Trump thinks a stock market rally lowers the national debt? No, really!

[deanrd]

No, Mr. President, a stock market rally does not reduce the national debt

"The stock market's gains have virtually nothing to do with the size of the national debt, which continues to rise because government spending far exceeds government receipts," political economist Greg Valliere told CNNMoney.

"A higher stock market encourages consumers and companies to spend more, which helps the overall economy," said Valliere of Horizon Investments. "But it's absurd to contend that the national debt has fallen because of this."

In fact, the president wants to cut taxes and potentially add to the debt if spending cuts cannot be found to offset those tax cuts.

Standard and Poor's 500 is up nearly 20% since his election -- an impressive rally. No question investors cheer this president's pro-business, anti-regulation, lower taxes agenda. But under the Obama Administration that same index rose 235%. And no, that stock market rally did not reduce or offset the national debt either.

----------------------------------

Is this really a surprise. Trump doesn't seem to know anything about anything. He's lucky he inherited so much.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Capital gain taxes.....Investing 101, Derp

 

[miketx]

No, Mr. President, a stock market rally does not reduce the national debt

"The stock market's gains have virtually nothing to do with the size of the national debt, which continues to rise because government spending far exceeds government receipts," political economist Greg Valliere told CNNMoney.

"A higher stock market encourages consumers and companies to spend more, which helps the overall economy," said Valliere of Horizon Investments. "But it's absurd to contend that the national debt has fallen because of this."

In fact, the president wants to cut taxes and potentially add to the debt if spending cuts cannot be found to offset those tax cuts.

Standard and Poor's 500 is up nearly 20% since his election -- an impressive rally. No question investors cheer this president's pro-business, anti-regulation, lower taxes agenda. But under the Obama Administration that same index rose 235%. And no, that stock market rally did not reduce or offset the national debt either.

----------------------------------

Is this really a surprise. Trump doesn't seem to know anything about anything. He's lucky he inherited so much.

How many of these "I'm so butthurt" threads will you post today in your quest toward total insanity?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

No, Mr. President, a stock market rally does not reduce the national debt

"The stock market's gains have virtually nothing to do with the size of the national debt, which continues to rise because government spending far exceeds government receipts," political economist Greg Valliere told CNNMoney.

"A higher stock market encourages consumers and companies to spend more, which helps the overall economy," said Valliere of Horizon Investments. "But it's absurd to contend that the national debt has fallen because of this."

In fact, the president wants to cut taxes and potentially add to the debt if spending cuts cannot be found to offset those tax cuts.

Standard and Poor's 500 is up nearly 20% since his election -- an impressive rally. No question investors cheer this president's pro-business, anti-regulation, lower taxes agenda. But under the Obama Administration that same index rose 235%. And no, that stock market rally did not reduce or offset the national debt either.

----------------------------------

Is this really a surprise. Trump doesn't seem to know anything about anything. He's lucky he inherited so much.

War on poverty cost
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

Stop paying the 1 trillion dollars a year for the war on poverty and in 20 years our national debt would be gone, and more people would be employed.

 

[deanrd]

No, Mr. President, a stock market rally does not reduce the national debt

"The stock market's gains have virtually nothing to do with the size of the national debt, which continues to rise because government spending far exceeds government receipts," political economist Greg Valliere told CNNMoney.

"A higher stock market encourages consumers and companies to spend more, which helps the overall economy," said Valliere of Horizon Investments. "But it's absurd to contend that the national debt has fallen because of this."

In fact, the president wants to cut taxes and potentially add to the debt if spending cuts cannot be found to offset those tax cuts.

Standard and Poor's 500 is up nearly 20% since his election -- an impressive rally. No question investors cheer this president's pro-business, anti-regulation, lower taxes agenda. But under the Obama Administration that same index rose 235%. And no, that stock market rally did not reduce or offset the national debt either.

----------------------------------

Is this really a surprise. Trump doesn't seem to know anything about anything. He's lucky he inherited so much.

War on poverty cost
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

Stop paying the 1 trillion dollars a year for the war on poverty and in 20 years our national debt would be gone, and more people would be employed.

Screw the poor? That's your solution?

 

[deanrd]

Capital gain taxes.....Investing 101, Derp

So you think the Stock Market pays down the national debt?

 

[Econ4Every1]

No, Mr. President, a stock market rally does not reduce the national debt

"The stock market's gains have virtually nothing to do with the size of the national debt, which continues to rise because government spending far exceeds government receipts," political economist Greg Valliere told CNNMoney.

