Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[Toddsterpatriot]

How do tax cuts hurt wage growth?

Well, if you look at the chart you can plainly see that wages for all except those at the very top stagnated starting around 1980-2.

So you don't have any evidence that tax cuts hurt wage growth?
You should have just said that.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Not once did you say, cut the budgets of bloated government agencies. Why don't you start there?

Sure! Let's start with the Department of Defense, which has been a defacto welfare program for decades -since Eisenhower, really! The DoD's budget is never scrutinized for waste, fraud, or anything. We spend billions building tanks the Pentagon says they don't need, purely for the sake of keeping people in Congressional districts where those plants are located employed. Which would technically make our Defense Budget the largest welfare program in existence. Certainly larger, historically, than Social Security and Medicare. I am all about cutting funding for the DoD as I am tired of paying for corporate welfare for the likes of Boeing, Raytheon, etc.

So what do you want to cut? Conservatives never have an answer for that. Instead, they say they would just reduce budgets by X%, completely ignorant of what those cuts actually do operationally to programs. It's a lazy answer for people too boring or too afraid to actually do the hard work of looking at what our government spends money on and determining if it's wasteful. For instance, Trump fired 59 missiles into Syria at a cost of about $30M. Now, I'm no accountant, but even I know that $30M can provide a lot of healthcare to people who need it. So, as I asked, what do you want to cut and have you pondered how those cuts you want will affect the broader economy as a whole? Because that was the whole issue with the AHCA they had 7 years to come up with. They reduced "spending" by reducing the amount of money people would get for health care. So it solved none of the problems the market currrently faces and would have exacerbated the problems if passed into law. Conservatives have had 7 years to come up with a strategy for when they took control of DC. So where is this strategy? Because it seems like the only strategy they have is to be dicks to everyone.

If you got rid of 33 million illegal aliens living in this country that right there would be a good start. How many public schools have over 90 percent children of illegal immigrants?

So here's the thing, man. I hear your anger. I get it. You didn't get the things that were promised to you by the people you voted for. But it's not the immigrants' fault your boss refuses to pay you more. It's not the immigrants' fault that your bank jacked up your interest rates or foreclosed on your home. It's not the immigrants' fault you got addicted to Oxy and now have a heroin habit. Furthermore, most illegal immigrants in this country are people who overstayed their visas. The same visas Trump, and people like him, use to import foreign workers into this country to work at his resorts. Why? Because he doesn't have to pay them as much and can treat them like garbage. That's why he's all about expanding HB-1 visas. Those are the visas that have the most people who overstay. The number of folks on expired visas dwarfs the number of those who cross the border in the middle of the night. Most illegal immigrants come here on planes, not across the Rio Grande.

Never lower the taxes, just increase the size of government.

We lowered taxes. The top rate just 37 years ago was 70%. Now, it is 39.6%. That's nearly a 50% cut in the tax rate. So while the wealthy may pay a greater share of the taxes, the amount they actually pay is far less. And what do we have to show for this humongous tax cut? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

By the way, Obama added 10 TRILLION DOLLARS unpatriotically. He did that even with raising taxes on the rich. Why is that?

Simple...Bush and the Conservatives destroyed the economy with their hastily-inflated mortgage bubble beginning in 2004 and extending into 2007, they quagmired us in two unwinnable wars of occupation that they didn't pay for, and they forced on us an entitlement expansion that was not funded by anything. So that's why the debt grew. Furthermore, where was all this debt concern from Conservatives when Bush cut taxes in 2001, erased a surplus, and produced four record deficits during his eight years that doubled the debt? I find it hilarious that Conservatives screech about debt when they are the ones who doubled it when we could have paid it off by 2010 if they had done literally nothing. They couldn't even do nothing right. No surprise the party of Bush the Dumber, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump have no idea what they're doing. It shows, too. Bigly.

Ah yes, it is blame Bush for what the libtards did. I understand how fucking moronic you are. I am not saying that George was an angel, as he was a progressive Republican like his father, but he did far less damage than Al(Jazeera) Gore, or John F'ing Kerry(who won 3 purple hearts) would of done to the US. Yes, George got US into a war, yes, George worked with Ted Kennedy on "No Child Left Behind" and Department of Homeland Sec, and other increases in government, but I guess you didn't notice that Jeb, didn't even make it to the 3rd round in the Republican Elections? I stopped trying to understand why you liberals think the way you do, because your education(Indoctrination) of liberalism, cannot be changed. The Germans of the 1940s thought the same way that you do, that government is the answer to all ills, and 4 years later, Germany was reduced to rubble. That is how far you leftist nutjobs have gone. Free people, have free capital, that they spend freely, this creates wealth, while government taxes, robs people of that wealth and soon everyone is equally poor and equally miserable. All Socialist nations have gone that way, We the People will NOT allow the US to do the same.

 

[The Derp]

If you double, for instance, the tax a rich guy pays into SS, you have to double, basically, the benefit he receives. That would seem to make the problem worse, not better.

Who says they'd get an increase in benefits? I didn't say that. I think benefits should be expanded, but not for those at the top. Price of doing business in this country. Besides, they'll see an increase in income from the increase in spending done by expanding benefits for those at the lower end of the recipient ladder. Right now, the average SS benefit is just $1,300 a month. That's not a lot to live on, particularly when you still have to pay for prescription drugs because Medicare isn't funded as well as it should be. So say the average prescription costs a retiree about $200 a month. So that leaves $1,100 a month. Who can live on that kind of income with any dignity? SS has become the defacto source of retirement income because businesses did away with pensions, stopped increasing worker pay so they could save, and offered up these HSA's which are nothing more than another tax shelter for the very wealthy. If people couldn't save for health care costs before, why would they be able to save for them in an HSA now? Makes little sense, doesn't it?

 

[The Derp]

Did Russia expose the corruption of the DNC and HRC? Was that wrong?
Should that corruption have remained hidden from the public? Is that why you're mad?

LOL! So it's OK to collude with a hostile foreign power so long as it results in you scoring political points at home? Gee, that's nearly the exact same case Nixon laid out when he colluded with Conservative operatives to break into the DNC headquarters at Watergate. What happened to Nixon after that? I mean after he won the 1972 election? Oh right, he resigned and had to be pardoned by Ford because he conspired to "hack" the Democratic National Committee. So how is this any different?

It was also no surprise to anyone paying attention the DNC was in the tank for Hillary. That has nothing to do with Conservatives colluding with Russia to sway the election in their favor. Until we know the full extent of Russia's influence in the Trump Administration and the GOP, their entire agenda should be put on indefinite hold "until we can figure out what the hell is going on!". Wikileaks publishing that stuff told us what we already knew. And those DNC e-mails weren't the ones that were being used as the cudgel during the campaign. The murkiness surrounding Clinton's use of a private server and the Anthony Weiner e-mails were. The DNC stuff came out before the conventions and had made it out of the news cycle by August.

 

[The Derp]

So you don't have any evidence that tax cuts hurt wage growth?
You should have just said that.

I do have that evidence, and I provided it to you in that chart that showed wage growth since 1980. It's not my problem you are blind to it. Playing dense doesn't help your case.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

If you double, for instance, the tax a rich guy pays into SS, you have to double, basically, the benefit he receives. That would seem to make the problem worse, not better.

Who says they'd get an increase in benefits? I didn't say that. I think benefits should be expanded, but not for those at the top. Price of doing business in this country. Besides, they'll see an increase in income from the increase in spending done by expanding benefits for those at the lower end of the recipient ladder. Right now, the average SS benefit is just $1,300 a month. That's not a lot to live on, particularly when you still have to pay for prescription drugs because Medicare isn't funded as well as it should be. So say the average prescription costs a retiree about $200 a month. So that leaves $1,100 a month. Who can live on that kind of income with any dignity? SS has become the defacto source of retirement income because businesses did away with pensions, stopped increasing worker pay so they could save, and offered up these HSA's which are nothing more than another tax shelter for the very wealthy. If people couldn't save for health care costs before, why would they be able to save for them in an HSA now? Makes little sense, doesn't it?

If paying taxes it the price of living in this country, then why the fuck doesn't the poor pay that price? Hmmm. Why should they sit back, do nothing but poke out welfare children, get free education for their children, get welfare, healthcare, and eventually social security that they never put a dime in? Before FDR, people never starved because family took care of family, but after Uncle Sugar put a chicken in everyones pot, this started enslaving the US citizens to the government. As for the average SS benefit, before the Sexual Predator(Bill Clinton) in 1993 raised the taxes on Social Security, you got more Social Security to live off of. When it comes to keeping your own money, the liberals love to take it. Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.

 

[The Derp]

So you don't have any evidence that tax cuts hurt wage growth?

So here's another one for ya...so take a look at the red line that represents real median weekly earnings for full-time workers and you can plainly see that starting around 1980, it declined and stagnated when prior to that, it was steadily growing.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Did Russia expose the corruption of the DNC and HRC? Was that wrong?
Should that corruption have remained hidden from the public? Is that why you're mad?

