heybruce

You're living in the past: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_gas_price https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000708111 Also, do you hold Biden responsible for the cull of chickens caused by bird flu?

Count me as one of those. I have a manageable level of credit card debt that I could pay off by cashing in some of my IRA that is tied to the S&P500. However with the market going up the way it is I'm in not hurry to do so.

I don't know, and apparently neither do you. However it's safe to assume that the majority bought their homes more than four years ago and therefore ahead of the interest rate increases. That means they are paying off home that have greatly increased in value with low interest loans. Of course it's useless to debate with a "glass half empty" person. If home values had fallen you would think that a crisis and if interest rates fell you'd complain about the effect on retirement plans. The market always benefits some more than others, but a growing economy, which the county has now, creates more winners than losers. BTW: The re-alignment of the housing market that saw the increases in value was driven by the work place changes brought about by Covid. Why aren't the people who hold Trump blameless for the consequences of Covid doing the same for Biden?

Don't forget to dive into the data and look for any numbers that distract from the fact that unemployment is low, wages are increasing, inflation has fallen, the economy is growing...

Summary: You can't support your clam with a link.

Initially you asked how taxing the rich would reduce the disparity. I explained the obvious immediate cause in simple terms. You rejected the explanation without disputing it. Now you are asking how taxing the rich can improve the economics for the poor. Additional money can do so in many ways: Universal healthcare so the poor and middle class aren't bankrupted by medical bills, earlier childhood education and nutrition programs so children are better prepared for later education and better jobs, daycare so more women and single parents can work, etc. The list is a long one.

At least you are backing away from your first request. You initially posted "Define rich." and then argued that the definition is not subjective, which it clearly is. Rich as defined in Biden's tax plan are those people people earning at least $100 million a year. You'd know that if you'd read the short, easy to understand link I provided instead of constantly asking me to summarize it for you. I won't re-answer the second and third. They were answered in sufficient detail before. Instead of addressing my answers you are simple repeating the questions. In other words, you are trolling.

Yeah, home owners are really crying about how much the value of their houses has increased.

It's useless debating uttradit. He blames Trump's poor performance on Covid but won't acknowledge the economic crash that Obama inherited from Bush. What do you expect from someone who gets his news for YouTube and posted "Why bother reading 8 new sources if you make no money from it? Just a bunch of useless news in your head. "

Gong back to the Reagan administration when he planted the idea that deficits don't matter among Republicans. Peace time deficits have gone up dramatically since then, except during the Clinton administration. How far back do you want to go? Or are you just diverting to hide you ignorance of the subject?

I don't think you can. You are not known for informed posts, or of addressing the facts in the posts you reply to.

Are you really that ill informed about the economic performance of Republican administrations for the last forty years?

Are you suggesting that the people who are currently patrolling the border don't know what they need?

Hardly false effective. In the first post uttradit claimed he wasn't interested in "useless information" and in the second he said he doesn't worry about WW3. Maybe you don't see the willful ignorance commonality, but I'm sure others did.

Of course it's subjective, there is no agreed upon definition of "rich" here or anywhere else that I'm aware of. Any attempt I make to quantify the term will only open the discussion to subjective off-topic debate. I read the article. I thought it summarized the plan in reasonable detail. Is there any part you don't understand? Are you concerned that taxing the rich will significantly reduce the income of the lower 50%? If so, don't tell me the economic conjecture upon which it is based (that would also open the discussion to off-topic debate), instead give me data from times and places in history when such tax increases had a measurable impact on the income of the lower group. Don't make the examples ridiculous, find examples of recent times where prosperous, reasonably stable democracies raised taxes on the rich and that alone led to the poor getting poorer. Tax the rich is always an option. Do you have a better idea?

1. Subjective term. I'm not aware of an official definition. But people who aren't satisfied with first class air travel and think they need a private jet definitely qualify. 2. Here you go: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/biden-set-propose-higher-taxes-rich-work/story?id=96950756 3. Do i really need to explain the arithmetic involved? A ratio is composed of a numerator and a denominator. If you reduce the numerator while holding the denominator constant, the ratio, in this case the wealth multiple, goes down.

It's difficult to say nice things about Qanon and Pizzagate fans. I wasn't aware Biden has a campaign slogan. You'll have to give me your definition of left before I can answer. What does make me left in your eyes? Please be specific. Really? What do you think about tariffs and punishing companies for being "woke"? I don't ridicule until they fail to define their terms, which they can't.

History shows that Republican administrations are worse at reducing deficits, so... https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

Tell that to the Border Patrol union.

A continuation of the trend established under Obama. Really, this shouldn't be that difficult.

You have no grasp of historical context. The circumstances were explained to you.

President Biden wants higher taxes on the rich, which would reduce the gap. I support that. Republicans are opposed. How about you?

It's not starting because responsible people take the possibility seriously. A democracy requires responsible, informed people to vote with an eye to all possible futures. People who get their news from YouTube and think "Why bother reading 8 new sources if you make no money from it? Just a bunch of useless news in your head." are a threat to democracy and the future of the human race.

Unimportant nonsense like WW3? Wow.

Just those who illegally stormed the Capitol. No. I've been accused of being unpatriotic and worse for criticizing Trump. I have disliked campaign slogans and soundbites since "Morning in Amerca". I see them as tricks to avoid important issues and discussions. I forgot, Trump isn't rightwing enough for some people. Weird. I regard myself as a data driven centrist, but one who took an oath to defend the Constitution long ago and still take that oath seriously. That apparently makes me "left" in the eyes of many. Classical liberals wanted minimum government involvement in economic and personal affairs, classical conservatives wanted a Big Brother type government calling all the shots. Until recently conservatives generally wanted to regulate morality and individual choices while treating business free to pursue profit, while liberals wanted to regulate businesses for social reasons while leaving individuals wide latitude in behavior However current conservatives, if they can be called that, like Trump and DeSantis are keen on restricting business and individual behavior. The terms "left" and "right" don't seem to have any real meaning, people use them as an accusation and an excuse to avoid intelligent discussion. That's not surprising, many people dislike or are incapable of intelligent discussion.