Didn't Conservatives staple teabags to their faces because of this very thing?

[LV426]

Tax increases do nothing to lower household debt

Actually, no.

The rate of increase in the debt and decline of personal savings was static, and even flatlined and declined during Clinton, only to skyrocket back up right after the Bush Tax Cuts.



Coincidence? You would have us think so.

There is no such thing as a coincidence.

 

[LV426]

You are trying to attribute economic changes with one variable

No I'm not. I'm not talking GDP growth (which, even during Bush was done almost entirely on debt).

I'm showing that there is a corresponding increase in household debt when taxes are cut, and that there is a corresponding drop in increases to government spending -like in Medicaid- that corresponds to an increase in household debt loads to cover those costs.

So you cut taxes, which reduces the amount of spending for programs like Medicaid, and the result is that people have to borrow in order to pay bills.

And do we see any economic benefit from the tax cuts?

NOPE!

NEVER!

WE never see any economic benefit from tax cuts.

Never.

Never.

Never ever ever.

 

[Flash]

Yes they do; you're just refusing to admit it.

Bush cut taxes in 2001, and we see in the chart that personal savings decreased and household debt massively increased.

View attachment 9275

We also see in this chart, that Medicaid spending increases decreased down to as low as 1.5% by 2006. Was 2006 a magical year where people didn't get sick or something?

View attachment 9276

We also see in this chart, that MEW's were the primary driver of Bush's economy. And what are MEW's but simply borrowing against the value of your home.

View attachment 9277

So I've built a very strong argument that the reduction of revenue caused a lower increase of spending on Medicaid, and to fill that gap, people took out equity on their homes or liquidated their savings.

You haven't been able to counter any of that.

In other words, there were no spending cuts, but government spending did not increase as fast. Government spent even more money but it caused people to borrow money?

Medicaid is an entitlement--everybody who qualifies for benefits gets them, so nobody was going without. Medicaid is for very low income people with dependent children, disabled, or in nursing homes. I doubt if many of them have houses to qualify for a home equity loan.

And, you are making all that up. You have no idea that rises in household debt have anything to do with tax cuts or slower growth in government funding. Only partisan liberals would claim increases in government spending caused people to go in debt because the spending increases did not increase fast enough.

 

[LV426]

Clinton attributes to the compromises he made with the Republican Congress to keep spending down.

But spending still grew! BY 32%!

So how do you explain that? How do you explain tax increases and spending increases not only leading to an economic expansion, but also an erasing of the deficits and creation of surpluses?

You have us believe that increasing spending creates deficits, yet Clinton increased spending and saw his deficit turn into surpluses.

 

[LV426]

But what does that have to do with my post that "any increased cost of health care and education are due to increased costs, not government spending cuts (which did not occur) caused by tax cuts"?

Because health care spending increased from 1993-2001!

Every year, health care spending increased.

Every. Single. Year.

So Clinton increased spending, increased taxes, and produced an economic expansion and budget surpluses.

But according to you, that shouldn't have happened because he increased spending.

 

[LV426]

In other words, there were no spending cuts, but government spending did not increase as fast.

????

Flash, you're getting into that sloppiness habit again.

You said that spending increases are what causes deficits, yet spending increased during Clinton by 32% and the deficit was erased. Then, Bush cut taxes, and the result was the erasing of a surplus and the plunging of people into their personal savings or home equity because the rate of spending increases on things like Medicaid was stifled.

So they cut taxes, stifled the growth of Medicaid spending and ended up producing four record budget deficits in 8 years.

So health care spending was clamped down to levels below what it was during Clinton, yet we still ended up with record deficits.

So explain.

 

[LV426]

Medicaid is an entitlement--everybody who qualifies for benefits gets them, so nobody was going without.

Which has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

We are talking about how Bush and the Conservatives ratcheted back increases in Medicaid spending, which caused people to dip into their savings or home equity to pay their medical bills.

Same can be said for education spending too. Take Pell Grants, for example. Pell Grant spending WAS FLAT from 2003-2006. Now does that correspond with the rate of household debt increases and personal savings decreases? Why yes, it does.



So I just gave you two perfect examples of how spending didn't cause the deficits to appear; revenue reductions did.

 

[LV426]

And, you are making all that up.

LOL! I'm making up charts that I source? Huh?

I didn't make anything up. I'm drawing conclusions from the empirical evidence laid before us.

That evidence shows a massive increase in deficits and household debt, with massive declines in personal savings, linked to a decline in spending increases for Medicaid, and flatlining spending for Pell Grants for four years in a row.

You refuse to accept that data because it won't let you "bothsides" this thing.

 

[LV426]

You have no idea that rises in household debt have anything to do with tax cuts or slower growth in government funding.

Well, Flash, then why did the household debt numbers spike in the 00's, after being largely flat (and even declining) during Clinton?

Why do the increase in household debt numbers almost directly correlate to the lowered increases in spending on Medicaid, and the flatlining of spending for Pell Grants?

And why then did MEW's make up the bulk of Bush's GDP growth from 2001-2007 if the tax cut supposedly put more money in their pockets?

Why were so many people going into debt in the mid-2000's despite the second largest tax cut ever?

You know the answer. You just don't want to give me the satisfaction because you know I'll be a huge asshole about it (and I will, so your fears are justified).

 

[LV426]

Only partisan liberals would claim increases in government spending caused people to go in debt because the spending increases did not increase fast enough.

The increases to government spending were nominal and did not make up for the gap that came from the reduction of revenue...spending increases as low as 1.5% for Medicaid in 2006, and 0% for Pell Grants from 2003-2006.

In fact, Medicaid increases during Bush were lower than during Clinton...so by your dogma, the Bush years should have seen larger surpluses and less debt. So how come the opposite is the case?

 

[Flash]

Well, Flash, then why did the household debt numbers spike in the 00's, after being largely flat (and even declining) during Clinton?

Why do the increase in household debt numbers almost directly correlate to the lowered increases in spending on Medicaid, and the flatlining of spending for Pell Grants?

And why then did MEW's make up the bulk of Bush's GDP growth from 2001-2007 if the tax cut supposedly put more money in their pockets?

Why were so many people going into debt in the mid-2000's despite the second largest tax cut ever?

You know the answer. You just don't want to give me the satisfaction because you know I'll be a huge asshole about it (and I will, so your fears are justified).

You are making the simplistic assumption that one factor determines household savings and debt and that most Americans save less and borrow more after a tax cut although government spending continues to increase. That assumes most Americans are depending on government spending programs to save money or pay their bills.

 

[LV426]

You are making the simplistic assumption that one factor determines household savings and debt and that most Americans save less and borrow more after a tax cut although government spending continues to increase

But Pell Grants didn't increase for four years, Flash.

The same four years that saw a tremendous spike in household debt and a decline in personal savings.

That division was more pronounced following the Bush Tax Cuts than any other time over the last 40 years, according to the chart.

Same for Medicaid spending, which also saw increases decline to levels below those increases during Clinton.

Face it, the reason so many people went into debt in the mid-2000's despite the second largest tax cut ever was because the government spending on things like health care and education was clamped down or frozen entirely, yet the costs of health insurance and tuition kept rising. So something had to make up that gap; that something was increased borrowing and higher debt loads. As the chart here shows, MEW's made up the bulk of economic activity during Bush the Dumber:



Look at the chart, Flash.

What does it tell you?

Does it tell you that people were borrowing against the value of their homes in order to participate in the economy?

Why would they need to do that if they just got a tax cut, and for what could they possibly be borrowing against their homes?

 

[LV426]

That assumes most Americans are depending on government spending programs to save money or pay their bills.

Most Americans are, Flash, in some way or another...whether it's:

Medicaid
TANF
Pell Grants
Student Loans
Medicare
Social Security
SNAP
Heating assistance (LIHEAP)
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVP)
The ACA
Crop insurance
S-CHIP
The VA
SSDI
EITC
Head Start
Child Nutrition (Free school lunches)
Lifeline
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Etc.

You have a very limited and immature view of this country, one that is more steeped in ignorance than anything else. You simply don't have a lot of experience to draw from when it comes to conversations like this, so you end up saying something really inaccurate that you then have to spend all your time walking back when you could just say "I don't know," and let more informed people inform you.

 

[Getin the ring]

Most Americans are, Flash, in some way or another...whether it's:

Medicaid
TANF
Pell Grants
Student Loans
Medicare
Social Security
SNAP
Heating assistance (LIHEAP)
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVP)
The ACA
Crop insurance
S-CHIP
The VA
SSDI
EITC
Head Start
Child Nutrition (Free school lunches)
Lifeline
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Etc.

You have a very limited and immature view of this country, one that is more steeped in ignorance than anything else. You simply don't have a lot of experience to draw from when it comes to conversations like this, so you end up saying something really inaccurate that you then have to spend all your time walking back when you could just say "I don't know," and let more informed people inform you.

OMG, here you are babbling incoherently in another thread, do you ever tire

 

[MAGA MAN]

OMG, here you are babbling incoherently in another thread, do you ever tire

TDS

 

[LV426]

OMG, here you are babbling incoherently in another thread, do you ever tire

You lack any actual argument (because all your beliefs are trash) so you try and snipe at people on their threads.

What a wimp.

 

[Callinectes]

No, it plainly means Conservative policy always increases the deficit.

What are conservatives spending all this money on that “increases the deficit”? And why do I give a damn when you shit heads only care about it if you can make it the GOP’s fault?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Flash]

Most Americans are, Flash, in some way or another...whether it's:

You have a very limited and immature view of this country, one that is more steeped in ignorance than anything else. You simply don't have a lot of experience to draw from when it comes to conversations like this, so you end up saying something really inaccurate that you then have to spend all your time walking back when you could just say "I don't know," and let more informed people inform you.

And those programs are not cut because we cut taxes. They continue to increase and we borrow to pay for them--that is why the deficit continues to increase. Suggesting tax cuts causes people to go into debt or save less because they have to spend their own money on Social Security is total trash since SS is an entitlement and tax cuts do not affect SSk benefits and they continue to increase every year with the COLA.

 

[LV426]

What are conservatives spending all this money on that “increases the deficit”?

Tax cuts.

 

[LV426]

And why do I give a damn when you shit heads only care about it if you can make it the GOP’s fault?

I don't share your phoney baloney FAKE concerns over the debt and deficit.

Pointing out your hypocrisy on both doesn't mean I share your fake, phoney, false, and Bs posturing concern.