Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sore-Loser Demwits Reaching and RetchingDid 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!". .
Without a defense there IS NO country, and that means there is NO welfare system.
Tax-rate cuts are different from tax cuts.
Drumpf could easily double the tax base by opening up full development of our natural resources.
Average real wages have increased since 1980
So what are you whining about? Besides admitting your original claim was wrong?
Nixon's men didn't reveal anything corrupt about McGovern's DNC
As for Trump's contacts with Russia, he was trying to see if he could partner with Russia to get us thousands of jobs, billions in profits, and billions saved by getting out of imperialist NYETO.
Average real wages have increased since 1980
No, they haven't. In fact, when adjusted for inflation and according to the chart, in 2014, average real wages were below what they were in 1980. Why is that? Because of tax cuts.
So what are you whining about? Besides admitting your original claim was wrong?
My claim isn't wrong. You just don't understand math. You say average real wages have increased since 1980. And you would be correct if you weren't adjusting the wages for inflation. Doing so means that the average real wage has declined since 1980 because the rate of wage increases was outpaced by inflation. How does that happen? Simple; by giving more wealth to the top and not having it trickle-down as promised. It's been 37 years, when is the trickle-down supposed to start?
Ah yes, it is blame Bush for what the libtards did.
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.
But it's not supposed to be a welfare program. Don't you know any history?
And you know how much you'd have if you had a private account with an S&P 500 ETF instead?
Okay bonehead, let me give you how my life went, ready.
But it's not supposed to be a welfare program. Don't you know any history?
Don't you? Who cares what it was originally intended to be 80 years ago? It doesn't matter today. The reason it became a "welfare program" (an entitlement, actually, but whatever) was because Conservatives supported businesses doing away with labor unions and the pensions those unions fought to get. So because pensions aren't a thing anymore, largely, and because of the market collapses that wiped out people's 401k's at various times, SS has become the defacto source of income for retirees. Again, this is exactly what Conservatives wanted. Now you are crying crocodile tears over it? Gimmie a break...gimmie a break. Break me off a piece of that cra-zi-ness!
And you know how much you'd have if you had a private account with an S&P 500 ETF instead?
Less. 401k's have underperformed pensions since first coming on the scene in the late 80's. Furthermore, only about a third of American workers make enough to invest in a 401k, anyway. So they're great if you make more than $100K. But that's only about 10% of all earners. And what happens if, say, you hit retirement right when there's a financial collapse like we had in 2007-8, 2000-1, 1991-3, etc.? Then you're screwed. The probolem with your argument is that you are only looking at it in the vacuum of your personal circumstances. But I've learned from these boards never to accept anything anyone says about themselves because they're almost certainly lying their butts off in order to score a cheap point in a debate. Substituting personal circumstances for facts is not allowed in real debate, so why should I accept it here? If you cannot make your argument on the facts alone, and have to invoke "personal history", then it's not an argument worth making.
Your own chart, orange line, shows you're wrong.
Your chart says they've increased, after dropping from 1972-1980. Real wages, as shown in your chart ARE adjusted for inflation. That's what REAL means. Moron.
Average real wages dropping before Reagan's tax cuts, rising after Reagan's tax cuts.
In this respect DJ Trump is like GW Bush who was like RW Reagan.Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:
This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:
And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:
Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)
None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):
So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.
Tax cuts help wage growth when they make more money available to hire more people.Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:
This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:
And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:
Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)
None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):
So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.
Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth
How do tax cuts hurt wage growth?
The first American income tax was the Whiskey Tax which was not really an income tax it was an excise tax.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.
There are lots of ways to gather-in more tax revenues.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.
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.
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.
Tax Cuts do a lot of things; increase deficits, explode debts, hurt wage growth...but in concert with unlimited campaign contributions, they actually steal our democracy. The average politician spends about 80% of their time raising money. And from whom are they generally raising the most money? From wealthy donors. And what benefits wealthy donors? Tax cuts. Here are some handy charts showing the extent of the theft of wealth and democracy by the 1% and their Conservative and Neo-Liberal enablers. Since the Reagan tax cuts, working people’s share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:
This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:
And forced working people to spend down savings to get by:
Which forced working people to go into debt: (total household debt as percentage of GDP)
None of which has helped economic growth much: (12-quarter rolling average nominal GDP growth.):
So the conclusion? Trump and the Conservatives' "tax reform" is just more of the same we've heard from them since 1980, and is just a thinly veiled attempt to redistribute wealth from the middle and bottom to the top.
Hilarious. Wrong. How are all the pensions at bankrupt companies doing?
When the government siphons off 12.4% of your lifetime earnings, that makes it harder to fund a 401K.
If you had 30 or 40 years of investing, you wouldn't notice.
Your own chart, orange line, shows you're wrong.
No, it doesn't. Again, you aren't looking at the red line of median weekly earnings of full-time workers.
Your chart says they've increased, after dropping from 1972-1980. Real wages, as shown in your chart ARE adjusted for inflation. That's what REAL means. Moron.
Wow...wow, dude. So, surely you know the difference between average wages and median weekly earnings of full time workers, right? So, the average wage means all wages averaged together (which would include things like CEO pay and compensation, which is not weekly earnings). CEO pay, for example has gone from something like 80-1 to 450-1. So that's going to skew the average wage upward. However, when you look at weekly earnings for Full Time workers, that factors out all those deferred compensation and stock dividend pay that is counted toward the average wage, you see, very plainly, that the median weekly wage declined from 1980-2014.
Average real wages dropping before Reagan's tax cuts, rising after Reagan's tax cuts.
Right, because CEO pay skyrocketed starting under Reagan. And the average wage includes those executives whereas the median weekly wage does not.
Also, just because the ideology you adhere to is dickish doesn't mean you have to be a dick too.
Tax Cuts don't steal democracy.
The Wilsonian-Expert-Administrative State to which Congress has delegated writing actual laws does steal democracy.