"A higher stock market encourages consumers and companies to spend more, which helps the overall economy," said Valliere of Horizon Investments. "But it's absurd to contend that the national debt has fallen because of this."

In fact, the president wants to cut taxes and potentially add to the debt if spending cuts cannot be found to offset those tax cuts.

Standard and Poor's 500 is up nearly 20% since his election -- an impressive rally. No question investors cheer this president's pro-business, anti-regulation, lower taxes agenda. But under the Obama Administration that same index rose 235%. And no, that stock market rally did not reduce or offset the national debt either.

----------------------------------

Is this really a surprise. Trump doesn't seem to know anything about anything. He's lucky he inherited so much.

War on poverty cost
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

Stop paying the 1 trillion dollars a year for the war on poverty and in 20 years our national debt would be gone, and more people would be employed.

How does removing $1 trillion dollars in spending and assistance from the private sector increase employment?

Wouldn't it have the opposite effect?

And how would the national debt vanish?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

No, Mr. President, a stock market rally does not reduce the national debt

"The stock market's gains have virtually nothing to do with the size of the national debt, which continues to rise because government spending far exceeds government receipts," political economist Greg Valliere told CNNMoney.

"A higher stock market encourages consumers and companies to spend more, which helps the overall economy," said Valliere of Horizon Investments. "But it's absurd to contend that the national debt has fallen because of this."

In fact, the president wants to cut taxes and potentially add to the debt if spending cuts cannot be found to offset those tax cuts.

Standard and Poor's 500 is up nearly 20% since his election -- an impressive rally. No question investors cheer this president's pro-business, anti-regulation, lower taxes agenda. But under the Obama Administration that same index rose 235%. And no, that stock market rally did not reduce or offset the national debt either.

----------------------------------

Is this really a surprise. Trump doesn't seem to know anything about anything. He's lucky he inherited so much.

War on poverty cost
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

Stop paying the 1 trillion dollars a year for the war on poverty and in 20 years our national debt would be gone, and more people would be employed.

How does removing $1 trillion dollars in spending and assistance from the private sector increase employment?

Wouldn't it have the opposite effect?

And how would the national debt vanish?

How does taking 1 trillion dollars from hard working people and give it to shitfucks like you , increase employment? Because when your belly starts to grumble, instead of going to Walmart and use your gvt EBT card, you have to get off your sorry lazy ass, and find a job, you know the one Obama's economic recovery was left for President Trump. Or are you saying that, that is a lie Obama told everyone?

Under the Contract with America that Bill Clinton signed, people were allowed 5 years of welfare before it was terminated. After that they had to seek employment or schooling and be off welfare for 6 months before they went back on. You libfucks touted Bill Clintons economy as great.. Obama stopped that and allowed lazy fucks like you to be welfare queens forever.... You can thank Newt and his republican majority for that contract.

Washingtonpost.com: Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division

Clinton's endorsement of the bill, which requires recipients to work and limits benefits to five years, fulfills a 1992 campaign promise that came to symbolize his image as a centrist Democrat. But yesterday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

As for the national debt, in twenty years, if more people are working and no payments to welfare queens like you, that 1 trillion dollars stolen could pay down the debt. See how easy the math is? Oh yeah, you flunked 2nd grade math, didn't you?

 

[Econ4Every1]

How does taking 1 trillion dollars from hard working people

How does that answer my question?

Apparently, you didn't understand it, so here, let me try again.

If the government fails to spend $1 trillion dollars, doesn't that reduce GDP by the same amount?

Some of the money spent is offset by taxes, but last year there was $688 billion that was spent in excess of taxes and therefore wasn't taken from taxpayers.

and give it to shitfucks like you , increase employment? Because when your belly starts to grumble, instead of going to Walmart and use yourgvt EBT card, you have to get off your sorry lazy ass, and find a job,

You think you can bait me? Drag me down to your level and beat me with your experience flinging childish insults?

You're going to have to do better than that. How about you stick to the topic and show me how well you understand America's sovereign money system.

you know the one Obama's economic recovery was left for President Trump. Or are you saying that, that is a lie Obama told everyone?

Under the Contract with America that Bill Clinton signed, people were allowed 5 years of welfare before it was terminated. After that they had to seek employment or schooling and be off welfare for 6 months before they went back on. You libfucks touted Bill Clintons economy as great.. Obama stopped that and allowed lazy fucks like you to be welfare queens forever.... You can thank Newt and his republican majority for that contract.

Washingtonpost.com: Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division

Clinton's endorsement of the bill, which requires recipients to work and limits benefits to five years, fulfills a 1992 campaign promise that came to symbolize his image as a centrist Democrat. But yesterday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

Let's stick to economics, not politics. You get all excited the emotion kicks in and you start ranting irrationally about stuff that you have no clue about.

