Politics

[Brent in Az]

So your argument is that higher taxes are good for the economy?

Higher taxes are good for the Democrat slush funds and overly bloated government

 

[Big_Easy]

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.

"You're absolutely a savage."...Desperate times call for desperate measures good sir. The alternative is this country goes bankrupt. I'm merely proposing the least bad options, there are no good options left. See my post above yours regarding deficit reduction figures.

"Average market return for a portfolio is 8%"...The average rate of return for the stock market the last 30-40 years is more like 10-11%. And that 39.6% Tax I'm preposing is only for the top 1%. I could even shift it to the top 0.1% perhaps. High-net-worth individuals have target ROI rates far greater than 10-11%. Often in the 15-17% range. The shitty private equity firm that bought the first company I worked for out of college had a target rate of 17% when I worked there, and increased it to 20% after I left....They got their wish.

As for inflation, one of the reasons the gov targets for inflation of 2% is to intentionally inflate out the money supply. Its by design. But thats also due to our massive deficit spending. It's the only way to reduce one's debt load without actually paying for it. So if we control our deficit, there will no longer be a need to inflate out the money supply. And that 3% inflation rate you referenced goes down.

"I'm amazed at the greed you have towards other people's capital."...Like I said above, its tax the rich or watch my country fail. The lesser of two evils. I'm starting to get the sense that some folks on here don't really care about the country after they're gone? If not for higher taxes on the rich? Then whats the plan?

 

[rookhawk]

"You're absolutely a savage."...Desperate times call for desperate measures good sir. The alternative is this country goes bankrupt. I'm merely proposing the least bad options, there are no good options left. See my post above yours regarding deficit reduction figures.

"Average market return for a portfolio is 8%"...The average rate of return for the stock market the last 30-40 years is more like 10-11%. And that 39.6% Tax I'm preposing is only for the top 1%. I could even shift it to the top 0.1% perhaps. High-net-worth individuals have target ROI rates far greater than 10-11%. Often in the 15-17% range. The shitty private equity firm that bought the first company I worked for out of college had a target rate of 17% when I worked there, and increased it to 20% after I left....They got their wish.

As for inflation, one of the reasons the gov targets for inflation of 2% is to intentionally inflate out the money supply. Its by design. But thats also due to our massive deficit spending. It's the only way to reduce one's debt load without actually paying for it. So if we control our deficit, there will no longer be a need to inflate out the money supply. And that 3% inflation rate you referenced goes down.

"I'm amazed at the greed you have towards other people's capital."...Like I said above, its tax the rich or watch my country fail. The lesser of two evils. I'm starting to get the sense that some folks on here don't really care about the country after they're gone? If not for higher taxes on the rich? Then whats the plan?

Your solution to a fat government with far too much largesse is to increase taxes for more lousy government.

Here's another option. Cut the tax massively. Reduce the size of government by 50%. Introduce a balanced budget amendment.

When a human is broke they work more and spend less. It's a law of human nature and personal accountability. But when you think beyond the individual level and you're a liberal, the solutions always include greater taxation, more programs, and a sprinkling of Keynesian economics.

You operate under the myth that billionaires are everywhere, they aren't taxed enough, and if we eat the rich we'll be solvent. All three sub-parts of your myth are not factual.

If you'd like to review this gem, it walks through the process of eating the rich. If we murder/tax all the rich, liquidate all their companies, liquidate all their real estate, we cannot operate the country for a single year without a deficit.

 

[Brent in Az]

"You're absolutely a savage."...Desperate times call for desperate measures good sir. The alternative is this country goes bankrupt. I'm merely proposing the least bad options, there are no good options left. See my post above yours regarding deficit reduction figures.

"Average market return for a portfolio is 8%"...The average rate of return for the stock market the last 30-40 years is more like 10-11%. And that 39.6% Tax I'm preposing is only for the top 1%. I could even shift it to the top 0.1% perhaps. High-net-worth individuals have target ROI rates far greater than 10-11%. Often in the 15-17% range. The shitty private equity firm that bought the first company I worked for out of college had a target rate of 17% when I worked there, and increased it to 20% after I left....They got their wish.

As for inflation, one of the reasons the gov targets for inflation of 2% is to intentionally inflate out the money supply. Its by design. But thats also due to our massive deficit spending. It's the only way to reduce one's debt load without actually paying for it. So if we control our deficit, there will no longer be a need to inflate out the money supply. And that 3% inflation rate you referenced goes down.

"I'm amazed at the greed you have towards other people's capital."...Like I said above, its tax the rich or watch my country fail. The lesser of two evils. I'm starting to get the sense that some folks on here don't really care about the country after they're gone? If not for higher taxes on the rich? Then whats the plan?

You, AOC, and Bernie Sanders, make one hell of a socialist trio.

 

[spike.t]

Here we go with the muppet bandwagon .....

Ban private jets and cut speed limits to avert UK fuel crisis, say campaigners

Climate and transport organisations warn ministers not to ‘sleepwalk into crisis’ amid Iran war oil and gas shortages

www.theguardian.com

 

[Big_Easy]

You, AOC, and Bernie Sanders, make one hell of a socialist trio.

Taxes ≠ Socialism

I don't think you know what Socialism actually is. I have provided a definition for you all below.

Definition of Socialism: Socialism is an economic and political philosophy advocating for social [government], rather than private ownership of a society's means of production for goods and services (factories, businesses, and natural resources, etc.).

Where in any of my posts have I advocated for that? Once again, Taxes ≠ Socialism.

 

[Big_Easy]

Your solution to a fat government with far too much largesse is to increase taxes for more lousy government.

Here's another option. Cut the tax massively. Reduce the size of government by 50%. Introduce a balanced budget amendment.

When a human is broke they work more and spend less. It's a law of human nature and personal accountability. But when you think beyond the individual level and you're a liberal, the solutions always include greater taxation, more programs, and a sprinkling of Keynesian economics.

You operate under the myth that billionaires are everywhere, they aren't taxed enough, and if we eat the rich we'll be solvent. All three sub-parts of your myth are not factual.

If you'd like to review this gem, it walks through the process of eating the rich. If we murder/tax all the rich, liquidate all their companies, liquidate all their real estate, we cannot operate the country for a single year without a deficit.

"Reduce the size of government by 50%."...Is this by total cost or by employee headcount. Because those are two very different things. I'll assume you mean by total cost. So the federal budget is ~$7 Trillion dollars. That's a $3.5 Trillion cut. In my post above we've already eliminated several things, so that is already a $590 Billion cut, so only $2.91 Trillion left. What gets cut?

If you all don't see it yet. My greater point is that folks on the right, and many here included, have absolutely no plan to reduce spending by the federal government. Also, you and Altitude sickness both seem to have some sort of reoccurring desire for murdering and confiscating the wealth of the rich. You may want to discuss those thoughts with a certified clinical therapist.

 

[Brent in Az]

Taxes ≠ Socialism

I don't think you know what Socialism actually is. I have provided a definition for you all below.

Definition of Socialism: Socialism is an economic and political philosophy advocating for social [government], rather than private ownership of a society's means of production for goods and services (factories, businesses, and natural resources, etc.).

Where in any of my posts have I advocated for that? Once again, Taxes ≠ Socialism.

You have the same ideology as AOC and Sanders, tax the rich = more money for the government machine and social welfare programs.
I know what socialism is. Don't try and disguise your ideology by claiming something else

 

[Brent in Az]

"Reduce the size of government by 50%."...Is this by total cost or by employee headcount. Because those are two very different things. I'll assume you mean by total cost. So the federal budget is ~$7 Trillion dollars. That's a $3.5 Trillion cut. In my post above we've already eliminated several things, so that is already a $590 Billion cut, so only $2.91 Trillion left. What gets cut?

If you all don't see it yet. My greater point is that folks on the right, and many here included, have absolutely no plan to reduce spending by the federal government. Also, you and Altitude sickness both seem to have some sort of reoccurring desire for murdering and confiscating the wealth of the rich. You may want to discuss those thoughts with a certified clinical therapist.

If anyone needs a clinical therapist, it's the person you see in the mirror.

 

[Altitude sickness]

When I have handled budgets. I’ve always required a CapEx review when a certain dollar amount of capital was spent. And before any more is approved to be spent.

I was also under The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and at certain spending thresholds had to review that all capital was spent where it was stated as spent. Then signed a legal document under threat of federal prosecution if funds were spent differently than stated. My threshold was usually met once a month before a review was required.


Most of us would simply like for the Federal Government to at least know where all the money is spent. Before asking for more. Medicare and Medicaid fraud alone is guessed to be 100 billion per year.

Many of us have no problem with government programs and especially military spending. The issue is, where we work or worked. The sloppiness would never be tolerated, and if I asked for more money, they would ask what I did with my budget.

If they saw the percentage of waste and fraud I would’ve never been given more funding. And would have been quickly fired.

I think all we’re asking is show us where the money we gave You goes first. Before you ask for more.

 

[skydiver386]

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.

On this subject, I think the only nutty people are those that think Computers can't be hacked.

Israel hacked it's way into Iran's Nuclear program, and shut it down, yet you think Voting computers are safe?

How Mossad’s ‘Foreign Legion’ Breached Iran’s Nuclear Program | Alhurra

For more than two decades, Iran’s nuclear program has been one of the most pressing threats troubling decision-makers in Israel. In confronting these threats, the Israeli intelligence agency Mossa…

alhurra.com

Israel's Cyber Attack on Iranian Nuclear Facilities: An In-Depth Analysis of Digital Warfare and Regional Implications

In the modern geopolitical landscape, the digital frontier has emerged as a critical battlefield, particularly between rival states seeking to undermine one another without direct military confrontation. One of the most prominent examples of cyber warfare in recent years is the alleged cyber-attack

www.linkedin.com

I think you need to wake up to how vulnerable the entire system is.

 

[PARA45]

It’s funny how those who have never lived in a Socialist society advocate for this great country to go that route. Go live in one and then come back and talk to me. And, yes I lived in one and know very well what it feels like to live under the boot of a Socialist Government.

 

[tinktink12]

 

[Doug3006]

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.

Here’s a good example of what we get for our tax money. According to the Department of Education, it costs an average of about $16,000 per year to educate a K-12 student in the public school system. Meanwhile, a Catholic grade school education costs about $7,000 per year. Catholic High School costs about the same as the public school average….so a weighted annual average for Catholic schools is about $10,000…or $6,000 less per year. Here’s the kicker, Catholic school students test 1-2 grades higher than their public school counterparts. So poorer results for 60% greater cost per year. The gap is even greater for home schooling. So it would be obvious to any child, teacher’s union rep or bureaucrat that more money is needed to close the performance gap. Wait…….

 

[Altitude sickness]

If I were King for a day and one of the liberal “Eat the Rich” cabal members worked for me. And they asked to steal an additional 30% from all billionaires.

I would say that’s great young Padawan while patting them on the head. Then show them where they can get all the extra money they want.

Your free to go find and retrieve the 100 billion Medicare and Medicaid fraud every year.

and the 3 trillion that has been spent improperly in the last 20 years and use that for your new programs. Or what ever reason you deem worthy of raising my taxes.

GAO Flags $186B in Improper Payments Across 64 Programs in FY 2025

The Government Accountability Office (GAO)’s most recent audit of the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements revealed $186 billion in improper payments in fiscal year (FY) 2025, an increase of $24 billion from the previous fiscal year.

www.meritalk.com

 

[Scott CWO]

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?

Obamacare pays for itself? Hahahahaha! Anybody making a decent living pays for the slackers to get cheap insurance! My insurance for my wife and I went from $750 per month to $1250 immediately and clear up to $2300 after a couple years because I make money so I was paying for slackers to have a policy for $50 per month! You are truly clueless!

 

[AJ Peacock]

"Reduce the size of government by 50%."...Is this by total cost or by employee headcount. Because those are two very different things. ...

I'd say remove the liberals/socialists and that is the 50% we could do without.

AJ

 

[Brent in Az]

Trump announced a potential deal being made between China and Boeing for the purchase 200 aircraft. It could potentially reach 750 aircraft in the future.
The first time in 10 years since China has made an aircraft deal with the U.S

 

[Tanks]

Trump announced a potential deal being made between China and Boeing for the purchase 200 aircraft. It could potentially reach 750 aircraft in the future.
The first time in 10 years since China has made an aircraft deal with the U.S

Wonder if he gave up any support for Taiwan e.g. weapon sales etc. in return?

 

[Brent in Az]

I trust China as much as a rattlesnake with a pet me sign around it's neck, however, China dollars being spent here is a plus for jobs & economy.