Every Leftist Voted Against Pro-Growth Middle Class Tax Cut [W:139]

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Hah! Now I haven't heard of women using that reference before! :lol:

My wife is a very special character, and a total badass.
Nothing shocks her, she can hang with the best of the sailors.

 

[Nickyjo]

wait so the tax bull was realy about cutting tax rate for most of us and charging the wealthy and large corporations more?

that is a relief i figured it was mostly a tax brake for those with the most money forcing us to pick up the slack for government spending and or cutting down on social services

You summed it up well, but let’s make it simpler for those who don’t get it.

1- Rich people gave money to GOP politicians and told them to lower their taxes.
2- GOP lowers their taxes so rich people get to keep more money
3- This will cause deficits so that things like Social Security and Medicare get privatized
4- Thus, rich people get even more money

The key words are... you guessed it: rich people get more money. If the poor and middle benefit, so much the better. But the main point is ... do I have to repeat it? ... ok, rich people get... etc. ... Why is this? Ask Paul Ryan,who dreams of Ayn Rand every night. Rich people get more money cause they are better than others. There is nothing new here. Been the same for centuries.

 

[DamnYankee]

Your master's "Pro growth middle class" tax cut is neither. It's payout time for him and his sponsors as they loot the country.

It is going to be interesting watching leftists running for reelection. I wonder what kind of excuse they will use in defending their reasons for voting against a middle class tax cut?

 

[DamnYankee]

Why do you think 198 out of 200 CEOs said they won't create jobs?

You are just spewing trickle down bile which every economist says is a scam.

We will see and what are you going to say then.

Talk about spewing. ROTFL

 

[Glen Contrarian]

My wife is a very special character, and a total badass.
Nothing shocks her, she can hang with the best of the sailors.

I am really happy for both of you, and I'm proud of both of you, too! And caring for someone who is disabled is not easy - back in 1999, we took in a 4 y.o. medically-fragile child (trach, g-tube, rods in his back, seizure disorders, cleft palate, developmentally-disabled, wheelchair-bound), and he's sitting about six feet from me right now. It really is a labor of love.

That's the Missouri at Ford Island, right? I was stationed at Pearl for a little over two years, and I miss Hawaii....

 

[LunaRose]

It is going to be interesting watching leftists running for reelection. I wonder what kind of excuse they will use in defending their reasons for voting against a middle class tax cut?

There is an initial small cut for middle class, then it goes back up....This cut wont do much of anything for middle class, it will not change our lives nor will we see some sort of crazy increase in wealth. The only ones that will see that kind of affect from this bill are the rich...

And with only 32% of Americans supporting this stupid bill I'm sure "lefties" running for reelection will be just fine...

 

[DamnYankee]

There is an initial small cut for middle class, then it goes back up....This cut wont do much of anything for middle class, it will not change our lives nor will we see some sort of crazy increase in wealth. The only ones that will see that kind of affect from this bill are the rich...

And with only 32% of Americans supporting this stupid bill I'm sure "lefties" running for reelection will be just fine...

If it "won't do much of anything," then leftists should have voted for this bill that won't do much. Right? ROTFL...Nice try.

 

[blarg]

If it "won't do much of anything," then leftists should have voted for this bill that won't do much. Right? ROTFL...Nice try.

hmm that seems dishonest or foolish of you she said for the middle class it wont do any thing and that the rich are the ones that get the tax relief

 

[LunaRose]

If it "won't do much of anything," then leftists should have voted for this bill that won't do much. Right? ROTFL...Nice try.

This is not a life changing Bill for 95% of Americans, literally nothing will change other than maybe an extra movie night or two....The only people seeing significant life changing benefits are the rich which includes yours truly Donald Trump and company. Rich corporations will initially spring up a few new jobs, maybe even sprinkle some pay raises in there to make the Bill look good. Then just like the Reagan trickle down economics they will pull back because the bottom line is presenting current and future profits to stockholders.....

In the long run this bill spews catastrophe for social programs like Social Security and Medicaid as there is no way this Bill will be revenue neutral and they must find some way to pay for it. So, us middle class Americans will go on with our lives in the next couple of years not seeing any real change until we start seeing our Social Security being pillaged and Medicaid gone in order to keep the debt and deficit from getting out of control. Which in turn the burden will be placed on the shoulders of the the middle class Americans as the corporation tax rate can not be changed.

