Remember when he said (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-turmoil-or-triumph-donald-trump-stands-alone/2016/04/02/8c0619b6-f8d6-11e5-a3ce-f06b5ba21f33_story.html?tid=lk_inline_manual_5&itid=lk_inline_manual_5) he would eliminate the federal debt, or at least halve it, during his presidency? His new budget proposes to add another $3.4 trillion (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/business/president-trump-budget-cuts.html) by 2024 to the debt on top of the $3 trillion Trump has already added (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/09/trump-budget-plan-would-fail-eliminate-deficit-over-10-years-briefing-document-shows/?tid=lk_inline_manual_5&itid=lk_inline_manual_5), by piling on $1-trillion-a-year budget deficits during a peacetime expansion. Under Trump’s latest plans, the debt would keep mushrooming until at least 2035 — by his administration’s own rosy projections.

Recall his repeated promises not to “touch” Social Security and Medicare (https://www.vox.com/2020/2/10/21131316/trump-2021-budget-entitlement-cuts)? Even as the elderly population swells, his budget calls for removing half a trillion dollars (https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/trump-budget-cuts-funding-for-health-science-environment-agencies/2020/02/10/9c8dd784-4c2d-11ea-b721-9f4cdc90bc1c_story.html?tid=lk_inline_manual_7&itid=lk_inline_manual_7) of funding from the Medicare program over 10 years, including $135 billion from Medicaid.program over 10 years, including $135 billion from Medicare prescription drugs (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-propose-4-8-trillion-budget-with-big-safety-net-cuts-11581274525), and tens of billions from the Social Security program.

He promised not to touch Medicaid (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/23/15862312/trump-medicaid-promise), either. Now he wants to cut it by $920 billion.

He was going to give Americans health care “much better” than Obamacare (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021). But he has proposed no such thing and now his budget calls for cutting spending on the program by $844 billion (https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-10/trump-budget-shreds-the-federal).

Fraud.

Remember his vows that his tax cuts would grow the economy by (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-propose-4-8-trillion-budget-with-big-safety-net-cuts-11581274525)4 percent, 5 percent or even 6 percent (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/16/trump_were_going_to_see_economy_growth_of_4_5_and_ maybe_6_percent.html)? Last year it grew at 2.3 percent (https://www.axios.com/us-gdp-2019-q4-2eb196fa-85ec-43c4-8361-721bb719f130.html), and his new budget, even with the rosiest of assumptions, projects 2.8 percent for this year. Yet the budget would also devote another $1.4 trillion to extending those tax cuts, primarily for the rich.

Isn't the biggest talent this dufus has is to talk what people whose votes he counts on want to hear while stabbing them in the back with his constant stream of lies? I doubt he even reads his own budgets just gives an aide an outline that he later fills in with wait for it...more lies! He may be a dufus and all, no doubt, but he knows full well he gets nothing, and probably wants nothing really except to do what he does best and that's lie, cheat, and steal, and find someone he can BULLY!

Think about it. Since he got to the WH that's ALL he has done. If he wins re election that's all he will do.

Remember when he said (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-turmoil-or-triumph-donald-trump-stands-alone/2016/04/02/8c0619b6-f8d6-11e5-a3ce-f06b5ba21f33_story.html?tid=lk_inline_manual_5&itid=lk_inline_manual_5) he would eliminate the federal debt, or at least halve it, during his presidency? His new budget proposes to add another $3.4 trillion (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/business/president-trump-budget-cuts.html) by 2024 to the debt on top of the $3 trillion Trump has already added (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/09/trump-budget-plan-would-fail-eliminate-deficit-over-10-years-briefing-document-shows/?tid=lk_inline_manual_5&itid=lk_inline_manual_5), by piling on $1-trillion-a-year budget deficits during a peacetime expansion. Under Trump’s latest plans, the debt would keep mushrooming until at least 2035 — by his administration’s own rosy projections.I had hoped we had elected the "anti-Obama", but rather sadly he is behaving just as Obama did in this regard. Very disappointing.

He behaves like a lying, cheating, stealing, bullying dufus in most regards and that's even more dissapointing. No surprise there though! Shocking that people cheer him on for more of it.

Hold your pant's on ya'll: TRUMP WILL HAVE ANOTHER, ALMOST, 5 YEARS TO SORT ALL THIS OUT! Maybe he will get to it in his 2nd Term!

like the President's budget is ever passed . Please let's stop insulting each other by pretending that either party gives a rat's patoot about budget restraint;or saving the SS ponzi scheme and Medicare from their inevasible collapses . I knew before Trump ran that he was a big state pol with big ideas about how the Feds could spend our money . The good news is that he has more economic sense than any of the Dems who will likely oppose him in the coming fall campaign. But I have no illusions . There is no one running who is either one who believes in fiscal restraint ;or has a clue about what federalism or the framers intended .

The good news is that he has more economic sense than any of the Dems who will likely oppose him in the coming fall campaign.

The bad news is that Trump is clueless about the economy. His "policies" are designed for one thing only - to garner votes so that he can continue to plunder the Treasury and join the billionaires club.

His words and actions are self evident. He gets his or nobody gets nothing and he has out blustered everybody into a state of fear, and desperation. That's how he got where he is, exploiting fear and desperation. The good news is that may be what gets him out of office.

We're setting records with this economy but Trump is clueless? Wow. Wish Obama had been clueless in that same fashion.

Politics is the art of the possible, so you have ambit claims and you have what the parties will agree to

We're setting records with this economy but Trump is clueless? Wow. Wish Obama had been clueless in that same fashion.

Are you going to toot the dufus horn again knowing good and darn well it's a false note? The dufus cut taxes like all repub presidents before him especially after the dems spend 8 years getting it back in shape from repub legal fiscal
stealing for 8 years.

Why is this time different?

