FCC orders review of Disney licences after Jimmy Kimmel joke

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I 100% support Kimmel's free speech rights.

Regulation of public airways for the public good has nothing to do with free speech.

Says you. Limiting the likely audience and removing him from particular types of communication, due to you not liking what the comedian has to say, sounds like limiting free speech. Do you really think he would have been taken off air the first time except for the pressure from one guy. Of course not.

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I don't think the viewership read that into it. As a regular viewer of the monologue only, I know an ongoing joke is that Melania secretly does not like being with Trump, and avoids him where possible. Tonight there was a joke about his attempts to hold hands and her reluctance. You are drawing a long bow as they say.

Right, the running joke is that even Trump's wife, and mother of his child, can't stand him and wants him dead. Ha ha ha.

If the joke was the age difference, why did you point out that it was prior to the most recent assassination attempt, but ignore that fact that there were at least three assassination attempts prior to the show?

I understand Kimmel's target audience hates Trump and wants him dead, and that's fine, there is a market for that, and he fills it.

But the public airways are for the public good, and I do not think celebrating the chance of the president dying meets that standard.

Were there any jokes about the mullah's wive rejoicing? No? A lot of dead Charlie jokes though, yes? What about Renee Good's death, any jokes about that? Was that not funny to the left?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

And after the other (at least) three assassination attempts, yes?

And I noticed you said "gun incident" rather than assassination attempt. Do you think it was staged? Do you think the others were staged as well?

Whether the whole thing was faked, who knows? At this point I don't put anything past Trump. We've all become too comfortably numb to his antics. A bit suspicious that the shooter was fired at 5 times by the Secret Service and all the shots missed, and he got so easily through security.

In any case, all beside the point. All presidents get threats--it's all part of the job. Obama had a number of security threats, which is more what this latest one was. Trump needs to start acting like a president and not his normal persona of whiny grand grifter. He needs to realize that freedom of speech applies to all Americans, not just him. And, insults can be a two-way street.

Meanwhile, maybe tell me why it is ok for Trump to post a photo, during Biden's presidency, of Biden gagged and hog-tied in back of a pickup truck and not ok for Comey to post a photo of the numbers '86 47'. What's the difference? If weighing the two, I would judge Trump's post to be far more of a visual threat to Biden--showing his followers exactly what he would like seen done to Biden.

Why wasn't Trump brought up on charges for that? And, if Comey is going to be prosecuted for '86 47', when exactly will Hegseth also be brought up on charges for posting '86 46'? Maybe Comey and Hegseth can be prosecuted together and save a bit of money--goodness knows Trump is spending like a drunken sailor. Facebook told me today that Trump has been president for a little less than 2% of US history but is responsible for 25% of the US's debt--which has blown past 39 trillion with a 'T' on his watch.

10 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Says you. Limiting the likely audience and removing him from particular types of communication, due to you not liking what the comedian has to say, sounds like limiting free speech. Do you really think he would have been taken off air the first time except for the pressure from one guy. Of course not.

Says the law. ABC is limiting the likely audience by targeting Trump-obsessed haters. You think that's great, because that's you, but it's not everyone. You may think it's everyone, but it's not.

It's not just Kimmel, ABC News is also hideously biased, because they pander to the same audience Kimmel does, and you think that's great as well.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Right, the running joke is that even Trump's wife, and mother of his child, can't stand him and wants him dead. Ha ha ha.

If the joke was the age difference, why did you point out that it was prior to the most recent assassination attempt, but ignore that fact that there were at least three assassination attempts prior to the show?

I understand Kimmel's target audience hates Trump and wants him dead, and that's fine, there is a market for that, and he fills it.

But the public airways are for the public good, and I do not think celebrating the chance of the president dying meets that standard.

Were there any jokes about the mullah's wive rejoicing? No? A lot of dead Charlie jokes though, yes? What about Renee Good's death, any jokes about that? Was that not funny to the left?

There may be a bit of nastiness as you may see it suggesting Melania might be happy with Trump gone. But to suggest he was somehow saying that he should be killed is simply not what was being said or inferred. There is a reason this type of joke may be made in relation to Trump rather than any other president - because he is continually nasty, belligerent, and unpleasant. Trump has really said some over the top things - a joke like this pales in comparison. Anything Jimmy has said could be outdone by Trumps words. And Melania's cool demeanor and the fact she spends so much time separate from him in the past adds to the joke.

I do not believe that any of the late night comedians made a joke about Kirk's death in the way you are suggesting. The joke or comment made that got Kimmel thrown off the air was Kimmel pointing out the fact Republican's were desperate to say the shooter was not one of them and that they were attempting to score political points. If you go back he noted clearly that Kirk's assassination was nothing but terrible and certainly no laughing matter.

FCC orders review of Disney licences after Jimmy Kimmel joke

Just to note that title as above of this topic is really not accurate -- the FCC review was announced 28 April but it is regarding discrimination, not anything related to Kimmel or any other programming.

"Specifically, the FCC has been investigating Disney’s ABC stations for possible

violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules, including the agency’s prohibition on unlawful discrimination."

Come on, man, Kimmel's got a point. Melania's still rocking a decent banagability quotient, so when she turns her head in bed to ponder the fat wrinkly mass snoring next to her, there's no way she doesn't think:

Jeez, ven zis thing's dead and I have all ze money and ze freedom I'm going to start with zat zecret zervice agent, vat's his name, Robert, yes Robert. Maybe I vill keep Robert as my own agent and boy toy. Eew, Donald just rolled over and farted.

7 minutes ago, newnative said:

Whether the whole thing was faked, who knows? At this point I don't put anything past Trump. We've all become too comfortably numb to his antics. A bit suspicious that the shooter was fired at 5 times by the Secret Service and all the shots missed, and he got so easily through security.

In any case, all beside the point. All presidents get threats--it's all part of the job. Obama had a number of security threats, which is more what this latest one was. Trump needs to start acting like a president and not his normal persona of whiny grand grifter. He needs to realize that freedom of speech applies to all Americans, not just him. And, insults can be a two-way street.

Meanwhile, maybe tell me why it is ok for Trump to post a photo, during Biden's presidency, of Biden gagged and hog-tied in back of a pickup truck and not ok for Comey to post a photo of the numbers '86 47'. What's the difference? If weighing the two, I would judge Trump's post to be far more of a visual threat to Biden--showing his followers exactly what he would like seen done to Biden.

Why wasn't Trump brought up on charges for that? And, if Comey is going to be prosecuted for '86 47', when exactly will Hegseth also be brought up on charges for posting '86 46'? Maybe Comey and Hegseth can be prosecuted together and save a bit of money--goodness knows Trump is spending like a drunken sailor. Facebook told me today that Trump has been president for a little less than 2% of US history but is responsible for 25% of the US's debt--which has blown past 39 trillion with a 'T' on his watch.

For every vulgar Biden meme, there are hundreds of vulgar Trump memes, and for every vugar Obama meme, there are thousands of Trump.

I do not think Kimmel should have his speech rights infringed on, but the issue of FCC licensing is not related to Kimmel or anyone's free speech.

Why should Jimmy Kimmel have the right to spew his hate at me in my home? Let him do it online or on cable.

We're blaming Trump for the debt? Do you remember the left fighting every single spending cut tooth and nail?

What spending do you think should be cut?

What taxes do you think should be raised?

And once again, it was after the other (at least) three assassination attempts, yes?

43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Would it be a funny Jill Biden joke?

No, it would not be funny. Comedy needs context to be funny. Jill Biden is not a former stripper. She is not a former escort/call girl. She is not an immigration scam artist. She is not Epstein's former girlfriend, passed around and then finally down to Trump. Jill Biden is not unhappily married. She is not a gold digger who can give Trump a run for the money as a master grifter. She is not a wife who shows disdain for her husband, as Melania does every time she is forced to even hold Trump's hand.

