Politics

The problem is, that sort of wealth can be maintained an grown in ways other than income. The successful used all sorts of vehicles that resulted in deadweight economic loss. Instead of a windfall, the economy experiences stagnation. The first postwar president who fully grasped that economic reality was JFK (Now what party was he?) His proposed tax cuts, which were dramatic at the time, were actually passed and signed into law by Johnson (another dem?) immediately following his death. The GDP blossomed significantly from 64 thru 66 and unemployment fell 5.2% in 64 to 3.5 by the end of 68.
And you don't see any difference between lowering the top tax rate from 90% to 70%, and increasing it from 23.8% to 39.6%? Weren't you all the ones demanding that I take context into account more?

You also seem to have missed my post where I acknowledged that taxing the top 1% at a 75% rate would lead to capital flight. It's also curious that in order to support your arguments that you guys are citing examples from the 1960s, or even the 1940s. Did the GDP also "blossom" during the Clinton administration? After taxes were raised to 39.6%? I seem to remember Republican Congressman on the house floor debating that bill claiming it would be "the end of the US economic miracle," and how we "will return to the dark days of economic stagnation and high inflation like during the Carter admin!" I think you can still find those C-SPAN videos on the internet.

And what happened then? The largest, longest economic expansion in the history of the republic.
 
Last edited:
"Here is the Crux of the discussion. Guys like Shultz are the enemy."

No, that's the discussion that the right-wing mainstream news media wants us to have since their billionaire sugar daddy's wants middle class america to vote against their own economic interets.

"The left expects him to pay someone slinging coffee a “living wage”. If you want a living wage Go to a trade school or gain a certification of some sort to get a higher paying job..."

At least you finally said the quiet part out loud. That republicans and the wealthy need a permanent underclass of citizens to make their economic system function.

"And can never pay enough."

I literally told you how much they'd have to pay.
 
This!

We do NOT have a tax/revenue problem. We have a spending problem. And that is a problem of both parties, not at all one or the other.
Yes, as you've cited in a prior posting about deficit spending. And I've already mentioned that both sides are to blame. It's just that the republicans are far more to blame than the democrats. I'm also more concerned with the last 40 years, and present day in particular as I live now, not in the 1940s.

We currently have a 2.0 trillion dollar deficit. So I'll ask you all for the 8th time now. What are you all willing to cut? So far (Brent In Az) said we should cut spending on Foreign NGOs and the Dept. of Education. I assume that those Foreign NGOs are no longer funded after Trump and Musk shut down USAID, and cutting the Dept of Education saves us $260 billion a year. I think that means that we are just giving up on higher education in this country. And that would make China very happy, but it is an answer none the less.

So 2.00 Trillion - 0.26 = $1.74 Trillion deficit now. According to everyone on here, we can't raise taxes at all, so what else gets cut?
 
So your argument is that higher taxes are good for the economy?
It didn't hurt us in the 90s, and it didn't hurt the economy during Obama, so yes, higher taxes on the rich will not significantly hurt the economy now.

More specifically, look at Reagan's two tax cuts. The first one was from 70% to 50%, the second was from 50% to 28%. Economic growth was higher under the first tax cut than it was under the second one. Why was that? And ask yourself if the economy is damaged by massive deficit spending?
 
Yes, as you've cited in a prior posting about deficit spending. And I've already mentioned that both sides are to blame. It's just that the republicans are far more to blame than the democrats. I'm also more concerned with the last 40 years, and present day in particular as I live now, not in the 1940s.
I don't recall you acknowledging both sides are to blame before, but I appreciate seeing it here. I would argue Democrats are more to blame than Republicans.

We currently have a 2.0 trillion dollar deficit. So I'll ask you all for the 8th time now. What are you all willing to cut? So far (Brent In Az) said we should cut spending on Foreign NGOs and the Dept. of Education. I assume that those Foreign NGOs are no longer funded after Trump and Musk shut down USAID, and cutting the Dept of Education saves us $260 billion a year. I think that means that we are just giving up on higher education in this country. And that would make China very happy, but it is an answer none the less.
As I, and others, have pointed out several times now, budgets (and the associated deficits) are far more controlled by Congress than Presidents. Ultimately, the House and Senate pass the funding bills that the President signs (or vetos, which goes back to House/Senate). I have provided ample sources and data for where our largest deficits have come under Democrat controlled Congress, and the best years have been under Republican controlled congress. And, as I have said before, we can still "blame" the Presidents and show that every President since Clinton has run a bigger deficit than the President before. This makes no mention of Covid and the effects that had on the deficit for 45Trump's last year and Biden's first year in office, which could be an entire book of conversation. And when we pay nearly $1T annually to service our debts, every future President/Congress is already in a hole before they even start each year.

I believe there is a lot of garbage that can be cut from our budget. Honestly, in my opinion, the entire budget should be reset to $0 and take a line by line look at where every dollar should be spent moving forward. If millions of American families can run a balanced budget for their house, our government should be able to figure it out.

Get rid of the subsidies for "green" energy and ethanol. Fire the entire Dept of Education, remove lifetime benefits for congress, eliminate Obamacare, look at the hundreds of programs that suck $5M here and $10M there and kill the non-essential. Incentivise anyone that does get federal funding to run at a deficit, rather than making sure they use it all to get the same or more next year. Stop letting programs go on indefinitely. Drastically reduce the IRS and other wasteful agencies. Evaluate and reduce Defense spending. Reduce salaries/benefits for Congress and staff. Shut down useless/redundant federal buildings, sell what we can for income or cut the cost of rent/utilities/etc. Stop wasting "mandatory" funding to run congressional hearings and federal lawsuits over stupid shit, and whatever other costs you want to add here.

That's all stuff off the top of my head. ... to paraphrase the old saying, you have to eat the elephant one bite at a time.
 
Guys like Shultz are the enemy

Bernie wants to see his money redistributed and him knocked down a peg because he buys yachts......

I want his money redistributed and him knocked down a peg because he's woke......

We are not the same. hahaha
 
"Here is the Crux of the discussion. Guys like Shultz are the enemy."

No, that's the discussion that the right-wing mainstream news media wants us to have since their billionaire sugar daddy's wants middle class america to vote against their own economic interets.

"The left expects him to pay someone slinging coffee a “living wage”. If you want a living wage Go to a trade school or gain a certification of some sort to get a higher paying job..."

At least you finally said the quiet part out loud. That republicans and the wealthy need a permanent underclass of citizens to make their economic system function.

"And can never pay enough."

I literally told you how much they'd have to pay.
Entry level jobs are not supposed to be a “living wage” because people should aspire to more and improve themselves. I made minimum wage as a teenager. Living wage is a socialist concept that just causes inflation of everything without providing a solution to making a living when everything goes up because of it.

It’s like Cameron Haines says, “Nobody cares. Work harder.”
 
So I knew that newer cars were spying on people but not to this extent...and going to get even worse....the info they are sending back to their manufacturers is mind blowing....and they are selling your info to anyone who pays ....

 
Wait, What ? now Democrats admit that Hacking into machines and technology to change vote counts is real? Why who would do such a thing?

OMG, somebody call @Ontario Hunter and tell him it may be possible to hack voting machines and rig elections.

Either Donald Trump was correct when he said voting machines weren't secure, as Pelosi now claims, OR she's a whacked out conspiracy theorist.

Which will it be @Ontario Hunter, because you can't have it both ways.
 
I’m sure Nancy regrets saying that out loud. but the wine must’ve gotten to her head

I think it’s naïve knowing that we have agencies with the capability to change election outcomes worldwide for decades, but wouldn’t use those same skills here. When the people in charge of those agencies think the Person elected is the second coming of Hitler. And them being patriots are guarding the country against a larger foe than any foreign government.

It’s also hard to believe that elections are the one tiny fraction of our government that fraud and corruption hasn’t touched

Democrats, of course didn’t cheat in 2020 but apparently now Trump can
 
All this proves (if it's true) is Pelosi is just as screwy as Trump. I have never disputed that. Some of you Trumplodites need to wake up. I'm not dedicated to blind partisan tailgate party politics (i.e. "My team is better than yours ... no matter what"). I simply have no use for nutty conspiracy theories or the braindead idiots who broadcast them. And less use for the mindless sheep who believe the broadcasters.
OMG, somebody call @Ontario Hunter and tell him it may be possible to hack voting machines and rig elections.

Either Donald Trump was correct when he said voting machines weren't secure, as Pelosi now claims, OR she's a whacked out conspiracy theorist.

Which will it be @Ontario Hunter, because you can't have it both ways.
 
It didn't hurt us in the 90s, and it didn't hurt the economy during Obama, so yes, higher taxes on the rich will not significantly hurt the economy now.

More specifically, look at Reagan's two tax cuts. The first one was from 70% to 50%, the second was from 50% to 28%. Economic growth was higher under the first tax cut than it was under the second one. Why was that? And ask yourself if the economy is damaged by massive deficit spending?
Because the D controlled Congress did not make any spending cut and instead increased spending.

You act like everyone only had a "6th grade education" (let's see if you get the reference) before the Feds started the Dept of Education. All that did was create jobs for the administrative state, require more school staff to meet federal reporting requirements. Scores and outcome have decreased since that department started. All it's done is make a 12th grade education really a 6th grade education. Sorry, it needs to go away.

And while the tax rates was sky high, the super rich never paid those rates and never will. Money, like water will take the path of least resistance. There are plenty of "taxation jurisdictions" where that money can go and they are happy for the investments and bank balances. And you seem to blame the R's for everything and dismiss history. It was LBJ, who broke the budget, with guns and butter - Vietnam War and the Great Society. Which by the way, has kept the poor, poor.
 
Last edited:
Just throwing good money after bad at this point.

“In a newly proposed business plan released this year, project leaders estimate the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco segment will cost about $126 billion, with service beginning around 2040.

Politicians, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, have stated that voters originally approved $33 billion for the project when it passed in 2008.”

 
OMG, somebody call @Ontario Hunter and tell him it may be possible to hack voting machines and rig elections.

Either Donald Trump was correct when he said voting machines weren't secure, as Pelosi now claims, OR she's a whacked out conspiracy theorist.

Which will it be @Ontario Hunter, because you can't have it both ways.
You just had to say the name....didn't ya!
 
You just had to say the name....didn't ya!
Usually when you wish to summon a Demon, you say it three times, I only said it twice. :LOL:
images (55).jpeg
 
Get rid of the subsidies for "green" energy and ethanol. Fire the entire Dept of Education, remove lifetime benefits for congress, eliminate Obamacare, look at the hundreds of programs that suck $5M here and $10M there and kill the non-essential. Incentivise anyone that does get federal funding to run at a deficit, rather than making sure they use it all to get the same or more next year. Stop letting programs go on indefinitely. Drastically reduce the IRS and other wasteful agencies. Evaluate and reduce Defense spending. Reduce salaries/benefits for Congress and staff. Shut down useless/redundant federal buildings, sell what we can for income or cut the cost of rent/utilities/etc. Stop wasting "mandatory" funding to run congressional hearings and federal lawsuits over stupid shit, and whatever other costs you want to add here.

That's all stuff off the top of my head. ... to paraphrase the old saying, you have to eat the elephant one bite at a time.
I've itemized your specific responses below.

1. "Get rid of the subsidies for "green" energy and ethanol"...Trump already got rid of the green energy tax credits. As for ethanol, I'll do you one better, how about we get rid of the entire Department of Agriculture (USDA)?...Thats $234 Billion per year. I think that's fair since we are getting rid of the education department.

2. "Fire the entire Dept. of Education"...I already accounted for this in my post above.

3. "Remove lifetime benefits for congress"...A rounding error, little to no effect on the deficit.

4. "Eliminate Obamacare"...That would cause almost 50 million people to loose their healthcare, but then again, drastic times call for drastic measures. However, the ACA does pay for itself though tax increases and fees. Are you suggesting that we cut these tax increases and fees tied to it? If so, this would not reduce the deficit by anything.

5. "Drastically reduce the IRS"...Current IRS funding is $11.2 Billion. How much would you cut? Remember that cutting too much actually leads to lower compliance rates and would thus have a counter productive effect and increase the deficit.

6. "Evaluate and reduce Defense spending"...You are the only person on this thread that has thus far suggested this, thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one. During Obama's tenure military sequestration cuts were approx. $450 billion over 8 years. So $56 billion per year. Roughly $80 billion per year adj for inflation. So lets say $80 billion.

7. "Reduce salaries/benefits for Congress and staff"...A rounding error, little to no effect on the deficit.

8. "Shut down useless/redundant federal buildings, sell what we can for income or cut the cost of rent/utilities/etc."...Approx. $1 billion in savings per year.

9. "Funding to run congressional hearings and federal lawsuits over stupid shit."...A rounding error, little effect on the federal deficit.

So a $1.74 Trillion deficit from my post above - $0.234 - $0.080 - $0.01 = $1.41 Trillion deficit still left. But that doesnt account for any IRS cuts, or if we keep ACA fees/taxes but cut expenses.

Any other ideas?
 
At 75%? Probably.
At 39.6%? No.

39.6% (future) vs. 23.8% (currently) is not enough of an increase for significant capital flight. Besides, where would it go? Africa? Europe? China? Australia? Mars? As I've said before, the ROI for the market is still going to be far superior to other investment vehicles, even with the rich having to pay 15.8% more in taxes.

You're absolutely a savage.

So lets figure out just how much taxation as theft you're proposing. Average market return for a portfolio is 8%. And you want to tax it at a 40% rate, so for every $8 earned in stocks held longer than a year, you think the government gets to keep $3.20. Real inflation is 3%. That leaves the inverstor with a $1.80 of real profit on $8 in earnings.

That's the proposterous nature of liberal thinking. This country had a revolution over a 2% stamp tax and you think it won't happen again when the producers get to earn $8 and then pocket $1.80 of that due to fiat currency + taxation? An effective 77.5% tax rate. Laughable liberal insanity.

There will be a flight from the markets. There will be shadow investing in commodities and works of art where the government gets nothing. The undercapitalized markets will cause mass bankruptcies, loss of jobs, and absolutely devestation to our innovation economy. Need I remind you the most innovative companies are the highest risk, they will be the first to see flight of capital.

I'm amazed at the greed you have towards other people's capital.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
67,774
Messages
1,505,256
Members
147,909
Latest member
SuzetteMat
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

MooseHunter wrote on Wildwillalaska's profile.
Hello BJ,

Don here AKA Moose Hunter. I think you got me by mistake. I have seen that rifle listed but it is not my rifle No worries
idjeffp wrote on Fish2table's profile.
I will be looking for a set of these when my .505 is done... sadly not cashed up right now for these. :(
Need anything in trade?
Cheers,
Jeff P
 
Top