Why are republicans so stupid when it comes to Food Stamps?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can...
there are so many posts I'm dying to reply to,
and didn't know where to begin...until ^

Now, it all makes perfect sense.
Obviously, you reside in the land of Oz!

So, tell me....
will the wizard be getting back to you anytime soon,
about that brain you're in desperate need of?

As much as I'm dying to properly respond,
it'll have to wait until later tonight

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

Yes, from the person that supports a party that fought school vouchers.

I'm sick of liberals using "children" to turn our country into a socialist state. I don't care about the children. They are not my responsibility, liability or my concern. The US spends the most per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, and somehow, that's not enough, and we have only mediocre results to show for this spending.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Worthless parents will raise worthless kids, and there is nothing you can do about that. If a kid grows up in an environment of government dependency, he or she will continue that dependency because that's all they know. Forcing people to work for a living teaches their kids that life is not as easy as signing a piece of paper and getting checks in the mail. You have to do what you can to earn a paycheck. That's the best education you can give a child.

Here is the deal. A student that tests in the lowest quintile on the SAT but with a family income in the highest quintile has the same probability of attending a four year university as a student scoring in the highest quintile but with a family income in the lowest.

So yeah, poor parents usually have poor children and wealthy parent usually have wealthy children. But that is not a foregone conclusion, and quite honestly, is more a reflection on our society than on the parents. Like I have already said in this thread, when the rich have rich kids and the poor have poor kids, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.

That's utter bull. If anything, minorities are given extra points to get into those liberal colleges. In some instances, Asians are deducted points to make it harder for them to get into those liberal colleges because of their advanced intelligence.

And yes, we do have problem. We encourage poor people to create more poor people, and discourage middle-class people from creating more middle-class people. It's not a foregone conclusion that poor people have poor children? Then you better look at how the war on poverty has failed the last six decades:

Robert Rector: How the War on Poverty Was Lost

 

[Markle]

We have a One Percenter in office; we deserve the finest infrastructure money can buy, for our Republic.

What in the world does one have to do with the other?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

FactCheck.org says differently:

FactChecking Obama's Budget Speech - FactCheck.org

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Do you agree to have all the income brackets, Social Security rate and deductions allowed restored and adjusted for inflation?

Sure cupcake


For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980

THOSE ARE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES AFTER DEDUCTIONS INCLUDES ALL SS

WHAT DOES INFLATION HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

"In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income."

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

ROTFLMAO

Shocking you couldn't refute it cupcake

What's to refute.

Everything you posted, in terms of tax rates, is true.

What makes me laugh is that you somehow that is a bad think.

I say...let's cut their taxes more.

And two can play at the "cupcake" game....dickweed.

 

[Thinker101]

Republicans Gage compassion by how many people no longer need assistance not by how many people are receiving assistance. A growing economy a better health care program that will not hamper job growth will reduce unemployment and reduce the need for food stamps. The nation can not just keep borrowing money to pay able body people to not work, it's not good for them and we can't afford it. 20 trillion dollars of debt says we can't keep it up not me. Now we have a businessman in office creating real jobs and the welfare state is going nuts. Not surprised.

LMAOROG, Sure a "real" Bizman *shaking head*

Don the Con...

Where did most of that debt come from again?

..

Say what you I and want everyone I know is doing better financially....It's the economy stupid...

Sure cupcake

Guess you missed some of the fine print.

In the period of economic expansion lasting from the end of the recession in 2009 until 2012, average incomes for the bottom 90% of Americans actually shrank, while income growth for the top 10% soared.

Hmmm...weren't these Obama years?

 

[Winston]

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

Yes, from the person that supports a party that fought school vouchers.

I'm sick of liberals using "children" to turn our country into a socialist state. I don't care about the children. They are not my responsibility, liability or my concern. The US spends the most per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, and somehow, that's not enough, and we have only mediocre results to show for this spending.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Worthless parents will raise worthless kids, and there is nothing you can do about that. If a kid grows up in an environment of government dependency, he or she will continue that dependency because that's all they know. Forcing people to work for a living teaches their kids that life is not as easy as signing a piece of paper and getting checks in the mail. You have to do what you can to earn a paycheck. That's the best education you can give a child.