Melania is all of the above and more--which is why the joke was funny. Of course she has that 'widow's glow'--and we can all amusedly imagine she had that glow walking down the aisle, mentally thinking how long she'd have to put up with dreadful, uncouth, overweight Trump. As it turns out, much longer than she likely thought.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

For every vulgar Biden meme, there are hundreds of vulgar Trump memes, and for every vugar Obama meme, there are thousands of Trump.

I do not think Kimmel should have his speech rights infringed on, but the issue of FCC licensing is not related to Kimmel or anyone's free speech.

Why should Jimmy Kimmel have the right to spew his hate at me in my home? Let him do it online or on cable.

We're blaming Trump for the debt? Do you remember the left fighting every single spending cut tooth and nail?

What spending do you think should be cut?

What taxes do you think should be raised?

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

For every vulgar Biden meme, there are hundreds of vulgar Trump memes, and for every vugar Obama meme, there are thousands of Trump.

I do not think Kimmel should have his speech rights infringed on, but the issue of FCC licensing is not related to Kimmel or anyone's free speech.

Why should Jimmy Kimmel have the right to spew his hate at me in my home? Let him do it online or on cable.

We're blaming Trump for the debt? Do you remember the left fighting every single spending cut tooth and nail?

What spending do you think should be cut?

What taxes do you think should be raised?

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

For every vulgar Biden meme, there are hundreds of vulgar Trump memes, and for every vugar Obama meme, there are thousands of Trump.

I do not think Kimmel should have his speech rights infringed on, but the issue of FCC licensing is not related to Kimmel or anyone's free speech.

Why should Jimmy Kimmel have the right to spew his hate at me in my home? Let him do it online or on cable.

We're blaming Trump for the debt? Do you remember the left fighting every single spending cut tooth and nail?

What spending do you think should be cut?

What taxes do you think should be raised?

Why should Fox have the right to 'spew' its hate at me? Because we have free speech. If I don't like what Fox is saying, I change the channel. The number of memes one person or the next is getting is beside the point, not worthy of comment.

Budget cutting is complex, just ask Musk, and I would normally not presume to have an answer. But, if pressed, I would say, rather than cutting, I would have the Federal agencies, with some priority/security exclusions, make-do with their current budgets, with only employee cost-of-living raises, no promotions, for the next several years. After two years, evaluate and have each agency make their case for increased funding/staffing.

Although highly unpopular and highly unlikely to happen, taxes need to be raised on all Americans earning incomes over a certain threshold, perhaps $100,000 to $150,000--linked and sold as saving Social Security from going bankrupt. I agree with Warren Buffett that there should also be a super-rich tax. And taxes should be raised on corporations, not cut, as they have been under Trump's Big Ugly Bill. Those tax cuts are estimated to cost America 3 to 4 trillion dollars in lost revenue over the next decade. As a reminder, the deficit is now at 39 trillion.

11 minutes ago, newnative said:

Why should Fox have the right to 'spew' its hate at me? Because we have free speech. If I don't like what Fox is saying, I change the channel.

Except that Fox does not have an FCC license. They have no public good requirement.

If ABC's FCC license is not renewed, they will just continue as Fox does,

11 minutes ago, newnative said:

The number of memes one person or the next is getting is beside the point, not worthy of comment.

Why, because it overwhelming majority of vulgarity comes from the left?

11 minutes ago, newnative said:

Budget cutting is complex, just ask Musk, and I would normally not presume to have an answer. But, if pressed, I would say, rather than cutting, I would have the Federal agencies, with some priority/security exclusions, make-do with their current budgets, with only employee cost-of-living raises, no promotions, for the next several years. After two years, evaluate and have each agency make their case for increased funding/staffing.

Trump was not able to actually cut any spending, all he could do slow the rate of increase a bit.

11 minutes ago, newnative said:

Although highly unpopular and highly unlikely to happen, taxes need to be raised on all Americans earning incomes over a certain threshold, perhaps $100,000 to $150,000--linked and sold as saving Social Security from going bankrupt.