LOL! So it's OK to collude with a hostile foreign power so long as it results in you scoring political points at home? Gee, that's nearly the exact same case Nixon laid out when he colluded with Conservative operatives to break into the DNC headquarters at Watergate. What happened to Nixon after that? I mean after he won the 1972 election? Oh right, he resigned and had to be pardoned by Ford because he conspired to "hack" the Democratic National Committee. So how is this any different?

It was also no surprise to anyone paying attention the DNC was in the tank for Hillary. That has nothing to do with Conservatives colluding with Russia to sway the election in their favor. Until we know the full extent of Russia's influence in the Trump Administration and the GOP, their entire agenda should be put on indefinite hold "until we can figure out what the hell is going on!". Wikileaks publishing that stuff told us what we already knew. And those DNC e-mails weren't the ones that were being used as the cudgel during the campaign. The murkiness surrounding Clinton's use of a private server and the Anthony Weiner e-mails were. The DNC stuff came out before the conventions and had made it out of the news cycle by August.

Collude like this guy did? Stop drinking the liberal kool aid, before it is too late.....Too late..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you double, for instance, the tax a rich guy pays into SS, you have to double, basically, the benefit he receives. That would seem to make the problem worse, not better.

Who says they'd get an increase in benefits? I didn't say that. I think benefits should be expanded, but not for those at the top. Price of doing business in this country. Besides, they'll see an increase in income from the increase in spending done by expanding benefits for those at the lower end of the recipient ladder.

particularly when you still have to pay for prescription drugs because Medicare isn't funded as well as it should be. So say the average prescription costs a retiree about $200 a month. So that leaves $1,100 a month. Who can live on that kind of income with any dignity? SS has become the defacto source of retirement income because businesses did away with pensions, stopped increasing worker pay so they could save, and offered up these HSA's which are nothing more than another tax shelter for the very wealthy. If people couldn't save for health care costs before, why would they be able to save for them in an HSA now? Makes little sense, doesn't it?

Who says they'd get an increase in benefits? I didn't say that.

But it's not supposed to be a welfare program. Don't you know any history?
You start to do that and it'll lose its widespread support.

Right now, the average SS benefit is just $1,300 a month. That's not a lot to live on,

And you know how much you'd have if you had a private account with an S&P 500 ETF instead?
I'd tell you, but I don't want to make you cry.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

So you don't have any evidence that tax cuts hurt wage growth?

So here's another one for ya...so take a look at the red line that represents real median weekly earnings for full-time workers and you can plainly see that starting around 1980, it declined and stagnated when prior to that, it was steadily growing.

Okay bonehead, let me give you how my life went, ready.
1976 worked for McD' making $2.10 an hour part time.
1977 worked as a short order chef making $2.25 an hour full time, until the government raised minimum wage to $2.25 making me entry level again.
end of 1977 went into the Air Force to learn how to fix jets, making not much in money, but had roof over head, 3 meals a day, and 200 a week spending.
1986 got out of Air Force, went to work at Home Depot making $7.50 an hour after 3 years, went to Saudi Arabia, making $18 an hour plus bonus, putting about $50,000 a year away towards stocks.
1991 Came back worked as a contractor specialist making $24 an hour.

Right now I own my own business have 6 figures income.

The difference between me and a liberal
I used my God given gifts to be the best at what I do, in my pursuit of happiness.
Liberals are victims, cant make it in the world, cant ever be happy(unless they are fucking other people) because some evil rich guy(me) stole their money, so rely on the government to punish me for my success.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Back in 1776 the tax rate on the US citizen was around 3% and the people rose up and went to war with the punishing government.

Ummm...no, they revolted because of a tax on tea, not income. 1776 is also 240+ years ago, and the problems of the 18th century are not the same problems we face in the 21st century. You wouldn't treat cancer with leeches, would you? So why would you apply 18th-century thinking to 21st-century problems? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Every time the liberals start campaigning they HOWL how Social Security is going bankrupt and the evil R's want to take it away, yet you never hear from the Libtards, that WELFARE is going bankrupt, because working people pay into the SS system, expecting something back when they retire, those that sit on their liberal sorry asses, expect something but never contribute into it.

