"Sanders is right: Republican tax cuts cost more than forgiving student debt"

[Into the Night]

What billion dollar subsidies to corporations does he want to end? Plenty on the (libertarian) right want corporate subsidies gone as well. But as Import/Export Bank showed, as just one example, liberals love them some corporate subsidies as well so trying to make it a straight partisan thing ain't accurate.

Void argument fallacy. Which subsidy are you concerned about?

 

[Into the Night]

What he wants to do is force companies to pay higher wages so there's less subsidizing of their workforces by taxpayers.

Price controls don't work.

 

[Into the Night]

ROFL..then you haven't looked at wage growth ( skewed towards lower income earner percentiles)
and the amazing amount of new good paying jobs.
Like manufacturing where Obama said it would take a "magic wand" to bring them back-Trump has brought back closer to 500k.

Middle class is fat and spending money like water with high consumer confidence. Trump runs on this

...and why not?

 

[Into the Night]

Those college grads better start working 2 and 3 jobs to pay off their debt and begin
paying income tax so that other hard working taxpayers don't have to pay a bill that is
not their responsibility to pay.

Bingo. It's hard, but it can be done.

 

[Terri4Trump]

Those college grads better start working 2 and 3 jobs to pay off their debt and begin
paying income tax so that other hard working taxpayers don't have to pay a bill that is
not their responsibility to pay.

I want to steal your signature. LOL

 

[Into the Night]

If tax cuts let you keep more of what you earn, how come household debt skyrockets and personal savings plummets every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years?


View attachment 10631

They don't.

 

[Terri4Trump]

If tax cuts let you keep more of what you earn, how come household debt skyrockets and personal savings plummets every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years?

You didn't actually ask a question that colossally stupid did you?

 

[Into the Night]

You're not using this correctly, doofus.

He is using it correctly. YOU just deny logic, math, science, etc.

 

[Into the Night]

You didn't actually ask a question that colossally stupid did you?

He did. You can see for yourself.

 

[Stretch]

I want to steal your signature. LOL

LOL. It's free, have at it.

 

[Flash]

Barely. A Net 3% increase is nominal and within the margin of error.

What margin of error? This is not a survey. The important point is that 7% of the American middle class moved into a higher quintile.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't think Trump will run on them in 2020, although any Democrat candidate will hammer home how they didn't do anything for the middle class

the middle class knows that isn't true.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

pay off everything but liberal arts..lol

ouch!....

 

[Flash]

You JUST SAID that only 7% moved to an unnamed "higher bracket". 4% went to a lower bracket, and 89% didn't change brackets at all.

So on what are you basing this weird statement that the majority of middle class experienced wage gains? You just proved the majority didn't when you said only 7% moved to a higher bracket.

Is 7% a majority? Is 93% a minority?

No. Because a person did not move into a higher quintile does not mean they did not experience wage growth. The middle (3rd) quintile ranges from about $61,000 to $99,000 (2017). A person could have increased their income from $61k to $98k ($37,000) without leaving that 3rd quintile. Almost everybody in that quintile can see wage growth without changing quintiles.

That 11% was only the percentage leaving the middle class category. Also, this does not include wage gains for those in the 1st and 2nd quintiles.

 

[artichoke]

If tax cuts let you keep more of what you earn, how come household debt skyrockets and personal savings plummets every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years?


View attachment 10631

Um...Because people spend more when they have more?

Thanks for making the case for supply-side economics, by the way.

 

[artichoke]

You're not using this correctly, doofus.

Definition of a Non-Sequiter: An inference that does not follow from the premises. Example: A (tax cuts) costs more than B (student loan forgiveness) despite the fact that A is not a cost in the first place.

Non-sequiters are pretty straightforward. Might want to look things up yourself before presuming to lecture others.

View attachment 10639

 

[Getin the ring]

Sanders

 

[LV426]

You didn't actually ask a question that colossally stupid did you?

You couldn't answer because you're anatta trying out a new ID.

The facts are the facts; every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years, personal savings has dropped and household debt has increased.

So tax cuts don't let you keep more of what you earn, clearly.

 

[LV426]

What margin of error? This is not a survey. The important point is that 7% of the American middle class moved into a higher quintile.

7% is NOTHING.

What about the other 93%?

And what quintile did they move to? The top one? See, everything you post is always vague and undefined, which lets you wiggle within the parameters later in the debate in order to save face.

I wouldn't crow about a mere 7% of workers moving up from one quintile to another, while 4% moved down over the same period.

What is your point? That 7% of middle class workers moved into a higher quintuple? OK, and that point serves what goal and argument?

 

[LV426]

Because a person did not move into a higher quintile does not mean they did not experience wage growth.

So now you're undermining your own point by saying that people can get moved into a higher qunitile without seeing wage gains at all.

So then the 7% who moved into a higher bracket isn't entirely truthful, is it? You're framing that movement simultaneously as a result of wage increases and not. Your argument is eating itself and making no point.

The middle (3rd) quintile ranges from about $61,000 to $99,000 (2017). A person could have increased their income from $61k to $98k ($37,000) without leaving that 3rd quintile.

Or could not have seen any wage growth at all. Like most people didn't. So now you're putting in a fantasy and assumption that the middle class saw wage growth, yet you're not supporting that assumption with anything other than conjecture (which is what I bolded above). Fact is, if you take the wage gains for the top 1% out of the equation over the last 20 years, you'll find that wages haven't grown at all.

AT. ALL.

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

That 11% was only the percentage leaving the middle class category.

Problem, Flash, is that without providing any data on wage growth, your argument is basically nothing. You're highlighting economic immobility by pointing out only 11% of workers moved between "quintiles", which is a weird way of looking at wage growth to start. How come you're looking at it that way, and not looking at just the wages themselves?

I'll tell you why; because you're desperate.

Also, this does not include wage gains for those in the 1st and 2nd quintiles.

Just curious, what was the wage growth for the 1st quintile over the last 20 years? Do you know?