Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[The Derp]

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]

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]

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.

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????

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

So if they don't pay for themselves, then there is no economic benefit to them.

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.

So why do them at all?

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?

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.

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!

Maybe they should start listening to liberals

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...

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?

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.

But they don't.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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!

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.

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.

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..

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.

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]

People who aren't collecting welfare

But if they're paying the same rates they paid before, then those people would be collecting welfare.

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.
Now that WalMart isn't being subsidized, how much do welfare payments decrease?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Raising wages increases demand,

So does cutting taxes.

because people have more money to spend.

See, we agree.

 

[The Derp]

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]

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.

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.

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:

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.

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]

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.

I'm giving Clinton credit for winning the shutdown fight.

You bet. He won more spending. So much for budget rectitude.

 

[The Derp]

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!

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]

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.

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]

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!

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.

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]

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

"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]

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.

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.

So submitting an editorial absent of facts is not going to help you here

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.

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.

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]

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.

I'm giving Clinton credit for winning the shutdown fight.

You bet. He won more spending. So much for budget rectitude.

 

[The Derp]

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.

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.

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]

People who aren't collecting welfare

But if they're paying the same rates they paid before, then those people would be collecting welfare.

Nope, the new employees don't collect welfare.
Now that WalMart isn't being subsidized, how much do welfare payments decrease?

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]

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.

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!