 

[DamnYankee]

hmm that seems dishonest or foolish of you she said for the middle class it wont do any thing and that the rich are the ones that get the tax relief

Doesn't it make any sense whatsoever to you, that if the leftists really wanted to relieve the middle class of excessively burdensome taxes, they would have fought for a bigger cut? But that didn't happen. The left did nothing for the middle class. Nothing. And people will notice.

 

[DamnYankee]

This is not a life changing Bill for 95% of Americans, literally nothing will change other than maybe an extra movie night or two....The only people seeing significant life changing benefits are the rich which includes yours truly Donald Trump and company. Rich corporations will initially spring up a few new jobs, maybe even sprinkle some pay raises in there to make the Bill look good. Then just like the Reagan trickle down economics they will pull back because the bottom line is presenting current and future profits to stockholders.....

In the long run this bill spews catastrophe for social programs like Social Security and Medicaid as there is no way this Bill will be revenue neutral and they must find some way to pay for it. So, us middle class Americans will go on with our lives in the next couple of years not seeing any real change until we start seeing our Social Security being pillaged and Medicaid gone in order to keep the debt and deficit from getting out of control. Which in turn the burden will be placed on the shoulders of the the middle class Americans as the corporation tax rate can not be changed.

From, "it won't do much," to, "it's not life changing." Okay, then why moan and groan about it? Always doom and gloom for the left. Sad.

According to the leftist propaganda machine, 143 millions Americans will benefit from the tax cut. The left seems to believe there are 143 million "rich" Americans. Wow, that really is good news. All that wealth out there. I'm happy for all those people that will benefit. You should stop being envious and start being grateful.

 

[Vetplus40]

Lets see. I get about 2k back that my kids and grandkids will have to pay into the national debt several times over. Trump gets millions and millions that his kids will never have to pay back.

Seems like a GREAT deal to me................LOL

 

[Visbek]

The discussion actually started out as working and middle class people. Not really who the poor are.

lol

The quote by you, to which I was responding: the left can't deny that the poor's standard of living rises exponentially. What difference does it make how they got their big screen tvs and smartphones?

Your attempt to change the goalposts is denied.

However, if you actually want to back up your claim, let's hear it. Or are you just assuming that only rich people can afford cell phones? You do know it's not 1991 anymore, right...?

 

[Moderate Right]

lol

The quote by you, to which I was responding: the left can't deny that the poor's standard of living rises exponentially. What difference does it make how they got their big screen tvs and smartphones?

Your attempt to change the goalposts is denied.

However, if you actually want to back up your claim, let's hear it. Or are you just assuming that only rich people can afford cell phones? You do know it's not 1991 anymore, right...?

What I said still stands and you can't deny that it is wrong.

 

[Critter7r]

What I said still stands and you can't deny that it is wrong.

Somehow, I doubt he will try to deny that what you said was wrong.

 

[Visbek]

What I said still stands and you can't deny that it is wrong.

"Deny" that the standard of living has increased "exponentially?" Try "disprove," which is what I attempted to do in post #248.

You have done absolutely nothing to disprove anything I wrote. You haven't even specified the time range you're talking about.

I.e. assertion is not an argument. When you feel like presenting anything resembling evidence, let us know.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I am really happy for both of you, and I'm proud of both of you, too! And caring for someone who is disabled is not easy - back in 1999, we took in a 4 y.o. medically-fragile child (trach, g-tube, rods in his back, seizure disorders, cleft palate, developmentally-disabled, wheelchair-bound), and he's sitting about six feet from me right now. It really is a labor of love.

That's the Missouri at Ford Island, right? I was stationed at Pearl for a little over two years, and I miss Hawaii....

It's the Iowa, Long Beach, California.
Karen's actually still a pretty tough lil chickie.

 

[Moderate Right]

"Deny" that the standard of living has increased "exponentially?" Try "disprove," which is what I attempted to do in post #248.

You have done absolutely nothing to disprove anything I wrote. You haven't even specified the time range you're talking about.

I.e. assertion is not an argument. When you feel like presenting anything resembling evidence, let us know.

I already have presented evidence and I already have presented a time frame. The living wage was initiated in 1938 at 25 cents per hour. If you take inflation into account that living minimum wage would be almost exactly where it is today. And, in 1938 almost all families were one wage earners whereas today, if both spouses work, their living wage is $14.50 per hour, double what it was in 1938 and that doesn't even take into account a slew of government benefits they get now that they did not get in 1938, up to and including Obamacare. Left wing creationists believe that the world began in 1968 and that is just a pile of crap.

