The massive tax cut like the one in the Bush years didn’t benefit workers for a very simple reason

[Billy000]

I never said wages hadn’t gone up, doofus. I said they are way behind on inflation.

You lie.

You are calling me a liar... yet you have NO proof for what you said.

I on the other hand CHECKED before I wrote a comment: Average Annual Inflation Rate by Decade

Wages "way behind"....
Let's see... 26 year from 2018 would be...hmmm 1990...
Decade 1990 to 1999.... Inflation was 3.08%
Decade 2000 to 2009...hmmm 2.54%...hmmm
decade 2010 to 2015 ...1.8%
See any decade at 5%????
Now nowhere in the past 26 years has inflation been greater than 5% which is what my statement from the Average wages, median wages, and wage dispersion stated.
WHERE is YOUR proof?

I just wish you'd put some little energy in validating your comments... save me a lot of time in having to PROVE YOU WRONG!! AGAIN. AND AGAIN!!!

View attachment 202106

If the US minimum wage had kept up with the economy, many low-wage earners could earn double what they're making now

If the minimum wage was kept up with inflation, it would be double what it is now.

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades | Pew Research Center

“But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.”

Using the Inflation calculator... CPI Inflation Calculator
And adjusting for Jimmy Carter's aberrant inflation rate that hit 14.8% in March 1980...

Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2018
The hourly wage in 1973 of $4.03 would be $7.58 in 1980.
So exactly what is the hourly rate needed to buy equal to $4.03 in 1973 dollars in 2018 dollars? $23.42.

Now what is the average hourly rate in the USA in May 2018?
Answer: Total private average hourly rate is: $26.92
Source:Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted

Again ahead of inflation which would have been $23.42...
This means the 2018 average total private pay is 14% higher than what the inflation calculator indicates i.e. purchasing power of $4.03 in 2018 dollars of $23.42.

These are the facts.

Lol apparently you don’t understand how basic math works. Computing the average wage makes no sense given the extremes of wages on both ends of the spectrum. If youre making 120k per year, you are part of a small minority of workers while most workers on the other end of the spectrum make less than 20 per hour. This completely skews the number. How many people make what wage range matters.

Who's talking about $120k/year?

I gave you the facts as it comes from the people that keep track of inflation/wages/salaries..
Did you not verify what I was linking too? I would have.
Again... Average hourly wage in 1973 was $4.03. Today it is $26.92 which is 14% higher than what inflation would have it... and you said it wasn't keeping pace.
It was exceeding inflation!
And these aren't a small minority of workers.
Fact is LESS than 3 million workers make minimum wage and half of them are age 16 -24. Want the facts?
Among those paid by the hour, 870,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 2.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.
Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2015 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Please do a little research as I do before you make ASSUMPTiONS!

As usual basic critical thinking escapes you. Computing the average wage makes no goddamn sense when it comes to measuring the quality of life of most citizens. Most people make less than 50k per year. The average PERSON does NOT make 26.00 per hour. You are referring to the average NUMBER only. It’s the MEDIAN that needs to be computed. Your own source even points that out.

Also, your stats are based on the FEDERAL minimum wage. State min wages are barely higher. The reality is that 15 million workers make less than 10.00 per hour. Far less than 26 per hour.

 

[Imissbush]

What a joke of an "achievement." No higher wages, as were promised, tax cuts will pay for themselves, not true, corporations will invest in USA, not really and deficits up to our eyeballs, drowning in red ink

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The optimal minimum wage is the one the people are willing to do the job for. It's not some arbitrary number decided by the government.

It needs to be decided by the government if the private market fails to provide quality of life for millions of workers. No one working 40 hours a week should live in poverty.

If the wage wasn't enough the jobs wouldn't get filled. It's quite simple.

Absolutely false. Low wage jobs greatly outnumber higher paying jobs. Millions of people have no choice but to accept shitty wages.

Not even remotely true. We have an extremely low level of unemployment right now. Lots of opportunity out there if you want it, not so much for complacent people like yourself. I haven't worked for minimum wage since I was 16.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are calling me a liar... yet you have NO proof for what you said.