Why should everyone not pay more? Social Security does not really benefit the rich.

The bottom 50% of wage earners pay almost nothing in income taxes, while the top 10% pay about half of all income taxes.

Why not raise taxes across the board? When half the people pay no tax, they vote to raise taxes.

11 minutes ago, newnative said:

I agree with Warren Buffett that there should also be a super-rich tax. And taxes should be raised on corporations, not cut, as they have been under Trump's Big Ugly Bill. Those tax cuts are estimated to cost America 3 to 4 trillion dollars in lost revenue over the next decade. As a reminder, the deficit is now at 39 trillion.

Who qualifies as super rich, and how would we tax them?

Do you want to take away the tax-cuts on tips and overtime pay? Far and away, the tax-cuts benefit the middle class. The "poor" pay no income taxes, so all tax cuts are for the rich.

Corporate taxes are just paid for by consumers, the same as tariffs, yes?

The deficit is not 39 trillion. Nice try.

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Except that Fox does not have an FCC license. They have no public good requirement.

Per AI Gemini

Fox Corporation owns and operates 29 full-power FCC-licensed television stations across the United States through its subsidiary, Fox Television Stations, Inc.. These stations reach major markets, including New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and often serve as local FOX network affiliates.

NB The owned stations came from purchases from Metromedia and later 20th Century Fox -- 18 of the 29 owned stations are Fox network affiliates or O&O's.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

For every vulgar Biden meme, there are hundreds of vulgar Trump memes, and for every vugar Obama meme, there are thousands of Trump

You sure? Did you count them all? 😃

Let the dude get fired as had it been Biden or any other of his leftist idols, he may not have been around trying to be smart.

38 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Except that Fox does not have an FCC license. They have no public good requirement.

If ABC's FCC license is not renewed, they will just continue as Fox does,

Why, because it overwhelming majority of vulgarity comes from the left?

Trump was not able to actually cut any spending, all he could do slow the rate of increase a bit.

Why should everyone not pay more? Social Security does not really benefit the rich.

The bottom 50% of wage earners pay almost nothing in income taxes, while the top 10% pay about half of all income taxes.

Why not raise taxes across the board? When half the people pay no tax, they vote to raise taxes.

Who qualifies as super rich, and how would we tax them?

Do you want to take away the tax-cuts on tips and overtime pay? Far and away, the tax-cuts benefit the middle class. The "poor" pay no income taxes, so all tax cuts are for the rich.

Corporate taxes are just paid for by consumers, the same as tariffs, yes?

The deficit is not 39 trillion. Nice try.

Sorry, meant USA national debt is now 39 trillion. With a 'T'. I would not tax everyone because I believe the poor making under a certain wage should be allowed a minimum to live on, untaxed. For the rich, I support Elizabeth Warren's Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2026. I would tax any income, tips or whatever, after it reaches a certain threshold.

FCC license or not, Fox broadcasts content that reaches American tv sets. I may not like what they broadcast but I believe in free speech. If that means I may be offended sometimes by ABC or Fox, so be it. As I said before, it's a simple matter of changing the channel.

What I don't believe in is free speech applied selectively by the government. A person posts '86 46' during Biden's presidency. No prosecution. A person posts '86 47' during Trump's presidency and is prosecuted. '86 46' is not seen as a threat to Biden. '86 47', with exactly the same '86', with exactly the same meaning, is seen as a threat to Trump. No matter how you slice it, that makes absolutely no sense, and is completely unfair.

Unfortunately the media all over the world is getting more and more politicized and people are just fed up with all the crap or censoring of free speech.

19 minutes ago, newnative said:

Sorry, meant USA national debt is now 39 trillion. With a 'T'.

The deficit is almost $2T

About half of the deficit is interest to service the debt. Remember Trump howling about the interest rate?

The IRS collets about $5T a year.

You would have to increase tax about 40%, across the board, just to stop the debt from growing, much less pay it down.

