Members banned from this thread: Cypress, evince, Rune, moon, Mason Michaels and reagansghost


Page 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 5111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 358

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

  1. #211 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    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.
    It still makes my argument. Revenues as a percent of GDP is about the same under both the 91% tax rate and the current lower tax rate. Why tax the people at 91% when you can raise the same revenues at 35%?

    You are the one who started with the "nominal" amount raised. I simply pointed out that also applies to expenditures.

  2. #212 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Of the 53 lawmakers, which members of Congress have the most student loan debt?
    1. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): ~$150,000
    2. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): ~$115,000
    3. Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA): ~$115,000
    4. Rep. John Carter (R-TX): ~$100,000
    5. Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY): ~$100,000

  3. #213 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,857
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Of the 53 lawmakers, which members of Congress have the most student loan debt?
    1. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): ~$150,000
    2. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA): ~$115,000
    3. Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA): ~$115,000
    4. Rep. John Carter (R-TX): ~$100,000
    5. Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY): ~$100,000
    Isn't Trey Gowdy out of office? Or was this a historical chart of anyone who has ever been in Congress?

  4. #214 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Isn't Trey Gowdy out of office? Or was this a historical chart of anyone who has ever been in Congress?
    seemed recent, I'll dig it up to confirm for you

    I can't find the exact source I used, but it seems the identical list was circa mar-may 2018

    https://www.rollcall.com/news/politi...an-liabilities

  5. #215 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,543
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 202 Times in 195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Earl View Post
    A tax cut affects everyone who pays taxes.
    No. Many tax cuts don't affect some people who pay taxes. For example, the Bush tax cuts were infamous for offering nothing to those who paid all their taxes in the form of payroll taxes rather than income taxes. Yet only someone who misunderstood how conflicts of interest work would imagine that meant that the Congress members who voted for it (all of whom benefited from it) had a conflict of interest.

  6. #216 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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?
    The spending is paid for by the increase in revenue from increased taxes.

    The less someone has to spend out of pocket on health care, or the less someone has to pay for college, the more they have to spend elsewhere in the economy that does a better job of creating jobs and wealth.

    I linked to this thing last week for you, a resource that shows the multiplier effects for each industry. The top? Real Estate & utilities. Near the bottom? Health care and financial services.


    I simply showed the 91% tax rate raised no more revenue than the current lower rates
    Flash, you didn't show that. Quite the opposite; you showed that nominal changes to rev-GDP result in massive shifts in terms of real dollars. A seemingly insignificant increase of 1% rev-GDP is the equivalent of $200B...which is 1/5 of our current tax cut-fueled deficit. So what you're doing is looking at purely the percentage and determining that because it's incremental, it's insignificant...but the part you're ignoring, deliberately, is that nominal changes to the percentage of rev-GDP result in large changes to actual revenues in terms of real dollars. So if raising taxes on the wealthy results in revenue-GDP increasing by 1%, that's an extra $200B the Treasury collects, which would reduce the current deficit by 20%. OR, it could pay for 2 1/2 years of Free Public Colleges under Sanders' Free Public Tuition plan.


    you changed the goalposts by pointing out how much 1% of the GDP would be.
    That's not changing the goalposts, that's informing you of your own metric in terms of real dollars. What goalpost am I shifting? It's a goalpost you control because you set it. You leave out the exculpatory information that nominal changes to that metric have massive effects in terms of real dollars. How is that a goalpost shift? You're the one who set the freaking goalpost!

    You also have to show how much more of the GDP government is spending.
    You are the one who entered this metric into the debate that you are now refusing to defend.

    Spending-GDP is affects rev-GDP how?

    Your point was that it's pointless to raise taxes on the wealthy because when we had those higher rates, the rev-GDP number was nominally higher in terms of percentage; but that's where your argument stops. The moment we dig into what that rev-GDP percentage means in terms of actual revenue and dollars, we see that those nominal and incremental changes to the percentage have massive effects in terms of actual revenues, with a 1% change in rev-GDP being the equivalent of $200B today.

    $200B is 1/5 of the current deficit.
    $200B is about 1/3 of Medicare's entire budget
    $200B could pay for 2 1/2 years of Bernie Sanders' free public colleges.

