Just now, Schoggibueb said:

What a laugh. You really belive in that bs?

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm sure American consumers can't wait to be able to buy a pair of Nike trainers for 1200$ a pair!😄

3 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

 

Yeah, I'm sure American consumers can't wait to be able to buy a pair of Nike trainers for 1200$ a pair!😄

Yeah, and an Iphone for 30'000 upwards...

19 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

 

During Donald Trump’s first term (2017–2021), real wages increased by 7.1%, the highest gain over a single presidential term since the 1970s.

If you were not ignorant in economics, you would know that the extra performance was due to the Covid recession! 🤣

 

Prior to the pandemic, it was only 3%

 

From the source for this 7.1% number:

 

"During that period, real wages spiked for two reasons.  First, the CPI initially declined during the early months of the pandemic, which raised real wages as the CPI is in the denominator of that ratio.  Second, nominal wages spiked as pandemic-induced layoffs occurred predominately in low wage occupations such as food preparation, lodging, and entertainment. These layoffs distorted the average wage figures upward."

 

https://perc.tamu.edu/blog/2025/07/real-wages-terms.html

39 minutes ago, candide said:

I assume the rationale is that tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy, will be compensated by taxes actually paid by the middle class, such as tariffs, and a decrease of some benefits.

The welfare state needs to trimmed.  But, that will never happen.  The middle class just received a tax cut.  Is that a w wealth transfer from the poor?

21 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

 

Government of, by, and for the 1%

 

Thing is, you are 'the most popular poster of the week'.

But every single one of your posts is Trump bashing.

There should be a limit to how many Trump bashing posts one can even make in one week.

 

46 minutes ago, candide said:

I assume the rationale is that tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy, will be compensated by taxes actually paid by the middle class, such as tariffs, and a decrease of some benefits.

It would be beneficial to have a realistic discussion about debt, deficits, government spending, etc. Sadly, it’s not possible with the boring rhetoric that is spewed on this issue.  

 

4 minutes ago, Fact said:

The welfare state needs to trimmed.  But, that will never happen.  The middle class just received a tax cut.  Is that a w wealth transfer from the poor?

By definition, tax cuts mainly benefit people who pay a lot of taxes. So if those people have to pay more for their new BMW because of tariffs, it will be more than compensated by tax cuts. 

 

For people who get only low or no tax cuts, it won't compensate for the increased price of the (formerly cheaper) tariffed goods they can only afford.

 

Then there's the issue of welfare benefits.

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Mind boggling naivety. Creating an iPhone or a Mac computer in the US is an impossibility. 

Rare Earth comes to mind

42 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

 

Thing is, you are 'the most popular poster of the week'.

But every single one of your posts is Trump bashing.

There should be a limit to how many Trump bashing posts one can even make in one week.

 

Should there be a limit on how many Trump deflection posts are allowed too?

10 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

How the Trump Administration Is Giving Even More Tax Breaks to the Wealthy

 

The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service are issuing rules that provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax relief to big companies and the ultrarich.

The primary target: The administration is rapidly gutting a 2022 law intended to ensure that a sliver of the country’s most profitable corporations pay at least some federal income tax...

 It sought to stop corporations like Microsoft, Amazon and Johnson & Johnson from being able to report big profits to shareholders yet low tax liabilities to the federal government.

https://archive.ph/9EGs4

 

Government of, by, and for the 1%

That's what Republicans do - past laws that benefit the 1% and throw table scraps to the "little people." 

11 minutes ago, connda said:

That's what Republicans do - past laws that benefit the 1% and throw table scraps to the "little people." 

The USA spends over 4 trillion on social programs which is 4 trillion out of 7 trillion in total spending.  That is not table scraps.

42 minutes ago, TedG said:

The USA spends over 4 trillion on social programs which is 4 trillion out of 7 trillion in total spending.  That is not table scraps.