 

[Critter7r]

I already have presented evidence and I already have presented a time frame. The living wage was initiated in 1938 at 25 cents per hour. If you take inflation into account that living minimum wage would be almost exactly where it is today. And, in 1938 almost all families were one wage earners whereas today, if both spouses work, their living wage is $14.50 per hour, double what it was in 1938 and that doesn't even take into account a slew of government benefits they get now that they did not get in 1938, up to and including Obamacare. Left wing creationists believe that the world began in 1968 and that is just a pile of crap.

If by "almost exactly" you really mean "about half as much", then sure, that 25-cent minimum wage in 1938 is almost exactly where it is today.

From the BLW CPI Inflation calculator.

$ 0.25

in January 1938
has the same buying power as

$4.34

in January 2017


You can't even be bothered run a simple inflation calculation before rattling off your incorrect assumptions about reality.

And let's not even try comparing 1938's needs for survival vs. today's.

 

[Moderate Right]

If by "almost exactly" you really mean "about half as much", then sure, that 25-cent minimum wage in 1938 is almost exactly where it is today.

From the BLW CPI Inflation calculator.

$ 0.25

in January 1938
has the same buying power as

$4.34

in January 2017


You can't even be bothered run a simple inflation calculation before rattling off your incorrect assumptions about reality.

And let's not even try comparing 1938's needs for survival vs. today's.

Not sure where I erred on that. Could have sworn we had debates on this before and that is what the conversation was. In any event, I'm talking strictly about the wage and not about buying power. However, the standard of living today, even for the poor, is exponentially better than it was back in 1938. And, as I said, back then we had one wage earner in the family whereas now we should have two, not to mention more government benefits being available now than in 1938, up to and including Obamacare. The main reason the "buying power" has decreased is because people don't have much money left after owning big screen tv's, smart phones, microwaves, and every other gadget there is that was not available in 1938. My parents were poor and I remember my mom used to darn our socks so that she wouldn't have to buy new ones. Do the poor darn socks today? The poor would have much more money today if they darned their socks and didn't own big screen tv's smart phones, and microwaves. A poor person today is much better off than a poor person in 1938.

 

[Critter7r]

Not sure where I erred on that. Could have sworn we had debates on this before and that is what the conversation was. In any event, I'm talking strictly about the wage and not about buying power. However, the standard of living today, even for the poor, is exponentially better than it was back in 1938. And, as I said, back then we had one wage earner in the family whereas now we should have two, not to mention more government benefits being available now than in 1938, up to and including Obamacare. The main reason the "buying power" has decreased is because people don't have much money left after owning big screen tv's, smart phones, microwaves, and every other gadget there is that was not available in 1938. My parents were poor and I remember my mom used to darn our socks so that she wouldn't have to buy new ones. Do the poor darn socks today? The poor would have much more money today if they darned their socks and didn't own big screen tv's smart phones, and microwaves. A poor person today is much better off than a poor person in 1938.

Well, if by "exponentially better" you mean "twice as good", then sure, I guess it's "exponentially better". I mean, the number "two" can be an exponent, right?

And I don't see the exponential benefit of a household having 2 MW earners as a plus, even if it means a quadrupling of the effective wage of those from 1938, because that requires that the mom and dad both work and find someone else to raise their kid(s) for them. I'm not sure why you advocate for parents to shove off their parenting responsibilities in favor of corporations receiving cheap labor. I feel that the upbringing of children is higher on the list of things that are important than the profits of businesses. (EDIT: I understand that we need both, but if we're going to favor one of them, I think it should be families that get the nod).

 

[Moderate Right]

Well, if by "exponentially better" you mean "twice as good", then sure, I guess it's "exponentially better". I mean, the number "two" can be an exponent, right?

And I don't see the exponential benefit of a household having 2 MW earners as a plus, even if it means a quadrupling of the effective wage of those from 1938, because that requires that the mom and dad both work and find someone else to raise their kid(s) for them. I'm not sure why you advocate for parents to shove off their parenting responsibilities in favor of corporations receiving cheap labor. I feel that the upbringing of children is higher on the list of things that are important than the profits of businesses. (EDIT: I understand that we need both, but if we're going to favor one of them, I think it should be families that get the nod).

Most of the middle and upper class have two earner families and many of the poorer don't. Hmmmmmmmmmm. Wonder if that means anything? You seem to make the argument that living in poverty raising kids is preferable to both parents working.

