Did Republicans Break the Millennials?

[Oneuli]

Most people on the GI Bill were not government workers

They got the GI Bill for having been government workers (members of the military). That's my point. The form of government employment helped lead many into the middle class.

And, a lot of that compensation went to college expenses.

Yes, and even after expenses, they tended to come out way ahead thanks to enhanced earning power.

 

[Oneuli]

You are technically correct the soldiers were all government workers. But most of those soldiers weren’t government workers prior. And most weren’t after their service was complete yet the GI Bill still supported them

I assume you're right on both fronts, but I wasn't making any claims about how long they were government workers. I was just pointing out that having been government workers opened up doors that otherwise wouldn't have been open to some of them, in terms of the affordability of higher education, and thus it provided an avenue into the middle class. I haven't seen the stats, but I expect that's especially true for people of color among them..... that government employment would have opened doors in even more ways for them, by giving them exposure (and giving whites exposure to them) in ways that wouldn't have happened nearly to the same degree through the private sector (especially in the era after Truman integrated the military but before the South had been forcibly integrated).

 

[cawacko]

I assume you're right on both fronts, but I wasn't making any claims about how long they were government workers. I was just pointing out that having been government workers opened up doors that otherwise wouldn't have been open to some of them, in terms of the affordability of higher education, and thus it provided an avenue into the middle class. I haven't seen the stats, but I expect that's especially true for people of color among them..... that government employment would have opened doors in even more ways for them, by giving them exposure (and giving whites exposure to them) in ways that wouldn't have happened nearly to the same degree through the private sector (especially in the era after Truman integrated the military but before the South had been forcibly integrated).

I don’t think having world wars where our country has conscription is the path today’s youth are looking for to achieve the middle class.

 

[Oneuli]

I don’t think having world wars where our country has conscription is the path today’s youth are looking for to achieve the middle class.

Me neither. But for purposes of this discussion, it needn't be military service. The civil service has, likewise, traditionally been a path to the middle class. Unfortunate, as discussed, a record-long period with net government employment decreases have meant that my generation has largely been shut out of that path.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Millennials are indeed different.

I'm a hard left progressive liberal, but at 72 years of age, I drive a seventy thousand dollar car, belong to a nice club, and don't believe in leaving all the trappings of a comfortable life to the right wing oligarchs. These things came quite late in life, well after the constraints of mortgages, aged parental care, kids' tuitions, and other commitments that responsible adults make.

I don't criticize less materialistic millennials if they do indeed exist, but I would have to ask...

What the hell are you looking forward to? If your vision of the future is so stark, perhaps the responsible thing for you is to not procreate.

boomers don't get it.

 

[Truth Detector]

This is a tome about how our LIBERAL educational establishment is failing our kids. It is a tragedy that will haunt the Republic for many decades. But as it has been in every generation, as they age, they become wiser and more conservative.

 

[Truth Detector]

... and once you insult someone ... you make enemies.

It's human nature.

That's all the left does; buy a mirror you dolt.

 

[Truth Detector]

Instead, the issue was very poor revenue growth. Some of that was due to underwhelming economic growth, but it has also been due to multiple rounds of upper-class tax cuts.

Lie and lame. Tax cuts have NEVER led to lower revenue. Revenue has always increase. We never had a REVENUE problem; it is a SPENDING problem.

Bush:
Government Revenue 2001= $1,991 trillion

Government Revenue 2008 = $2,524 trillion

Government Revenue increase = 26.7% increase.
Obama:
Government Revenue 2009 = $2,105 trillion

Government Revenue 2017 = $3,316 trillion

Government Revenue increase = 57.5% increase.

Also, there was a shift in government spending, in the same period. Previously, there was more government spending on services (at the federal, state, and local levels), which is employment-intensive. Now there's a lot of government spending on the military, which employs relatively few people dollar-for-dollar. For example, slash a hundred billion dollars from the military budget and throw it to education or infrastructure, and you'll employ a lot more people.

More lies. Mandatory spending equals approximately 65% of the Federal Budget. Defense spending about 16%. In fact, defense spending as a percent of GDP has been in a long steady decline.

In World War II defense spending peaked at 41 percent of GDP, and then declined to about 10 percent during the height of the Cold War. Thereafter it declined to 3 to 5 percent of GDP, with surges during the 1980s and the 2000s.

Spending increased further to 5.7 percent in 2011 with the stepped up effort in Afghanistan. Defense spending is expected to decline to 4.5 percent of GDP in 2015 and 3.8 percent GDP by 2020.
https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending

 

[Truth Detector]

@ post one.

Is there anything less cool, and more repellent than a LIBERALconservative millennial?

There; I had to fix your bullshit.

 

[Truth Detector]

The debt rose not because of unusually quick government spending growth. Government spending growth was, rather, at a record slow pace (you can confirm with the links I provided). It's because of unusually slow revenue growth. Bush pushed through two big upper-class tax cuts (and Obama signed off on making most of that permanent), and then Trump pushed through another big cut. The top bracket paid 91% as recently as the early 60s, and 70% as recently as the early 1980s, but now they pay just 37%, and the rates are still lower on the kinds of income earned by the idle rich (just 20% on long-term capital gains). And where corporations paid a top rate of 52% from the early 1950s through early 1960s (and 52.8% in the late 1960s), now they pay just 21%. We're essentially running up debt because tax policy was altered to further enhance the wealth of the economic elite.

LIE and LAME.

Revenue in 1960 = $92.5 Billion.

Revenue in 2017 = $3,316 Trillion.

Revenue has increased by 3,585% I just don't see this revenue loss you keep bloviating about. However, if we look at spending, yes, excpet for a short period of time Republicans controlled the Congress with Bill Clinton, spending constantly outgrew revenues.

Tax cuts do not cause revenue losses. That is a LIE and is not supported by the historical FACTS.

P.S. Corporations do not PAY taxes. They COLLECT them from US. I do wish you had a brain.

 

[Truth Detector]

Lol. THink govt spending grows the economy. We should have all been living large under Obummer!

Gets it; Onueli, not at all.

 

[Truth Detector]

In FY 2001 (Bush's first fiscal year), total government spending was $3,436 billion.

WRONG; it was $1,862.8 Billion.

In FY 2009, it was $5,969 billion. That's 7.1% growth, annualized.

WRONG; it was $3,517.7 Billion. That's an 89% increase. Opposed to an increase in Revenue over the same period of 5.7%. Therefore, it is a SPENDING problem, not a Revenue Problem.

By comparison, in the Reagan years, we went from $1073 billion to $1905 billion. That's 7.4% annualized growth.

WRONG; we went from $678.2 Billion to $1,143.7 Billion. A 69% increase. Or 8.7% annually.

Between FY 1969 and FY 1974 (Nixon) we went from $296 billion to $453 billion, which is 8.9% annualized.

WRONG; we went from $183.6 billion to $269.4 billion which is an increase of 47%.

Certainly the GW Bush era looks like a crazy orgy of government spending next to the austerity of the Obama years, but it doesn't look out of line with prior periods.

I guess you missed the FACT that Bush had to deal with 9-11 and fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, you're not one to let silly facts get in the way of your Progressive propaganda.

 

[Truth Detector]

Certainly federal government spending rose on Bush's watch, largely thanks to his multi-trillion-dollar blunder into Iraq.

A blunder all of the Democratic leadership voted FOR. Were they all wrong snowflake? Of course, we could always pretend 9-11 never happened and Saddam had not invaded a peaceful member nation of the UN.

Dunce.

 

[Truth Detector]

Government jobs have, traditionally, been a major path to the middle class. That's simply a fact. If you don't realize it, it might speak to the failings of our education system, which in large parts of the country has been derailed by right-wingers pushing an agenda.

Baloney; you cannot have Government jobs without the private market. You cannot SPEND your way into prosperity. The worst place to have growth is in the Government. The economic multiplier is near ZERO. You see, in order for the Government to SPEND money, it has to first forcefully extract it FROM the real job creators.

 

[Oneuli]

Lie and lame. Tax cuts have NEVER led to lower revenue.

Reread. I clearly referred to lower revenue growth, not lower revenues.

More lies. Mandatory spending equals approximately 65% of the Federal Budget. Defense spending about 16%.

How can I have lied about that, when I never made any claim at all about what percentage it is?

I realize it takes guts to respond to what a person actually says, and guts aren't really your thing, but give it a try, anyway.

 

[Oneuli]

WRONG; it was $1,862.8 Billion.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that total government spending equals federal spending. It doesn't. Now that you've spotted your error, do you care to try again?

I guess you missed the FACT that Bush had to deal with 9-11 and fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush's multi-trillion dollar error of starting a war of choice with Iraq was certainly one part of our problem in those years.

 

[Truth Detector]

Reread. I clearly referred to lower revenue growth, not lower revenues.

That's a lie as well.

How can I have lied about that, when I never made any claim at all about what percentage it is?

You lack the intelligence to comprehend how lame you look.

I realize it takes guts to respond to what a person actually says, and guts aren't really your thing, but give it a try, anyway.

Is that why you lie, deflect and act like a perfidious asshole?

 

[Truth Detector]

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that total government spending equals federal spending. It doesn't. Now that you've spotted your error, do you care to try again?

You seen to flail and grasp at straws constantly in a desperate attempt to lie.

Bush's multi-trillion dollar error of starting a war of choice with Iraq was certainly one part of our problem in those years.

That is a low IQ opinion of yours that suffers from a severe case of dementia and historical ignorance.

 

[Oneuli]

Baloney; you cannot have Government jobs without the private market. You cannot SPEND your way into prosperity. The worst place to have growth is in the Government. The economic multiplier is near ZERO. You see, in order for the Government to SPEND money, it has to first forcefully extract it FROM the real job creators.

The multiplier from government spending can be much higher than zero. The exact number depends on what you're spending on and the state of the economy, but the IMF puts the range between 0.9 and 1.7.

 

[Truth Detector]

The multiplier from government spending can be much higher than zero.
The exact number depends on what you're spending on and the state of the economy, but the IMF puts the range between 0.9 and 1.7.

Really? Then you can prove it with something more than "because you say so." The IMF?