Elites are thriving under Trump

[rjhenn]

You would be wrong. But then, this is why you are a lying leftist loser on steroids. If you got things right, you wouldn't support a failed ideology that can only survive through lies.

You appear to have no acquaintance with the truth.

RINO is the term for a Republican who puts country above party.

 

[rjhenn]

Nothing dumber than trickle up; but then, you lying lefties do dumb well and consistently.

Have another drink you dumb drunkard.

You are the one suffering from TDS. Your worship of Trump has you so deranged that you are incapable of seeing reality. As for "trickle up", the economy is driven by consumer spending. Put more money in the hands of the bottom 50%, and they'll spend it. Good for business, creates jobs, and increases profits. Give more money to the already rich and they'll do nothing with it. With no increase in consumer spending, there's nothing to invest in. The right lies. It's what they've done for decades. Now you are so accustomed to it that you can't see that what you accept unthinkingly is just lies. And Trump is one of the biggest liars on the right.

 

[Irish Exit]

What we actually needed was enough of a tax increase on the wealthiest to balance the budget and start paying down the debt.

or on corporations, but yes. $30T will probably be the point of no return and Trump/GOP have us there in 10 years.

 

[rjhenn]

That is an outright lie. Have you done an in depth study of the new code that is yet to be written? Of course you haven't; you merely parrot the idiot talking points you have been fed.

Yet, the same idiots who make these claims that you gulp up also stated that the wealthy might even pay more under the new tax plan. You see, the FAKE leftist media can't make up it's mind which constituency they want to dupe the most.



Another painfully stupid leftist talking point. How is it trickle down when it is OUR money we are keeping? The Government cannot GIVE anyone anything it doesn't first confiscate. If you had a brain, you could comprehend the OBVIOUS.



How do corporations pass money along to their heirs? Another moronic statement lacking common sense and intelligence. You seem to be quite full of them.

What we will see is that because companies are not being forced to add these higher rates of taxes to the price of their goods and services, they can plow that back into their businesses and expand them or lower prices and become more competitive overseas.

Yes, a growing economy and opportunity are what bridge the gap between rich and poor, not poorly thought our Government redistribution schemes designed to keep corrupt professional bureaucrats elected.

Corporations were already sitting on mountains of cash. What we're seeing are more store closings and more jobs lost because the tax cuts do nothing to stimulate consumer spending. The wealthy can afford to pay higher taxes. Even with higher taxes, they would be left with more than anyone else.

 

[Nordberg]

Why were you silent while the 1% reaped all the gains during the Obama years? Did you ever complain about QE and Fed policy?

I was not silent. I wanted him to nationalize at least some of the banks in the beginning. I wanted him to get universal healthcare. So who you talking about?

 

[Nordberg]

or on corporations, but yes. $30T will probably be the point of no return and Trump/GOP have us there in 10 years.

He accomplished that by slashing taxes on corporations and the wealthy. You can see what he will do to the deficits. Repubs jack up the debt, but never like Trumpy is doing it.

 

[rjhenn]

That stated, you do know that after every major tax cut there has been a corresponding increase in revenue right?

Not really. What has always happened is that we see a drop in revenue. Then the normal growth in revenue resumes, at a slower than normal pace, and the right exults: "Look, the tax cut increased revenue!" Bunch of BS. Revenue normally increases. Tax cuts interrupt that normal growth.

The debt and deficits we are seeing have NOTHING to do with a lack of REVENUE, but everything to do with a massive increase in SPENDING. We do not have a revenue problem in this country, but rather, a SPENDING problem.

We have a revenue problem. We could tax the rich a little bit more to balance the budget and start to pay down the debt, but the politicians don't want to upset their owners.

 

[rjhenn]

This isn't thinking outside of the box. This is thinking INSIDE of the box and reaching backwards to an ideological fantasy that has never worked.

Thinking outside of the box is allowing citizens and businesses to keep more of what they earn so that they can be the "deciders" of how to spend that wealth.

Centralized planning cannot work, never has worked and when attempted, proven to cause far more harm than good. But alas, you are a product of an educational system that has terribly failed the American people.

And the last time we tried what you want, it resulted in massive poverty and misery, with a few extremely wealthy families and the rest of the country in virtual slavery to those families.

 

[rjhenn]

The fact is no one wants to touch entitlements. That's what's driving our debt. And most likely no one will want to touch it until it is in full blown crisis mode.

The fact is that no one wants to upset the rich, who own the politicians. A modest tax increase on the rich would balance the budget and enable us to start paying down the debt, and they'd stilll have more than everyone else.

 

[rjhenn]

"Market based"..."socialistic based"..."communist based"...doesn't mean diddly squat.

There will be fewer and fewer jobs for humans because the machines are taking over.

The technological growth has become geometric; it was arithmetic for most of human existence.

We simply do not need as much human labor to facilitate what the entirety needs and wants.

Capitalists think they've got the one-up in this deal...but if anything, the beginnings of the crash will be in the capitalistic economies...especially that of America.