Here is the deal. A student that tests in the lowest quintile on the SAT but with a family income in the highest quintile has the same probability of attending a four year university as a student scoring in the highest quintile but with a family income in the lowest.

So yeah, poor parents usually have poor children and wealthy parent usually have wealthy children. But that is not a foregone conclusion, and quite honestly, is more a reflection on our society than on the parents. Like I have already said in this thread, when the rich have rich kids and the poor have poor kids, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.

That's utter bull. If anything, minorities are given extra points to get into those liberal colleges. In some instances, Asians are deducted points to make it harder for them to get into those liberal colleges because of their advanced intelligence.

And yes, we do have problem. We encourage poor people to create more poor people, and discourage middle-class people from creating more middle-class people. It's not a foregone conclusion that poor people have poor children? Then you better look at how the war on poverty has failed the last six decades:

Robert Rector: How the War on Poverty Was Lost

Very few universities use a "need-blind" admission process. Most use "need-aware" admission process which means the students ability to pay is a factor in the selection process. So yeah, a piss poor student from a rich family is just as likely to attend college as a straight A student from a poor family, and he is more likely to graduate.

 

[Flopper]

1) The cost of food stamps is a small fraction of the overall welfare budget

2) 2/3 of those on food stamps are kids

3) Few people even qualify for food stamps because it is reserved for the poorest of the poor. It's a program way behind on the rate of inflation as well.

4) Some Veterans are on food stamps.

5) Any adult on food stamps has a job

Republicans in congress are either complete assholes or are willfully ignorant.

But hey i get it: it gives republicans hard ons to say "i don't need a handout! I provide! I'm tough as nails! Derp, derp, derp!" They then pretend complete falsehoods or stereotypes about the program because it makes them feel more manly i guess.

Why can't facts ever permeate the republican bubble?

Because food stamp usage is very visible. People see an overweight well dressed woman putting a SNAP card in the credit card machine at a grocery store and assume that this person should not be receiving any help from the government. However, what they don't see is two Alzheimer parents she has to care for while maintaining a full time job, or the fact that she is only getting $20 a month in benefits. What most people believe about food stamp recipients is mostly wrong. My daughter received food stamps for several years after her husband died until she build up her income from her business. I'm sure many people thought she should not be receiving food stamps simple because she had a nice car and a business that her husband left her. However the facts are she had 3 kids living in a 2 bedroom apartment, the car was her husbands, she worked over 60 hours a week, and she only got $40 a month from SNAP and she had no other benefits other than Medicaid. Thanks to help from friends, relatives, and the government, she is now self sufficient.

These are the more common stories of people on government support, not the fictitious welfare queen of the 1980s.

 

[Markle]

But that Reagan guy had a top rate of 50% his first 6 years, that socialist

Hmmmm...somehow...you seem to have left out the part where President Ronald Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 69.125% to 50% the first year.

 

[JonKoch]

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

Yes, from the person that supports a party that fought school vouchers.

I'm sick of liberals using "children" to turn our country into a socialist state. I don't care about the children. They are not my responsibility, liability or my concern. The US spends the most per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, and somehow, that's not enough, and we have only mediocre results to show for this spending.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Worthless parents will raise worthless kids, and there is nothing you can do about that. If a kid grows up in an environment of government dependency, he or she will continue that dependency because that's all they know. Forcing people to work for a living teaches their kids that life is not as easy as signing a piece of paper and getting checks in the mail. You have to do what you can to earn a paycheck. That's the best education you can give a child.

Here is the deal. A student that tests in the lowest quintile on the SAT but with a family income in the highest quintile has the same probability of attending a four year university as a student scoring in the highest quintile but with a family income in the lowest.

So yeah, poor parents usually have poor children and wealthy parent usually have wealthy children. But that is not a foregone conclusion, and quite honestly, is more a reflection on our society than on the parents. Like I have already said in this thread, when the rich have rich kids and the poor have poor kids, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.

That's utter bull. If anything, minorities are given extra points to get into those liberal colleges. In some instances, Asians are deducted points to make it harder for them to get into those liberal colleges because of their advanced intelligence.

