no the skew is across the board ( all states).
It correlates to wage growth across ALL percentiles / virtually all sectors ( although blue collar did exceptionally well).
don't hand me your typical BS memes-save it for the rubes
"Sanders is right: Republican tax cuts cost more than forgiving student debt"
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
It correlates to wage growth across ALL percentiles / virtually all sectors ( although blue collar did exceptionally well).
don't hand me your typical BS memes-save it for the rubes
See, you are buying the talk radio rhetoric, the tax cut Trump just passed is "free stuff" to those who need it the least, yet you have been so caught up in the Cadillac welfare mythology of the last Century that you apply it to the wrong class
6%??
is not a "replacement" your math is horrid. craft is still manufacturing as is assemblyThis entire argument is wrong.There is no comparison. Saunders is proving once again what fucking idiot he is. Student debt is private, assigned, voluntary debt. It is not taxes nor any part of the tax base. Student debt has zero effect on the governments continued operation.
Taxes are obviously involuntary. They support the continued operation of this country though much of it is wasted. When the government gives tax cuts they are in effect stating they will not need that revenue to continue operation and people are better keeping those monies to further their prosperity.
There is a reason that even somewhat rational people know that Bernie is out there and not a real candidate at all . No sense. No economic sense. No leadership. Nothing. This is just another shining example.
Right, and HOW MANY STATES RAISED THEIR MINIMUM WAGES LAST YEAR?
It's like you know answering that question will show that all wage growth at the bottom is attributed solely to the MW increases and not the shitty tax cuts, which you all promised would raise wages by at least $4,000.
None of whom can predict the future. Macro forecasts, especially of the economy ten years from now, should not be trusted on those grounds alone.
hey it's a throw away political line -but it's accurate enough for campaigns ( which is what we are talking about?)
No "Cadiallac welfare queens".
just the grinding poverty of accepted diminished expectations from crap like perpetual affirmative action
dodn't cherry pick my response when it depends on the fuller context -i just showed you state minimum wage increases don't account for all sectors/percentiles growth. you are such a dishonest hack -why you are a waste of time
Sounds good, but you are missing the point
Bernie said that the tax cut cost more than his plan to forget student loan debt, meaning the tax cut will cost the Gov't more in loss revenue, which the article shows is a valid argument
Bernie's point is that the Gov't's priorities are misguided, if you are going to give the rich a subsidy, you would be better off giving it to middle class families or individuals facing the huge debt. He is showing how some of his programs where everyone yells how you going to pay for it can be addressed with redirected Gov't policies. If done prior to the tax cut his idea would have cost the Gov't less and been more directed at those who would benefited greater
That is where this makes no sense. It is not only the "rich" that benefits from tax breaks. It is society as a whole. Rewarding bad financial behavior like indebtedness is not going to help Americans understand finances. The government bailing them out from stupidity with others tax dollars who were not is playing Robin Hood. That is not the function of Government. That certainly is a form of beginning socialism though.
No, Bernie is saying that with different priories, a Gov't program to forget student debt as opposed to a tax cut for the rich, would pay for what you think is "free stuff," it is a question of priorities, the rich get richer or the middle class stays afloat
And what you think is "diminished expectations" is a paternalistic thought from the last Century. I'm always amazed that people that think that way are more concerned with what the perceive others are getting rather than what they themselves have
But their predictions have been right more often than wrong
What you are saying would mean that there is no sense in planning for the future. If the results of anything can not be estimated it is all trial and error depending on what you know now, not very scientific, nor responsible, living hand to mouth, something even as a kid you are taught ain't good
Again, nothing personal, but you are missing the point
It was the rich who benefited from the last tax cut, the middle class got crumbs, but the rich made out like bandits, as Trump told his crowd at Mara-logo. "you all just got a lot richer" (https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...ust-got-a-lot-richer-friends-tax-bill-2017-12)
And what Bernie is saying is that if you are going to reward the rich via tax cut you would be better off aiding the middle class by forgetting a crippling debt. It is as much "Robin Hood" as giving money to the rich would be "Robin Hood," but in this case it would a step in reversing the trend of the last thirty years
That is a fallacy. Your link is innuendo. What Bernie is saying (wrongly of course) is be stupid. The government will save you. That is a reversal of a trend from much longer than 30 years ago. And concerning that people in this country actually believe it to be a good thing when history proves undeniably otherwise.
That's actually not true. Forecasts in the same year are fairly good, but after 3 years the predictive quality decreases dramatically. Your article bases its conjecture on a 10 year forecast. I'm just saying macroeconomic predictions are notoriously inaccurate that to plan your future based on them would be stupid—not very scientific nor responsible.
It is an innuendo that the rich benefited from Trump's tax cut?
Here's a few sites, but there are dozens that show Trump's tax did benefit the rich, did you think he was joking when he told the crowd that they "just got a lot richer?"
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/19/who-wins-and-who-loses-tax-bill/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresa...the-trump-tax-cut-benefited-you/#67f8887f13e0
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/30/trump-tax-cut-law-investigation-worker-benefits
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/5717...h-of-gop-tax-cuts-will-go-to-the-middle-class
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/22/tru...-gop-states-more-than-in-democrat-states.html
https://news.gallup.com/poll/248681/tax-day-update-americans-not-seeing-tax-cut-benefit.aspx
And just like the other conservative poster on the tread you are caught up in the 20th Century talk radio mythology of the Cadillac welfare recipient, as I said, you people seemingly are more concerned on what others might be getting than what you yourself already have, bet you enjoyed that mortgage interest deduction for decades didn't you
That only the rich benefited. That is in fact innuendo. The only viable link you have there is Forbes. And they disagree with you. Mortgage deduction? WTF are you talking about. Anything I own, I always paid cash. Maybe though Bernie can promise all those people that bought those houses they really cannot afford ( bad financial decisions again) to pay all those off also. What do you think?
cawacko
Well-known member
Tax cuts are anathema to Bernie and folks who share his economic beliefs. The idea of people keeping more of the money they earn or lower taxes promoting competitiveness or economic incentive is a foreign concept.
Now what I don’t understand is for a guy who talks so much about inequality that Bernie never mentions monetary policy and how the Feds low rate policy creates asset bubbles which benefit the better off and the rich. Either he doesn’t understand it or he thinks his supporters don’t and thus chooses to stay away from it.