See, there's a difference between economic accounting and economic political policy. Your problem is, you don't understand the former which leads you to poor conclusions. I suggest you stick to economic accounting and refrain from conflating the two.

As for the national debt, in twenty years, if more people are working and no payments to welfare queens like you, that 1 trillion dollars stolen could pay down the debt. See how easy the math is? Oh yeah, you flunked 2nd grade math, didn't you?

Where do you think money comes from?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

How does taking 1 trillion dollars from hard working people

How does that answer my question?

Apparently, you didn't understand it, so here, let me try again.

If the government fails to spend $1 trillion dollars, doesn't that reduce GDP by the same amount?

Some of the money spent is offset by taxes, but last year there was $688 billion that was spent in excess of taxes and therefore wasn't taken from taxpayers.

and give it to shitfucks like you , increase employment? Because when your belly starts to grumble, instead of going to Walmart and use yourgvt EBT card, you have to get off your sorry lazy ass, and find a job,

You think you can bait me? Drag me down to your level and beat me with your experience flinging childish insults?

You're going to have to do better than that. How about you stick to the topic and show me how well you understand America's sovereign money system.

you know the one Obama's economic recovery was left for President Trump. Or are you saying that, that is a lie Obama told everyone?

Under the Contract with America that Bill Clinton signed, people were allowed 5 years of welfare before it was terminated. After that they had to seek employment or schooling and be off welfare for 6 months before they went back on. You libfucks touted Bill Clintons economy as great.. Obama stopped that and allowed lazy fucks like you to be welfare queens forever.... You can thank Newt and his republican majority for that contract.

Washingtonpost.com: Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division

Clinton's endorsement of the bill, which requires recipients to work and limits benefits to five years, fulfills a 1992 campaign promise that came to symbolize his image as a centrist Democrat. But yesterday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

Let's stick to economics, not politics. You get all excited the emotion kicks in and you start ranting irrationally about stuff that you have no clue about.

See, there's a difference between economic accounting and economic political policy. Your problem is, you don't understand the former which leads you to poor conclusions. I suggest you stick to economic accounting and refrain from conflating the two.

As for the national debt, in twenty years, if more people are working and no payments to welfare queens like you, that 1 trillion dollars stolen could pay down the debt. See how easy the math is? Oh yeah, you flunked 2nd grade math, didn't you?

Where do you think money comes from?

The government produces NOTHING, only TAKES.. your argument ends there...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

No, Mr. President, a stock market rally does not reduce the national debt

"The stock market's gains have virtually nothing to do with the size of the national debt, which continues to rise because government spending far exceeds government receipts," political economist Greg Valliere told CNNMoney.

"A higher stock market encourages consumers and companies to spend more, which helps the overall economy," said Valliere of Horizon Investments. "But it's absurd to contend that the national debt has fallen because of this."

In fact, the president wants to cut taxes and potentially add to the debt if spending cuts cannot be found to offset those tax cuts.

Standard and Poor's 500 is up nearly 20% since his election -- an impressive rally. No question investors cheer this president's pro-business, anti-regulation, lower taxes agenda. But under the Obama Administration that same index rose 235%. And no, that stock market rally did not reduce or offset the national debt either.

----------------------------------

Is this really a surprise. Trump doesn't seem to know anything about anything. He's lucky he inherited so much.

War on poverty cost
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

Stop paying the 1 trillion dollars a year for the war on poverty and in 20 years our national debt would be gone, and more people would be employed.

Screw the poor? That's your solution?

Screw the poor? That's your solution?

Dean(the dipshit)rd, once again, I would like to point out the history of the war on poverty

War on poverty cost
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25288

How after all these years and 22 trillion dollars wasted, are there more people in poverty after 8 years of Obamanomics and the fundamental transformation of America, into a new Venezuela? Because liberalism is all about FAILURE, once everyone has failed then everyone is equally poor and equally miserable. Get rid of welfare(because before the new deal everyone had to work or seek charity) people worked for a living so they could eat or provide for their families. If they couldn't work charitable organization would help them out and give them a helping hand, while the fucking Democrats give out FREE stuff making sure those in need stay in need, instead of helping them get out of poverty. I get so tired having to teach you worthless fucks history. Just cant fix stupid...

 

[Econ4Every1]

How does taking 1 trillion dollars from hard working people

How does that answer my question?

Apparently, you didn't understand it, so here, let me try again.

