Rep. Alexandria Occasion Cortez has 20zK in student loan debt

[LV426]

Very mature response.

This must be an example of the "inhumane" action cawacko said I would asked to perform if I presented disagreeable facts or opinions.

Is LV426 a liberal planet?

Look, you're trying to make it seem like it's important we consider your emotions when it comes to the economy and the vote, and I'm telling you that no one cares or gives a shit.

So go ahead and vote for Donald fucking Duck if you want; doesn't make a lick of difference to me. You're not a reliable voter anyway; you're someone who thinks he's entitled to people accommodating your bad faith.

[LV426]

Because it is not true. Look at the history of revenues and expenditures to see that spending increased faster than revenues.

WTF are you talking about? Clinton raised taxes and increased spending 25% over his term and ended with a budget surplus that you morons erased with tax cuts.

[LV426]

You were proven wrong that fiscal year 2018 revenue was higher than 2017. And I never claimed tax cuts increased revenue--that is a false argument on your part.

Your argument for tax cuts is that it "lets people keep more of what they earn" (which it doesn't, household debt always increases and personal savings always declines after tax cuts), which is the "pay for themselves" argument which is the "cutting tax revenue increases tax revenue" argument.

And the Russia Tax Cut didn't start on the FISCAL YEAR, it started on the CALENDAR YEAR.

[LV426]

You have yet to show any increased debt and lower personal savings have any connection to tax cuts. Correlation does not equal causation.

OMFG, I literally showed you the example from Kansas; the state cut education spending because the tax cuts unbalanced the budget, and the State Board of Regents increased their tuition to account for that drop in funding. That resulted in families having to borrow more to send their kids to state schools. That is literally an example of how a tax cut caused an increase in personal debt.

[Flash]

What it does is lump in middle class families as below the poverty line because the get things like financial assistance on tuition.

Did you get that tidbit of information from the Census Bureau or from Mother Jones, Raw Story, or some other source.

I cannot find that information in the methodology on the Census Bureau explanation. I think those things are counted as additions to income and not as additions to poverty. I find nothing about Pell or any educational grants.

ADDITIONS
Social Security
Refundable tax credits
SNAP
SSI
Housing subsidies
Child support received
School lunch
TANF/general assistance
Unemployment insurance
LIHEAP
Workers’ compensation
WIC

SUBTRACTIONS
Child support paid
Federal income tax
FICA
Work expenses
Medical expenses

[Flash]

Flash, nominal changes to rev-GDP have massive changes in terms of real dollars. You can't pay for health care with a percentage. You pay for it with dollars.

And that means nominal changes to exp-GDP have massive changes in government spending as well as revenues. You do pay for health care with that increased spending.

[LV426]

Your claim that benefits were cut is misleading. First, Medicaid has increased the last three years (not cut) and is at a record high. SNAP spending is lower but that is because the number of recipients declined from 47 million (2010) to 39 million. Less recipients means less spending. People have jobs at 3.7% unemployment rate and don't need SNAP.

OMFG, again with the dishonesty!

I never said Medicaid was cut; if I did, that was a mistake. Medicaid is cut at the state level, however. Regardless, SNAP spending per recipient has declined, even as the overall program enrollment has declined.

People have jobs at 3.7% unemployment rate and don't need SNAP.

1.4 million employed Walmart workers qualify for SNAP. That's half their workforce.

The most recent wage report said increased wages were driven by the manufacturing sector with an average of $29.83 per hour. So your claim that wage gains are the result of increases in the minimum wage is BS. Those gains also exist in states that have not raised their minimum wage but still have the federal $7.25.

The most recent economic report said manufacturing is contracting. What's the average wage for someone with no job? $0.

And I said wage gains at the bottom are because of the minimum wage increases. So once again, we have an example of Flash acting in bad faith by not accurately summarizing what I said.

[LV426]

And that means nominal changes to exp-GDP have massive changes in government spending as well as revenues. You do pay for health care with that increased spending.

So now you're switching to another metric?????

ANOTHER GOALPOST SHIFT FROM FLASH.

What happened to rev-GDP? Did you just abandon it the moment you realized it wasn't making your argument anymore? Before we move to a new metric, we have to reconcile the last one you introduced.

[Flash]

Look, you're trying to make it seem like it's important we consider your emotions when it comes to the economy and the vote, and I'm telling you that no one cares or gives a shit.

So go ahead and vote for Donald fucking Duck if you want; doesn't make a lick of difference to me. You're not a reliable voter anyway; you're someone who thinks he's entitled to people accommodating your bad faith.