19 minutes ago, newnative said:

I would not tax everyone because I believe the poor making under a certain wage should be allowed a minimum to live on, untaxed.

Why? The are often the recipients of tax revenue and get to vote on whether to raise it.

I think everyone should pay.

19 minutes ago, newnative said:

For the rich, I support Elizabeth Warren's Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2026.

How did she define the ultra-millionaire, and how did she want to tax them.

19 minutes ago, newnative said:

I would tax any income, tips or whatever, after it reaches a certain threshold.

What level?

19 minutes ago, newnative said:

FCC license or not, Fox broadcasts content that reaches American tv sets. I may not like what they broadcast but I believe in free speech. If that means I may be offended sometimes by ABC or Fox, so be it. As I said before, it's a simple matter of changing the channel.

What about my free speech? Why can't I have an hour on ABC to spew hate at leftists?

19 minutes ago, newnative said:

What I don't believe in is free speech applied selectively by the government. A person posts '86 46' during Biden's presidency. No prosecution. A person posts '86 47' during Trump's presidency and is prosecuted. '86 46' is not seen as a threat to Biden. '86 47', with exactly the same '86', with exactly the same meaning, is seen as a threat to Trump. No matter how you slice it, that makes absolutely no sense, and is completely unfair.

We do not know what Comey is being prosecuted for. If that's all it is, it will be thrown out.

How many people have been convicted of 34 felonies (or even one) for recording payment to their lawyer for securing a perfectly legal contract, as legal expenses?

17 hours ago, Rockyroad said:

Old guy? He is 16 years younger than Clint Eastwood. The joke was about the shootings. Only a fool would believe Kimmel's excuse.

Please refer back to my original post.

This post confirms what I said.

Just now, cdemundo said:

Please refer back to my original post.

This post confirms what I said.

I don't believe Kimmel. He has a pattern of lying.

Just now, Rockyroad said:

I don't believe Kimmel. He has a pattern of lying.

You seem to be unable to follow a conversation.

Kimmel made a cliche joke about an older man with a younger wife.

No more to it than that.

Do you think when Henny Youngman said "Take my wife... please." that he was trying to incited someone to kidnap his wife.

There are a bunch of idle old morphidites here who will argue anything to pass the time of day.

Just now, cdemundo said:

You seem to be unable to follow a conversation.

Kimmel made a cliche joke about an older man with a younger wife.

No more to it than that.

Do you think when Henny Youngman said "Take my wife... please." that he was trying to incited someone to kidnap his wife.

There are a bunch of idle old morphidites here who will argue anything to pass the time of day.

She is over 50. Trump is 79 with great doctors. Kimmel has a nasty pattern of lying and being hostile. Only a fool would believe his excuse so close to a shooting.

Just now, Rockyroad said:

She is over 50. Trump is 79 with great doctors. Kimmel has a nasty pattern of lying and being hostile. Only a fool would believe his excuse so close to a shooting.

Ok, so you know very little about life expectancy, that's clear.

Ever visit a senior living facility?

They are full of old ladies, because men die first.

Nearly 30 year difference you are trying to minimize.

"so close to a shooting"?

You understand he made the joke before the shooting right?

20 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

And the assassination attempts were all staged anyways, right?

You really specialize in the random use of the straw man.

Like no other.

What a "mind" you have.

Just now, cdemundo said:

Ok, so you know very little about life expectancy, that's clear.

Ever visit a senior living facility?

They are full of old ladies, because men die first.

Nearly 30 year difference you are trying to minimize.

"so close to a shooting"?

You understand he made the joke before the shooting right?

Life expectancy I know lots about. VIPs with great doctors will live longer. Drugs keep people alive. Poor people die soondr. Biden is older, in worse health and still alive. Kimmel is a liar and you believed him cause you hate Trump.

Kimmel told a joke in a fine tradition of obvious corny jokes.

Here are some others.

These are results for jokes about may december marriages

from Google

May-December marriages—where one partner is significantly older than the other—are prime targets for comedy. They lean into classic tropes about generational divides, historical references, and "expectant widows."

A 70-year-old man tells his lawyer he wants to marry a 25-year-old woman. The lawyer tries to talk him out of it for an hour, finally warning, "Do whatever you want, but these May/December weddings often end in death!"
The older man stops, ponders, and says, "Well—if she dies, she dies."

The Confession: A wealthy man in his 70s shows up to the country club with a gorgeous 25-year-old on his arm. His buddies ask, "How did you manage that?"
He replies, "Easy. I lied to her about my age."
"Did you tell her you were 50?"
He chuckles, "No, I told her I was 90."

It was a May-December marriage, and as the old man climbed in to bed for the first time with his new bride, he asked, "Did your mother tell you what to do on your wedding night?"

"Yes," she cooed, kissing him lightly, "She told me everything."

 "Good," said the elderly gentleman as he turned out the light, "because I've forgotten."

I realize you folks are having a good time with this Jimmy Kimmel stuff but -- as best I can surmise -- what's really at issue here is that the FCC has received one or more complaints against the licensed Disney stations on discrimination issues namely complaints about REVERSE discrimination.

... or as per FCC Chair Carr: Disney has engaged in "invidious forms of DEI discrimination"

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The deficit is almost $2T

About half of the deficit is interest to service the debt. Remember Trump howling about the interest rate?

The IRS collets about $5T a year.

You would have to increase tax about 40%, across the board, just to stop the debt from growing, much less pay it down.

Why? The are often the recipients of tax revenue and get to vote on whether to raise it.

I think everyone should pay.

How did she define the ultra-millionaire, and how did she want to tax them.

What level?

What about my free speech? Why can't I have an hour on ABC to spew hate at leftists?

We do not know what Comey is being prosecuted for. If that's all it is, it will be thrown out.

How many people have been convicted of 34 felonies (or even one) for recording payment to their lawyer for securing a perfectly legal contract, as legal expenses?

You can't have an hour on ABC because, unless you've been holding out, you're a nobody. Sorry. You can always start a podcast or whatever. Take heart that there are probably more choices these days than ever before to 'spew'.

Moving along. So, if we need to increase taxes 40%, why is that idiot Trump lowering them? Makes absolutely no sense, and please don't spew the trickle down theory. The sooner we get started, the better. Nobody likes to pay higher taxes but they are needed--collectively burying our heads in the sand and ignoring the massive debt problem isn't the solution.

I'll defer to the experts as to how to structure the tax increases but I do think the poor should be allowed a minimum amount of income to earn and live on before taxation starts. I'm a realist and I know it can't all come from the rich, although they certainly need to pay much more. A large chunk also needs to come from the middle class, where it always does. Fortunately, the upper middle class is expanding and is now a record 31%; that is where a big chunk should come from, along with the rich.

Of course, all this is, unfortunately, just wishful thinking. There is no will in the US to do anything hard these days. Today, John F. Kennedy's words, saying we choose to do things "not because they are easy but because they are hard", would fall on deaf ears. America prefers to keep kicking the can down the road, leaving the 'hard' for some unlucky future generation.

On 4/30/2026 at 8:12 PM, Yellowtail said:

We do not know what Comey is being prosecuted for. If that's all it is, it will be thrown out.

Almost all of the court cases that trump has brought against his enemies, both political and personal, have been thrown out of court. The cases against him have led to millions of dollars in judgments for which he has defaulted.

He’s running the country the same way he ran his other businesses… right into the ground.

On 5/1/2026 at 8:28 PM, newnative said:

You can't have an hour on ABC because, unless you've been holding out, you're a nobody. Sorry. You can always start a podcast or whatever. Take heart that there are probably more choices these days than ever before to 'spew'.

Moving along. So, if we need to increase taxes 40%, why is that idiot Trump lowering them? Makes absolutely no sense, and please don't spew the trickle down theory. The sooner we get started, the better. Nobody likes to pay higher taxes but they are needed--collectively burying our heads in the sand and ignoring the massive debt problem isn't the solution.