First, liberals do not howl that SS is going bankrupt, Conservatives do. And it's not "going bankrupt". SS can still pay full benefits out until 2030, which is 13 years away. Hardly an immediate problem. Secondly, if you are going to make the argument that SS is going bankrupt and needs to be fixed, the simple solution is to just remove the cap on taxable SS income, that way everyone pays the same % of their income into SS. Right now, the cap is around $120K/yr. That covers up to about 90% of all workers. Once you surpass $120K in income, none of it is taxed for SS. That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? By just removing the cap on taxable SS income, you extend SS's solvency by decades. As far as welfare goes, the biggest welfare queens are red state legislatures who take the welfare block grant (reformed by Conservatives in the 90's) and apply as much as they can of that block grant to the deficits caused by their taxation policies. All red states do that, but some are worse than others. Kansas, for example, cut taxes, saw its deficits and debt spike, saw its credit downgraded at least twice, cut education spending, raided the Highway Fund, and raided as much of the Welfare block grant that was legally allowed, and still couldn't balance its budget. It's not welfare that's bankrupt, it's red states who use the welfare to paper over the deficits caused by their tax policies who are the ones "bankrupt" here. The Conservative proposal that didn't even get a vote in the House would have changed Medicaid to a block grant as well, which means red staters would use that block grant not for health care, but to paper over the holes in their budgets created by their poor taxation and economic policies.

You can't use Kansas as an example that's a fringe and not many people want to move there anyways


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did Russia expose the corruption of the DNC and HRC? Was that wrong?
Should that corruption have remained hidden from the public? Is that why you're mad?

LOL! So it's OK to collude with a hostile foreign power so long as it results in you scoring political points at home? Gee, that's nearly the exact same case Nixon laid out when he colluded with Conservative operatives to break into the DNC headquarters at Watergate. What happened to Nixon after that? I mean after he won the 1972 election? Oh right, he resigned and had to be pardoned by Ford because he conspired to "hack" the Democratic National Committee. So how is this any different?

It was also no surprise to anyone paying attention the DNC was in the tank for Hillary. That has nothing to do with Conservatives colluding with Russia to sway the election in their favor. Until we know the full extent of Russia's influence in the Trump Administration and the GOP, their entire agenda should be put on indefinite hold "until we can figure out what the hell is going on!". Wikileaks publishing that stuff told us what we already knew. And those DNC e-mails weren't the ones that were being used as the cudgel during the campaign. The murkiness surrounding Clinton's use of a private server and the Anthony Weiner e-mails were. The DNC stuff came out before the conventions and had made it out of the news cycle by August.

LOL! So it's OK to collude with a hostile foreign power

Are you sad because someone exposed the corruption of the DNC and HRC? Was that wrong?
And if Russia was the source of the hacking and is hostile, what did Obama mean in 2012 when he said he could be more flexible after the election?

Why did Obama laugh when Romney said Russia was our most serious threat?

Was Obama wrong? Was Obama an idiot? How could Obama be so wrong about Russia?

It was also no surprise to anyone paying attention the DNC was in the tank for Hillary.

It did seem to piss off Bernie's supporters. Do you suppose they voted for Trump?

their entire agenda should be put on indefinite hold

Ohhh, good idea. First, you should hold your breath....indefinitely.

The DNC stuff came out before the conventions and had made it out of the news cycle by August.

So the hacking wasn't done to support Trump. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you don't have any evidence that tax cuts hurt wage growth?
You should have just said that.

I do have that evidence, and I provided it to you in that chart that showed wage growth since 1980. It's not my problem you are blind to it. Playing dense doesn't help your case.

I do have that evidence, and I provided it to you in that chart that showed wage growth since 1980.

Yes, nice chart. You're not claiming the chart was evidence of your claim? LOL!
That's hilarious.
Now go find some real evidence and get back to me.
Take your time, I'll need a while to stop laughing at your stupidity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you don't have any evidence that tax cuts hurt wage growth?

So here's another one for ya...so take a look at the red line that represents real median weekly earnings for full-time workers and you can plainly see that starting around 1980, it declined and stagnated when prior to that, it was steadily growing.

you can plainly see that starting around 1980, it declined and stagnated when prior to that, it was steadily growing.

It looks like wages were falling from 1972-1980. Average real wages have increased since 1980.
Is that because of tax cuts, despite tax cuts or unrelated to tax cuts?

 

[The Derp]

If paying taxes it the price of living in this country, then why the fuck doesn't the poor pay that price?

Ummm...they do in the form of sales and excise taxes. Also, because they're poor. Too poor to pay taxes. How did that happen? Because Conservatives cut taxes and their wages didn't increase.

So explain to me how this isn't a circular argument you are making; You complain the wealthy pay too much in taxes, so Conservatives cut taxes, then complain that the people Conservatives just cut taxes for aren't paying enough in taxes! The only reason 47% of people "pay no taxes" is because Conservatives made it that way when they cut taxes. Duh. So many arguments from the right are circular like that. Take welfare, a favorite punching bag for the right. You complain about all the people on welfare, yet you oppose raising the minimum wage which would move people off welfare (since welfare benefits are determined by income), and thus result in less welfare spending. So explain to me how that argument isn't circular either. Because from where I stand, it sure seems circular to me.

Hmmm. Why should they sit back, do nothing but poke out welfare children, get free education for their children, get welfare, healthcare, and eventually social security that they never put a dime in?

Ahhhh yes, the "welfare queen" myth. Unfortunately, this tired old trope is contradicted by the fact that Conservatives reformed welfare in the 90's to tie benefits to a work requirement. What that means is that you don't get welfare unless you are a) working a job that pays so little, you qualify for benefits, b) in job training or c) in school. That was a consequence of the 1996 Personal Work Responsibility Act (Welfare Reform) that was championed by Conservatives then as "the end of welfare as we know it". So if you are complaining about welfare today, that means one of two things; 1) The welfare reform done by Conservatives in 1996 was flawed and their pronouncement of the reform was just lip service to a bad idea, or 2) The welfare reform done by Conservatives in 1996 did work, and Conservatives are just lying about welfare today.

So which is it? Were they lying then or are they lying now?

Before FDR, people never starved because family took care of family

First of all - not true at all. Secondly, plenty of people starved before FDR. The stock market crash of 1929 happened 4 years before FDR was sworn in. The Dust Bowl also started before FDR was sworn in. Did people not starve from that? Also, the idea of having family live under one roof for their entire lives is an antiquated one, and not one our society accepts today, nor is it even viable when low-income workers have to work multiple jobs and hours in order to survive. Add to that cuts Conservatives make to Medicaid and the costs of treating a sick, elderly relative are too prohibitive for most middle and lower-class folks. People can't simply stay home and take care of gramps as his Alzheimer's gets worse and worse. You need trained medical professionals to do that. Are you telling me you would be totally OK with wiping up the feces three or more times a day while also trying to work 8 hours a day full time? How would that even work? Would you have to take a break from work to go home and clean gramps up? How do you think your boss will respond to you leaving every couple hours to go home and take care of your relative? And what if you don't have a car and have to take public transportation? And what if you live an hour's drive away? These are the questions that Conservatives never seem to ask when they propose such silliness.

As for the average SS benefit, before the Sexual Predator(Bill Clinton) in 1993 raised the taxes on Social Security, you got more Social Security to live off of.

So that's a distortion. Not all taxes on SS got hit with an increase. Just those benefits for high-income earners (anyone in the top tax bracket). From the SSA:

"In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income."

 

[The Derp]

It looks like wages were falling from 1972-1980. Average real wages have increased since 1980.

They have increased below the rate of inflation. So that's not an increase. Secondly, wages were falling from 1972-80? Ummm...what? Are we looking at the same chart? Because it clearly shows wages falling starting in 1980 (the red line). In fact that red line, as of 2014, is below what it was in 1980.

 

[The Derp]

Is that because of tax cuts, despite tax cuts or unrelated to tax cuts?

Because of tax cuts. We saw the same thing happen in Kansas from 2011-2016. Kansas' wage growth dropped to 49th by 2016.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It looks like wages were falling from 1972-1980. Average real wages have increased since 1980.

They have increased below the rate of inflation. So that's not an increase. Secondly, wages were falling from 1972-80? Ummm...what? Are we looking at the same chart? Because it clearly shows wages falling starting in 1980 (the red line). In fact that red line, as of 2014, is below what it was in 1980.

Average real wages have increased since 1980.

They have increased below the rate of inflation.

Hey, moron, "real wages" means after inflation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It looks like wages were falling from 1972-1980. Average real wages have increased since 1980.

They have increased below the rate of inflation. So that's not an increase. Secondly, wages were falling from 1972-80? Ummm...what? Are we looking at the same chart? Because it clearly shows wages falling starting in 1980 (the red line). In fact that red line, as of 2014, is below what it was in 1980.

In fact that red line, as of 2014, is below what it was in 1980.

I could explain the difference between average and median.....but you're a liberal. Waste of time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is that because of tax cuts, despite tax cuts or unrelated to tax cuts?

Because of tax cuts. We saw the same thing happen in Kansas from 2011-2016. Kansas' wage growth dropped to 49th by 2016.

Average real wages have increased since 1980. Is that because of tax cuts, despite tax cuts or unrelated to tax cuts?

Because of tax cuts.

So what are you whining about? Besides admitting your original claim was wrong?