I certainly don't think I'm entitled to other people's money to pay the debts of college students who think they are entitled to a free education.

You want to take from one group of wealthy to give to another group who will be among the better off in society. And the more wealthy they will be (doctors, lawyers) the more student debt they will owe and the bigger government benefit they will receive by having their loan forgiven. So take from the rich to give to the rich. Sounds more like a Republican plan.

[Flash]

So now you're switching to another metric?????

ANOTHER GOALPOST SHIFT FROM FLASH.

What happened to rev-GDP? Did you just abandon it the moment you realized it wasn't making your argument anymore? Before we move to a new metric, we have to reconcile the last one you introduced.

You are the poster who brought up the issue of the relative amount of money of the GDP. Why would you consider revenue without considering expenditures when you talk about how much 1% of the GDP equates to?

I simply showed the 91% tax rate raised no more revenue than the current lower rates and you changed the goalposts by pointing out how much 1% of the GDP would be. You also have to show how much more of the GDP government is spending.

[Flash]

OMFG, again with the dishonesty!

I never said Medicaid was cut; if I did, that was a mistake. Medicaid is cut at the state level, however. Regardless, SNAP spending per recipient has declined, even as the overall program enrollment has declined.

What do Wal-Mart workers have to do with anything? If they qualify for food stamps they are receiving it. A large number of those employees are part-time workers who are not the main wage earner in their home--they are college and high school students.


1.4 million employed Walmart workers qualify for SNAP. That's half their workforce.




The most recent economic report said manufacturing is contracting. What's the average wage for someone with no job? $0.

And I said wage gains at the bottom are because of the minimum wage increases. So once again, we have an example of Flash acting in bad faith by not accurately summarizing what I said.

You claimed that savings go down and debt goes up after tax increases with no evidence to support such a claim other than a correlation. You said that happens because government benefits get cut again with no evidence. I asked what government benefits were cut and you said Medicaid, Pell Grants, and SNAP.

Total Medicaid spending (state and federal) have been increasing over 4% a year and are projected to increase 5.5% a year until 2027.

And what do Wall-Mart employees have to do with anything? If 1.4 million qualify they are probably among the 39 million Americans receiving SNAP.

[Flash]

And I said wage gains at the bottom are because of the minimum wage increases. So once again, we have an example of Flash acting in bad faith by not accurately summarizing what I said.

[LV426] "Wage growth today is thanks to all the states raising their minimum wages...18 did so last year."

[Flash]

Your argument for tax cuts is that it "lets people keep more of what they earn" (which it doesn't, household debt always increases and personal savings always declines after tax cuts), which is the "pay for themselves" argument which is the "cutting tax revenue increases tax revenue" argument.

And the Russia Tax Cut didn't start on the FISCAL YEAR, it started on the CALENDAR YEAR.

Of course it does. As I showed you with actual data, there has been an increase in consumer spending and discretionary spending. That is evidence. On the other hand, you have given no evidence that increased debt and lower savings is related to the tax cuts.

I never said tax cuts raise revenue or "they pay for themselves.' That is a huge jump in illogic on your part.

[Flash]

OMFG, I literally showed you the example from Kansas; the state cut education spending because the tax cuts unbalanced the budget, and the State Board of Regents increased their tuition to account for that drop in funding. That resulted in families having to borrow more to send their kids to state schools. That is literally an example of how a tax cut caused an increase in personal debt.

And I literally showed you how many states are required to have balanced budgets and revenue decreases must lead to spending decreases. Not true with the federal government which does not require a balanced budget and simply borrows more money rather than cutting programs.

[Flash]

Your argument for tax cuts is that it "lets people keep more of what they earn" (which it doesn't, household debt always increases and personal savings always declines after tax cuts), which is the "pay for themselves" argument which is the "cutting tax revenue increases tax revenue" argument.

And the Russia Tax Cut didn't start on the FISCAL YEAR, it started on the CALENDAR YEAR.

Although I never claimed tax cuts increase revenue or pay for themselves (and don't care) sometimes revenue increases do follow tax cuts. For example:

1). FY 2018 had higher revenue than 2017

2). FY 2019 has higher revenue than 2018. At the end of August, revenue for FY 2019 is $3,088,167 billion. At the end of August, 2018, the FY 2018 revenue was $2,985,186 billion.

So, as of the same time last year federal revenues are higher. The September revenues will determine which FY was higher.

So, sometimes tax cuts do result in additional revenue.