Alan Zweibel

When the upper classes start pulling away from the middle classes in developed nations, that's virtually always resulted in a decline in the size and income of the middle classes.

You claimed that the Democrats did nothing. And what have the Republicans done to address the issue?in fact, by restricting immigration, where workers tend to be younger, they are actually ensuring that Social Security will not be able to pay full benefits sooner. The obvious solution is to raise taxes on social security. There's a lot of popular support for that: https://www.aarp.org/social-security/survey-raising-taxes/ https://www.nasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/NASI_SocialSecurityat90.pdf https://news.gallup.com/poll/546890/americans-upbeat-future-social-security-benefits.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com

You missed the point. Just because the level has never been higher doesn't mean it can't be higher.

There' are few things lamer and more passive aggresive than someone telling you that they are putting you on ignore. It's just a last, sad cheap shot. If you're going to do it, no need to share the news.

For what it's worth, in the year 2000 the federal govt collected 19.75613% of GDP. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S But, of course, your point is inane. What if you had suggested to someone in 2039 that because the federal govt. had never collected more 7.7285% of GDP that meant that collecting more than that was not sustainable? And you're wrong about the Democrats never having done anything about it. The collaborated with Reagan to raise the age when full benefits would begin. " By 1983, facing the possibility that checks might actually be delayed for millions of retirees, the commission proposed a set of changes including raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 over time, advancing scheduled payroll tax increases, increasing taxes on the self-employed, and taxing Social Security benefits above an income threshold. Supported by both President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill, Congress quickly passed the changes." https://www.cato.org/downsizing-government-essay/reforming-social-security-retirement#history-of-social-security

This was dismissed by Callum who stated that "Looks like nobody knows about those massive reserves". I provided a factual basis supporting the presence of significant critical mineral reserves. I also stated two times that the presence of the mineral reserves was another reason why Trump sought to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia. I did not say it was the only or the principal reason. it was one of many economic reasons for the US to normalize relations. The US trade with the middle east is not exclusive to oil or to military arms. As the Saudis diversify their economy, there is a desire to engage in other activities.This is set out in Vision 2030. Are you surprised that the US State Department and Trade Office read the strategic plan of a major financial and strategic ally? It is what they do. Trade and National Security were the two reasons why President Trump initiated a normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia. You are off on a convoluted mission to deny this historical fact Why else did Trump normalize relations? It certainly wasn't to go on a camel ride or to go sightseeing in Mecca. Saudi Arabia's mineral potential has been known for decades. The big initiative came in April 2016 when Saudi Arabia announced its Vision 2030 strategic plan. Its purpose was to create a strategic framework for economic and social transformation by diversifying the economy away from oil. As per the Saudis; Saudi Arabia has been exploring its vast mineral wealth since 1997, with efforts accelerating under Vision 2030, which recognizes mining as the third pillar of the national economy. The Kingdom is home to over 45 identified minerals, including gold, zinc, and uranium, with total mineral wealth now valued at over $2.5 trillion. The Kingdom is focused on developing mineral value chains by leveraging the its vast resources, local demand, and access to global markets. Key initiatives include comprehensive geological surveys, identifying investment opportunities, and attracting foreign investment. By capitalizing on its competitive advantages, Saudi Arabia aims to establish a thriving and sustainable mining industry that drives economic diversification and job creation while strengthening its position in global supply chains. Trump initiated a normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia a year later in 2017. As I have already stated, the decision was motivated by trade and security. Because minerals were not specifically stated, does not mean it was not a motivating reason for normalizing relations. Nonsense. This thread is about rare earths. Even in the quote you cited you claimed that rare earth was part of his motivation. It couldn't have been since it wasn't even known then that there were rare earth deposits in S.A. And the rest of your comments are just irrelevant to the issue of rare earths. And even if they were relevant, which they're not, so what? Trump signed a memorandum. Big whoop.

You know what's even funnier? As part of the commutation, Santos is off the hook for the almost $600K that he was ordered to pay in restitution to the victims of his frauds I bet they're laughing all the way to anywhere except the bank. And here's an item that's even funnier. Trump pardoned Trevor Milton, the fraudster who founded Nikola. He was sentenced to 4 years in prison and ordered to pay restitution of $167 million. A month before the 2024 election he and his wife donated 1.8 million dollars to the Trump campaign. Trump's pardon negated the prison sentence and the debt. I imagine this item will send you into fits of laughter.

Actually your characterization of Trump's signing of that memorandum as having something to do with rare earth minerals is false. Rare earth minerals aren't even mentioned in that article. Rare earth resources were only discovered years later.

Typical passive aggressive behavior. Just a clueless way to get in the last word. Bon voyage bubble boy.

One person who disagrees with you is Donald Trump. He believes that the armed forces are necessary to be sent in. Is that the police or won't do their job. You need to send him this information right away.

If you call Israel posing massive embargo on Gaza leaving it alone, you've made a good point. Otherwise not so much.