Are you going to toot the dufus horn again knowing good and darn well it's a false note? The dufus cut taxes like all repub presidents before him especially after the dems spend 8 years getting it back in shape from repub legal fiscal
stealing for 8 years.


reducing taxes is not stealing, taxation is theft

reducing taxes is not stealing, taxation is theft right on especially income tax .

reducing taxes is not stealing, taxation is theft

Reducing rich guy taxes and not mine sure is, especially when you also cut things that benefit ME in the process. Bad enough rich guys control the money flow, and my wages, insurance and everything else I count on, but prices too? In addition my elected official works for them while I pay their salary and benefits. That's not okay either.

Where's that raise I've been waiting decades on?

Reducing rich guy taxes and not mine sure is, especially when you also cut things that benefit ME in the process. Bad enough rich guys control the money flow, and my wages, insurance and everything else I count on, but prices too? In addition my elected official works for them while I pay their salary and benefits. That's not okay either.

Where's that raise I've been waiting decades on?

Well Tal perhaps you should ask your congressman, but be sure to ask your boss first

My congressman is asking for money I don't have but the local rich guy does and the boss says he can't afford to give me a raise because he has to pay my elected official to get him MO'Money. Vicious cycle.

Athos: Trump has been a BILLIONAIRE for a long time...he can't "join" a club of which he is already a member.

Trump also DOES NOT need to show his tax returns: NONE OF OUR BUSINESS....and SCOTUS SAID SO!

Trump had the GREATEST WEEK OF HIS PRESIDENCY LAST WEEK:
1) Acquitted in Impeachment fiasco
2) Approval Rating hit highest mark of his time in Office
3) Threw three "bums" off their "spy" jobs, those being Sondland and the two Vindman backstabbers
4) Found out and got rid of 72 "Deep State" Obama holdovers who were spying and leaking on the White House: BIG HIT!!!
5) Gave the State Of The Union speech and provoked Nancy to show her true colors and throw an infantile fit for the American People to see

Things ain't looking good for the home team but looking GREAT FOR TRUMP!

Your Congressman is spending so much time fundraising for himself ;and voting on nonsense like impeachment that he doesn't have time to address your concerns . Term limits ... but that amendment won't happen if we wait for Congress to pass it .

Vac and Tom, those were two really good posts, especially that parts about tax returns and Trump's good week.

Your Congressman is spending so much time fundraising for himself ;and voting on nonsense like impeachment that he doesn't have time to address your concerns . Term limits ... but that amendment won't happen if we wait for Congress to pass it .

Impeachment is over the repubs stopped it in it's tracks and money is power in politics. Rich guys fix everything with a few bucks, from parking tickets to elections to the bulge in their pockets. Impeachment doesn't explain the decades of bread going up and my wages didn't. Money in politics does though.

Talaniman: Not getting into the CLASS WARFARE stuff....I just can not see the value of being bitter toward those that have more than I do, its just not valued added time and life is too short.....BUT, I do acknowledge that that you have a point about the rich in some regards....problem is that the rich are kind of like women: Can't live with them, can't live without them! There is a lot of truth in that analogy.

Talaniman: Not getting into the CLASS WARFARE stuff....I just can not see the value of being bitter toward those that have more than I do, its just not valued added time and life is too short.....BUT, I do acknowledge that that you have a point about the rich in some regards....problem is that the rich are kind of like women: Can't live with them, can't live without them! There is a lot of truth in that analogy.

Not being bitter at all Vac, but you failed to explain why the cost of rent, bread and toilet paper goes up and my paycheck does NOT! The very notion of giving rich guys enough money to trickle down hasn't help me at all! How about you?

No....must admit: I never really got the big paydays when I made the bosses more money.....there was never a corresponding reaction that I could testify to be congruent....got big paydays and bonuses on mediocre years...no explanation, really.

The average person in America is much better off financially now than 30 years ago. I don't know about you, Tal, personally, but on average people are doing better. Your contention might be true for you, but it is not true for most people.

only in america

The average person in America is much better off financially now than 30 years ago. I don't know about you, Tal, personally, but on average people are doing better. Your contention might be true for you, but it is not true for most people.

You of all people know that making a statement not supported by data as evidence is just your humble opinion. Opinions are okay, but do you have evidence that it's more than opinion.

You should know by now that I can back up my statements. Read em and learn. These figures, btw, are already adjusted for inflation, so your price of bread is "baked in" already. I think my statement was thirty years, so we have gone from around 54K to around 62K and that is two years ago. It's higher than that now https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Real_median_US_household_income_through_2018.png

That doesn't mean they are better off, that measures medium income so that means it is influenced by the high rollers and multi-job families and doesn't measure what happens to the people on the bottom nor does it measure the impact of inflation

That doesn't mean they are better off, that measures medium income so that means it is influenced by the high rollers and multi-job families and doesn't measure what happens to the people on the bottom nor does it measure the impact of inflationIt's adjusted for inflation so it does measure that impact. It's been using the same metric for decades so whatever influences it now are the same things that influenced it fifty years ago.

It's adjusted for inflation so it does measure that impact. It's been using the same metric for decades so whatever influences it now are the same things that influenced it fifty years ago.

Boy you would believe anything, I have a nice harbour side bridge going cheap, you can get at 50 year old prices, but you have to be quick

So when you run out of reason, you employ ridicule? I have found that most people like statistics except, of course, for the ones they DON'T like, and those are the ones that don't fit into their preconceived notions. You need to check out what "Real Median Household Income" means. It's not an invention of the Trump administration. It's been around for decades.

How many people you think fall below the median do you think as Clete has asked? That as important a FACT as your chart, which also shows the growth of the economy slowing. Not an unpredictable thing though.

How many people fall below the median? Well, just like ten or twenty or forty years ago, it would be a lot. That's kind of why its called a "median". It's an important fact that everyone who knows anything about statistics already would be well aware of.

How many people fall below the median NOW is the question. They are humans too, so should we just ignore them or something while we cheer those that are at and above. Can't think of doing a damn thing for them can you?

The median in statistics is always the middle value. So 50% of the people are above the median, and 50% are above the median, just like always. That never changes. It clearly shows that most people are making more now than in 2012. It is not an average, so it's not swayed just because the richest 100 double their income. I would think it is a valuable stat and a reliable one.

