Alan Zweibel

It beats offering nothing in the way of evidence, which is basically what you do. Your rebuttals are empty of reasoning and evidence.

And you offer nothing in the way of evidence or reasoning. Just empty negative comments.

More of the same nonsense. Apparently, in your alternative universe, backing up assertions with evidence is not a done thing.

As I asked before, how are they "extra"? They may be new but they are certainly not extra. And you still haven't explained why you only mentioned three justices for condemnation. And I see that you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the issue of the conservatives doctrine of "major questions" and how the justices who supported Trump seemed to ignore that. And, in fact, there was no reasoning at all in your condemnation of the 6 justices' decision. I will say that, unlike Trump, you don't seem to subscribe to the notion that the Supreme Court Justices whom Trump appointed, somehow owe him fealty.

I suppose I should be flattered by your 1/2 imitation of me. The difference, though, between your comment and mine is that I offer evidence and/or reasoning to back up my derision. All you offer is derision.

So, your position is that tax cuts have nothing or little to do with the present situation? GDP Comparison: Reagan’s 1981 tax cut was estimated to have reduced federal revenue by 2.81% to 2.9% of GDP. Reversing this today—given a 2025 US GDP of roughly $29 trillion—would theoretically equate to a revenue increase of over $800 billion per year. You also seem bizarrely enough to ignore the fact that Trump has proposed huge spending increases. Is he a secret Democrat?

You think that only slashing spending is the way to go? Why is it that you are unable to acknowledge that there are sides to a ledger? Right wingers seem to be suffering from a financial version of a neurological condition described by Oliver Sacks, the neurologist. "The neurological condition where a person loses one half of their visual field (in both eyes) but often does not recognize or acknowledge the deficit is called homonymous hemianopia. When this is accompanied by a profound lack of awareness of the deficit (or neglect of the blind side), it is often referred to as hemispatial neglect or a specific visual field defect causing anosognosia (lack of insight). Thanks Gemin

Apparently, you think that only the expense side of the ledger counts and not the revenue side. And you accuse me of not understanding numbers? It is to laugh.

It's time to raise taxes. The low level they are at after so many tax cuts is unsustainable

The fact is, he did raise taxes: Key Taxes Introduced or Increased (Enacted): Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT): A 15% minimum tax on the adjusted financial statement income of large corporations (over $1 billion in profits), enacted through the Inflation Reduction Act. Stock Buyback Tax: A 1% excise tax on the net value of corporate stock repurchases. He also greatly increased funding to the IRS which the Republicans had left to starve for funding. Now, Trump and the Republicans have killed that.

First off, you ineptly replied to me so it looks like I wrote this: "Tax avoidance is illegal. Tax minimization is perfectly OK" Those are your words. And the first sentence is dead wrong, and in the second you've missed the point. So, no, tax avoidance is not illegal. Tax evasion is illegal. And just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. And that is the point. Laws are frequently changed to address situations that it's felt need correction. That's what the point is.

Three months into President Donald Trump’s mass deportation undertaking, an ICE officer shot and killed a U.S. citizen in South Padre Island, long before immigration agents killed another American in Minnesota that prompted outrage across the nation, according to records released this week that were not previously disclosed by the government. Agents assigned to a Department of Homeland Security subagency fatally shot 23-year-old Ruben Ray Martinez of San Antonio multiple times in the early hours of March 15 while they helped local police direct traffic at the scene of a car crash, records released by American Oversight, a nonprofit government watchdog, show. In a statement Friday, DHS confirmed the shooting and accused Martinez of “intentionally” running over an agent, who was taken to a hospital for a knee injury and later released, according to records of the incident. https://www.texastribune.org/2026/02/20/texas-ice-fatal-shooting-south-padre-island/ ICE claims that the driver ran his car into an ICE agent standing in front of the car. Who knows? It might be true. Though it's odd that they didn't make public the details right away. It's no wonder that judges have grown increasingly skeptical of ICE testimony.

This was a day that there was bad news for the economy in the 4th quarter. Despite that the stock indexes rose. It's not that I think that the indexes are really that significant. But it does go against the narrative of Trump supports who apparently that's the most important factor of the economy. You might to look closer to home if it's derangement you're seeking. Most economist and jurists thought the basis for Trump's tariffs was suspect. If anyone is to be of intellectually deficient decistions, it's the 3 right wingers who supported Trump. They along with other conservatives created something called the major questions doctrines which says that extending a law in an unprecedented and major way is invalid. Funny that they invoked it for some of Biden's actions but when it came to this issue, it apparently evaporated. As for your final comment, it's so confused as to defy explanation. What extra tariffs? On balance, tariffis declined. So "new" but not "extra". And why blame only Jackson, Sotomayer, and Roberts? Do you believe that only 3 Justices voted to overturn Trump's claim? Why omit Gorsuch, Browning, and Kagan?

That's your idea of a summary? No arguments from the author? No citing of evidence? Actually, the second paragraph sums it up nicely: "No other European country has been so consistently sceptical about the dependability of its transatlantic ally nor displayed such a pesky determination to go it alone. Shortly after Charles de Gaulle became France’s leader in 1958 he warned Konrad Adenauer, then German chancellor, that the Americans were “not reliable, not very solid and understand nothing about history or Europe”. Musing about the shifting balance of world power, le général told an adviser: “Any day the most extraordinary events could happen…America could…become a threat to peace.” By 1966 de Gaulle had built a bomb, pulled out of NATO’s integrated military command and booted American soldiers off French soil."

Actually, wasn't it already the world's biggest economy before globalization and free trade? I'm not denying that Americans may have benefitted from that but that's not the same thing.

Then it's a good thing that isn't the goal of eliminating the tax avoidance provisions of the law.

There's also something else the article touched on: capital gains. Whatever the merits of favoring incomed earned from selling assets, the argument goes that sooner or later they will be taxed. But that's not necessarily true, And in a major way. When a billionaire dies and passes along his assets to his heirs, the assets won't be subject to taxes until they're sold. But even if they are sold, they're not taxed based on the price that the billionaire paid for them on purchase, but rather on their price upon inheritance. So all the gains that were realized before the inheritance escape taxation.

Actually that practice was addressed in the article. And it does point out the shortcomings of the claims of how much the wealthy pay on their income. Technically, of course borrowed funds aren't income. But, in effect, they are.

Even if your figures are correct, what would the fact of billionaire's ethnicity have to do with Israel? You think Israel is dictating billionaires' efforts at tax avoidance? Do you believe that the other almost 2/3 of billionaires are opposed to the various tax measures that they exploit to pay low taxes?

So tax cuts aren't also a cause?

So, is the growth of the deficit only due to the rise in spending, or are tax cuts also responsible?

Stocks rose on Friday after the Supreme Court ruled against President Donald Trump’s tariffs, potentially providing relief for companies burdened by higher costs from the duties and easing concern about sticky inflation still plaguing the U.S. economy. The S&P 500 advanced 0.69% and closed at 6,909.51, while the Nasdaq Composite gained 0.9% and settled at 22,886.07. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 230.81 points, or 0.47%, and ended at 49,625.97. The 30-stock index recovered from a 200-point loss earlier in the session on disappointing economic data. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/19/stock-market-today-live-updates.html Whatever one might think of the significance of how the various stock markets perform, it's clear that Trump attaches great importance to it. And so do at least, some of the MAGA fans here, who cite the stock market's recent performance as a big plus for Trump. I wonder how he and they can manage to reconcile the apparent conflict.

What it won't allow the stable genius to do is impose whatever tariffs he likes on countries whose leaders offend him personally or that engage in actions that have nothing to do with trade.

Explain the difference, if you can.

Really?