And yes, we do have problem. We encourage poor people to create more poor people, and discourage middle-class people from creating more middle-class people. It's not a foregone conclusion that poor people have poor children? Then you better look at how the war on poverty has failed the last six decades:

Robert Rector: How the War on Poverty Was Lost

"Robert E. Rector is a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation"


Shocking Heritage "believes" that, must be too many fridges and microwaves?


....Between 1965 and 1968, spending to help the poor doubled; within 10 years, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line declined to 12 percent from 20 percent. The rate has fluctuated greatly in the past 50 years. According to the census, 15.9 percent of Americans lived in poverty in 2012, which is just a couple of points lower than where the Census estimates it stood in 1965.

But the president’s Council of Economic Advisers uses a broader measure — including tax credits and benefits such as food assistance — that estimates that poverty has dropped by more than a third, from more than 25 percent of the population in the mid-1960s to 16 percent in 2012.


Among other things it spawned was the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, which was designed to help pull Appalachia, where one-third of residents lived below the poverty line, out of hardship, develop its industries and provide educational and health-care opportunities to its residents. Today, the Appalachian Regional Commission is a federal-state partnership that helps fund a number of projects in the region in areas including energy, infrastructure, highways and telecommunications.

The Office of Economic Opportunity, which ran the War on Poverty, was abolished in 1981.

WAPO

Evaluating the success of the Great Society

 

[JonKoch]

Sorry cupcake, IF you want to make a posit, or refute the REAL numbers do it, don't provide a link and leave it at that as if I'm supposed to understand right wing nutjobbery!



ONCE MORE CUPCAKE:

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

So for each of these elite income groups, the effective tax rates were at or near historical lows in 2004, though for certain groups, the effective rate was equal or slightly lower in 1990. Of course, this data is seven years old.
Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Do you agree to have all the income brackets, Social Security rate and deductions allowed restored and adjusted for inflation?

Sure cupcake


For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980

THOSE ARE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES AFTER DEDUCTIONS INCLUDES ALL SS

WHAT DOES INFLATION HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

"In other words, a person in the top 0.001 percent income bracket -- who would have an adjusted gross income of at least $62,000,000 -- pays the nearly same effective tax rate as somebody in the top 20 percent bracket who makes $85,000 in adjusted gross income."

As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

ROTFLMAO

Shocking you couldn't refute it cupcake

What's to refute.

Everything you posted, in terms of tax rates, is true.

What makes me laugh is that you somehow that is a bad think.

I say...let's cut their taxes more.

And two can play at the "cupcake" game....dickweed.

Sure cupcake, cut taxes more if the desired result is more debt

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia

 

[Markle]

Agreed since Ronnie "saved" SS the GOPers have used to hide the cost of tax cuts to the rich to the tune of $2.7+ trillion, now that it's due to be paid back, CONservatives/GOPers say SS is "broke". OPM

LOVE that static economic forecasting don't you?

IF what you say was true, how then did REVENUES double in the President Reagan decade?

As for Social Security going broke, simply observe the bottom line. Neutral site and I know how facts and reality are foreign to you. Need I coach you as to the meaning of the red and green numbers?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[JonKoch]

Republicans Gage compassion by how many people no longer need assistance not by how many people are receiving assistance. A growing economy a better health care program that will not hamper job growth will reduce unemployment and reduce the need for food stamps. The nation can not just keep borrowing money to pay able body people to not work, it's not good for them and we can't afford it. 20 trillion dollars of debt says we can't keep it up not me. Now we have a businessman in office creating real jobs and the welfare state is going nuts. Not surprised.

LMAOROG, Sure a "real" Bizman *shaking head*

Don the Con...

Where did most of that debt come from again?

..

Say what you I and want everyone I know is doing better financially....It's the economy stupid...

Sure cupcake

Guess you missed some of the fine print.

In the period of economic expansion lasting from the end of the recession in 2009 until 2012, average incomes for the bottom 90% of Americans actually shrank, while income growth for the top 10% soared.

Hmmm...weren't these Obama years?

YOU MEAN SINCE REAGANOMICS THAT'S BEEN THE CASE CUPCAKE?