The median in statistics is always the middle value. So 50% of the people are above the median, and 50% are above the median, just like always. That never changes. It clearly shows that most people are making more now than in 2012. It is not an average, so it's not swayed just because the richest 100 double their income. I would think it is a valuable stat and a reliable one.
It measures incomes not people and what that shows is 50% of incomes are below the median, it doesn't tell you how many incomes are measured but there are more in the series than 50 years ago, many more, so it is another statistic that lies

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

If we accept the 29% of Americans below the median in a country of about 325M then 95,410,000 are below the median. If we accept that 12.3 as a poverty rate 40,467,000 are in poverty. That's a lot of folks by any measure to just blow off.

It measures incomes not people and what that shows is 50% of incomes are below the median, it doesn't tell you how many incomes are measured but there are more in the series than 50 years ago, many more, so it is another statistic that liesWell, there are more people making income now than 50 years ago, and so yes, there would more now than then. As to 50% of incomes are below the median, that's ALWAYS how it is. That's what a median is. It is a valid comparison to years past and that is its usefulness. It doesn't tell you how many incomes are measured? So? You have no valid criticism of this stat other than 50% of the incomes are below the median(by definition!) and it doesn't tell you how many incomes are measured. None of that is valid. You're just listing obvious truths about the stat.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/are-you-in-the-american-middle-class/

If we accept the 29% of Americans below the median in a country of about 325M then 95,410,000 are below the median. If we accept that 12.3 as a poverty rate 40,467,000 are in poverty. That's a lot of folks by any measure to just blow off.

What part of median do you not understand, median is the mid point so 50% of incomes are below the median, how many are American citizens, well that is an unknown

I only used the data given. No matter what data you use say 50% that's 160M bellow the median, but that figure does not allow for the number that is in the median so bring better data and we get more accurate figures. I get your inference about non Americans, but for the sake of argument we use for both above and bellow median as <50, and >50 respectively.

Either way you cut it, its still a lot of people which was my original point.

What part of median do you not understand, median is the mid point so 50% of incomes are below the median, how many are American citizens, well that is an unknownIf you'll look above, I had to explain it to you, so you can be certain I understand it quite well. As to how many are American citizens, yeah, I'm sure the illegal immigrants are all reporting their income. Right


I only used the data given. No matter what data you use say 50% that's 160M bellow the median, but that figure does not allow for the number that is in the median so bring better data and we get more accurate figures. I get your inference about non Americans, but for the sake of argument we use for both above and bellow median as <50, and >50 respectively.Oh good grief. The number that is in the median is ONE!! And it's not for the sake of argument. It is by definition. 50% above and 50% below. Learn a little.

I can go with your numbers then so now that's out of the way, what of those 175M people who are below the median. You seem to keep dodging that real question about real people.

I am not dodging the question. There are ALWAYS half the population below the median, but the higher the median is, the better off those people are. So if 50K used to be the median, but now it is 58K, then there are more people making over 50K than before. Before it was 50% making over 50K, but now it would be perhaps 55 or 58% making over 50K. Do you see that? It's not complicated.

Median income is just a standard of measure. The higher it is, the better the economy is and the higher the standard of living is. It's a tool of comparison from one year to another. It doesn't mean that everything is wonderful for everyone. That has never happened and never will happen. If Obama was still pres, you would be out writing a song about the wonderful rise in median income. You are nit-picking it only as a symptom of your TDS.

Lets see how that works then. Median income rises populations grow, and the number of people below the median grows too? So when you going to address those below the median? You blow it off because that doesn't affect you, just more souls for your charity, and MO'money forced from your pocket for the souls your charity can't get to. Jl gets to keep beetching about what he is forced to do.

Now I understand your logic better.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN! 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN! 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!! IS IT BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR NOW???????? THERE WILL ALWAYS BE 50% BELOW THE MEDIAN!!! IF THE POPULATION GROWS, THEN YES, THERE WILL BE 50% STILL BELOW THE MEDIAN!! IF YOU WANT FEWER PEOPLE BELOW THE MEDIAN, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO OUT FIND WAYS TO LOWER THE POPULATION! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?????????

IF THE MEDIAN INCOME GOES UP, THEN IT'S GOOD NEWS FOR EVERYONE! THAT MEANS THERE ARE MORE HIGHER INCOME JOBS AVAILABLE! THAT MEANS THAT MANY PEOPLE BELOW THE OLD MEDIAN INCOME STARTED MAKING MORE MONEY AND RAISED THE MEDIAN INCOME LEVEL. IT IS GOOD NEWS! WE SHOULD REJOICE WHEN IT HAPPENS! ONLY A LIBERAL DEM WILL LOOK FOR AN POINT TO ARGUE HERE. STOP HATING TRUMP AND WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!!!!

I ADDRESSED THE BELOW GROUP IN MY LAST POST!!!! WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO LEARN HOW TO READ AND COMPREHEND????


I hope by using all caps that maybe it will finally begin to sink in with you. Would you be happy if you read in a headline, "Good news! 5 Million Die in Hurricane So There are Fewer People Below the Median Income!"

This all goes back to your hatred of Trump and your refusal to acknowledge anything good that might reflect well on him. It is really breathtaking to watch. I've never met anyone with a case of TDS like you have. Incredible. It colors everything you believe.

Didn't mean to make your head explode, just pushing back against the futility of your arguments and ignoring the obvious and that's simply INCREASE the circulation of capital. Very simple really as turning up the spigot on that trickle down money tank.

No need to kill people or pray for a hurricane.

No need to kill people or pray for a hurricane.
Then stop your bellyaching about the increase of the number of people below the median. Population goes up, then both groups (above and below) increase. Can't be stopped.

Didn't mean to make your head explode, just pushing back against the futility of your arguments and ignoring the obvious and that's simply INCREASE the circulation of capital. Very simple really as turning up the spigot on that trickle down money tank.Platitudes.

I hope you learned something. When the median income goes up, it's a good thing, even if your hated Mr. Trump is pres, it's still a good thing.

Think carefully about this The only way the median income can go up is for the below 50% group to start making more money, or for the above 50% group to start making less money. So if it goes up, then one of those is happening. Do you understand that?

Do you understand increasing circulation to more folks? It's more than a platitude. It's a key untapped revenue source. You could consider doing your homewok and engaging in reasonable thought rather than the knee jerk emotional reaction and distraction games you like to play. That's not a path to discussion and reaching consensus. Go ahead keep judging success by statistics you know nothing about. Think people before profits to clear your vision.

The Demo end game is based upon Marxist theory: Destruction of the MIDDLE CLASS....this is what Bernie and Company want.....BUT, the truth about ANY POPULATION OF HUMANS: There will ALWAYS be a "lower class" and it will be sizeable....even in the commie utopias of Cuba and Red China, despite their proclamations of it not being so, there exist a huge lower class....INESCAPABLE reality.

Well for sure rich dudes don't go off to war in a number to defend a gnat, so a grunt class is always needed for that.

You could consider doing your homewok and engaging in reasonable thought rather than the knee jerk emotional reaction and distraction games you like to play. That's not a path to discussion and reaching consensus. Go ahead keep judging success by statistics you know nothing about. Think people before profits to clear your vision.Says the man who quotes no stats, gives no data, and had no idea what the "median" in "median income" meant, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take what you say seriously.

I would like to ask one question. You talk about "increasing circulation". What do you mean by that?

Given the fact that even rich guys catch hell during a down business cycle, recessions, and depressions imagine that the lower down the economic ladder then are so adversely effected also. Certain sectors are prone to those cycles more than others, but the poor are always affected. Anybody can be poor through no fault of their own, and while you may use median income as a sign of growth you cannot ignore the income inequality that even that inplies for us all. Income in the upper groups has grown so much faster than every other group put simply no matter what the economy is doing. Add to that wages and prices you are still left with a stressed middle class and the poor have no hope of seeing a dollar. This is the monetary policy of this country, has been for a long time, and it can be changed with simple adjustments to the tax code to trickle down a greater share of the good economy, or even better set a higher level eligibility for distributing funds and resources to the poor. Consider that while some have the option to invest, some cannot even save, and still others cannot pay a decent rent.

Now if your still with me, seems evident given the above condition and the Monetary policy has to be tweaked to allow for not just safety net programs, both private and public, but access to enough capital to build a modicum of wealth during good times to survive those conditions during the not so good and bad times. In essence increasing circulation is a bottom up policy rather than top down one that closes the wage inequality gap rather than widens it.

I think you may find it's also runs counter to make any tax reduction benefit permanent. A thing I liked about Ronald Reagan that while I disagreed with him on many things working with his congress to be very flexible on tax and monetary policy was impressive very I thought, though overly modest at times.

Good video (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/income-inequality-continues-to-grow-in-the-united-states.html)

you may use median income as a sign of growth you cannot ignore the income inequality that even that inplies for us all. Income in the upper groups has grown so much faster than every other group put simply no matter what the economy is doing. Add to that wages and prices you are still left with a stressed middle classI am not "using" median income as a sign of growth. It is simply true. You can not like it(because of your TDS), but it is still true. I don't think the MC is "stressed", but I would agree that the growth in income of the top 5 or 10% relative to everyone else is not a good thing.



This is the monetary policy of this country, has been for a long time, and it can be changed with simple adjustments to the tax code to trickle down a greater share of the good economy, For the five hundred and first time, the top 20% pay nearly all of the income tax, and the bottom half pay next to nothing. How you adjust that to make it more fair?


or even better set a higher level eligibility for distributing funds and resources to the poor.This is the bottom line for you. You want to take money from some Americans and just hand it out to other Americans. I don't see any justification for that. It amounts to legalized theft. It is one thing to ask a person to fund schools, highways, national defense, courts, the police, and other areas of government that benefit everyone. It is entirely different to just take money from one person and give it to another.

The conversation we should be having has nothing to do with the dufus, but the repub supply side policy that ALWAYS redirects wealth to the top through a tax cut vehicle. You seem to keep implying though they deserve it, because your crumbs that trickle down are most welcome, rather than an honest cut of the pie. At least you acknowledge that it might be unfair. Ya think, and that's not even a conversation about poverty yet. Only you nut cases think a deficit funded tax cut would be a great idea for rich guys when its you as a taxpaying consumer that pays for it.

We both know it's a big fat lie that it pays for itself, or that the rich guy deserves such a HUGE tax cut and the rest deserves crumbs. Consider rich guys only pay taxes on half their money in the first place. Go ahead then keep giving them more and try to keep up with the volume of people who need help.

Look at the community you serve and multiply that by any number you choose to represent the people outside of your community that will need help and however way you cut it that's a huge number who get no crumbs. I find it ironic a man of God would balk at efforts to help others and call if FORCING him to help people he doesn't know by taking HIS money, but making a rich guy richer at a faster rate than anybody else is just perfectly fine. That goes beyond profits before people which is just old fashion greed, and smacks of having BS and reality all mixed up.

I will state, and not simply imply, that when a person honestly earns a dollar, then neither you nor your elected representatives should have the right to force him to give it to someone else.

I have "acknowledged" nothing about "fairness". My comment was that it is not a good idea for most of the capital and wealth to be in the hands of a very small minority.

For the five hundred and second time, when the wealthy pay nearly all of the income taxes, then you need to find another horn to toot other than tax fairness. It's a ludicrous argument.

No crumbs? What planet do you live on? We give people food stamps that can be used in restaurants and help pay for their housing, and that's not to mention a free public education. And your continuing lie, which you know full well it is, of misrepresenting what I have said about our PERSONAL responsibility to help poor people gets old. Every person has that personal responsibility. Now I can say that since I accept the Bible as authoritative. You have nothing to appeal to beyond your own personal opinion which seems to be that charity is all about electing people that will force people other than you to help the poor.

