What we know about Brett Favre and his texts in Mississippi welfare scandal

Because there's a picture of him in his younger days when he was hanging out with Trump. If not for that, nobody would care that Favre did something far less than what their cult leaders do.

 

I never liked Brett Favre because of the way the media treated him. He won ONE Super Bowl and he has been treated like the god of pro football.

 

Gawd YOU LIE SO MUCH. Clinton passed his capital gains tax cut in 1997 BECAUSE of the Tech boom. HE WAS IN HIS SECOND TERM, YOU LIED AND SAID IT WAS HIS FIRST AND HE LISTENED TO TRICKY DICK JR, ANOTHER LIE



JOHN KASICH AND THE CLINTONS COLLABORATED ON LAW THAT HELPED DOUBLE EXTREME POVERTY
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/13...hat-helped-double-extreme-poverty-in-america/

 

Welfare reform of 1996 ended it. FIVE YEARS LIFETIME MAX. Some red states go as little as 2 years, of course it turned welfare into a block grant and we spend the same ($32 billion?) as we did in 1996

 

Founders decided that was Nonsense and went with Hamilton's American School of Economics instead, it worked pretty well until think tanks and public policy groups and the likes of Reagan

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. Protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–1970).
2. Government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation).
3. A national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

 

Thx, I appreciate you posting how one party doesn't consider the worker.
Exporting jobs en masse started back in the 90s. As a result of free trade agreements pushed though mostly by R's.
Clinton sold workers out, when he sided with them.

 

Or redlining?

 

Clinton came into office on that tech boom and a strong recovery. He passed his capital gains tax increase because he wanted more money to spend even though it was pouring in. But in fact he slowed the economic grow and tax revenue growth. The Reps took back the Congress and passed THEIR policies which he had to sign onto even though he void to reverse them and even tried his poison pill on the welfare reform which got millions back on the payrolls and out of welfare.

Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

.....Comparing the Periods

The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.



The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000--a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike (illustrated in the graph above). Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period (illustrated in the graph below). Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton.



In summary, coming out of a recession into a period when the economy should grow relatively rapidly, President Clinton signed a major tax increase. The average growth rate over his first term was a solid 3.2 percent. In 1997, at a time when the expansion was well along and economic growth should have slowed, Congress passed a modest net tax cut. The economy grew by a full percentage point-per-year faster over his second term than over Clinton's first term.

The evidence is fairly clear: The tax cuts, especially the reduction in the capital gains tax rate, made a major contribution to a strong economy. Given this observation, it seems likely, though admittedly less certain, that the tax increases in 1993, while not derailing the economy as many had forecast at the time, did indeed slow the recovery compared to what the economy could have achieved.

Conclusion

Proponents of tax increases often reference the Clinton 1993 tax increase and the subsequent period of economic growth as evidence that deficit reduction through tax hikes is a pro-growth policy. What these proponents ignore, however, is that the tax increases occurred at a time when the economy was recovering from recession and strong growth was to be expected. They also ignore that the real acceleration in the economy began in 1997, when economic growth should have cooled. This acceleration in growth coincided with a powerful pro-growth tax cut.

The evidence is persuasive that the tax increase probably slowed the economy compared to the growth it would have achieved and that the subsequent tax cuts of 1997, not the tax increases, were the source of the acceleration in real growth in the latter half of the decade. As taxes are now above their historical average as a share of the economy, and are rising, Congress should look to enact additional tax relief to keep the economy strong.
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom

Posting leftwing specious opinion refutes nothing and if you have something to say then say it, copy and pasted it.

 

Got it, you'll stick to right wing talking points devoid of truth

Hint after BJ Bill's first balanced budget (called a surplus) thanks to the 1993 tax increases and creating 3 new brackets, the GOP Congress passed a $792 billion tax cut BJ Bill had to veto to get 3 more surpluses

2000-

President Clinton's Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing (KINDA REFUTES YOUR FIRST TALKING POINT) . Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever.

• Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
• Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
• Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993:

President Clinton's Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America's history.

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

• Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research.

Negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years. Later that year, he signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997

• Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025. When President Clinton took office, Medicare was expected to become insolvent in 1999, then only six years away. The 1993 deficit reduction act dedicated some of the taxes paid by Social Security beneficiaries to the Medicare Trust Fund and extended the life of Medicare by three years to 2002. Thanks to additional provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse and bipartisan cooperation in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, Medicare is now expected to remain solvent until 2025.

 

Clinton-Gore Economic Policy Has Dramatically Improved the Economy

"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton's] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation's history."
— Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan's re-nomination announcement

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998

"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997


Keep up with your talking points though

https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

 

Not necessarily. Although nonprofits sometimes do make a profit, a lot of times, they don't, especially the small ones

Because you keep arguing that a salary from a government worker somehow "subsidizes" the union. That's so wrong on so many levels that I am no longer going to repeat the same argument over and over.

See above comment.


[/QUOTE]The taxpayers pay the bill. If IBM agrees to pay their workers more can they use the force of law to take your money to do so? Does the workforce at IBM get to hire their own bosses who promise them even higher wages? NO.[/QUOTE]
WTH?? Again, how in the hell did you come up with this crap Blues?

Government workers, depending on their job description, have a salary based on what the agency deems necessary. Most professional government workers, those with bachelor's, masters, or even doctorate level education, are paid way below the free market, capitalistic, private sector workers. See the graph below. What makes government employment enticing is not the pay, but the benefits and those benefits make the difference. Furthermore, federal government workers are allowed a cost of living adjustment, but that can be a blessing and a curse with most of the time, the government workers get a net less pay after all the deductions for insurance and other benefits are taken into account.

 

And for profit sometimes lose money.

No I did not and stop saying I did.

See above comment.

[/QUOTE]The taxpayers pay the bill. If IBM agrees to pay their workers more can they use the force of law to take your money to do so? Does the workforce at IBM get to hire their own bosses who promise them even higher wages? NO.[/QUOTE]
WTH?? Again, how in the hell did you come up with this crap Blues?

They have salaries and benefits they negotiate with the public officials the vote into office.

Compare their TOTAL compensation including benefits and work requirement in years. And the vast majority of workers are not professional or Doctorate in fact those are the small minority. By far the middle and upper middle class government workers make more in wages AND in benefits.

 

Yes he inherited a strong recovery and then did that something about it and it slowed down the recovery and tax revenue growth as I showed you already

Thank you Republican's Congress, they controlled fiscal policy which controlled spending and tax policy and social spending policy. That produced the budget surpluses.

Already showed you the historical showed otherswise. He slowed the recovery, slowed revenue growth until the Republicans started passing budgets and tax reform. And Clinton went after the tech sector remember, he wanted to break up Microsoft and other biggies and that scared helped create the dot.com bust.

Keep up with your talking points though

And I don't take the Clinton Foundation as an unbias'd source in it's presentation

 

The U.S. budget deficit decline for several major reasons in the 1990s

1) The Republican congress blocked new federal spending plans by the Clinton Admin.
2) The Clinton Admin. blocked the Republican congress from passing tax cuts.
3) U.S. defense spending was cut dramatically in real terms.
4) The tech boom led to massive increases in tax revenue.

 

maybe they need to stop being bad people

 

I get it, you prefer right wing BS from Heritage, AEI, ALEC, etc vs facts.

Keep "believing" nonsense like tax cuts grow an economy or bring in more revenues, lol

 

1) Such as?
2) Yep he vetoed the $792+ billion tax cut after his first surplus.
3) Yep
4) Yep

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY THOUGH

 

Yeah we saw that when Dubya came into office

Clinton Vetoes Tax Cut but Seeks Accord

President Clinton vetoed the $792 billion Republican tax cut today, but called on a skeptical Congress to reach a bipartisan compromise with him on taxes, domestic spending and the long-term financing problems facing Medicare and Social Security.
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/24/us/clinton-vetoes-tax-cut-but-seeks-accord.html

NO PAYWALL LINK (MIGHT BE AWHILE TO WORK, 4,000 IN LINE)
https://archive.ph/wip/b69AQ

GOP WERE SO FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE THEY PASSED MEDICARE EXPANSION IN 2004 ELECTION CYCLE (prescription drugs) WITHOUT A PENNY OF NEW REVENUES, AND FORBID NEGOTIATING WITH PHARMA

Federal Gov't will spend $110 billion this year out of general revenues on Medicare Part D, which unlike Obamacares (was 100% funded) wasn't funded with even a penny

 

Yep Gov't doesn't have many walmart greeters or burger flippers right?

 

Bad by being right wingers. Right?

 

doesn't matter what their party is, it's the being bad that matters

 

Unless they're Democrats. Right?

 

But the for profit business will raise prices, cut expenses or services, or something to get out of the red. Not so with non profits who keep the same services, keep the same amount of volunteers and staff, etc. What they will do is raise donations, ask for public grants or something to get even but never in the black. Hince the difference.

Yes you did.

No, they negotiate with the city manager for local unions. For Federal Unions, they negotiate with OPM, Office of Personel Management. None of them are elected officials. What you are getting confused is the budgetary process and that is something of a different bohemeath. And no politician will cut the rank and file like that at all, not even conservatives.

If you look at the chart, yes to those with little education or a high school diploma, but those jobs are not the majority of US Federal Jobs. The average GS salary is in the GS 12 range which means a batchelor, master's, or professional degree. And for government managers, they don't either make more wages and benefits than the private sector. Not in the least bit.

You may want to look at this link. Look at Figure 2 where you see the distributive share of the various federal agencies. The largest is DoD, followed by Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, and then Department of Justice, and Department of Treasury. Also included is the judicial and legislative branches, which account for 3% of the total workforce. The result of the distribution is that the Federal Government spent in FY 2016 around $216 billion for federal employee compensation in which 2/3 of which was spent on DoD, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security. Do you think all of them are overpaid? Or are you just jealous?

 

And GoodWill will raise their prices and cut staff or services so they can remain open. You really don't understand what is a non-profit.

Then quote me saying it else withdraw the claim.

Yes they negotiate with the GOVERNMENT which pays them with the people's, the taxpayers money. The city council's and congress approve the wages negotiated in their budgets. You are quite confused about it all.

And even with college degrees and yes those without Doctorates or Prof and the vast majority only the top group makes more wages and salaries in the private sector.

DoD all those enlisted people without degrees. Your point being what? And you continue to ignore the compensation packages. And now your specious "oh you don't think they get paid enough" dodge.................geeezzz