    $200B isn't chump change.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  7. #217 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You claimed that savings go down and debt goes up after tax increases
    NO! WRONG! You're sloppy, lazy, and rushed in your response. You were probably the shittiest professor ever. So lazy. So entitled.

    I said savings go down and debt goes up after tax cuts.

    And here's the evidence:

    97bd922a238d4257d5f16444ed1b8b3f.jpg

    Secondly, after the largest tax cut, US consumer debt is now at a record high as well. So tax cuts didn't result in people keeping what they earned if consumer debt is at an all-time high.


    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.
    For fuck's sake, Flash, I took you through an actual example of what happened in Kansas; taxes were cut, deficits appeared, education spending was cut to balance the budget, causing tuition to increase and borrowing to rise.

    Secondly, Pell Grants were frozen during Bush the Dumber; SNAP per recipient has declined since Trump; states have cut back on Medicaid. All because of revenues being cut, resulting in deficits, which result in cuts.


    Total Medicaid spending (state and federal) have been increasing over 4% a year and are projected to increase 5.5% a year until 2027.
    WOW! Amazing. But not really considering health care costs have increased each year at double that rate. So if the costs are rising at a faster rate than the spending increases, that results in...what?


    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.
    You literally said that people who are employed aren't on SNAP. You were fucking wrong. Was this a different Flash? Do you have multiple personalities? Are you schizophrenic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    People have jobs at 3.7% unemployment rate and don't need SNAP.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  8. #218 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Let the anti-Semite pay for her own college education.

  9. #219 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    [LV426] "Wage growth today is thanks to all the states raising their minimum wages...18 did so last year."
    So...couple things about this:

    You didn't actually link to where I said this, so the context isn't here. That's weird, considering you directly quote my posts in every other case except this one. So why did you do that? Simple, because this quote you're pulling from me comes from a response I gave to another poster who was talking about wage growth at the bottom, wasn't it? You didn't include that context or link because it's clear what I was talking about. Instead, you did what you always do; act in bad faith by pulling a quote out of context and not citing from where you got it.

    So why did you decide not to link to the post where I said that? Because if you did, you'd see the context of what I was saying was in reference to someone else arguing the growth in wages at the bottom are because of tax cuts or Trump or whatever.

    So do the proper thing and link to the post where I quoted that.

    You piece of shit.

    Seriously, you're a humongous piece of shit. So lazy. So entitled. So incompetent. All you do is act in bad faith because you don't know any other way to act, and because you don't want to give me the satisfaction of you admitting you're not as versed on this shit as you pretend to be. So you do things like this...you misrepresent a quote, don't source it for contextual reasons because then you couldn't make a bad faith argument. And if you can't make a bad faith argument, what good are you?

    So this quote of mine...from what post did you pull it, why did you not link to the post it came from, and why did you think you could lazily and sloppily try to slip it by? It's because you got mad and frustrated that I called out your bullshit about the "billionaires fairly and honestly coming about their wealth and you're just jealous" shit, isn't it?

    I see what you're trying to do; you're trying to catch me in the same overstepping, vague ambiguity patterns of which you are habitually exercising as a matter of your inherent bad faith. You are trying to retcon a BoTh SiDeS argument by trying to show that I do the same vague, generalized, ambiguity as you do, only to shift goalposts later. So you quite dishonestly pull that quote out of its proper context in another thread, with another poster, because you want to get me for the same thing I got you on; moving goalposts.

    But the difference between us Flash, is that I'm very careful and deliberate about what words I use and how I represent them. You don't do that because you are lazy, entitled, and a sophist.

    Shame.
    Last edited by LV426; 09-17-2019 at 08:56 AM.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  10. The Following User Groans At LV426 For This Awful Post:

    Earl (09-17-2019)

  11. #220 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Let the dirty anti-Semite pay for her own education

    She signed on the dotted line and agreed to pay it back.

  12. #221 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It still makes my argument. Revenues as a percent of GDP is about the same under both the 91% tax rate and the current lower tax rate. Why tax the people at 91% when you can raise the same revenues at 35%?
    It's not the same revenues, though. When you linked to those annual rev-GDP numbers, the %'s varied wildly. I notice you don't link to those numbers anymore. If you did, I could show you what the impact of each % change was for each year in terms of today's dollars and GDP. A 0.5% increase in rev-GDP results in $100B+ of revenue. That pays for at least one year of Bernie's free public college plan.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  13. #222 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    And I literally showed you how many states are required to have balanced budgets and revenue decreases must lead to spending decreases.
    AH!