For the five hundred and first time, the top 20% pay nearly all of the income tax, and the bottom half pay next to nothing. How you adjust that to make it more fair?

It is completely "fair" jl once the cost of living is taken into account, the top 20% have funds they don't need to look after the basics, they benefit more and should share more of the burden. You isolate one statistic and say the burden is not fair, but who benefits more

I will state, and not simply imply, that when a person honestly earns a dollar, then neither you nor your elected representatives should have the right to force him to give it to someone else.

I think you lost that vote but another election is coming so don't give up hope.


I have "acknowledged" nothing about "fairness". My comment was that it is not a good idea for most of the capital and wealth to be in the hands of a very small minority.

I gave you credit for that even if the rest of your rant was utter crap! Read it again.


For the five hundred and second time, when the wealthy pay nearly all of the income taxes, then you need to find another horn to toot other than tax fairness. It's a ludicrous argument.

You have your ludicrous peeves to argue about, I have mine so what?


No crumbs? What planet do you live on? We give people food stamps that can be used in restaurants and help pay for their housing, and that's not to mention a free public education.

WE give them? I thought you were forced to give people those things?


And your continuing lie, which you know full well it is, of misrepresenting what I have said about our PERSONAL responsibility to help poor people gets old. Every person has that personal responsibility.

The way I choose to exercise and carry out MY responsibilities is my business so why are you in it?


Now I can say that since I accept the Bible as authoritative. You have nothing to appeal to beyond your own personal opinion which seems to be that charity is all about electing people that will force people other than you to help the poor.

Good for you, glad for you, but I think I will just skip the book of ancient man and go with a direct relationship with a God that I understand and understands me. Its more than just a single subject of how best to be charitable, but about life itself and how best to live it, though I am still learning as more is revealed. That elected official thing that you are forced to comply with is your own personal problem to deal with.

I will state, and not simply imply, that when a person honestly earns a dollar, then neither you nor your elected representatives should have the right to force him to give it to someone else.
Why have our taxes paid for over 300 golf vacations for our wealthy president?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/07/10/trumps-golf-trips-could-cost-taxpayers-over-340-million/#7ce5408e28aa

It is completely "fair" jl once the cost of living is taken into account, the top 20% have funds they don't need to look after the basics, they benefit more and should share more of the burden. You isolate one statistic and say the burden is not fair, but who benefits more

He can't hear you Clete he has his head stuck up the dufus's arse to his shoulders, so let him enjoy the experience. Economics ain't his strong suite so he has no clue he is being rapped, robbed, and pillaged.

It is completely "fair" jl once the cost of living is taken into account, the top 20% have funds they don't need to look after the basics, they benefit more and should share more of the burden. You isolate one statistic and say the burden is not fair, but who benefits moreLearn how to read, Clete. I didn't say it was not fair. Think a little. Tal is the one who is questioning the fairness of the tax system.


The way I choose to exercise and carry out MY responsibilities is my business so why are you in it?That's fine with me, but why do you allow yourself that privilege but not others? Why do you think it is OK to elect pols who force others to do what your reserve as a right for yourself.


He can't hear you Clete he has his head stuck up the dufus's arse to his shoulders, so let him enjoy the experience.I had to laugh at that. It was just yesterday that your were loudly posting about how uncivil and insulting Trump was in his public comments. Well my friend, you are the most uncivil and insulting person on this site. You are closer to Trump in that regard than anyone else I know. I guess congratulations are in order.


Economics ain't his strong suite so he has no clue he is being rapped, robbed, and pillaged.Says the man who had no idea at all what the word "median" in "median income" meant. Another of your comments that made me laugh. And then your melodramatic comments about being raped, robbed, and pillaged were good for a laugh as well.

Learn how to read, Clete. I didn't say it was not fair. Think a little. Tal is the one who is questioning the fairness of the tax system.
At least I'm not the only one JL puts down. :(

I prefer to say "corrected". He needed to be corrected. You frequently need to be corrected. I don't mean that to be insulting. You brought the subject up. I have little patience with someone who purports to represent the teaching of the Bible, but then cannot support her professions in any way and cannot respond to any counter points. It is too important to be treated so casually.

You correcting peple? My turn to laugh. You have to say something that's correct first. No worries I'm PATIENT!

Says the man who did not know what "median" meant and had to be corrected by you know who.

Your definition is incorrect, your data is faulty and incomplete and you know who fails again. Hey are we going to trade insults the rest of the evening? Naw I don't thinks so, so for a few hours here you get the last word. How you managed to be the most insulting person on this forum is quite obvious.

Your definition is incorrect, your data is faulty and incomplete and you know who fails again. You would be much more honorable if you simply admitted being wrong. What is it about you guys and making things up?

Says the man who did not know what "median" meant and had to be corrected by you know who.

get over it you used the incorrect statistic, median doesn't mean average, and it rarely accurately approximates the average in an imperfect world

I did not say it meant average. Can you not read at all? It has been discussed to death here that median means the middle value and not the average. An average income would be less desirable to use since large increases in the income of the wealthy would slant an average, so median income was the exactly correct stat to use. It's been around for decades and is frequently used to compare years to each other.

I did not say it meant average. Can you not read at all? It has been discussed to death here that median means the middle value and not the average. An average income would be less desirable to use since large increases in the income of the wealthy would slant an average, so median income was the exactly correct stat to use. It's been around for decades and is frequently used to compare years to each other.

Only if you want to distort the facts, you want to compare incomes, compare the quartiles, then you will know what the top earns in comparison to the bottom

Here is the comment attached to the median graph it shows the opposite in meaning to that which you projected


U.S. economic growth is not translating into higher median family incomes. Real GDP per household has typically increased since the year 2000, while real median income per household was below 1999 levels until 2016, indicating a trend of greater income inequality.
[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#cite_note-11)

Who is guilty of not being able to read now. By the way jl how many economic subjects did you take when gaining your degrees, I took several in the course of my career

Only if you want to distort the facts, you want to compare incomes, compare the quartiles, then you will know what the top earns in comparison to the bottomI would if that was what I had been wanting to do, speaking of comparing income levels. That can be a valid conversation, but it was not what we were talking about. I was simply showing Tal that people in the United States are generally better off now than 30 years ago, and that is clearly true. If you will look at that graph, then you will see that median income is significantly higher than it was in 1990 which was my point of comparison. The comment you zeroed in on looked at the year 2000 and the sixteen years following, but did not include the past three years which DO show income growth relative to 2000. So I read quite well. The notation you highlighted was accurate but changed nothing concerning what I was saying.

You know, you have a burr in your saddle about something. I really don't care what it is, but it's clouding your thinking. My stat was correct and used properly. You'll just have to find something else to complain about.

Let's stay here because even you acknowledge that the faster growth of the rich relative to that median was unfair, and that's the essence of the data analysis. To identify stuff in relationship to other stuff. Instead of rationale dialog on the DATA you provided we get this stupid ideological rant about who knows what median means. Talk about dumbing down the conversation, I was waiting for a scripture quote to bolster your position. Heck guy we couldn't even constructively examine the case pro or con that YOUR data showed!

I didn't make that up either, before you give me your latest fall back refrain. Now if that makes you feel attacked or insulted, think for a minute what anyones reaction be to disdain and personal criticism, and yeah that's coming from the guy you called the most insulting member of the forum by the guy who regularly insults EVERYBODY.

Drink another cup of coffee, Mr. Trump..er, Tal. Calm down. Man, you guys can get so worked up. Sometimes I think you must never talk with anyone else who refuses to go along with your liberal world view. If you don't want to be known as insulting and uncivil, then maybe you should take at look at your post directly above and ask yourself if it could be characterized as "uncivil" and "insulting".

And one more time, I have not said that the faster growth of the rich is "unfair". I said it is probably not wise for too much wealth to become concentrated in the hands of a few super wealthy persons. Now as to what to do about it, that's a tough problem. I imagine that when the market goes through a cycle of correction, which it will, and the DJA drops fifteen or twenty percent in a month, then that will take care of much of it.


Heck guy we couldn't even constructively examine the case pro or con that YOUR data showed!What prevented you from discussing it?

but I would agree that the growth in income of the top 5 or 10% relative to everyone else is not a good thing.




And one more time, I have not said that the faster growth of the rich is "unfair". I said it is probably not wise for too much wealth to become concentrated in the hands of a few super wealthy persons. Now as to what to do about it, that's a tough problem.


I respectfully submit it's not that tough to identify a solution, a simple tax code adjustment fixes that right up by stopping the bottleneck of CASH flowing one way, at blinding speed, thus increasing circulation in a controlled and targeted way that allows a greater cash infusion into the economy by consumers rather than government or corporations. It also lessens the NEED to HELP so many and put them on a good orderly direction to becoming consumers and good product citizens. You calculate the savings yourself at reducing poverty from the bottom up, not by demanding strict and harsh requirements, but a doable path to self reliance based on skills that increase opportunity.

Increasing the circulation flow from the bottom up also has the benefit of addressing guys like you who are forced to give money for someone else that you so incessantly beetch about, and it doesn't hurt the rich AT ALL!

The tough part is getting elected officials to get off their arses and actually do it, as opposed to the legalized stealing we are now subject to. That how to make America great again, by turning hundreds of thousands of poor people into CONSUMERS AND 1st class contributing citizens.

I'm not sure why you have my two quotes above other than to show I did not say the situation was "unfair"???


I respectfully submit it's not that tough to identify a solution, a simple tax code adjustment fixes that right up by stopping the bottleneck of CASH flowing one way, at blinding speed, thus increasing circulation in a controlled and targeted way that allows a greater cash infusion into the economy by consumers rather than government or corporations.I think what you are suggesting is that we go to the upper income people, who already pay 88% of the income tax, and ask them to pay even more so the feds can then give it to lower income people. Is that correct? If so, how do you suggest we address the continuing trillion dollar budget deficits? Do you suggest we continue to borrow at the current pace, or would you suggest we use that increased revenue to narrow the deficit?

Now you said you wanted to discuss these things, so I'm asking discussion questions in what is hopefully a civil and non-insulting manner.

A little info to chew on.



"The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

This "FAIRNESS" stuff has to stop: Life is UNFAIR. Its even Biblical that there will be rich and there will be poor: You aren't changing that with any degree of government regulation or taxing. The dichotomy of the left's arguments and rails against the rich are that as long as these "RICH" are liberals, they are O.K....but if they don't cotton to the left's lean, these "RICH" are bad.

Please: This is not Obama's Economy anymore....the guy has been gone, out of the White House since January '17! Obama is old news! This is Trump's Economy, he owns it, for good or for bad.

Trump's Economy is doing wonders and we all know it.

I would agree in part on that. The issue to me is not so much fairness as legality and availability. Are rich people breaking the law to become rich? In most cases that does not seem to be the case. Can anyone become rich if he/she is willing to put the hard work and discipline into it? For the most part I think it is "yes" to that, though people with serious mental or physical limitations are likely left out. I've known a few people in my life who have become wealthy. They all worked hard at it and would laugh at the concept of a 40 hour work week. It is more like fifty or sixty or seventy hours a week and being "on call" at all times. I don't envy them one cent.

I'm not sure why you have my two quotes above other than to show I did not say the situation was "unfair"???

I think what you are suggesting is that we go to the upper income people, who already pay 88% of the income tax, and ask them to pay even more so the feds can then give it to lower income people. Is that correct? If so, how do you suggest we address the continuing trillion dollar budget deficits? Do you suggest we continue to borrow at the current pace, or would you suggest we use that increased revenue to narrow the deficit?

Now you said you wanted to discuss these things, so I'm asking discussion questions in what is hopefully a civil and non-insulting manner.

A little info to chew on.



"The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent)."

