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

[danielpalos]

And all I'm asking is the 4 million able-bodied with NO dependents go to work for their food stamps.
Remember we have all this deteriorating "infrastructures"...that these able bodied no dependents should be offered to work on to earn their SNAP card!

Somebody has to hire them. Besides, employment is at will; not socialized on a national basis.

And so is starving to death if you are able-bodied and have NO DEPENDENTS!
Why am I to take care of someone who has NO desire to take care of themselves?
Let them figure out what to do. If they want to commit a crime. Fine. Put them in prison for 10 years. Feed them care for them. AND guess what?
Remember Cool Hand Luke? They'll be working on the road gangs! GREAT!

As near as I can tell, you are not going to get a good answer to those questions.

This appears to be all about class envy.

Yes, appeals to emotion is most of what the right wing has.

dears, the Poor and Mr. Trump Only pay the Taxes we are Legally Obligated to Pay;

don't whine and complain; Be Patriotic.

I quote a Federal Judge...

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible;
he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury.
There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.
Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.

Judge Learned Hand

Billings Learned Hand was a United States judge and judicial philosopher.
He served on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
TOP 25 QUOTES BY LEARNED HAND (of 94) | A-Z Quotes

Then, dear, don't complain about taxes for social services and the poor. You only pay the taxes you are legally obligated to pay, just like the poor and Mr. Trump.

 

[danielpalos]

Now if you want to donate to the Federal Government so it can spend on really important projects like these:
Then donate to :
The Bureau of the Fiscal Service may accept gifts donated to the United States Government to reduce debt held by the public. Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Fiscal Service may accept a gift of: Money, made only on the condition that it be used to reduce debt held by the public.
Government - Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public
Government - Gift Contributions to Reduce Debt Held by the Public
I'd rather do as Judge Hand suggested since monkeys on a treadmill seems to be a waste of my tax dollars!

View attachment 129697

American taxpayers got a dismal return on their $4.3 billion investment in the Colombian drug war between 2000 and 2008, according to a new analysis by economists at MIT and Colombia's Universidad de los Andes.

Source: Taxpayers wasted billions of dollars on a war on cocaine that didn’t work, economists say

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Poor people have it Rich people need it If you eat it you die...


.

nothing but riddles instead of a valid argument? can you re-state your position in a more cogent and concise form?

What valid argument have you made....?

Only the right wing never gets it.

Why do the rich make as much as they do?

Only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant.

What valid argument have you made ?

Answer the question, moron.

Only the right wing is cognitively dissonant enough to want to know, how much persons make when they are poor, but claim we should not care how much the rich make.

And how is that ?

Do the rich get welfare and foodstamps ?

 

[JonKoch]

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:

View attachment 129331

Typical right wing cupcake who ignores EVERYTHING else but says look at the chart:

" The decline happened years before the so-called war on poverty,":

HINT THE CHART SHOWS ALMOST 20% IN POVERTY BEFORE THE WAR ON POVERTY STARTED CUPCAKE, GOING TO BELOW 12%.

again, thanks for ignoring everything else about it though cupcake

 

[danielpalos]

nothing but riddles instead of a valid argument? can you re-state your position in a more cogent and concise form?

What valid argument have you made....?

Only the right wing never gets it.

Why do the rich make as much as they do?

Only the right wing is that cognitively dissonant.

What valid argument have you made ?

Answer the question, moron.

Only the right wing is cognitively dissonant enough to want to know, how much persons make when they are poor, but claim we should not care how much the rich make.

And how is that ?

Do the rich get welfare and foodstamps ?

class envy? the poor and the rich, only pay the taxes we are legally obligated to pay.

 

[JonKoch]

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?

NOT ONE substantiated FACT! How can you expect people to believe you if you think we will just believe YOU?
Here is a fact:
1) First the FACTS..
but anywhere from about 42 to 58 percent is a reasonable summary of the report’s findings and more recent data available. We rate her statement Mostly True.
Barbara Lee says 60 percent of people on food assistance are working
So that means at least 40% on food stamps aren't working.
Today, 28 states continue to waive the work requirement altogether, despite an average unemployment rate of 6.72 percent. (The nationwide unemployment rate reached 10 percent during the fallout from the recession and now stands just below 6 percent.) An additional 13 states have waived the work requirement in some parts of their states, despite an average unemployment rate of just 4.58.
Food Stamps, without Work Requirements
a) If of the 8 million able bodied 4 million became employed food stamp savings : almost $7 Billion.
b) But more importantly if these 4 million are employed at say $30,000
Just in Social security/Medicare payments BY employer and employee of 12%= $14.4 billion in
just these two sources of Tax revenue.
c) Total difference between Trump's plan to have food stamp recipients show they can't work!
$21 billion a year in difference!

"Adults without minor children can only receive benefits for three months out of every 36-month period unless they are working 20 hours a week.