If the government fails to spend $1 trillion dollars, doesn't that reduce GDP by the same amount?

You might respond that leaving the money with the people that paid it as taxes would have been spent by those people. There are two problems with this response.

1) As people like you are so fond of pointing out, the majority of federal taxes comes from a reasonably small percentage of people. I'd be willing to bet 50% of all federal taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners. Those earners are not denied dollars to spend as, even after they pay taxes they have enough to consume whatever they want (reasonably speaking). Thus taxing those at the very top has little if any impact on consumption.

When top income earners save this slows velocity which reduces demand and, if you understand economic accounting, reduces GDP.

What about investments you say?

Some of the money held by the top 1% certainly is invested in such a way that people are put to work. However, given the economic demand over the last 8 years, there is a shortage of demand.

Putting money into the hands of those in the middle and lower classes via spending on things like infrastructure and other projects that put lower and middle class to work would drive consumption in industries that already have excess capacity (that means that people could increase demand without companies having to struggle to meet supply).

2)Some of the money spent is offset by taxes, but last year there was $688 billion that was spent in excess of taxes and therefore wasn't taken from taxpayers.

That spending adds net dollars and increase the size of the economy.

Now if you want to get into bonds and how they affect the economy, I'd be happy to explain it to you.

and give it to shitfucks like you , increase employment? Because when your belly starts to grumble, instead of going to Walmart and use yourgvt EBT card, you have to get off your sorry lazy ass, and find a job,

You think you can bait me? Drag me down to your level and beat me with your experience flinging childish insults?

You're going to have to do better than that. How about you stick to the topic and show me how well you understand America's sovereign money system.

you know the one Obama's economic recovery was left for President Trump. Or are you saying that, that is a lie Obama told everyone?

Under the Contract with America that Bill Clinton signed, people were allowed 5 years of welfare before it was terminated. After that they had to seek employment or schooling and be off welfare for 6 months before they went back on. You libfucks touted Bill Clintons economy as great.. Obama stopped that and allowed lazy fucks like you to be welfare queens forever.... You can thank Newt and his republican majority for that contract.

Washingtonpost.com: Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division Clinton's endorsement of the bill, which requires recipients to work and limits benefits to five years, fulfills a 1992 campaign promise that came to symbolize his image as a centrist Democrat. But yesterday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

Let's stick to economics, not politics. You get all excited the emotion kicks in and you start ranting irrationally about stuff that you have no clue about.

See, there's a difference between economic accounting and economic political policy. Your problem is, you don't understand the former which leads you to poor conclusions. I suggest you stick to economic accounting and refrain from conflating the two.

As for the national debt, in twenty years, if more people are working and no payments to welfare queens like you, that 1 trillion dollars stolen could pay down the debt. See how easy the math is? Oh yeah, you flunked 2nd grade math, didn't you?

Where do you think money comes from?

 

[Econ4Every1]

The government produces NOTHING, only TAKES.. your argument ends there...

Perhaps you're familiar with the informal debate fallacy known as the "strawman"

Where did I make the claim that the government produces anything?

I really thought after all that tough talk and insults you'd actually try to back some of what you said by showing off a little bit of your knowledge, typical internet bully.

Anytime you want to debate understanding, you let me know. I'll here, waiting for my welfare check.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

How does taking 1 trillion dollars from hard working people

How does that answer my question?

Apparently, you didn't understand it, so here, let me try again.

If the government fails to spend $1 trillion dollars, doesn't that reduce GDP by the same amount?

You might respond that leaving the money with the people that paid it as taxes would have been spent by those people. There are two problems with this response.

1) As people like you are so fond of pointing out, the majority of federal taxes comes from a reasonably small percentage of people. I'd be willing to bet 50% of all federal taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners. Those earners are not denied dollars to spend as, even after they pay taxes they have enough to consume whatever they want (reasonably speaking). Thus taxing those at the very top has little if any impact on consumption.

When top income earners save this slows velocity which reduces demand and, if you understand economic accounting, reduces GDP.

What about investments you say?

Some of the money held by the top 1% certainly is invested in such a way that people are put to work. However, given the economic demand over the last 8 years, there is a shortage of demand.

Putting money into the hands of those in the middle and lower classes via spending on things like infrastructure and other projects that put lower and middle class to work would drive consumption in industries that already have excess capacity (that means that people could increase demand without companies having to struggle to meet supply).

2)Some of the money spent is offset by taxes, but last year there was $688 billion that was spent in excess of taxes and therefore wasn't taken from taxpayers.

That spending adds net dollars and increase the size of the economy.