True. At some point, we're going to have to go to a guaranteed income, where everyone basically collects Social Security, because there won't be any jobs.

 

[cawacko]

The fact is that no one wants to upset the rich, who own the politicians. A modest tax increase on the rich would balance the budget and enable us to start paying down the debt, and they'd stilll have more than everyone else.

We are $22 trillion in debt as a country. A "modest" tax increase won't touch the debt

 

[rjhenn]

i'm sorry Frank if you aren't familiar with how markets work. How do any of us have jobs today with all the technological change that's occurred over the past four decades?

And what new jobs are there going to be when machines do all the work and are maintained by other machines?

 

[cawacko]

And what new jobs are there going to be when machines do all the work and are maintained by other machines?

Well fortunately that won't be happening

 

[rjhenn]

Yes.

Whatever they otherwise would have spent that added tax burden on.

Yes. You will be short-changing rich doctors, rich defense contractors, rich somebody.

Nonsense, even with a higher tax burden, they would have more than anyone else.

 

[rjhenn]

How much would they have to pay you to wipe an old man's butt or shave it for surgery? There are limits to technology.

No, there aren't. There are limits to current technology. Those limits are extended daily and will eventually disappear completely.

 

[rjhenn]

Hello Superfreak,



That is true. But there is a huge problem with that truth. It is the basic problem with capitalism. Capitalism has absolutely no obligation to provide a job or livable wages to everyone. Or anyone.

We have to use socialism to correct this glaring problem which exists in capitalism.

We impose a minimum age to ensure that a 40 hour worker can support himself. It was once meant to support his small family, but times have changed. And now, it hardly supports one person. Trying to live on $7.25 per hour is ridiculous these days. It is our socialism which is too weak to prevent capitalism from creating extreme wealth inequality.

Capitalism naturally creates growing wealth inequality. That is not sustainable in the long run. So we have to do something. That something is socialism.

We mix socialism with our capitalism to make it tolerable for the masses.

Because the min wage is too low, we have many government assistance programs to make up for that.

People actually work more than 40 hours per week at numerous jobs and still qualify for government assistance programs.

That shows a glaring failure of capitalism to provide meaningful jobs for all who want them.

Agreed. Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism works. What we need is a fusion of the two, using each to patch up the gaping holes in the other.

 

[rjhenn]

Reductions in revenue must be met with spending cuts, otherwise you are correct. But there is a balance. Increasing or decreasing tax rates... either can be good for revenue or bad. Too high and you risk stifling growth. That can lead to higher unemployment rates (and thus higher spending on welfare, unemployment etc...). Which in turn also tends to reduce revenue. Too low and you can't cut spending enough to compensate. Thus leading to a reduction in spending in needed areas.

That said, I think we are a long ways away from not being able to find areas to cut spending. DoD has way too much spending. Start there.

There's very little spending that can be cut without negatively impacting the economy.

 

[rjhenn]

You voted for Obama and QE twice which greatly exacerbated the wealth gap. Who do you think benefits when real estate and stock appreciate? Poor people?

And here is a good article on what the 1% pay today vs the 1950's. Effective rates aren't all that much lower.

https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/

Then the article states:

It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s. The average tax rate on the 0.1 percent highest-income Americans was 50.6 percent in the 1950s, compared to 39.8 percent today. The average tax rate on the top 0.01 percent was 55.3 percent in the 1950s, compared to 40.8 percent today.

 

[rjhenn]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/income-inequality_n_1032632.html
I hate to respond to you, you are such an ignorant baby and too stupid to understand how fucking stupid you are. You are always wrong and it is because you lack curiosity or the ability to read with scintilla of comprehension. You will not and cannot learn anything.

Unfortunately, all true. He is deep in his own TDS.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/10/inequality-living-in-the-second-gilded-age.html

An interesting read. Thanks.

 

[rjhenn]

Income inequality is one of the dumbest and most moronic talking points you can have. Incomes will ALWAYS be unequal and this notion that a vast Fascist like Government can force them to be equal is lunacy at it's worst.

Let's face it, you're an idiot on steroids but lack the grey matter in your head to comprehend the OBVIOUS.



Then don't; who is forcing you to respond you repugnant dumbfuck? Saves me from having to respond to more of your moronic dumb lies and emotional outbursts. Your forte' is "groaning" everyone who makes you look like the brain dead simpleton you are.



More irony from a moron with a severe case of TDS. Cry harder snowflake.



Wrong; I am always right and know how to use facts instead of the asinine emotional rhetoric you spew out here.



More irony coming from a pathetic know-nothing like yourself. The only thing you know how to do is parrot the moronic talking points you've been gullibly fed. STFU already you whiny retard.



All that is, is a moronic opinion piece based on a false narrative you willful idiot.

You never use facts. You just regurgitate the lies that your puppet masters on the right have fed you. That and your stupid strawmen as in the first paragraph above. It's not that incomes are unequal, but the degree of inequality and that the inequality is increasing at such a rapid rate. Of course, your own TDS blinds you to the truth about Trump and his agenda,