Yes 8 years of Dubya/GOP "job creator" policies left US in a HUGE hole, US lost $16+ trillion wealth after 2007, 7 million jobs and almost 10 million homes were foreclosed. Obama's fault?

WHAT RIGHT WINGERS DON'T UNDERSTAND, IT WAS THE SIZE OF THE HOLE DUG BY DUBYA CUPCAKE!

 

[JonKoch]

But that Reagan guy had a top rate of 50% his first 6 years, that socialist

Hmmmm...somehow...you seem to have left out the part where President Ronald Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 69.125% to 50% the first year.

Actually from 70% to 50% AND deficit quadrupled. Weird right? THAT'S why he needed to increase taxes on the middle class and poor 11 times AND still tripled US debt as he GUTTED revenues and blew up spending

 

[Markle]

Sure cupcake

As you know, President William Jefferson Clinton never left a "surplus". We came close to a balanced budget because of the Newt Gingrich led victory in the House in 1996. That was the year we started to balance our books because of the promises made in the Contract with America. President Clinton was also forced, after two vetoes, to pass the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. That took millions of TAX RECIPIENTS, OFF WELFARE ROLLS AND MADE THEM TAX PAYERS ON EMPLOYMENT ROLLS.

If you recall, the “surplus” was made up of the Social Security and Medicare revenues “loaned” the general fund.

You have a bit of a foggy memory about the Eisenhower Days. Either that or you have gotten your talking points from the LOVEBERNIE.COM who left out a few..."minor" details.

What you left out is that, at the time, anyone earning $16,682.00 per year or less paid income tax at the rate of 20%. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $133,743.00 per year. That translates to everyone earning LESS THAN $133,743 PER YEAR WOULD PAY 20% INCOME TAX. Gosh, that sure would eliminate that 48% that pay no income tax today! Way to go!

As for the top rate of your beloved 92%, that was paid by those earning over $2,500,000.00 Adjusted for inflation, that would be $20,043,158.00 today. Do you really want to tell us that 1% of the nation earns of TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR? Really?

In the same year, employees paid 2% for Social Security and the employer paid nothing. Not quite the 15.2% of today.

Now, do you really want to go back to those rates? Are you aware of the long, long list of deductions then?

Tax Foundation

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

 

[JonKoch]

Agreed since Ronnie "saved" SS the GOPers have used to hide the cost of tax cuts to the rich to the tune of $2.7+ trillion, now that it's due to be paid back, CONservatives/GOPers say SS is "broke". OPM

LOVE that static economic forecasting don't you?

IF what you say was true, how then did REVENUES double in the President Reagan decade?

As for Social Security going broke, simply observe the bottom line. Neutral site and I know how facts and reality are foreign to you. Need I coach you as to the meaning of the red and green numbers?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

DOUBLED? LMAOROG

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."


Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal.


"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality




First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.

A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion.

Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.
Rand Paul’s claim that Reagan’s tax cuts produced ‘more revenue’ and ‘tens of millions of jobs’



KNOW WHAT INFLATION IS BUTTERCUP?

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Fact and Myth

 

[JonKoch]

Sure cupcake

As you know, President William Jefferson Clinton never left a "surplus". We came close to a balanced budget because of the Newt Gingrich led victory in the House in 1996. That was the year we started to balance our books because of the promises made in the Contract with America. President Clinton was also forced, after two vetoes, to pass the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. That took millions of TAX RECIPIENTS, OFF WELFARE ROLLS AND MADE THEM TAX PAYERS ON EMPLOYMENT ROLLS.

If you recall, the “surplus” was made up of the Social Security and Medicare revenues “loaned” the general fund.

You have a bit of a foggy memory about the Eisenhower Days. Either that or you have gotten your talking points from the LOVEBERNIE.COM who left out a few..."minor" details.

What you left out is that, at the time, anyone earning $16,682.00 per year or less paid income tax at the rate of 20%. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $133,743.00 per year. That translates to everyone earning LESS THAN $133,743 PER YEAR WOULD PAY 20% INCOME TAX. Gosh, that sure would eliminate that 48% that pay no income tax today! Way to go!

As for the top rate of your beloved 92%, that was paid by those earning over $2,500,000.00 Adjusted for inflation, that would be $20,043,158.00 today. Do you really want to tell us that 1% of the nation earns of TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR? Really?

In the same year, employees paid 2% for Social Security and the employer paid nothing. Not quite the 15.2% of today.

Now, do you really want to go back to those rates? Are you aware of the long, long list of deductions then?

Tax Foundation

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

The Inflation Calculator

Cupcake, YOU LIE

ANTI TAX HERITAGE FOUNDATION CUPCAKE

1958

In Constant 2013 Dollars

BEFORE DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS AND EXEMPTIONS CUPCAKE

MARGINAL AGI - 20.0% $0 TO $31,770

SS TAXES WERE ONLY 2.2% CUPCAKE, 15.2% TODAY, OOPS THAT'S HALF OF THE INCOME TAX BURDEN RIGHT THERE CUPCAKE?

U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) - Tax Foundation


CUPCAKE, THERE WERE 4 SURPLUSES UNDER BJ BILL, 3 AFTER VETOING THE NEWT/GOP $792+ BILLION TAX CUT FOR THE RICH


Budget surplus is more money coming into than out in a given year cupcake.

In 1993, Bill Clinton undid some of the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy, in a bill that every Republican in Congress opposed…Clinton’s 1993 increase in tax rates on high earners applied to a new wave of taxable income from corporate executives cashing in their lucrative stock options (which are taxed as wages). In fiscal 2000, the surplus peaked at $237 billion, and it remained a robust $128 billion in fiscal 2001 (Clinton’s last budget year).All of these surpluses would have occurred if the Balanced Budget Act had never been enacted.

Gingrich told anyone who would listen that Clinton’s 1993 tax increase would destroy the economy, but just the opposite happened.

NEXT MYTH CUPCAKE?

Is Newt Gingrich Responsible For Four Balanced Budgets?

 

[JonKoch]

Sure cupcake

As you know, President William Jefferson Clinton never left a "surplus". We came close to a balanced budget because of the Newt Gingrich led victory in the House in 1996. That was the year we started to balance our books because of the promises made in the Contract with America. President Clinton was also forced, after two vetoes, to pass the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. That took millions of TAX RECIPIENTS, OFF WELFARE ROLLS AND MADE THEM TAX PAYERS ON EMPLOYMENT ROLLS.

If you recall, the “surplus” was made up of the Social Security and Medicare revenues “loaned” the general fund.

You have a bit of a foggy memory about the Eisenhower Days. Either that or you have gotten your talking points from the LOVEBERNIE.COM who left out a few..."minor" details.

What you left out is that, at the time, anyone earning $16,682.00 per year or less paid income tax at the rate of 20%. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $133,743.00 per year. That translates to everyone earning LESS THAN $133,743 PER YEAR WOULD PAY 20% INCOME TAX. Gosh, that sure would eliminate that 48% that pay no income tax today! Way to go!

As for the top rate of your beloved 92%, that was paid by those earning over $2,500,000.00 Adjusted for inflation, that would be $20,043,158.00 today. Do you really want to tell us that 1% of the nation earns of TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR? Really?

In the same year, employees paid 2% for Social Security and the employer paid nothing. Not quite the 15.2% of today.

Now, do you really want to go back to those rates? Are you aware of the long, long list of deductions then?

Tax Foundation

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

The Inflation Calculator

1996 BILL DID THAT HUH?

President Clinton, whose 1993 budget—passed without a single Republican vote—raised taxes on the wealthy and dramatically altered the nation’s fiscal path, and second, a steadily improving economy. Those two factors, and particularly the interaction between them, account for virtually the entire fiscal improvement. Contrary to the Gingrich assertion, legislation passed by the Republican-led Congress of 1995 through 1997 combined to actually worsen the fiscal situation—albeit slightly.

In order to assign credit (or blame) for shifts in the country’s fiscal fortunes from 1993 to 1998, we scoured Congressional Budget Office reports from that period.



Take President Clinton’s 1993 budget bill—officially known as the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. OBRA, which mainly raised taxes on wealthy people but also raised the gas tax, extended limits on discretionary spending and cut back on some mandatory spending, was signed into law on August 10, 1993. Just five months prior, the Congressional Budget Office projected a 1998 deficit of $360 billion. One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. The CBO explained the dramatic improvement this way: “For the first time in two and one-half years, the deficit projections have taken a decided turn for the better… The reconciliation act deserves most of the credit for the improvement over the long run.” Indeed, of the $160 billion improvement from March to September of that year, CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion. In fact, OBRA turns out to have been the single largest contributor to the 1998 surplus.

RELEASE: The Real Heroes of the 1998 Budget Surplus: Clinton and His Economy - Center for American Progress

 

[Dale Smith]

Agreed since Ronnie "saved" SS the GOPers have used to hide the cost of tax cuts to the rich to the tune of $2.7+ trillion, now that it's due to be paid back, CONservatives/GOPers say SS is "broke". OPM

LOVE that static economic forecasting don't you?

IF what you say was true, how then did REVENUES double in the President Reagan decade?

As for Social Security going broke, simply observe the bottom line. Neutral site and I know how facts and reality are foreign to you. Need I coach you as to the meaning of the red and green numbers?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

DOUBLED? LMAOROG

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."


Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal.


"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality




First of all, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is the best way to compare across years, dropped from 19.1 percent in 1981 to a low of 16.9 percent in 1984, before rebounding slightly to 17.8 percent in 1989. One reason the deficit soared during Reagan’s term is because spending went up as a share of the economy and revenues went down.

A Treasury Department study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, first released in 2006 and later updated, found that the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (These figures are rendered in constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by less than $1 billion four years after enactment.

But Reagan’s tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987 boosted revenue by $137 billion.

Overall, that’s a revenue loss from Reagan’s various tax bills, but it also shows that Moore is crediting to Reagan’s tax cuts revenues generated by Reagan’s tax increases.
Rand Paul’s claim that Reagan’s tax cuts produced ‘more revenue’ and ‘tens of millions of jobs’



KNOW WHAT INFLATION IS BUTTERCUP?

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenues? No, Tax cuts do not Increase Revenue - Fact and Myth

Less than ten percent of the collected income taxes goes towards funding any part of this bankrupted corporate entity that you refer to as "gubermint". Taxing more or taxing less makes no difference because the debt to the parasitic Fed is so fucking high that you would have to confiscate every singe Federal Reserve note that was borrowed into circulation and it wouldn't matter because this corporate entity would just "borrow" from the Fed. So, if this "gubermint" can simply have the money they need to provide the 19 enumerated services per their corporate charter constitution by having the printing presses running day and night with interest attached to every note that was created out of thin air? Why is taxation needed at all? There certainly isn't a need to tax people on their wages and it is unconstitutional. I barter my labor in one hour increments for a medium exchange to eek out an existence and every transaction for the most part has some kind of tax attached to it. The list of taxes and fees like car registration, gas tax, utility taxes, phone taxes, sales tax etc,etc.......but those are taxes that you can avoid for the most part but the confiscation of your labor basically at gunpoint if you refuse to comply is nothing but theft. The more "da gubermint" takes in, the more it spends. This massive parasitic entity owned by the international bankers has gotten so out of control that I don't think it could it ever be reined in because it has remained bankrupt since 1933. This new poster doesn't have the slightest fucking clue and I guarantee you that he is a communist at heart....no two ways about that one.

 

[pwjohn]

I am all for helping those who are poor, but the current system is broken. Give vouchers that must be used for certain foods only....milk, eggs, bread, milk, cheese, oatmeal, canned meats, fruit/veg, etc. You don't see too many food stamp users buying canned tuna.....just saying

You listed milk twice

 

[keepitreal]

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP. I want them well fed, well educated, and with access to adequate health care because I know all those things are investments in THEIR FUTURE that will pay dividends in the form of higher earnings and greater tax receipts.

I'm trying to catch up as fast as I can...
there are so many posts I'm dying to reply to,
and didn't know where to begin...until ^

Now, it all makes perfect sense.
Obviously, you reside in the land of Oz!

So, tell me....
will the wizard be getting back to you anytime soon,
about that brain you're in desperate need of?