But almost a third of social service expenses is funded by Social Security most of which comes from payroll tax deductions. Much of medicare funding comes form the dedicated payroll tax and insurance premiums paid by seniors. There's also the fact that spending on veterans is assigned and Medicaid payments, not income tax. in 2023 that came to a total of And spending on veterans really oughtn't to be assigned to social spending but rather defense spending (or is it war spend)ng. That came to about $350 billion yearly. So it's pretty clear that $4 billion should be reduced by at least half as far as the contribution from income tax goes.

 

And you're not going to believe this but there are people out there who object only to the spending part of the equation but have no problem with the slashing of taxes.

1 hour ago, connda said:

That's what Republicans do - past laws that benefit the 1% and throw table scraps to the "little people." 

Actually, no. They even take the scraps away. Which is what they're up to in the case of Obamacare.

3 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

What a laugh. You really belive in that bs?

 

 

So your solution is to troll here.

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

Thing is, you are 'the most popular poster of the week'.

But every single one of your posts is Trump bashing.

There should be a limit to how many Trump bashing posts one can even make in one week.

 

Actually, if there was a limit to how many stupid and dishonest things Trump said and did every week, then I would be posting a lot less.

 

But one thing is clear: when someone makes the remarks about a member rather than about the subject at hand, that's a sign that they need to take a long rest. And maybe spend some of time educating themselves so that they wouldn't have to resort to such low tactics.

3 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually, no. They even take the scraps away. Which is what they're up to in the case of Obamacare.

The Democrats gave caused a 40 day shutdown.

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually, if there was a limit to how many stupid and dishonest things Trump said and did every week, then I would be posting a lot less.

Nonsense. You talked a lot last year when Biden was in.

3 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

But one thing is clear: when someone makes the remarks about a member rathern than about the subject at hand, that's a sign that they need to take a long rest. And maybe spend some of time educating themselves so that they wouldn't have to resort to such low tactics.

Endless Trump topics for what reason? You could combine 3 into 1. 

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

Thing is, you are 'the most popular poster of the week'.

But every single one of your posts is Trump bashing.

There should be a limit to how many Trump bashing posts one can even make in one week.

 

Yep 2 a week is enough. 

8 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

The Democrats gave caused a 40 day shutdown.

Just now, still kicking said:

We deserve / deserved all the tax break allotted to us.  Considering 48% of the federal budget comes from income taxes.

 

With the top 10% ers paying 72+% of all income taxes ...

 

25 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

But almost a third of social service expenses is funded by Social Security most of which comes from payroll tax deductions. Much of medicare funding comes form the dedicated payroll tax and insurance premiums paid by seniors. There's also the fact that spending on veterans is assigned and Medicaid payments, not income tax. in 2023 that came to a total of And spending on veterans really oughtn't to be assigned to social spending but rather defense spending (or is it war spend)ng. That came to about $350 billion yearly. So it's pretty clear that $4 billion should be reduced by at least half as far as the contribution from income tax goes.

 

And you're not going to believe this but there are people out there who object only to the spending part of the equation but have no problem with the slashing of taxes.

This is all in the federal budget.  Also SS is running a yearly deficit, so is Medicare.  The combined deficit is close to 750 billion.

10 minutes ago, still kicking said:

The OP is correct.

21 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

The Democrats gave caused a 40 day shutdown.

Sure, hon.😂

 

 

1 minute ago, TedG said:

This is all in the federal budget.  Also SS is running a yearly deficit, so is Medicare.  The combined deficit is close to 750 billion.

But this article is about tax breaks for the wealthy. Which is about the income tax. And as I noted, there are people who get very upset by the spending contribution to the deficit, but keep mum when it's about slashing taxes.

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

But this article is about tax breaks for the wealthy. Which is about the income tax. And as I noted, there are people who get very upset by the spending contribution to the deficit, but keep mum when it's about slashing taxes.

We have been over this, the is spending too much money

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

Sure, hon.😂

 

 

The Senate dems voted against the CR.

Just now, TedG said:

We have been over this, the is spending too much money

And the way to tackle that problem is to slash taxes?

6 minutes ago, TedG said:

The OP is correct.

I'm surprised you'll admit to that. Well done!