1) the 'conservative' tax cut in the last administration
just last year, and mentioning the shameful refusal to help poor residents get healthcare.
CNN)Democrats in Washington have approved trillions of dollars to help Americans weather the coronavirus pandemic, but Republican state officials are pulling back relief for low-income Americans by turning away federal money. In little more than a week, 17 governors have announced they'll be cutting off pandemic unemployment benefits early, the latest being West Virginia on Friday. This could cost nearly 2 million people as much as $10.8 billion in payments, according to a recent analysis by The Century Foundation. The moves echo the refusal by GOP-led states to participate in Medicaid expansion under the Obama-era Affordable Care Act -- a resistance that persists, as Missouri's Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday that his state would not implement a voter-approved Medicaid expansion on July 1 for budget reasons.
Your top example is literally a lie... lol...
Your example of "passing laws" is a lie about a tax cut and Republicans not wanting to send checks to people forever in response to COVID...
If you pay people more to stay home than you pay them work guess what happens...
nah it's a right wing fantasy that an unemployment check keeps people from work. Just more of your preference for theory than actual real life. This study found the opposite effect - that states that ended unemployment suffered LESS employment.
A personal aside, you really, really, really should do some quick searches before you make claims. Again and again you make yourself look ignorant by citing theory instead of actual facts.
About half of U.S. states withdrew federal funds for the unemployed months early to encourage out-of-work residents to find a job. But mounting evidence shows that policy gambit hasn’t yet paid off. Twenty-six states announced their intent to end federal pandemic-era benefits starting in May. They officially pulled out in waves over June and July. UKG, a payroll and time-management firm, found that shifts among hourly workers in those states grew at about half the rate as states that continued the benefit — the opposite trend of what one might expect.
nah it's a right wing fantasy that an unemployment check keeps people from work. Just more of your preference for theory than actual real life. This study found the opposite effect - that states that ended unemployment suffered LESS employment.
That's because those states were already at full employment. Not apples to apples.
nah it's a right wing fantasy that an unemployment check keeps people from work. Just more of your preference for theory than actual real life. This study found the opposite effect - that states that ended unemployment suffered LESS employment.
That's because those states were already at full employment. Not apples to apples.
read the stories.
"It doesn’t appear differences in state economies or labor markets influenced the dichotomy, since both groups were growing at similar rates earlier this year, Gilbertson said."
well I think it was indeed a tax cut for most people, but obviously a poor person getting a few hundred dollars back is one thing but handing over many thousands to rich people is a choice the Rs love to make.
And then the longer term issue of borrowing in order to give billions to rich people who didn't really need it...will cost the nation for generations.
You said it hurt the poor (or was at their expense). It did not.
Let's not forget Democrats have had 15 months to fix it if they didn't like it... and the part of the 2017 tax cut they tried hardest to "fix" was lifting the SALT cap. I.e. the part that raised taxes on rich people. Lulz.
well I think it was indeed a tax cut for most people, but obviously a poor person getting a few hundred dollars back is one thing but handing over many thousands to rich people is a choice the Rs love to make.
And then the longer term issue of borrowing in order to give billions to rich people who didn't really need it...will cost the nation for generations.
You said it hurt the poor (or was at their expense). It did not.
Let's not forget Democrats have had 15 months to fix it if they didn't like it... and the part of the 2017 tax cut they tried hardest to "fix" was lifting the SALT cap. I.e. the part that raised taxes on rich people. Lulz.
well fine. Giving poor people a few dollars is not hurting them. But the bigger point is completely obvious - that the tax cut was meant to help rich people. Again. On the mistaken belief that giving rich people more money helps everyone. It's screwy but that's why the gop tax cut was designed as it was.
Those billions of dollars given to people who actually need it would have juiced the economy like the biden stimulus did. They chose trickle down AGAIN despite its failure time after time.
Dems build up from the bottom and that works better.
Here's a summary. The tax cut was designed to help primarily rich people and business, and it did.
But sure, the tax cut did not hurt poor people. Although it does seem to have hurt those making just above $100k, which is a typical normal two-income household.
//
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), passed by President Trump and congressional Republicans, was the biggest reform of the U.S. tax code since 1986. The TCJA lowered income tax rates, especially for higher-income Americans, and it lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Some tax credits and deductions also changed. The standard deduction was nearly doubled (from $6,350 in 2017 to $12,000 in 2018) and the child tax credit was doubled (from $1,000 in 2017 to $2,000 in 2018), but some itemized deductions were limited or eliminated. IRS data on the 2018 tax season released in May 2019 shows that savings for taxpayers were uneven. For example, the average refund was $90 higher, nationally, in 2018 than 2017. But the taxpayers who saw the largest refund increases had an adjusted gross income (AGI) of at least $200,000. Tax returns showing an AGI of less than $100,000 paid less income tax overall, but returns with an AGI just above $100,000 (many middle-class families) owed more tax, on average. Note that this AGI is per tax return, not per taxpayer: A married couple where each spouse has a salary of $65,000 could very well have an AGI of just above $100,000 if they file jointly. On the whole, low-income families appear to have received the least savings, while high-income families saved the most. Middle-class families saw mixed results. The biggest winners from Trump’s tax cuts were probably businesses. Between 2017 and 2018, corporations paid 22.4% less income tax. The total value of refunds issued by the IRS to businesses also increased by 33.8% nationally.
That's because those states were already at full employment. Not apples to apples.
read the stories.
"It doesn’t appear differences in state economies or labor markets influenced the dichotomy, since both groups were growing at similar rates earlier this year, Gilbertson said."
I'm not sure what he meant by that since he didn't cite anything specific. But it's pretty clear unemployment rate was much lower in states that ended benefits. He talks about a 2% increase in employment in states that did not. But in many states that ended benefits, unemployment was barely above 2% to begin with.
Republican 'law and order' 'conservative' crime blotter:
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota’s longest-serving state senator announced Monday that he would resign following a report that he had traded scores of text messages with a man jailed on child pornography charges. Republican Ray Holmberg, who rose to become one of the state’s most powerful lawmakers in a career that spanned 46 years, said he would resign effective June 1.
Oh yeah, and the leader of the 'conservative' Republicans was caught on tape saying that Trump should resign because he is a threat to democracy. As are many other 'conservatives' like Gaetz and MTG. Of course McCarthy lied about saying these things but when you are a 'conservative' you have the right to lie all you want - hey look at the head of the 'conservative' party - one of the worlds' greatest liars. Trump and McCarthy are role models for American youth. Grow 'em up lying, corrupt and cowardly. That's the example we want to set. As long as they don't, you know, believe in the use of government supported healthcare or anything like that.
More kooks and weirdos. That's today's Republican party.
"It doesn’t appear differences in state economies or labor markets influenced the dichotomy, since both groups were growing at similar rates earlier this year, Gilbertson said."
I'm not sure what he meant by that since he didn't cite anything specific. But it's pretty clear unemployment rate was much lower in states that ended benefits. He talks about a 2% increase in employment in states that did not. But in many states that ended benefits, unemployment was barely above 2% to begin with.
any views on GOP governors refusing to accept federal money to expand healthcare to poor people?
well I think it was indeed a tax cut for most people, but obviously a poor person getting a few hundred dollars back is one thing but handing over many thousands to rich people is a choice the Rs love to make.
And then the longer term issue of borrowing in order to give billions to rich people who didn't really need it...will cost the nation for generations.
You said it hurt the poor (or was at their expense). It did not.
Let's not forget Democrats have had 15 months to fix it if they didn't like it... and the part of the 2017 tax cut they tried hardest to "fix" was lifting the SALT cap. I.e. the part that raised taxes on rich people. Lulz.
Fixing it would require getting rid of the filibuster, which is something the Democrats should definitely do.
You said it hurt the poor (or was at their expense). It did not.
Let's not forget Democrats have had 15 months to fix it if they didn't like it... and the part of the 2017 tax cut they tried hardest to "fix" was lifting the SALT cap. I.e. the part that raised taxes on rich people. Lulz.
Fixing it would require getting rid of the filibuster, which is something the Democrats should definitely do.
well I think it was indeed a tax cut for most people, but obviously a poor person getting a few hundred dollars back is one thing but handing over many thousands to rich people is a choice the Rs love to make.
And then the longer term issue of borrowing in order to give billions to rich people who didn't really need it...will cost the nation for generations.
You don't seem to understand how taxes work...
We have a progressive tax system. The more you make the higher % you pay.
Fun fact: 10% of $100,000 is more than 5% of $20,000.
Fun fact #2: HALF of the US doesn't pay a DIME in federal income tax.
The "poor person" is not getting a few hundred dollars "back" they are getting more than they even paid back.
Bill Gates gets social security. The government is AWFUL at everything it does. Efficiency and government cannot coexist.
So you are saying Democrats cause gridlock? Because no one in the history of the country has used the filibuster as often as Democrats. Democrats cause gridlock? Yes?
Your example of "passing laws" is a lie about a tax cut and Republicans not wanting to send checks to people forever in response to COVID...
If you pay people more to stay home than you pay them work guess what happens...
nah it's a right wing fantasy that an unemployment check keeps people from work. Just more of your preference for theory than actual real life. This study found the opposite effect - that states that ended unemployment suffered LESS employment.
A personal aside, you really, really, really should do some quick searches before you make claims. Again and again you make yourself look ignorant by citing theory instead of actual facts.
About half of U.S. states withdrew federal funds for the unemployed months early to encourage out-of-work residents to find a job. But mounting evidence shows that policy gambit hasn’t yet paid off. Twenty-six states announced their intent to end federal pandemic-era benefits starting in May. They officially pulled out in waves over June and July. UKG, a payroll and time-management firm, found that shifts among hourly workers in those states grew at about half the rate as states that continued the benefit — the opposite trend of what one might expect.
You said it hurt the poor (or was at their expense). It did not.
Let's not forget Democrats have had 15 months to fix it if they didn't like it... and the part of the 2017 tax cut they tried hardest to "fix" was lifting the SALT cap. I.e. the part that raised taxes on rich people. Lulz.
Fixing it would require getting rid of the filibuster, which is something the Democrats should definitely do.
Nope. It could be done via budget reconciliation.
Also, if you weren't in favor of abolishing the filibuster in 2017 (I wasn't) then just stop with that nonsense.
Fixing it would require getting rid of the filibuster, which is something the Democrats should definitely do.
Nope. It could be done via budget reconciliation.
Also, if you weren't in favor of abolishing the filibuster in 2017 (I wasn't) then just stop with that nonsense.
The Democrats used the filibuster like 328 times in 2020. That is the all time record. They stopped ligislation 328 times. And now they want to stop the filibuster use? LOL>
You said it hurt the poor (or was at their expense). It did not.
Let's not forget Democrats have had 15 months to fix it if they didn't like it... and the part of the 2017 tax cut they tried hardest to "fix" was lifting the SALT cap. I.e. the part that raised taxes on rich people. Lulz.
well fine. Giving poor people a few dollars is not hurting them. But the bigger point is completely obvious - that the tax cut was meant to help rich people. Again. On the mistaken belief that giving rich people more money helps everyone. It's screwy but that's why the gop tax cut was designed as it was.
Those billions of dollars given to people who actually need it would have juiced the economy like the biden stimulus did. They chose trickle down AGAIN despite its failure time after time.
Dems build up from the bottom and that works better.
Here's a summary. The tax cut was designed to help primarily rich people and business, and it did.
But sure, the tax cut did not hurt poor people. Although it does seem to have hurt those making just above $100k, which is a typical normal two-income household.
//
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), passed by President Trump and congressional Republicans, was the biggest reform of the U.S. tax code since 1986. The TCJA lowered income tax rates, especially for higher-income Americans, and it lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Some tax credits and deductions also changed. The standard deduction was nearly doubled (from $6,350 in 2017 to $12,000 in 2018) and the child tax credit was doubled (from $1,000 in 2017 to $2,000 in 2018), but some itemized deductions were limited or eliminated. IRS data on the 2018 tax season released in May 2019 shows that savings for taxpayers were uneven. For example, the average refund was $90 higher, nationally, in 2018 than 2017. But the taxpayers who saw the largest refund increases had an adjusted gross income (AGI) of at least $200,000. Tax returns showing an AGI of less than $100,000 paid less income tax overall, but returns with an AGI just above $100,000 (many middle-class families) owed more tax, on average. Note that this AGI is per tax return, not per taxpayer: A married couple where each spouse has a salary of $65,000 could very well have an AGI of just above $100,000 if they file jointly. On the whole, low-income families appear to have received the least savings, while high-income families saved the most. Middle-class families saw mixed results. The biggest winners from Trump’s tax cuts were probably businesses. Between 2017 and 2018, corporations paid 22.4% less income tax. The total value of refunds issued by the IRS to businesses also increased by 33.8% nationally.
It is baffling that simple mathematics is beyond your comprehension...
ALL tax brackets were reduced. The standard deduction was greatly increased.
The only people who's taxes increased were people who were deducting tens of thousands of dollars in SALT taxes from their federal returns.
I'm not sure what he meant by that since he didn't cite anything specific. But it's pretty clear unemployment rate was much lower in states that ended benefits. He talks about a 2% increase in employment in states that did not. But in many states that ended benefits, unemployment was barely above 2% to begin with.
any views on GOP governors refusing to accept federal money to expand healthcare to poor people?
Don't know what you're referring to. Medicaid expansion?
1) the 'conservative' tax cut in the last administration
just last year, and mentioning the shameful refusal to help poor residents get healthcare.
CNN)Democrats in Washington have approved trillions of dollars to help Americans weather the coronavirus pandemic, but Republican state officials are pulling back relief for low-income Americans by turning away federal money. In little more than a week, 17 governors have announced they'll be cutting off pandemic unemployment benefits early, the latest being West Virginia on Friday. This could cost nearly 2 million people as much as $10.8 billion in payments, according to a recent analysis by The Century Foundation. The moves echo the refusal by GOP-led states to participate in Medicaid expansion under the Obama-era Affordable Care Act -- a resistance that persists, as Missouri's Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday that his state would not implement a voter-approved Medicaid expansion on July 1 for budget reasons.
Your top example is literally a lie... lol...
Your example of "passing laws" is a lie about a tax cut and Republicans not wanting to send checks to people forever in response to COVID...
If you pay people more to stay home than you pay them work guess what happens...
So you are saying Democrats cause gridlock? Because no one in the history of the country has used the filibuster as often as Democrats. Democrats cause gridlock? Yes?