As much as I'm dying to properly respond,
it'll have to wait until later tonight

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted. Do well fed children perform better in school? Do healthy children perform better in school? And do better educated children turn into more productive, higher taxpaying adults?

Well, when you do "properly respond" make sure you tell me what is wrong with the statement of mine that you quoted.

That's exactly what I'm here to do!

I don't give a happy flip about the "mom". I just want those kids to believe they can do anything. I want them to believe they can RISE UP.

You don't give a shit about the mother?!
It's the children you're concerned about

Um, have you never heard the saying...

We learn what we live and live what we learn

How can you be concerned about the welfare of children,
if you're not concerned about those who are having kids
they don't financially support, nor, are raising them to be,
productive, self reliant members of society?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know that they do or don't. To my knowledge, no study has been done on that. But no matter if they do or don't, how is well fed, better educated and more productive taxpaying adults my responsibility?

There have been dozens. Here is just one.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rghammon/workshop/F12_Frisvold_Nutrition_Cognitive.pdf

And it is not about responsibility. It is about an investment in the future. Once again, you complain about the worthless parents, and perhaps they are worthless. But do you want those children to grow up and be worthless or do you want them to grow up and be productive citizens, UNLIKE their parents?

And you can bitch and moan till the cows come home. That is not going to change the behavior of those parents. Nor is any government crackdown or cuts in food stamps going to suddenly turn those parents around. What you can do is support the programs that improve the chances of those children being productive citizens.

Yes, from the person that supports a party that fought school vouchers.

I'm sick of liberals using "children" to turn our country into a socialist state. I don't care about the children. They are not my responsibility, liability or my concern. The US spends the most per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, and somehow, that's not enough, and we have only mediocre results to show for this spending.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Worthless parents will raise worthless kids, and there is nothing you can do about that. If a kid grows up in an environment of government dependency, he or she will continue that dependency because that's all they know. Forcing people to work for a living teaches their kids that life is not as easy as signing a piece of paper and getting checks in the mail. You have to do what you can to earn a paycheck. That's the best education you can give a child.

Here is the deal. A student that tests in the lowest quintile on the SAT but with a family income in the highest quintile has the same probability of attending a four year university as a student scoring in the highest quintile but with a family income in the lowest.

So yeah, poor parents usually have poor children and wealthy parent usually have wealthy children. But that is not a foregone conclusion, and quite honestly, is more a reflection on our society than on the parents. Like I have already said in this thread, when the rich have rich kids and the poor have poor kids, WE HAVE A FAWKING PROBLEM.

That's utter bull. If anything, minorities are given extra points to get into those liberal colleges. In some instances, Asians are deducted points to make it harder for them to get into those liberal colleges because of their advanced intelligence.

And yes, we do have problem. We encourage poor people to create more poor people, and discourage middle-class people from creating more middle-class people. It's not a foregone conclusion that poor people have poor children? Then you better look at how the war on poverty has failed the last six decades:

Robert Rector: How the War on Poverty Was Lost

"Robert E. Rector is a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation"


Shocking Heritage "believes" that, must be too many fridges and microwaves?


....Between 1965 and 1968, spending to help the poor doubled; within 10 years, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line declined to 12 percent from 20 percent. The rate has fluctuated greatly in the past 50 years. According to the census, 15.9 percent of Americans lived in poverty in 2012, which is just a couple of points lower than where the Census estimates it stood in 1965.

But the president’s Council of Economic Advisers uses a broader measure — including tax credits and benefits such as food assistance — that estimates that poverty has dropped by more than a third, from more than 25 percent of the population in the mid-1960s to 16 percent in 2012.


Among other things it spawned was the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, which was designed to help pull Appalachia, where one-third of residents lived below the poverty line, out of hardship, develop its industries and provide educational and health-care opportunities to its residents. Today, the Appalachian Regional Commission is a federal-state partnership that helps fund a number of projects in the region in areas including energy, infrastructure, highways and telecommunications.

The Office of Economic Opportunity, which ran the War on Poverty, was abolished in 1981.

WAPO

Evaluating the success of the Great Society

Don't you know how to read your own chart? The decline happened years before the so-called war on poverty, and around that time, more women started to join the workforce increasing family income: