Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another study by University of Chicago economist Jeffrey Grogger found that the expansions of the EITC during the Clinton years “appear to be the most important single factor in explaining why female family heads [of households] increased their employment over 1993-1999"
You mean MORE TAX CUTS expanded the economy.. nooo, isnt that what I've been arguing.
Thanks for finally agreeing, while actually arguing.. I love when people do that..
its not at all a valid point. if the left is going to run around claiming that government spending is great, then they should be demanding military spending be tripled..
That wasn't the point. The point is you are complaining about run away spending but yet so many that complain about that can't bring themselves to condemn the wars and demand they stop.
They will complain about penny ante things. The wars have to stop or this country simply can not get their finances in order.
Conservative =/= Democrat or Republican, especially in the 1960s.
Actually they do, but indirectly. Income tax cuts increase the deficit. Deficit spending is what causes economic growth, period. Let's examine the proven, undisputed formula:
GDP = Federal Spending ("the deficit") + Private Sector Investment & Consumption + Net Exports
Increasing the deficit increases GDP.
Actually no, Clinton's tax increases did not cause the economy to boom. Economic cycles are largely cyclical, but they also depend on a positive balance of payments. Clinton's Republican-led surpluses led to a recession in 2001.
Correct. Reducing the deficit does not prevent economic growth, because there is still a positive balance of payments. Creating surpluses would slow economic growth significantly, as evidenced by recessions. Every surplus has resulted in a recession.
Conservatives have no grasp of economics. Who actually takes conservatives seriously?
First off I think JFK would be right at home in the modern Democratic party. And conservatives at that time certainly consider JFK a radical liberal.
I didn't write that tax increases caused economic growth. I wrote that the tax increases didn't prohibit economic growth. This is the lie that conservatives consistently tell about tax increases.
Those surpluses had nothing to do with conservatives. The budget passed in the 1993 was called the deficit reduction act of 1993 and that budget along with increased economic growth is what reduced the budget deficit.
I didn't say the budget surplus was good for the economy, only that those budget surpluses according to conservatives should have been impossible since Clinton increased taxes which according to conservatives should have doomed the economy, and to point out that conservatives quickly got rid of those budget surpluses in favor of unpaid for income tax cuts for rich people.
Not all government spending is equal. Does that make sense? Spending which goes through the maximum number of people is better.
Which would eliminate road repair projects as a "stimulus", unless of course you think it actually requires more people to make cement, than a B2 bomber..
That wasn't the point. The point is you are complaining about run away spending but yet so many that complain about that can't bring themselves to condemn the wars and demand they stop.
They will complain about penny ante things. The wars have to stop or this country simply can not get their finances in order.
Thats true, but thtas a completely different issue. many conservatives believe we need to cut back on the military, but if you are going to argue for government spending, and claim it stimulates (which is hogwash) then military spending should be doubled. The military complex creates millions upon millions of jobs in this country.. If the argument is that government should spend to create jobs then clearly thats the method, right?
Thats true, but thtas a completely different issue. many conservatives believe we need to cut back on the military, but if you are going to argue for government spending, and claim it stimulates (which is hogwash) then military spending should be doubled.
I will note......despite saying they are anti-war the "left" can't bring themselves to condemn the spending Obama has wasted on the wars either.
Quote:
The military complex creates millions upon millions of jobs in this country.. If the argument is that government should spend to create jobs then clearly thats the method, right?
This was brought up to me earlier and my reply is it is a disgusting position that we must continue wars to keep people in jobs.
As far as wars go right now because there is a (D) in the White House, 90% of the people are extremely hypocritical over the wars. It's enough to almost push to me to vote for an (R) for president so the 45% that refuse to condemn Obama over the wars would start speaking up again.
You mean MORE TAX CUTS expanded the economy.. nooo, isnt that what I've been arguing.
Thanks for finally agreeing, while actually arguing.. I love when people do that..
Again, conservatives now consider the EICT welfare, not a tax cut.
The much-praised House GOP tax reform introduced last week would cut the EITC, even though a House GOP report excoriating most federal assistance to the poor singled out the program for applause.
But with Clinton’s abolition of long-term assistance and imposition of work requirements, it became more difficult to isolate a class of nonworking, government-dependent poor that Republicans could reliably scapegoat. So they gradually came to rebrand as “dependent” any low-income person who collected government assistance, even if that person also had a job. In effect, conservatives broadened their definition of “welfare” to the breaking point,
The EITC wasn’t targeted explicitly. But it ran afoul of a growing doctrine put forth by then-Rep. Jim DeMint, R.-S.C., and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, that said too many lower-income people were getting away with paying no income tax. The theory was that too many of them were getting too used to the idea that government was all benefit and no cost (a formulation that overlooked the many regressive state, local, and federal payroll taxes already being paid by the poor). House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor cautiously signed on – the usual code phrase was “broaden the base”—before a version of this construct (“the 47%”) helped blow up Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. An interesting debate ensued on the right, with no particular resolution about whether conservatives should boast about inventing the EITC or quietly favor its demise.
A Ways and Means Committee document argues that this would eliminate fraudulent or erroneous claims, and, because it’s simpler, might be used by some people currently put off by the EITC’s complexity.
The committee document also says that “exempting a portion of wages from payroll tax would represent a tax cut, whereas the current EITC constitutes government spending.”
See these are elected conservatives saying that the EITC is welfare and government spending.
So no based on what conservatives believe right now the EITC expansion is an expansion of welfare and is government spending.
And also, the Democratic party right now would gladly put together tax cuts for lower/median income Americans.
Again, conservatives now consider the EICT welfare, not a tax cut.
Depending on income it can be welfare. Because of this there are some people who get back far more than they paid in. That would be welfare, not a tax cut.
I will note......despite saying they are anti-war the "left" can't bring themselves to condemn the spending Obama has wasted on the wars either.
This was brought up to me earlier and my reply is it is a disgusting position that we must continue wars to keep people in jobs.
As far as wars go right now because there is a (D) in the White House, 90% of the people are extremely hypocritical over the wars. It's enough to almost push to me to vote for an (R) for president so the 45% that refuse to condemn Obama over the wars would start speaking up again.
I read a statistic the other day that in the 200+ years of our country, we were fighting wars something like 98% of those years, if I recall it was something like 5 years of "peace". I dont remember the exact totals and didnt take time to validate it as true, but you get the idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