But states can waive that requirement for areas with unemployment of at least 10% or an insufficient number of jobs, as defined by the Department of Labor."


...But the administration's suggested work requirement would kick about one million very poor people off the program, said Stacy Dean, the center's vice president for food assistance policy. Most have low skills, making it tough for them to find a job.
Republicans want the poor to work for their government benefits



Close to 70 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; more than one-quarter are in households with seniors or people with disabilities

SNAP Benefits by Household Size 1

Maximum Monthly Benefit, $194
FY 2016 Estimated Average Monthly Benefit, $142

Policy Basics: Introduction to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Labor Force Participation Among SNAP Recipients Is High

The overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year.




....The data also indicate that SNAP receipt does not create work disincentives. The overwhelming majority of non-disabled, working-age households that start receiving SNAP do not stop working. In the mid-2000s, only 4 percent of SNAP households that worked in the year before starting to receive SNAP did not work in the following year
The Relationship Between SNAP and Work Among Low-Income Households

 

[JonKoch]

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base
Republicans want to shrink government. But their core voters benefit from assistance, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the most.

Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Primarily Help the GOP's Base



The Food Stamp Capital of the U.S. is WHITE and REPUBLICAN

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!!


...It’s Owsley County, Kentucky. A place that is said to be 99.22% white and 95% Republican!

US Food Stamp Capital Is 99% WHITE And 95% REPUBLICAN!!! | Urban Intellectuals


According to the 2010 census reports, Owsley County has the second highest level of child poverty of any county in the United States. In terms of income per household, the county is the poorest in the nation

Between 1980 and 2014, the rate of death from cancer in the county increased by 45.6 percent, the largest such increase of any county in the United States.
Owsley County, Kentucky - Wikipedia

The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients

"But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey."

Still, Democrats have used the food stamp program twice as much as Republicans. That's a fact.

Did you note how the percentages did not add up close to the actual Demn/Rep percentages? Your study is based on questionaires & not everyone stated their party.

Republicans rant & rave & rail against those needing assistance, that Republicans probably didn't want people to know they needed help.

HTF would somebody not know if they needed help? Geez

 

[JonKoch]

So the cupcakes can't think of one either?? lol

The nanny state will not work, it will run out of other peoples money sooner than later.

Then, end the drug war.

The only way to do that is assassinate every single drug dealer…

just right wing fantasy? why not simply eliminate practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy to, "improve our gene pool and for the greater glory of our immortal souls"? We can start with the right wing.

It is impossible to assassinate every drug dealer, but as long as there are drug dealers there will be drugs and as long as there's drugs there will be people abusing them. That's life

What would right wingers EVER have without false premises, distortions and lies?

 

[Rustic]

The nanny state will not work, it will run out of other peoples money sooner than later.

Then, end the drug war.

The only way to do that is assassinate every single drug dealer…

just right wing fantasy? why not simply eliminate practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy to, "improve our gene pool and for the greater glory of our immortal souls"? We can start with the right wing.

It is impossible to assassinate every drug dealer, but as long as there are drug dealers there will be drugs and as long as there's drugs there will be people abusing them. That's life

What would right wingers EVER have without false premises, distortions and lies?

That's a new one, drug dealers don't promote drugs? LOL

 

[JonKoch]

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.

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Seems like just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor".

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Seems like just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor".

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

Letting people keep more of their money is not welfare, it's just another liberal lie.

 

[JonKoch]

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?

NOT ONE substantiated FACT! How can you expect people to believe you if you think we will just believe YOU?
Here is a fact:
1) First the FACTS..
but anywhere from about 42 to 58 percent is a reasonable summary of the report’s findings and more recent data available. We rate her statement Mostly True.
Barbara Lee says 60 percent of people on food assistance are working
So that means at least 40% on food stamps aren't working.
Today, 28 states continue to waive the work requirement altogether, despite an average unemployment rate of 6.72 percent. (The nationwide unemployment rate reached 10 percent during the fallout from the recession and now stands just below 6 percent.) An additional 13 states have waived the work requirement in some parts of their states, despite an average unemployment rate of just 4.58.
Food Stamps, without Work Requirements
a) If of the 8 million able bodied 4 million became employed food stamp savings : almost $7 Billion.
b) But more importantly if these 4 million are employed at say $30,000
Just in Social security/Medicare payments BY employer and employee of 12%= $14.4 billion in
just these two sources of Tax revenue.
c) Total difference between Trump's plan to have food stamp recipients show they can't work!
$21 billion a year in difference!

Yes I was wrong about the work requirement stat. All the other facts are correct though. Of course The 2/3 stat applies to disabled people and elderly people. I forgot to mention it.

I don't understand why the elderly need food stamps. Most working people prepare for their retirement years or at the very lest have a decent social security check every month.

Are those elderly lowlifes that just got old; people that have never worked or worked very little in their lives? My parents aren't rich and they've been retired for over 20 years and never needed food stamps.