I'll defer to the experts as to how to structure the tax increases but I do think the poor should be allowed a minimum amount of income to earn and live on before taxation starts. I'm a realist and I know it can't all come from the rich, although they certainly need to pay much more. A large chunk also needs to come from the middle class, where it always does. Fortunately, the upper middle class is expanding and is now a record 31%; that is where a big chunk should come from, along with the rich.

Of course, all this is, unfortunately, just wishful thinking. There is no will in the US to do anything hard these days. Today, John F. Kennedy's words, saying we choose to do things "not because they are easy but because they are hard", would fall on deaf ears. America prefers to keep kicking the can down the road, leaving the 'hard' for some unlucky future generation.

You have a home and you have income. If you were spending 20% more than you were earning, and half of that was interest on your credit cards, what revenue streams would you be looking at to improve your financial situation?

There are people that believe that cutting taxes stimulates growth.

Increasing tax rates can easily result in less tax revenue.

I am all for eliminating a lot of tax deductions and whatnot.

If one is "rich", one can deduct home loan interest on from their taxable income, incentivizing them to buy a home. They can also invest in an IRA with funds that are tax deferred, incentivizing them to save money.

If one is "poor" (bottom 40%) they pay no income taxes and so have no such incentives, and they are told they are poor, because others are rich. They are incentivized to stay poor, and vote for higher taxes so that the crumbs they are thrown keep coming, and their "rich" oppressors are punished.

People that pay taxes care a lot more about how taxes are spent, than people that do not pay taxes.

People that pay taxes cars a lot more about tax fraud than do people that don't pay taxes.

Being a citizen should not be free, making citizenship free just devalues it.

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You have a home and you have income. If you were spending 20% more than you were earning, and half of that was interest on your credit cards, what revenue streams would you be looking at to improve your financial situation?

There are people that believe that cutting taxes stimulates growth.

Increasing tax rates can easily result in less tax revenue.

I am all for eliminating a lot of tax deductions and whatnot.

If one is "rich", one can deduct home loan interest on from their taxable income, incentivizing them to buy a home. They can also invest in an IRA with funds that are tax deferred, incentivizing them to save money.

If one is "poor" (bottom 40%) they pay no income taxes and so have no such incentives, and they are told they are poor, because others are rich. They are incentivized to stay poor, and vote for higher taxes so that the crumbs they are thrown keep coming, and their "rich" oppressors are punished.

People that pay taxes care a lot more about how taxes are spent, than people that do not pay taxes.

People that pay taxes cars a lot more about tax fraud than do people that don't pay taxes.

Being a citizen should not be free, making citizenship free just devalues it.

I've already stated in previous posts where I would be finding new 'revenue streams'. I disagree that raising taxes could reduce tax revenue collected. It's also clear that reducing taxes leads to--surprise!--less tax revenue collected. The latest ill-advised tax reduction will cost 3 to 4 trillion dollars over the decade.

Will that dumb tax cut produce any 'trickle-down' benefits of note? No. And, after literally decades, it's hard to believe anybody still believes in trickle-down economics. Google's take:

Evidence suggests trickle-down economics does not work as intended. Studies indicate that cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations does not significantly boost economic growth or employment, but instead increases income inequality. While it boosts capital for the rich, the benefits rarely trickle down to middle and lower-income earners.

Yes, Google, it's definitely worked to increase income inequality in the US. In the last 4 decades--hmm, around when trickle-down was introduced--income inequality grew so much that the US has the worst income inequality of any of the G7 nations. How bad is it? Google:

The top 1% of American households hold over 31% of total U.S. household wealth, with their combined net worth hitting a record high of $52 trillion to $55.8 trillion as of late 2025/early 2026. This elite group holds a higher share of wealth than the entire bottom 90% combined, highlighting a massive, record-setting concentration of wealth.

So. US debt--39 trillion. 1% superduper-rich--52 to 56 trillion. There's one 'revenue stream' to take a look at.