Now if you want to get into bonds and how they affect the economy, I'd be happy to explain it to you.

and give it to shitfucks like you , increase employment? Because when your belly starts to grumble, instead of going to Walmart and use yourgvt EBT card, you have to get off your sorry lazy ass, and find a job,

You think you can bait me? Drag me down to your level and beat me with your experience flinging childish insults?

You're going to have to do better than that. How about you stick to the topic and show me how well you understand America's sovereign money system.

you know the one Obama's economic recovery was left for President Trump. Or are you saying that, that is a lie Obama told everyone?

Under the Contract with America that Bill Clinton signed, people were allowed 5 years of welfare before it was terminated. After that they had to seek employment or schooling and be off welfare for 6 months before they went back on. You libfucks touted Bill Clintons economy as great.. Obama stopped that and allowed lazy fucks like you to be welfare queens forever.... You can thank Newt and his republican majority for that contract.

Washingtonpost.com: Clinton Signs Welfare Bill Amid Division Clinton's endorsement of the bill, which requires recipients to work and limits benefits to five years, fulfills a 1992 campaign promise that came to symbolize his image as a centrist Democrat. But yesterday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

Let's stick to economics, not politics. You get all excited the emotion kicks in and you start ranting irrationally about stuff that you have no clue about.

See, there's a difference between economic accounting and economic political policy. Your problem is, you don't understand the former which leads you to poor conclusions. I suggest you stick to economic accounting and refrain from conflating the two.

As for the national debt, in twenty years, if more people are working and no payments to welfare queens like you, that 1 trillion dollars stolen could pay down the debt. See how easy the math is? Oh yeah, you flunked 2nd grade math, didn't you?

Where do you think money comes from?

Maybe your champion who cheated on is wife can convince you.. I doubt it as you cant fix stupid.

 

[Econ4Every1]

Maybe your champion who cheated on is wife can convince you.. I doubt it as you cant fix stupid.

I'm sorry, what is it I'm supposed to learn from this?

I must say, you list of debate fallacies is piling up. Another "strawman" and an "argument from authority" thrown in for good measure.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Maybe your champion who cheated on is wife can convince you.. I doubt it as you cant fix stupid.

I'm sorry, what is it I'm supposed to learn from this?

I must say, you list of debate fallacies is piling up. Another "strawman" and an "argument from authority" thrown in for good measure.

Never mind..

 

[Econ4Every1]

Maybe your champion who cheated on is wife can convince you.. I doubt it as you cant fix stupid.

I'm sorry, what is it I'm supposed to learn from this?

I must say, you list of debate fallacies is piling up. Another "strawman" and an "argument from authority" thrown in for good measure.

Never mind..

View attachment 155288

This is what low information people do. Run now. Run away...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Maybe your champion who cheated on is wife can convince you.. I doubt it as you cant fix stupid.

I'm sorry, what is it I'm supposed to learn from this?

I must say, you list of debate fallacies is piling up. Another "strawman" and an "argument from authority" thrown in for good measure.

Never mind..

View attachment 155288

This is what low information people do. Run now. Run away...

 

[Econ4Every1]

Maybe your champion who cheated on is wife can convince you.. I doubt it as you cant fix stupid.

I'm sorry, what is it I'm supposed to learn from this?

I must say, you list of debate fallacies is piling up. Another "strawman" and an "argument from authority" thrown in for good measure.

Never mind..

View attachment 155288

This is what low information people do. Run now. Run away...

View attachment 155297

Are you still here?

The only one being "liberal" here is you. Flinging insults when people say things you disagree with.

You haven't put forward a single fact having to do with anything I've asked and you've conflated economics and politics.

This is a mirror suggest you look in it.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Maybe your champion who cheated on is wife can convince you.. I doubt it as you cant fix stupid.

I'm sorry, what is it I'm supposed to learn from this?

I must say, you list of debate fallacies is piling up. Another "strawman" and an "argument from authority" thrown in for good measure.

Never mind..

View attachment 155288

This is what low information people do. Run now. Run away...

View attachment 155297

Are you still here?

The only one being "liberal" here is you. Flinging insults when people say things you disagree with.

You haven't put forward a single fact having to do with anything I've asked and you've conflated economics and politics.

This is a mirror suggest you look in it.

I have put up facts time and again, but since you wont pull your head out of your ass, I wont continue to show you every fucking instance where tax breaks put money into the peoples hands, the economy grows, people get jobs, and the deficit goes down when welfare isn't used for the now employed people. Show more of that FAUX indignation and supposedly liberal, superior intellect. I have been around when Eisenhower was in office, so know my history.