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

Good questions and thanks but my whole point was to slow the cash flow going up, and increase circulation to the rest and turning cash flow into the bottom sectors of people into CONSUMERS and CONTRIBUTERS to the coffers and yes the options and opportunities for economic growth takes on a whole new meaning with what can be done with the added revenue of half the population. That's why I included what you said in my post, not as anything other than a point of possible agreement.

It's just a logical thing to EXPAND the macroeconomy for a more efficient long term outcome. You wouldn't have to borrow from anyone to do anything, so with no debt to service by adding half the country to the tax paying rolls this country can pay the bills and maybe go to the moon for vacation. LOL, rich guys wouldn't be paying most of the taxes either which would be okay with you I'm sure.


This "FAIRNESS" stuff has to stop: Life is UNFAIR. Its even Biblical that there will be rich and there will be poor: You aren't changing that with any degree of government regulation or taxing. The dichotomy of the left's arguments and rails against the rich are that as long as these "RICH" are liberals, they are O.K....but if they don't cotton to the left's lean, these "RICH" are bad.

Please: This is not Obama's Economy anymore....the guy has been gone, out of the White House since January '17! Obama is old news! This is Trump's Economy, he owns it, for good or for bad.

Trump's Economy is doing wonders and we all know it.

Did I mention parties or politicians? I was hoping you saw the value of transcending both for the end goal of accomplishing something for everybody.

I would agree in part on that. The issue to me is not so much fairness as legality and availability. Are rich people breaking the law to become rich? In most cases that does not seem to be the case. Can anyone become rich if he/she is willing to put the hard work and discipline into it? For the most part I think it is "yes" to that, though people with serious mental or physical limitations are likely left out. I've known a few people in my life who have become wealthy. They all worked hard at it and would laugh at the concept of a 40 hour work week. It is more like fifty or sixty or seventy hours a week and being "on call" at all times. I don't envy them one cent.

Everybody isn't going to be rich like the 1% no matter how hard you work, so why should you work 2 or 3 jobs to be poor? Oh yes the working poor are a bigger part of the landscape than the 1% by a lot. Big difference between working hard and spinning your wheels since the goal should be an economy that works for EVERYBODY.

Everybody isn't going to be rich like the 1% no matter how hard you work, so why should you work 2 or 3 jobs to be poor? Oh yes the working poor are a bigger part of the landscape than the 1% by a lot. Big difference between working hard and spinning your wheels since the goal should be an economy that works for EVERYBODY.You cannot work three jobs and be poor. I'm not saying you will drive BMW's but you won't be poor.

Good questions and thanks but my whole point was to slow the cash flow going up, and increase circulation to the rest and turning cash flow into the bottom sectors of people into CONSUMERS and CONTRIBUTERS to the coffers and yes the options and opportunities for economic growth takes on a whole new meaning with what can be done with the added revenue of half the population. That's why I included what you said in my post, not as anything other than a point of possible agreement.

It's just a logical thing to EXPAND the macroeconomy for a more efficient long term outcome. You wouldn't have to borrow from anyone to do anything, so with no debt to service by adding half the country to the tax paying rolls this country can pay the bills and maybe go to the moon for vacation. LOL, rich guys wouldn't be paying most of the taxes either which would be okay with you I'm sure.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. It's sounds like you want to increase taxes on the lower half ("by adding half the country to the tax paying rolls"). Bear in mind that you have to come up with a trillion extra dollars. As of last year, personal income taxes only brought in 1.4 tril, so you have to increase that by 75% just to balance the budget, and that assumes you don't crash the economy by doing that. So I'll have to ask again specifically what you are proposing, especially the part about how you will " increase circulation to the rest and turning cash flow into the bottom sectors of people into CONSUMERS and CONTRIBUTERS to the coffers." How do you propose that be done?

Talaniman: O.K., you are correct about transcending the politics of it all and keying-in on what is good for all people. I just don't think the broad-brush approach of hanging all our problems on the "RICH" is the correct approach. As jlisenbe has stated, most of the RICH got that way honestly...and if you have a problem with how they work their taxes, then we need to change laws: they are legally working with what the tax laws ALLOW them to work with and around in terms of loopholes.

You are correct Vac, and it should be pointed out, again, that the upper 20% pay more than 85% of taxes.

Talaniman: O.K., you are correct about transcending the politics of it all and keying-in on what is good for all people. I just don't think the broad-brush approach of hanging all our problems on the "RICH" is the correct approach. As jlisenbe has stated, most of the RICH got that way honestly...and if you have a problem with how they work their taxes, then we need to change laws: they are legally working with what the tax laws ALLOW them to work with and around in terms of loopholes.

I don't remember hanging the problems on the rich and pointed out the solution is in the tax code however yeah the rich are honest, but they have more influence on the tax code than the rest of us and that's just a fact and we are all dependent on not just their success, but benevolence as well and no way do you or should you ever thing they will lay you off or close your plant if that's for the good of the bottom line. That just a reality.

I mean come on only a supply sider would even consider a deficit funded tax cut top heavy loaded and permanent during a great business cycle, to simulate a great economy. GDP and wage growth didn't get stimulated and as a fact if states had not mandated a high minimum wage there would be no wage growth, and one time selective bonuses by a very few corporations don't count for much a year later do they?

I thought I was very specific pointing out a few changes in the code would still give rich guys MO'Money, just not as much, nor at the speedy current RATE. What are you guys suggesting they double, triple, or quadruple their profits at taxpayer expense? That, not even hard work and why can't they earn a profit instead of being given one? That's what they tell the workers, at least the ones they don't lay off and quiet as it's kept how would that look to you if after that tax cut they had even a small lay-off? Better wake up and google that because that is already happening.

So fellows we start thinking of transcending the politics. Think about that for a minute before we start a fight. Can't you even envision an economy built on 300M working people, buying stuff, or are you just a happy fat rat with half a potential achieved? The rich would still get richer, but you would be getting MO'MONEY too! EVERYBODY WOULD!