I on the other hand CHECKED before I wrote a comment: Average Annual Inflation Rate by Decade

Wages "way behind"....
Let's see... 26 year from 2018 would be...hmmm 1990...
Decade 1990 to 1999.... Inflation was 3.08%
Decade 2000 to 2009...hmmm 2.54%...hmmm
decade 2010 to 2015 ...1.8%
See any decade at 5%????
Now nowhere in the past 26 years has inflation been greater than 5% which is what my statement from the Average wages, median wages, and wage dispersion stated.
WHERE is YOUR proof?

I just wish you'd put some little energy in validating your comments... save me a lot of time in having to PROVE YOU WRONG!! AGAIN. AND AGAIN!!!

View attachment 202106

If the US minimum wage had kept up with the economy, many low-wage earners could earn double what they're making now

If the minimum wage was kept up with inflation, it would be double what it is now.

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades | Pew Research Center

“But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.”

Using the Inflation calculator... CPI Inflation Calculator
And adjusting for Jimmy Carter's aberrant inflation rate that hit 14.8% in March 1980...

Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2018
The hourly wage in 1973 of $4.03 would be $7.58 in 1980.
So exactly what is the hourly rate needed to buy equal to $4.03 in 1973 dollars in 2018 dollars? $23.42.

Now what is the average hourly rate in the USA in May 2018?
Answer: Total private average hourly rate is: $26.92
Source:Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted

Again ahead of inflation which would have been $23.42...
This means the 2018 average total private pay is 14% higher than what the inflation calculator indicates i.e. purchasing power of $4.03 in 2018 dollars of $23.42.

These are the facts.

Lol apparently you don’t understand how basic math works. Computing the average wage makes no sense given the extremes of wages on both ends of the spectrum. If youre making 120k per year, you are part of a small minority of workers while most workers on the other end of the spectrum make less than 20 per hour. This completely skews the number. How many people make what wage range matters.

Computing the average wage makes no sense given the extremes of wages on both ends of the spectrum.

Do you think median makes sense?
Everyone who works 10 hours a week is included, that skews the median down.
Is that helpful?

It wouldn’t matter because most people who work 40 per week make less than 50k per year.

And people who work fewer than 40 hours a week make even less.

 

[healthmyths]

You are calling me a liar... yet you have NO proof for what you said.

I on the other hand CHECKED before I wrote a comment: Average Annual Inflation Rate by Decade

Wages "way behind"....
Let's see... 26 year from 2018 would be...hmmm 1990...
Decade 1990 to 1999.... Inflation was 3.08%
Decade 2000 to 2009...hmmm 2.54%...hmmm
decade 2010 to 2015 ...1.8%
See any decade at 5%????
Now nowhere in the past 26 years has inflation been greater than 5% which is what my statement from the Average wages, median wages, and wage dispersion stated.
WHERE is YOUR proof?

I just wish you'd put some little energy in validating your comments... save me a lot of time in having to PROVE YOU WRONG!! AGAIN. AND AGAIN!!!

View attachment 202106

If the US minimum wage had kept up with the economy, many low-wage earners could earn double what they're making now

If the minimum wage was kept up with inflation, it would be double what it is now.

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades | Pew Research Center

“But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.”

Using the Inflation calculator... CPI Inflation Calculator
And adjusting for Jimmy Carter's aberrant inflation rate that hit 14.8% in March 1980...

Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2018
The hourly wage in 1973 of $4.03 would be $7.58 in 1980.
So exactly what is the hourly rate needed to buy equal to $4.03 in 1973 dollars in 2018 dollars? $23.42.

Now what is the average hourly rate in the USA in May 2018?
Answer: Total private average hourly rate is: $26.92
Source:Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted

Again ahead of inflation which would have been $23.42...
This means the 2018 average total private pay is 14% higher than what the inflation calculator indicates i.e. purchasing power of $4.03 in 2018 dollars of $23.42.

These are the facts.

Lol apparently you don’t understand how basic math works. Computing the average wage makes no sense given the extremes of wages on both ends of the spectrum. If youre making 120k per year, you are part of a small minority of workers while most workers on the other end of the spectrum make less than 20 per hour. This completely skews the number. How many people make what wage range matters.

Who's talking about $120k/year?

I gave you the facts as it comes from the people that keep track of inflation/wages/salaries..
Did you not verify what I was linking too? I would have.
Again... Average hourly wage in 1973 was $4.03. Today it is $26.92 which is 14% higher than what inflation would have it... and you said it wasn't keeping pace.
It was exceeding inflation!
And these aren't a small minority of workers.
Fact is LESS than 3 million workers make minimum wage and half of them are age 16 -24. Want the facts?
Among those paid by the hour, 870,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 2.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.
Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2015 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Please do a little research as I do before you make ASSUMPTiONS!

As usual basic critical thinking escapes you. Computing the average wage makes no goddamn sense when it comes to measuring the quality of life of most citizens. Most people make less than 50k per year. The average PERSON does NOT make 26.00 per hour. You are referring to the average NUMBER only. It’s the MEDIAN that needs to be computed. Your own source even points that out.

Also, your stats are based on the FEDERAL minimum wage. State min wages are barely higher. The reality is that 15 million workers make less than 10.00 per hour. Far less than 26 per hour.

Where are your links? Your substantiation for your comments? I think from your lack of effort to prove your point you are proving again that people like you make up statements
based on nothing!


Again... I take a little time and do so research!

In 2016, 79.9 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers.
Among those paid by the hour,
701,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
About 1.5 million had wages below the federal minimum.
Together, these 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly paid workers.
Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2016 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

OK now for your other unsubstantiated statement:
The average PERSON does NOT make 26.00 per hour. It’s the MEDIAN that needs to be computed. Your own source even points that out.

Table 3. Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by age, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and sex, first quarter 2018 averages, not seasonally adjusted

But that rises and falls depending on close you are to peak earning age, which is typically around age 49 for men and 40 for women.

How does your salary compare? Below, check out the median earnings for Americans at every age bracket, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the second quarter of 2017.

 

[Billy000]

If the US minimum wage had kept up with the economy, many low-wage earners could earn double what they're making now

If the minimum wage was kept up with inflation, it would be double what it is now.

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades | Pew Research Center

“But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.”

Using the Inflation calculator... CPI Inflation Calculator
And adjusting for Jimmy Carter's aberrant inflation rate that hit 14.8% in March 1980...

Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2018
The hourly wage in 1973 of $4.03 would be $7.58 in 1980.
So exactly what is the hourly rate needed to buy equal to $4.03 in 1973 dollars in 2018 dollars? $23.42.

Now what is the average hourly rate in the USA in May 2018?
Answer: Total private average hourly rate is: $26.92
Source:Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted

Again ahead of inflation which would have been $23.42...
This means the 2018 average total private pay is 14% higher than what the inflation calculator indicates i.e. purchasing power of $4.03 in 2018 dollars of $23.42.

These are the facts.

Lol apparently you don’t understand how basic math works. Computing the average wage makes no sense given the extremes of wages on both ends of the spectrum. If youre making 120k per year, you are part of a small minority of workers while most workers on the other end of the spectrum make less than 20 per hour. This completely skews the number. How many people make what wage range matters.

Who's talking about $120k/year?

I gave you the facts as it comes from the people that keep track of inflation/wages/salaries..
Did you not verify what I was linking too? I would have.
Again... Average hourly wage in 1973 was $4.03. Today it is $26.92 which is 14% higher than what inflation would have it... and you said it wasn't keeping pace.
It was exceeding inflation!
And these aren't a small minority of workers.
Fact is LESS than 3 million workers make minimum wage and half of them are age 16 -24. Want the facts?
Among those paid by the hour, 870,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 2.6 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.3 percent of all hourly paid workers.
Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2015 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Please do a little research as I do before you make ASSUMPTiONS!

As usual basic critical thinking escapes you. Computing the average wage makes no goddamn sense when it comes to measuring the quality of life of most citizens. Most people make less than 50k per year. The average PERSON does NOT make 26.00 per hour. You are referring to the average NUMBER only. It’s the MEDIAN that needs to be computed. Your own source even points that out.

Also, your stats are based on the FEDERAL minimum wage. State min wages are barely higher. The reality is that 15 million workers make less than 10.00 per hour. Far less than 26 per hour.

Where are your links? Your substantiation for your comments? I think from your lack of effort to prove your point you are proving again that people like you make up statements
based on nothing!


Again... I take a little time and do so research!

In 2016, 79.9 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers.
Among those paid by the hour,
701,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
About 1.5 million had wages below the federal minimum.
Together, these 2.2 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 2.7 percent of all hourly paid workers.
Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2016 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

OK now for your other unsubstantiated statement:
The average PERSON does NOT make 26.00 per hour. It’s the MEDIAN that needs to be computed. Your own source even points that out.

Table 3. Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by age, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and sex, first quarter 2018 averages, not seasonally adjusted

But that rises and falls depending on close you are to peak earning age, which is typically around age 49 for men and 40 for women.

How does your salary compare? Below, check out the median earnings for Americans at every age bracket, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the second quarter of 2017.
View attachment 202244

lol ok now you’re just getting desperate. You breaking down the demographics of this is irrelevant and you know it.

And yeah, the federal wage doesn’t mean much whatsoever because any state minimum wage isn’t much higher.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Do you liberals keep lying about this because your salaries were low enough in the Bush years that you received little or no benefit from the Bush tax cuts? Is that the problem?

Well, let me tell you: My annual salary in the Bush years was right around $70K-$76K, and I saw a big difference in my take-home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

 

[francoHFW]

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a feduciaery responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part. do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

Well there are more jobs than "qualified" people to fill them. Fortunately dummies like you that can't even pay attention to a simple red dotted line indicating you completely misspelled
"fiduciary" (feduciaery responsibility)

Corporations are already wealthier than ever before. There is no incentive for these corporations to invest in labor when it is just easier to save money on tax cuts. Meanwhile, the deficit explodes and only executives benefit.

Even if corporate profits weren’t at an all time high, there is still a feduciaery responsibility to maximize profit. How, in part, do you maximize profit? By not investing in labor and accepting the economy as is. Right now, higher wage jobs are extremely competitive among workers while lower income jobs fill quite easily.

Lower wage workers are at the mercy of the economy. While it may be easy for republicans to call them lazy, it ignores the complexity of what creates poverty. Low wage workers do not have the time or money to spend on education that would make them qualified for skilled jobs. Of course, let’s pretend ALL workers did this. Who would be left behind to fill those entry level jobs that keep any business afloat?

View attachment 201914

View attachment 201913
won't be getting those jobs because simple following instructions i.e. LIKE A LITTLE red dotted line is trying to show you is evidently too complicated!

That's because the GOP blocks cheap Education and Training for those good jobs now going to intelligent socialist countries like Germany France Scandinavia et cetera. Must protect the ridiculously bloated rich and Giant corporations that have bought them totally... Poor America, poor silly GOP dupes...
.

 

[francoHFW]

Do you liberals keep lying about this because your salaries were low enough in the Bush years that you received little or no benefit from the Bush tax cuts? Is that the problem?

Well, let me tell you: My annual salary in the Bush years was right around $70K-$76K, and I saw a big difference in my take-home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

Did you notice the 2008 corrupt GOP World depression? How about your state and local taxes and fees skyrocketing to make up 4 lower federal aid, super dupe? State and local taxes and fees are much higher 4 the non rich and that has happened the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.... The rich paying the same percentage as the middle class gives us this ungodly unequal mess, brainwashed functional morons..

 

[whitehall]

If Barry Hussein had six or seven years to study the effects of Bush's tax cuts why did he extend them for two years after they expired? They worked and they were popular?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you liberals keep lying about this because your salaries were low enough in the Bush years that you received little or no benefit from the Bush tax cuts? Is that the problem?

Well, let me tell you: My annual salary in the Bush years was right around $70K-$76K, and I saw a big difference in my take-home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

Did you notice the 2008 corrupt GOP World depression? How about your state and local taxes and fees skyrocketing to make up 4 lower federal aid, super dupe? State and local taxes and fees are much higher 4 the non rich and that has happened the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.... The rich paying the same percentage as the middle class gives us this ungodly unequal mess, brainwashed functional morons..

How about your state and local taxes and fees skyrocketing to make up 4 lower federal aid,

What federal aid was lowered? When?

Links man! Whining like a twat isn't proof of your claims.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Do you liberals keep lying about this because your salaries were low enough in the Bush years that you received little or no benefit from the Bush tax cuts? Is that the problem?

Well, let me tell you: My annual salary in the Bush years was right around $70K-$76K, and I saw a big difference in my take-home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

Did you notice the 2008 corrupt GOP World depression? How about your state and local taxes and fees skyrocketing to make up 4 lower federal aid, super dupe? State and local taxes and fees are much higher 4 the non rich and that has happened the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.... The rich paying the same percentage as the middle class gives us this ungodly unequal mess, brainwashed functional morons..

The 2008 recession had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, but with federal interference in the housing and home loan industries and with the suicidal Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market rule (which was quietly ditched under Obama).

The Bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves. Federal revenue *increased* after the Bush tax cuts--for four years in a row. The problem was that Congress went on a spending spree.

 

[healthmyths]

Do you liberals keep lying about this because your salaries were low enough in the Bush years that you received little or no benefit from the Bush tax cuts? Is that the problem?

Well, let me tell you: My annual salary in the Bush years was right around $70K-$76K, and I saw a big difference in my take-home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

Did you notice the 2008 corrupt GOP World depression? How about your state and local taxes and fees skyrocketing to make up 4 lower federal aid, super dupe? State and local taxes and fees are much higher 4 the non rich and that has happened the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.... The rich paying the same percentage as the middle class gives us this ungodly unequal mess, brainwashed functional morons..

The 2008 recession had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, but with federal interference in the housing and home loan industries and with the suicidal Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market rule (which was quietly ditched under Obama).

The Bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves. Federal revenue *increased* after the Bush tax cuts--for four years in a row. The problem was that Congress went on a spending spree.

Right and here are the FACTS to back you UP!
Receipts dropped due to the reasons outlined and with the tax cuts ACTUALLY increased.
And as far as the housing bubble-caused recession... Here is what the LEADING democrat during GWB said was the cause!
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie

 

[francoHFW]

Do you liberals keep lying about this because your salaries were low enough in the Bush years that you received little or no benefit from the Bush tax cuts? Is that the problem?

Well, let me tell you: My annual salary in the Bush years was right around $70K-$76K, and I saw a big difference in my take-home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

Did you notice the 2008 corrupt GOP World depression? How about your state and local taxes and fees skyrocketing to make up 4 lower federal aid, super dupe? State and local taxes and fees are much higher 4 the non rich and that has happened the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.... The rich paying the same percentage as the middle class gives us this ungodly unequal mess, brainwashed functional morons..

The 2008 recession had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, but with federal interference in the housing and home loan industries and with the suicidal Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market rule (which was quietly ditched under Obama).

The Bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves. Federal revenue *increased* after the Bush tax cuts--for four years in a row. The problem was that Congress went on a spending spree.

Right and here are the FACTS to back you UP!
Receipts dropped due to the reasons outlined and with the tax cuts ACTUALLY increased.
And as far as the housing bubble-caused recession... Here is what the LEADING democrat during GWB said was the cause!
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie


View attachment 202249

Three-quarters of the bailouts were for private lending institutions, cronies and Pals of the corrupt GOP, that the GOP allowed to screw up the whole Market totally. Fannie and Freddie got in late. They lost about 70% of the market in 2003 and 2004 when the damage was done super dupe.

 

[Avatar4321]

Is it difficult to proclaim tax cuts don’t help people while they are making more than they were prior?

I have an issue lying like that but then if I didn’t have an issue with lying I’d probably be more like you

 

[whitehall]

The former commie community activist who was elected president thought a sign of an improving economy was more people on food stamps. Hussein's blind followers can see that Black unemployment is the lowest in history and the DOW is around 25,000 and they ignore it.. Lefties who hated corporations two years ago now whine about corporate health allegedly affected by tariffs. Libs who once applauded Bubba Bill when he said "it's the economy, stupid" now complain when the economy is good. You can never please an angry leftie when a republican is in office.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you liberals keep lying about this because your salaries were low enough in the Bush years that you received little or no benefit from the Bush tax cuts? Is that the problem?

Well, let me tell you: My annual salary in the Bush years was right around $70K-$76K, and I saw a big difference in my take-home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

Did you notice the 2008 corrupt GOP World depression? How about your state and local taxes and fees skyrocketing to make up 4 lower federal aid, super dupe? State and local taxes and fees are much higher 4 the non rich and that has happened the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.... The rich paying the same percentage as the middle class gives us this ungodly unequal mess, brainwashed functional morons..

The 2008 recession had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, but with federal interference in the housing and home loan industries and with the suicidal Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market rule (which was quietly ditched under Obama).

The Bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves. Federal revenue *increased* after the Bush tax cuts--for four years in a row. The problem was that Congress went on a spending spree.

Right and here are the FACTS to back you UP!
Receipts dropped due to the reasons outlined and with the tax cuts ACTUALLY increased.
And as far as the housing bubble-caused recession... Here is what the LEADING democrat during GWB said was the cause!
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie


View attachment 202249

Three-quarters of the bailouts were for private lending institutions, cronies and Pals of the corrupt GOP, that the GOP allowed to screw up the whole Market totally. Fannie and Freddie got in late. They lost about 70% of the market in 2003 and 2004 when the damage was done super dupe.

Three-quarters of the bailouts were for private lending institutions,

Yes, those short term loans that were repaid at a profit to the US Treasury.....just awful!!!

Fannie and Freddie got in late.

And can you believe it, Clinton forced them to buy crappy mortgages, 50% of all their purchases.
Bush made it worse, he forced them to buy 55% crappy mortgages.

They lost about 70% of the market in 2003 and 2004

They should have continued focusing on good mortgages.
The bubble would have been smaller and their losses would have been less.

 

[Flash]

I got a tax cut from Bush. More take home money. That is a good thing.

If you didn't get a tax cut then you weren't doing it right.

His tax cut is what saved us after the trillion hit to our economy after 911.

Bush had six years of a good economy until that filthy ass Democrat Congress was elected in 2006. Then everything went to hell and thanks to Trump is just now recovering.

Before you stupid Moon Bats bitch much about the Bush tax cuts remember that Obama and the Democrats extended them.

 

[francoHFW]

Do you liberals keep lying about this because your salaries were low enough in the Bush years that you received little or no benefit from the Bush tax cuts? Is that the problem?

Well, let me tell you: My annual salary in the Bush years was right around $70K-$76K, and I saw a big difference in my take-home pay thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

Did you notice the 2008 corrupt GOP World depression? How about your state and local taxes and fees skyrocketing to make up 4 lower federal aid, super dupe? State and local taxes and fees are much higher 4 the non rich and that has happened the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.... The rich paying the same percentage as the middle class gives us this ungodly unequal mess, brainwashed functional morons..

The 2008 recession had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, but with federal interference in the housing and home loan industries and with the suicidal Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market rule (which was quietly ditched under Obama).

The Bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves. Federal revenue *increased* after the Bush tax cuts--for four years in a row. The problem was that Congress went on a spending spree.

Right and here are the FACTS to back you UP!
Receipts dropped due to the reasons outlined and with the tax cuts ACTUALLY increased.
And as far as the housing bubble-caused recession... Here is what the LEADING democrat during GWB said was the cause!
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie


View attachment 202249

Three-quarters of the bailouts were for private lending institutions, cronies and Pals of the corrupt GOP, that the GOP allowed to screw up the whole Market totally. Fannie and Freddie got in late. They lost about 70% of the market in 2003 and 2004 when the damage was done super dupe.

Three-quarters of the bailouts were for private lending institutions,

Yes, those short term loans that were repaid at a profit to the US Treasury.....just awful!!!

Fannie and Freddie got in late.

And can you believe it, Clinton forced them to buy crappy mortgages, 50% of all their purchases.
Bush made it worse, he forced them to buy 55% crappy mortgages.

They lost about 70% of the market in 2003 and 2004

They should have continued focusing on good mortgages.
The bubble would have been smaller and their losses would have been less.

Great job by GOP regulation and regulators allowing Countrywide and other private institutions and Banks and Wall Street go absolutely nuts selling mortgages to anyone breathing... Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to fix and help victims under Obama and GOP TARP... MOST GOP Chumps believe no meltdown happened under the GOP. You have your own planet... Poor America.... The EU also spent 8 trillion. Now we have the rest of the world in chaos with refugees from GOP Wars in the Mideast and refugees from the GOP depression coming from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe, and right wing nationalists causing chaos in the US, Hungary Austria UK. Luckily no Hitler and Japanese militarists like in the thirties... Great job corrupt thieving brainwashing garbage GOP and silly dupes like you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you notice the 2008 corrupt GOP World depression? How about your state and local taxes and fees skyrocketing to make up 4 lower federal aid, super dupe? State and local taxes and fees are much higher 4 the non rich and that has happened the last 35 years of GOP give away to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... Great job scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.... The rich paying the same percentage as the middle class gives us this ungodly unequal mess, brainwashed functional morons..

The 2008 recession had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, but with federal interference in the housing and home loan industries and with the suicidal Sarbanes-Oxley mark-to-market rule (which was quietly ditched under Obama).

The Bush tax cuts *did* pay for themselves. Federal revenue *increased* after the Bush tax cuts--for four years in a row. The problem was that Congress went on a spending spree.

Right and here are the FACTS to back you UP!
Receipts dropped due to the reasons outlined and with the tax cuts ACTUALLY increased.
And as far as the housing bubble-caused recession... Here is what the LEADING democrat during GWB said was the cause!
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession.
But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."
Barney Frank admits truth about Fannie


View attachment 202249

Three-quarters of the bailouts were for private lending institutions, cronies and Pals of the corrupt GOP, that the GOP allowed to screw up the whole Market totally. Fannie and Freddie got in late. They lost about 70% of the market in 2003 and 2004 when the damage was done super dupe.

Three-quarters of the bailouts were for private lending institutions,

Yes, those short term loans that were repaid at a profit to the US Treasury.....just awful!!!

Fannie and Freddie got in late.

And can you believe it, Clinton forced them to buy crappy mortgages, 50% of all their purchases.
Bush made it worse, he forced them to buy 55% crappy mortgages.

They lost about 70% of the market in 2003 and 2004

They should have continued focusing on good mortgages.
The bubble would have been smaller and their losses would have been less.

Great job by GOP regulation and regulators allowing Countrywide and other private institutions and Banks and Wall Street go absolutely nuts selling mortgages to anyone breathing... Only cost us 8 trillion dollars to fix and help victims under Obama and GOP TARP... MOST GOP Chumps believe no meltdown happened under the GOP. You have your own planet... Poor America....

Great job by GOP regulation and regulators allowing Countrywide and other private institutions and Banks and Wall Street go absolutely nuts selling mortgages to anyone breathing..

Hold on there, Sparky.
Dems, including a certain useless community organizer from Chicago, whined when banks applied standards
to decide whether to make loans, because standards cause "disparate impacts".
Poor people and minorities didn't get enough loans when standards are used, so banks were sued.
Regulations were enacted to force banks to do a certain amount of business in minority and lower income areas. Regulations were enacted that caused banks to purchase mortgages made in lower income areas to borrowers with worse credit scores.

The government even forced the GSEs to buy over $1 trillion in subprime loans.

At what point were these regulations against lending to "anyone breathing" enacted? Link?