 

[Critter7r]

Most of the middle and upper class have two earner families and many of the poorer don't. Hmmmmmmmmmm. Wonder if that means anything?

Yes. It means it's not worth finding day care to go work at a job that pays less than the daycare costs. Just because they're poor doesn't mean they can't do a cost/benefit ratio analysis and figure out that when you pay your daycare $6/hr while earning $8/hr, you're not coming out ahead in that scenario.

You seem to make the argument that living in poverty raising kids is preferable to both parents working.

See above ... If they're still going to be in poverty regardless, then yes, keeping one parent at home with the kids is preferable.

 

[Visbek]

I already have presented evidence and I already have presented a time frame. The living wage was initiated in 1938 at 25 cents per hour. If you take inflation into account that living minimum wage would be almost exactly where it is today.

lol

You still haven't specified a time frame; your comments suggest we're going back to the 1930s. That is a long stretch of time.

Yes, the minimum wage is better than it was in 1938. However, it is far below its 1968 peak, and is at the same level as the mid-1950s. An extra $1.50/hour in terms of purchasing power certainly does not qualify as an "exponential" improvement, especially since it has actually slid since 1968.

However, the idea that the primary (or even first) thing to look at is minimum wage is ludicrous. We have to look at household income for the different income quintiles. Surprise! Almost all of the gains since the 1960s have gone to the top earners:

Surprise #2! This has resulted in significant increases in income inequality in recent years:

You also mentioned that women were joining the workforce -- but you somehow managed to overlook that men have been leaving the workforce since the 1950s:



As we can see, women started joining the workforce in the 1940s, while men were slowly leaving the workforce. The result was that LFPR rose, peaked around 2000, then gradually fell when women started leaving the workforce. (Women are also paid less than men, anywhere from 20% to 40% during that time frame.) The 2007 recession slightly accelerated this rate, and it started flattening out at the end of the Obama years. For the sake of completeness, here is the total LFPR.



Next, what about benefits? Yes, we can look at Social Security, TANF, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and more. The thing is, those programs are included in the Census Bureau's measures of household income. (https://www.census.gov/cps/data/incdef.html) Plus, the federal government took a chainsaw to many programs in the 80s and 90s, notably SS (Reagan cuts) and TANF (Clinton welfare reforms).


So, what can we conclude from the data? As I said in post #248, we can certainly say there was a big leap in the standard of living of the poor (and middle class) in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s -- which was a period of high taxes on top earners and lower income inequality. However, there have been almost no gains for 95% of the population since the 1970s, and income inequality has shot back up to 1930s levels.

There are tons of issues here -- part-time employment, increased productivity, automation, outsourcing, real estate ownership and value, access to credit, changes in the composition of the cost of living... Short of writing a book, though: The income side of the equation, which shows 50+ years with minimal improvement for the poor and working and middle and even upper middle class, does not support your position.

 

[Moderate Right]

Yes. It means it's not worth finding day care to go work at a job that pays less than the daycare costs. Just because they're poor doesn't mean they can't do a cost/benefit ratio analysis and figure out that when you pay your daycare $6/hr while earning $8/hr, you're not coming out ahead in that scenario.



See above ... If they're still going to be in poverty regardless, then yes, keeping one parent at home with the kids is preferable.

That's the trouble with the left, they can't see into the future. First of all, working and breaking even is better than sitting on your ass and breaking even. A good work ethic will help you later in life, even if it doesn't help you right now. When you work other opportunities can open up for you, including moving up the ladder where you currently are or numerous other possibilities. You can't be promoted or find a better job while sitting at home and playing video games on your big screen television, teaching your kids that you don't really have to work for a living and thus continuing the cycle of poverty that lasts generation after generation.

I think I may have told you my story before but here it goes again. In 1978 I was earning around $7.65 per hour working at a shoe factory when the minimum wage was $2.65 per hour. Pretty damn good - except that the shoe factory had a bleak future and I was actually already earning more than my boss (truth). Nothing to look forward to. So, I quit that job and went to work for Pizza Hut as a cook earning $2.65 per hour - the minimum wage. I did this because I felt confident I could move up and better myself and have a better future than if I stayed at the shoe factory. My friends (especially those in the shoe factory) all thought I was nuts and needed committing to a mental institution. Well, I moved up the ladder becoming Assistant Manager, Manager, and then moved on to other endeavors throughout my life and you can probably guess what happened to the shoe factory and everyone who worked there. My point is, when you try - things happen, when you just give up and say this is a wash so why work in the first place, nothing can happen.