- Joined
- Jul 8, 2021
- Messages
- 26,333
- Reaction score
- 53,735
Surprising. He didn't seem like a line crosser.
Yeah, I never saw him go for anyone - but he sorta lived on Dubs a lot of the time, so he must've kept pushing his luck
Surprising. He didn't seem like a line crosser.
Yeah, I never saw him go for anyone - but he sorta lived on Dubs a lot of the time, so he must've kept pushing his luck
He posted a meme that was nothing but black and Jewish stereotypes that would have been considered racist garbage fifty years ago.
Crikey... what a clown.
If I were to try to respond to the main point (forget Trump--I think everyone knows he's corrupt AF), I'd say that the superior economic record of Democrats is largely either luck or reverse causation (maybe Democrats are more likely to get elected during economic downturns).I dedicated a sizeable portion of the op to asking right-wingers constructive questions. It's not my fault that your crowd are too cowardly to engage with the thread.
Expanding it how?Expanding the program.
Isn’t this like the third or fourth time he’s been banned? He somehow always comes back.RIP Super Nintendo!
What happened?
He posted a meme that was nothing but black and Jewish stereotypes that would have been considered racist garbage fifty years ago.
The op isn't D vs R stuff, and I'm absolutely no democratic party loyalist. At no point did I mention democratic policies and/or juxtapose them against Trump's or the Republican's. You did all of that in your head. The op is specifically about highlighting how righties awkwardly shy away from discussions on the Trump tax cuts or the Republican general horrible track record on the economy. Then the other part of the op is asking republicans for detailed explanations on how they define the elite.I always hesitate to contribute to topics that devolve (or start) as D vs R stuff. They may not be equally reprehensible, but they're both reprehensible.
I would say that any honest leftist should be able to admit that "neoliberalism" has been an incredible success, both in America and throughout the world.The op isn't D vs R stuff, and I'm absolutely no democratic party loyalist. At no point did I mention democratic policies and/or juxtapose them against Trump's or the Republican's. You did all of that in your head. The op is specifically about highlighting how righties awkwardly shy away from discussions on the Trump tax cuts or the Republican general horrible track record on the economy. Then the other part of the op is asking republicans for detailed explanations on how they define the elite.
Any honest liberal should be able to admit the failures of the democratic party's neoliberalism. And a lefty will willing point them out.
Actually, I already posted the statistic that shows that the top 1% account for 26.3% of the income in 2021 yet paid 45.8% of the taxes. The top 10% of income earners paid 76% of all income tax. And I'd wager they do not get government benefits/welfare nearly as much as the bottom 50%. So essentially it is pure transfer payments from the top 10% to the bottom 50% to the tune of 76% of all personal income tax.I've been saying this for quite some time - calling Trump 'anti-establishment' is about the best example I can think of to demonstrate what an oxymoron is.
In addition to what you listed is the fact that when Trump cuts taxes for the wealthy, that leaves a void in funding that must be made up for by the only other Federal tax paying group - the middle class.
Not to mention, the first thing Trump did when taking office was appoint a bunch of career corporate lobbyists to positions of authority in his administration - to the tune of 6x more than any president before or after him. So anti-establishment, this guy.
Then you get people like @Scheme, who posted about how the wealthy pay a larger share of the Federal tax burden, which is correct, however he completely fails to mention what portion of the overall wealth they control in the country. Ie., if we go out to dinner and I eat 90% of the food served to us, shouldn't I be expected to pay 90% of the bill? Just saying "I paid more" means nothing without context.
Trump increased overall spending while reducing the contributions of one (the wealthy) of the only two Federal tax paying groups. So guess what happens when one group pays less? Someone has to pick up the slack.
Republicans argue that tax cuts for the rich are self-financing because it allegedly leads to higher growth, but, yeah, that is false. Also, note that even if middle-class rates aren't increased, regressive cuts logically imply lower incomes for the non-rich. Think about it. If the total tax burden of the top X% is lowered by $Y and economic growth directly attributable to the cut is <$Y, that logically implies lower income for people below X% of the distribution. That's true even if there is a small cut attached to people who earn <X%.I've been saying this for quite some time - calling Trump 'anti-establishment' is about the best example I can think of to demonstrate what an oxymoron is.
In addition to what you listed is the fact that when Trump cuts taxes for the wealthy, that leaves a void in funding that must be made up for by the only other Federal tax paying group - the middle class.
He's a nut, but it is true that *federal income taxes* are highly progressive, which is why they are often specifically targeted for cuts by rich people and their supporters in gov't. Other taxes in our system--especially at the state level--are either less progressive or regressive.Then you get people like @Scheme, who posted about how the wealthy pay a larger share of the Federal tax burden, which is correct, however he completely fails to mention what portion of the overall wealth they control in the country. Ie., if we go out to dinner and I eat 90% of the food served to us, shouldn't I be expected to pay 90% of the bill? Just saying "I paid more" means nothing without context.
Trump increased overall spending while reducing the contributions of one (the wealthy) of the only two Federal tax paying groups. So guess what happens when one group pays less? Someone has to pick up the slack.
By definition, the rich (moreso in terms of assets than income, but also income) get much more benefit from the gov't. Though, yeah, they don't get meager SNAP checks.Actually, I already posted the statistic that shows that the top 1% account for 26.3% of the income in 2021 yet paid 45.8% of the taxes. The top 10% of income earners paid 76% of all income tax. And I'd wager they do not get government benefits/welfare nearly as much as the bottom 50%. So essentially it is pure transfer payments from the top 10% to the bottom 50% to the tune of 76% of all personal income tax.
Jack - I don't know what's going on with you that you refuse to care about the numerous disasterous economic indicators that have been getting worse and worse for decades.I would say that any honest leftist should be able to admit that "neoliberalism" has been an incredible success, both in America and throughout the world.
I also think "reprehensible" is kind of insane. The level of hatred some have for people who are stepping up and actually getting involved and trying to make things better is nuts.