I'm not your research assistant. If you've got something factual to offer, share it. What I did do was look at what percentage of GDP federal tax revenue was under Bill Clinton. (My mostly comes from AI and I'm not about to go to all the labor of documenting this via links and quotations) About 20%. Then I looked at what the average level was since then and it's about 17.5 % (under the first Trump term it dipped to 16%). Total federal tax revenue from the 2001 to the present is about 86 trillion. If the level of total federal taxation were still in effect that would amount to an additional 13 trillion in revenue which would be a reduction of the debt by 13 trillion. Going forward, if the percentage was raised by 3 points to 23%, which is still low by world standards, that would practically wipe out the budget deficit. It would take a lower percentage of taxation to reduce the ratio of debt to GDP back to manageable levels.

You mean you agree with RFK Jr's statement the the covid vaccine is "the deadliest vaccine ever made"? Well, it's a good thing that he's not in charge of the Dept. of Health and Human Services or would all be in in big trouble...oh wait a minute..

What do I know? According to you stupid people like me believe that the big tax cuts by Trump (and Bush and Reagan), increased the national debt and are increasing the national debt at an unsustainable pace. According to deeply knowledgeable people like yourself, it's not tax cuts that are at fault but only increased spending. However, some of us stupid people believe we understand that deficits like the current 1.8 trillion, don't have to be eliminated entirely, but reduced so that the ratio of debt to GDP becomes sustainable. Perhaps returning taxes to where they were before the Reagan era era might be a good place to begin.

Wow. me being accused of being stupid by someone who doesn't understand that decreasing revenues also means an increase in deficits. That isn't just stupid, that's moronic.

To make it worse, this isn't the first time that the suicidal Tromp has been vaccinated against covid via what RFK, Jr, has called the "deadliest vaccine ever made." Trump Humiliates RFK Jr. With Surprise COVID Booster Move https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-gets-covid-jab-his-health-secretary-hates/

And in that regard 2 Trump's tax cut bills did?

You know what they say about lawyers and cross examination? You should never ask a question you don 't know the answer to. She did say that. But I'm using my phone and don't want to bother providing the evidence.

It occurs to me that Yagoda could be a she who believes that she is a he not pretending to be a she.

What don't you understand about this? "The article goes on to note that the Trump Administration has created a new rule that allows farmers to pay agricultural workers less than they currently earn." It's the Trump administration that's lowering wages.

In an unusual acknowledgment, the Labor Department said that tougher immigration enforcement is hurting farmers and the food supply. The Labor Department warned in an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that “the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens” is threatening “the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.” “Unless the Department acts immediately to provide a source of stable and lawful labor, this threat will grow,” with increased funding for immigration enforcement from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Labor Department said in the Federal Register, which is the place where all proposed rules are recorded for the public to view and comment. https://archive.ph/OFtR0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/10/11/immigration-crackdown-food-prices/ This acknowledgement, of course, is a no-brainer. And no brain is what it takes to assert otherwise. The article goes on to note that the Trump Administration has created a new rule that allows farmers to pay agricultural workers less than they currently earn. In other words, it's giving farmers and ranchers an incentive to undercut the wages of the roughly 1/3 of Americans who do agricultural labor. Let more immigrants in. Pay them less. Undercut American workers. MAGA!

Because that is the crucial criterion for being normal? If some male believes he's Jesus but also believes he's a man, that's a normal person? Anyway, thanks for sharing with us another one of your irrelevant obsessions.

I've decided to include both charts comparing GDP in a larger size one above the other.

First time I've heard a video described as an article. But no matter. I suspect it t takes no account purchasing power parity. For those who don't know what PPP is, it's a way of comparing how much your money can purchase in different countries. It's the reason why so many emigres from the West come to Thailand. Their money goes further. And after, isn't that what matter to people. Not the nominal rate, but what you can buy with your money? When you go that route, the figures are startlingly different. Here are some tables from an article linked to here: https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/01/03/the-poorest-us-state-rivals-germany-gdp-per-capita-in-the-us-and-europe The one on the left shows nominal GDP (exchange rate values). The second one shows GDP per capita in purchasing power parity. As is customary when measuring PPP the unit is dollars. That means that dollar figures remain constant in both cases. The images are a bit small, but you can always use the link to see more clearly. What they show is that in purchasing power, Mississippi ranks below Spain but just above Lithuania. In addition, according to the World Bank, adjusted for PPP, the GDP growth of the EU and the USA are actually very close. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?end=2024&locations=EU-US&start=2007&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email And to make matters worse for the USA, what really matters to people is how healthy is the situation of middle class and working class people. In other words, income equaliity. That's measured by something called the Gini Coefficient. It can be measures in 2 ways. As a range from 0 to 1 or as a percentage, In either case, the lower the number, the greater the income equality. For Mississippi the Gini Coefficent is 48% or0.48 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/10-us-states-most-income-inequality For the UK the Gini Coefficient is 32.9% or O.329 https://www.statista.com/statistics/872472/gini-index-of-the-united-kingdom/?srsltid=AfmBOopI9Et86CI9XGytfJqtJVlb2YwoiSYkZ5BYzImy8AaiLWOgUJh3 And when the UK was in the EU, it had the highest gini coefficent of all members. So, all in all, despite the UK's economic problems, the average citizen is still far better off there than in Mississippi.

Good questions. But since you don't offer any evidence-based answers, they're just empty rhetoric.