" Most working people prepare for their retirement years or at the very lest have a decent social security check every month. "


LMAOROG

SS BENEFITS THE RIGHT WING WANT TO GUT? YOU KNOW AFTER THEY'VE "BORROWED" $2.7+ TRILLION TO FUND GOV'T TO PAY FOR TAX CUTS/WARS? NOW DECIDE THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY IT BACK?

 

[Rustic]

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.

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Seems like just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor".

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

Charity has to be voluntary otherwise it is not charity... jack weed

 

[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

Lost all credibility.

Sorry.....

At least one of those tax increases were to clean up Jimmy Carter's HUGE screw up on Social Security. Carter said he fixed it for 30 years....not realizing they really blew the revenue forcasts....it was headed for the red and would have happened had it not been for one of Reagan's tax increases.

You are good with the talking points.

It's unfortunate you can't think for yourself....cupcake.

IGNORE ALL THOSE QUOTES BUBBA, AND LIE ABOUT CARTER, IT'S ALL YOU CUPCAKES HAVE. Doubled revenues? LMAOROG

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The politics and demographics of food stamp recipients

"But when the political lens shifts from partisanship to ideology, the participation gap vanishes. Self-described political conservatives were no more likely than liberals or moderates to have received food stamps (17% for each group), according to the survey."

Still, Democrats have used the food stamp program twice as much as Republicans. That's a fact.

Did you note how the percentages did not add up close to the actual Demn/Rep percentages? Your study is based on questionaires & not everyone stated their party.

Republicans rant & rave & rail against those needing assistance, that Republicans probably didn't want people to know they needed help.

HTF would somebody not know if they needed help? Geez

"Despite government claims, the job market is still lagging. The poverty rate is on the rise, The Journal says. And federal laws passed under former President Clinton and further under Mr. Obama are actually driving the enrollment rate higher. Those laws allow for those with higher incomes to take food stamps — the logic being that helping people before they reach crisis financial level will actually stimulate the economy, The Journal says."

Food stamp president: Enrollment up 70 percent under Obama

 

[danielpalos]

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Seems like just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor".

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

Letting people keep more of their money is not welfare, it's just another liberal lie.

Tell it to the corporate welfare recipients.

 

[JonKoch]

.

Liberals on this forum imitate what we see in real life

They make ridiculous claims and then dance and celebrate like they have "won" when their foolish claims are not refuted with "proof"

Perhaps YOU will be the one to FINALLY tell me the one thing the CONservatives were EVER on the correct side of US history?

Or if that's too difficult, how about three policies from the GOP the past 50 years that worked as promised?

 

[danielpalos]

GUESS WHICH ONE IS WINNING?

BTW, 5 YEAR LIFETIME LIMIT ON WELFARE (THOUGH MUCH LESS IN MOST RED STATES)...

The federal government should be giving a hand up not a handout… They must've missed the memo

In the Age of Corporate Welfare? Seems like just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor".

What is the "Age of Corporate Welfare"? Be specific. Give me facts regarding "corporate welfare".
Because as it is now businesses, both corporate and non-corporate which I guess you are claiming get "corporate welfare".. i.e. your local donut shop ...corporate..maybe...your local barbershop...non-corporate maybe all have paid according to this chart:
Corporate income tax.. $341.7 billion or 11% of all federal revenue
Payroll taxes ...$ 535 Billion or 16.2% of all federal revenue (You dummies seem to forget that businesses ALSO match the SS/Medicare deductions of the employee.)
A total of $876.7 Billion or 27.2% of the total federal revenue.

So tell me again where "corporate welfare" might come in?
Are you talking about the number one tax write-off that corporations also get? i.e. Employee Medical insurance premiums and care: $235.8 Billion!
That's the largest tax deduction and guess what... EMPLOYEES BENEFIT! They couldn't get private insurance this cheap...i.e. FREE!
What are the largest tax expenditures?


View attachment 129345

The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever. Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year.

RIGHT WING CATO
The Corporate Welfare Budget: Bigger Than Ever

Charity has to be voluntary otherwise it is not charity... jack weed

Private charity can only cover multitudes of sins, not official poverty.

 

[JonKoch]

.

Liberals on this forum imitate what we see in real life

They make ridiculous claims and then dance and celebrate like they have "won" when their foolish claims are not refuted with "proof"

Just to be clear....I don't believe these are liberals.

I consider myself a liberal.

They are left wingers.

They are arrogant...they can never be wrong.
They want to use government to force us to go along with their concept of the "greater good" (which they can never define).

And.....they got their butts kicked in November....now they sit on the sideline watching Trump run the show.

LMAOROG, You a liberal cupcake? Too funny

If you meant Cheeto got almost 3 million less votes, true

 

[Rustic]

There is never a good reason to make people pay for socialist entitlement programs like food stamps without their permission... all socialist entitlement programs should be an opt in. If not they are not worth the paper they are printed on.