents to borrow, which puts them in a debt spiral.
Conservatives literally use welfare to pay for tax cuts. Making them the welfare queens.
It is not a cut in pay in effect or otherwise and no one cuts the pay. It may buy you less but that isn't a pay cut. You are playing semantics and it is a dishonest approach given they way she put forth the statement that you failed to quote for very obvious reasons.
At this point, it's a matter of semantics. When pay does not rise according to inflation, it is a pay cut. Call it whatever you want. Wages are too low, is the point. That's why there are so many on welfare programs like SNAP. Most people on SNAP are children, and those that aren't are people who are employed, yet get paid so little they qualify for benefits.
WalMart, for example, costs taxpayers about $5B in welfare a year for its employees. WalMart's profits last year were $14B. So American taxpayers subsidize more than 1/3 of WalMart's profits. If Walmart paid their workers a livable wage, they'd make $9B instead of $14B. So still exceedingly profitable.
Your screen name is so spot on.
You stupid fucks are good at convincing the lemmings you brainwashed in public school into kicking the can down the road and burdening future generations.
It's quite ironic how wigged out you morons get about the inevitable reality of climate change, but don't give a shit about your grandkids or great grandkids financial future.
If you can't deal with what she said directly, then you got nothing. Thanks!
This is babble.Your screen name is so spot on.
So, you got nothing to say contrary to what I've posted. Instead, you throw this little temper tantrum that's supposed to prove what?
You stupid fucks are good at convincing the lemmings you brainwashed in public school into kicking the can down the road and burdening future generations.
No idea what you're talking about...it was Conservatives who took a surplus in 2000 and turned it into four record deficits that doubled the debt in 8 years when we could have paid it off by 2010 if they had done nothing to the tax code. Conservatives couldn't even do nothing right. Furthermore, I think you don't understand the difference between individual household debt and government debt. Unlike personal debt, government debt doesn't ever have to be paid off. Why? Because the government isn't a person that dies. It instead continues through perpetuity. So long as the economy grows at the same pace or greater than the debt, we have nothing to worry about. Secondly, there is no proof that debt impacts the economy in a meaningful way. All debt affects are borrowing rates for the government. Right now, despite high debt, borrowing rates are still low. So now is the time to borrow to do things like replace our current power grid with a smart grid. Which we could have done 16 years ago had a certain group of doofuses not squandered the surplus on tax cuts that did nothing, and two unwinnable wars of occupation we are still fighting.
It's quite ironic how wigged out you morons get about the inevitable reality of climate change, but don't give a shit about your grandkids or great grandkids financial future.
So all this sentence belies is a fundamental misunderstanding (whether deliberate or not, who knows?) of government debt. And if you all cared about the financial future, you wouldn't go around cutting revenues left and right, producing record deficits that spike the debt.
Bush doubled the debt and erased a surplus, Reagan tripled the debt and doubled the deficit. Obama grew debt by 80% while reducing the deficit by 60%.
Facts.
You're a dick tucking tranny retard and a faggot.
Each dollar is worth less as inflation occurs.The accusation is that minimum wages were cut. I want to know where and when in this country they were cut. I am not concerned about your third world country, that isn't the issue in this thread.
When the minimum wage does not rise for inflation, it is, in effect, a pay cut. And the minimum wage has not risen according to inflation since the 1960's.
It is not a cut in pay in effect or otherwise and no one cuts the pay. It may buy you less but that isn't a pay cut. You are playing semantics and it is a dishonest approach given they way she put forth the statement that you failed to quote for very obvious reasons.
No idea what you're talking about...it was Conservatives who took a surplus in 2000
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number.
The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Conservatives are still in denial.No idea what you're talking about...it was Conservatives who took a surplus in 2000
And you speak of facts. Well, PROVE the surplus existed. It didn't. There was never a surplus. It's a lie made up by liberals to try to cover the cum stains on Monica's dress.
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
If there was a surplus, the national debt wouldn't have gone up every single year Clinton was in office.
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number.
The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
I have news for the ultimate business man of all time, El Dumpster. Handing corporations money through tax cuts do not create jobs. Corporations hire people when they have a need.
If you want to create jobs, increase the demand for the products corporations supply. You do that by cutting taxes for the the middle & lower class people. They will spend that money & thereby increase demand.
If you want to bring those overseas corporate profits, end the tax break that said those profits aren't taxed until they bring them home.
Then, consider how much money Trump will profit from this tax break. Conflict of interest.
This tax break will not help struggling companies that make no or little profit.
It will actually reduce some investments. Corporatioins buying equipment, etc get a tax write off worth 35% & now that write off is only worth 15%.
'Trump is only helping himself.
Conservatives are still in denial.
Bush ran in 2000 on the premise that he would give it back.
Was was "it"? What was he going to give back?
Conservatives are still in denial.No idea what you're talking about...it was Conservatives who took a surplus in 2000
And you speak of facts. Well, PROVE the surplus existed. It didn't. There was never a surplus. It's a lie made up by liberals to try to cover the cum stains on Monica's dress.
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
If there was a surplus, the national debt wouldn't have gone up every single year Clinton was in office.
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number.
The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Bush ran in 2000 on the premise that he would give it back.
Was was "it"? What was he going to give back?