    So tax cuts do cause deficits and debt.

    So tax cuts result in less revenues and that creates deficits that are closed by cutting spending. But the deficits wouldn't exist if taxes weren't cut. So tax cuts create deficits and debt.

    So why have you been arguing with me this whole time that it's not the tax cuts causing debt, it's the spending when you literally say right here that tax cuts lead to revenue decreases?


    Not true with the federal government which does not require a balanced budget and simply borrows more money rather than cutting programs.
    What do you want to cut? Medicare? Social Security? Medicaid? Defense? Conservatives love to talk about cutting spending, but never really know what to cut. So you do what you always do; leave yourself goalposts that can be easily moved. If you cut all discretionary spending -all of it; the FDA, the DOJ, the FBI, the CDC, the NIH, etc.- you're still running a half-trillion dollar deficit, and you're contracting the economy because you're not replacing any of that spending.

    Cutting spending without replacing that spending results in economic contraction.

    You are so lazy, you think that cutting a dollar in government spending here automatically translates to a dollar in private sector spending there. But that's stupid, because how do you replace government spending on the FDA?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  14. #223 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Although I never claimed tax cuts increase revenue or pay for themselves (and don't care) sometimes revenue increases do follow tax cuts.
    "Sometimes"?

    Well, let's look...

    1983 saw less revenue than 1982, after taxes were cut.

    2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 saw less revenue than 2000, after taxes were cut.

    The first 12 months of the Russia Tax Cut saw less revenue than the previous 12 months. Not sure why you don't want to start the clock on the calendar year for that one, since the Russia Tax Cut didn't start on the FY. So you're counting 3 months of revenue in the FY for 2018 that wasn't affected by the tax cut. You're dishonestly and disingenuously lumping in 3 months pre-Russia Tax Cut revenue in with the 9 months of the Russia Tax Cut to present a distorted view of revenues. That's why I started the count on the calendar year; because it would be dishonest to pretend that the Russia Tax Cut boosted revenues for the FY despite a quarter of that FY not having the tax cut at all.

    So that's a gimmick you are using; you're using pre-tax cut revenue to bolster the case that the tax cut caused revenue to grow.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  15. #224 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    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.
    First of all, I would expect FY revenue in 2019 to be higher than FY 2018 simply because of inflation.

    Secondly, the FY 2018 revenue you are counting includes three months of revenues that didn't have the tax cut. The Russia Tax Cut started 1/2/18, but the FY started 10/1/17. So there's three months of revenues you're including in your FY total that weren't subject to the tax cut. But you're trying to pretend they were because that's the only way your shitty argument makes sense; lying and obfuscating. From October 2017 - December 2017, there was no Russia Tax Cut. But you're counting those revenues as part of the FY to argue that revenues increased -SLIGHTLY, I MIGHT ADD- post-tax cut. But that's not necessarily true because 25% of the FY didn't have the Russia Tax Cut applied. That's why I compare the calendar year of revenue for 2018; if you use the FY, you're using three months of revenues that didn't have a tax cut applied.

    Of course, you know that already...you're either playing dumb or playing deceptive, but in either case you're misrepresenting the revenues and trying to attribute the slight increase to 12 months of a tax cut instead of just 9.

    What a fucking fraud. You're such a piece of shit. So dishonest. So fucking entitled. Everything about you is just the fucking worst.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  16. #225 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Let the dirty anti-Semite pay for her own education

    She signed on the dotted line and agreed to pay it back.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Earl For This Post:

    RB 60 (09-17-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-22-2019, 02:44 PM
  2. Deadbeat Pete Buttigieg has student loan debt of $130,000 !!!
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 170
    Last Post: 06-13-2019, 05:44 PM
  3. Another huge black failure. This time it's student loan debt.
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-10-2019, 10:12 PM
  4. Student Loan Debt
    By cawacko in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 177
    Last Post: 03-16-2018, 10:16 PM
  5. Student Loan Debt In The US Is So High That Many Aren't Even Paying It
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-29-2017, 07:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •