wilkes

No Crypt, it is the democrats that push this type of policies, Republicans, and especially Trump trying to fix this and make good paying full time jobs for all these people trying to raise a family on jobs that were intended for high school students.

Well If you feel like bringing Bush into this, what did Obama do?
He spent 840 billion into a stimulus package. Billions went into worthless projects, or were just lost. I'm sure we can both agree there was wasteful spending, paid by greased palms. The end game was infrastructure investments and those have a depreciating job creation count. It make take 200 people to build a road, but only 20 to maintain it. Honestly every time we borrow to build a road I really want to ask where in the world are the current taxes we pay for roads going? We pay a gas tax, we pay tax every year on one of the very few products that will be assessed a tax every year, no matter when we bought it.

We are being taxed for owning things, that we have to own just to go to a job, to make money that is taxed, just so we can buy things that will be taxed.
I'd chat more but pizza is here.

antithesis has explained and proven the flaws in the republicans economic policies very well. I'd bet antithesis was not traumatized as a newborn like these republicans were.

antithesis, you've got the patience of Job and the polite ways of Emily Post!

Johnii, go ahead and mark this on your calendar... I actually agree with you on this. I don't have it in front of me, but I think I've read that only 43% of Americans actually pay taxes; the poor and the rich pretty much get a free pass, leaving it all on the middle class.

My point, though, was that the EITC alone isn't enough money for people to cheat the system. The woman in your example would have gotten that $6,000 back, anyway, so that doesn't really count.

Anti, you the one that does not understand, i'll try to explain!, That 5891.00 dollars they get is over and above what they paid in !

Brandon, I was just trying to simplify it for you to help you understand.

The fact is that the national debt is a little more complicated. The majority of the debt is actually held by the government itself:

Federal Accounts: 28%
Federal Reserve: 13%
State & Local Governments: 13%

https://www.national...-debt-who/

So it's more like they took money from their savings account with the promise to pay themselves back.

A more accurate description than a mortgage would be... let's say that you wanted to invest in the stock market. You see that the average investment of $100,000 sees a 20% annual return. And you can borrow $100,000 at a 10% annual interest rate. It would make sense to borrow the money and then pocket the profit, right?

This is what a wise government does. They borrow money and invest it into the American economy so that they see a profit. Which is when the GDP to Debt ratio is balanced.

During the Bush administration, we borrowed money but saw no return, which is why the GDP to Debt ratio was off balance. During the Obama administration, we borrowed money but DID see a return, which is why you see it balance again.

I do not need to see your rate, I've saw this in action, I have saw the checks from the IRS, 12 thousand dollars and another employee I worked with, 10 thousand, when these people did't pay in squat.

Anti,
The problem with your analogy comes to the point that a mortgage will eventually be paid off. Debt is supposed to have a life cycle. In the end the way we keep rolling our debt over into itself, we're just peeing away money. It is like the way the old pay day loans worked. Loan became due, and they would take the added interest and the original loan roll in into another loan. I say the "old" because legislation came down to crackdown on it. We have countries willing to do it for us, but you can believe we're not exactly winning on these deals.

As usual, Johnii, you don't understand as much as you think.

The maximum EITC is $5,891. Had you followed the link I provided, you would see the rate:

1 Child: $3,169
2 Children: $5,236
3 Children: $5,891

After 3, the EITC doesn't go up any more.

I don't think there are too many people out there that think they'll profit by having a second child and getting $2,000 a year, or a third child and getting an extra $600.

Rose is right, and Trump agrees: when Republicans are in power, the economy suffers. Job creation goes down, unemployment goes up, the value of the dollar goes down, overall tax payments go up... their economic policy is flawed. I've shown the charts throughout this thread, and the numbers don't lie.

Only the ones that's too sorry to work, everybody else makes it much better, so I guess that says all we need to know about you

When Repubs are in power people have to struggle to survive

You have 2 or 3 kids and you can work out the max about 180000.00 $ from January to July, then you quit your job. you pay in about 600$ dollars in federal taxes, when you file your income tax return, through earned income credit, you receive a 12000.00 $ dollar return, next year, you do the same thing, it's another revolving door, I know families playing this system.

How do you abuse the EIC?

No I am not, people have learned the system and abuse it

They stealing from the rich now to give to the poor through "earned income credits", people that want to work low paying jobs like Mc donalds that was intended for a high school student.

Just to be clear, Johnii, are you saying that you're not in favor of Earned Income Credits?

I only ask because this was a policy started by Gerald Ford (R), and expanded greatly by Reagan (R). By the end of the Clinton (D) administration the maximum EIC was $500, but then George W (R) increased it to $4,000:

http://www.epi.org/publicat...ctiveness/

So if you have a problem with the EIC, that finger points at the Republicans.

Now George bush going by the original article Bush added about 6 Trillion to the debt. Obama added about 8. Now if you want to tell me that Obama economics work, then tell me how. You could say that Bush had a war started, and Obama ended it, ok well the military spending can't be a factor after Obama ended it right? Obama cut military budget and still kept spending some how. There wasn't a war, to account for it, and military budget is our biggest expenditure, so where did the money go?

Brandon, I know I've used this comparison before, but I don't remember if you were around for it. The debt really isn't as important at the Debt to GDP ratio.

Why? Imagine that you make $20,000 a year, and buy a house for $100,000. You are in debt 5 times your annual salary.

Now, imagine that you get a new job making $50,000 a year, so you sell your house and buy a new one for $150,000. You are now in debt 3 times your annual salary.

So while your debt went up, your Debt to Income ratio went down.

What we see under the George W administration is the debt going up while the value of the dollar went down. That would be like you losing your job and getting a new one that only pays $10,000 a year, but then buying a new house for $500,000.

Then under the Obama administration, the ratio balanced again. It was more like making $150,000 a year and buying a house for $150,000.

You also asked about the US budget. Military spending isn't our biggest expense; our biggest expense since 1970 has been healthcare. You can see where the money goes, and the budget's history, here:

Current budget:
http://www.usgovernmentspen...ral_budget

History of our expenditures:
http://www.usgovernmentspen...t_spending

History of our defense costs:
http://www.usgovernmentspen...e_spending

China's GDP already exceeds ours by several trillion dollars. After this plague of republicans get through we will be #2'd on everything. Are we winning yet?

Exactly antithesis. These hillbilly republicans don't understand jobs are created when the filthy rich lose money, not when we hand them more. Bill Clinton made them pay more and so they had to hire more people to work for them to make it back!