President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#13,301
#13,301
McDad said:
agree with stand alone bills, an actual budget, and the politician's priority of re election.

do you see taxes and programs for the needy as a zero sum game?
Click to expand...
Not really. I think that in a society where we are going to rely on low-wage work to boost corporate profits and retirement portfolios, it's basically a subsidy that we taxpayers pay for a healthy retirement account.

Couple of ways out of this, but we can't have low wage workers who can't afford to eat and be housed AND not subsidize that food and housing.
Now, I'd vote cutting into the Walton's a little bit for using welfare to boost their wealth, but that won't happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#13,303
#13,303
jwells said:
Not really. I think that in a society where we are going to rely on low-wage work to boost corporate profits and retirement portfolios, it's basically a subsidy that we taxpayers pay for a healthy retirement account.

Couple of ways out of this, but we can't have low wage workers who can't afford to eat and be housed AND not subsidize that food and housing.
Now, I'd vote cutting into the Walton's a little bit for using welfare to boost their wealth, but that won't happen.
Click to expand...
I am a little confused now. If taxes and programs are not a zero sum game for you, why post things like "tax cuts for the wealthy mean less for the need" [paraphrased]?
 
#13,304
#13,304
jwells said:
Deciding on needs, wants, and nice to haves literally is tax and spend policy.

Sorry man, the guy making 100M a year doesn't need a tax cut at the expense of some disabled person living on Social Security. If our budget isn't balanced, cutting funds for the latter to give cuts to the former is **** policy.

I'm literally talking only about the federal budget. Stop jumping to conclusions. I have no "desired social outcomes". It's just basic math.
Click to expand...
you are acting like the millionaire is paying as much as the person living on SS. they simply aren't.

even if you assumed that 100m generated zero dollars in income taxes, there are other dollars earned off of that money. less than 50% of all federal government revenue comes from the income taxes. its the biggest single piece, but it isn't the only piece.

and in reality, even with all the tax breaks, the top 1% already pay more than the bottom 90% combined. its really hard to sell as the greedy rich stealing at the expense of the poor when they are still the largest drivers.

IIRC that percentage paid by the Top 1% is the still near the highest its ever been. basically except for the very start when it was only a tax on the 1%, its never been that high. and its not because they are choking out the poor(er) now from earning potential.

the bottom half made 10.4% of AGI, while the top 1% made 26.3% of AGI. in the 50s it the bottom half making less than 7% while the top 1% made almost 30%. yet despite the rich taking a smaller piece of the pie, relative to the 50s, they are still paying a bigger slice of the pie in taxes than they were in the 50s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#13,308
#13,308
LouderVol said:
never said I was offended by Trump's prayer. thats just something people have been making up.

even in that quote of mine I say its a bad idea. I have repeatedly said its not what a public official should be doing, and it takes away from what should be going on.

not offended by that either, thought it was kinda cool the first time I heard it in the wild. but this isn't someone walking the streets, or playing religious quotes over a loud speaker out in public to no one in particular. this is a government official, who is hosting an official government act, in a government building, directly engaging with other government officials.
Click to expand...
If you have a problem with it, I think that equals offended by it. Why do you see it as a bad thing? It obviously bothers you.
 
#13,314
#13,314
midnight orange said:
Further than that. It only says “congress shall make no law….” Individual states had official churches after the constitution was ratified and it wasn’t unconstitutional. The separation of church and state myth was pulled completely out of someone’s rear end.
Click to expand...
Jefferson's for one. But what did he know, right?
 
#13,317
#13,317
EasternVol said:
Jefferson's for one. But what did he know, right?
Click to expand...
Thank you. I’m familiar with the letter to the Dansbury Baptist Church and his desire for a “wall of separation”. The Dansbury letter is not part of the constitution and when someone shrieks “separation of church and state” because someone prays within 50 yards of a government building, they are pulling out of their ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#13,319
#13,319
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...


A king invited The King... there is only one true King. Seriously, all those ****ers were involved in the RussiaGate hoax.

elvis.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and W.TN.Orange Blood
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top