I thought I was very specific pointing out a few changes in the code would still give rich guys MO'Money, just not as much, nor at the speedy current RATE. If you have been specific about anything, I must have missed it. I'm particularly interested in two things.
1. How you plan on getting more money to the lower income folks so they can pay more taxes?
2. How you plan on raising a trillion extra dollars to balance the budget?


What are you guys suggesting they double, triple, or quadruple their profits at taxpayer expense? Who suggested that? I guarantee you it was not me.

. If you have been specific about anything, I must have missed it. I'm particularly interested in two things.
1. How you plan on getting more money to the lower income folks so they can pay more taxes?
2. How you plan on raising a trillion extra dollars to balance the budget?

Yeah I guess you did but I'll find it shortly or maybe you reread it. 1. Tweaking the tax code. 2. I honestly have not considered balancing the budget, but paying the debt is a no brainer with more than double the GDP, and an robust expanded macroeconomic in the long term. The key is the time frame and whats a reasonable debt plan that the economics dictates.


Who suggested that? I guarantee you it was not me.

Actually you did because you are touting the tax cuts as great. Over time the rich have indeed quadrupled there wealth and you have NOT. I guess you square that with how much taxes they pay as compared to everyone else, but my math says what I just stated. What does yours show? Either over time or the last few years is perfectly acceptable.

Yeah I guess you did but I'll find it shortly or maybe you reread it.

1. Tweaking the tax code. So by "tweaking" the tax code we can insure that everyone makes more money and everyone pays more taxes? Wow. Please go into detail on that tweak.


2. I honestly have not considered balancing the budget, but paying the debt is a no brainer with more than double the GDP, and an robust expanded macroeconomic in the long term. The key is the time frame and whats a reasonable debt plan that the economics dictates.So we are going to double the GDP and pay off the national debt all by this tweaking of the tax code? You must explain this!! Details!


Actually you did because you are touting the tax cuts as great. Over time the rich have indeed quadrupled there wealth and you have NOT. I guess you square that with how much taxes they pay as compared to everyone else, but my math says what I just stated. What does yours show? Either over time or the last few years is perfectly acceptable.OK. First of all, you have reverted back to your fantasy world where a reduction in income tax rates magically is transformed into a doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling of profits. That's ridiculous. I never said any such thing and that's all there is to it.

As to the rest, where is your documentation that the wealthy have quadrupled their wealth? How do you know that I have not?

Over time the rich have indeed quadrupled their wealth and you have NOT. I guess you square that with how much taxes they pay as compared to everyone else, but my math says what I just stated. What does yours show? Either over time or the last few years is perfectly acceptable.

Waiting for you to do the math yourself. That's the only way to disprove my statement. Or verify it.

Talaniman: I 100% agree with you that the RICH will close a plant and let people go if PROFITS AREN'T THERE...and us little guys will get hurt: THIS IS ALL TRUE. But we have a lot of GOOD RICH GUYS IN THE U.S...very innovative RICH create a lot of jobs...I would venture to say that the U.S. has the best of world's BUNCH OF RICH GUYS. I certainly want these RICH to make, as you put it so eloquently, MO' MONEY with the hope that they SHARE some of that "extra" cash...that's my hope....but, to be honest, I have never had real good luck in getting extra cash out of employers because they made extra profits. Unfortunately, that is all we have to go by, Talaniman: the hope that the rich business owners feel somewhat charitable to pass onto us extra compensation when they get it.

there must be something very dysfunctional about your economy if you cannot balance a budget in good economic time, the Trump budget recognises this by making cuts in some programs

Talaniman: I 100% agree with you that the RICH will close a plant and let people go if PROFITS AREN'T THERE...and us little guys will get hurt: THIS IS ALL TRUE. But we have a lot of GOOD RICH GUYS IN THE U.S...very innovative RICH create a lot of jobs...I would venture to say that the U.S. has the best of world's BUNCH OF RICH GUYS. I certainly want these RICH to make, as you put it so eloquently, MO' MONEY with the hope that they SHARE some of that "extra" cash...that's my hope....but, to be honest, I have never had real good luck in getting extra cash out of employers because they made extra profits. Unfortunately, that is all we have to go by, Talaniman: the hope that the rich business owners feel somewhat charitable to pass onto us extra compensation when they get it.

They may be good guys, and hope is always a good thing to have but I certainly would hold my breath. You know while I can see a good path forward and have hope it will be achieved, I honestly ain't holding my breath either Vac!

Waiting for you to do the math yourself. That's the only way to disprove my statement. Or verify it.So you want me to use math to verify a statement you have not made? OK. That certainly makes perfectly good sense.

Well, we'll just tweak the tax code and double the GDP. Yes indeed.

there must be something very dysfunctional about your economy if you cannot balance a budget in good economic time, the Trump budget recognises this by making cuts in some programs

It's won't be cuts in rich guys stuff, just poor people stuff. Now dems like Clinton cut military stuff, but repubs restored it and ONLY cut poor people stuff. so yeah maybe dysfunctional is a good word but civil war is more accurate. Both sides would rather destroy each other than cooperate and relate. Just like on this forum.

I've seen a lot of budgets Clete, this is no different than others, and the last balanced budget led to the repubs letting big biz go crazy and not just blow the economy apart, but took the world with it. You think the dufus if he gets 4 more years won't do the same thing repubs have always done?

So you want me to use math to verify a statement you have not made? OK. That certainly makes perfectly good sense.

Well, we'll just tweak the tax code and double the GDP. Yes indeed.

ONE STEP AT A TIME! Verify or disprove my statement and we can proceed with the rest. As facts we can agree on sink in, I'm sure you may be more receptive, and have positive input of your own which I would welcome.

What statement are you referring to? You have made many vague statements but nothing that could be verified, so repeat your statement. The only one I can think of is your idea of "tweaking" the tax code so as to provide increased income for everyone and increased tax revenue. It is not possible to verify your "tweaking", and no person on the earth could apply math to it since there are no numbers, so perhaps you would give something more specific to look at?

It's all laid out in post 86. Maybe you missed it.

Over time the rich have indeed quadrupled their wealth and you have NOT. I guess you square that with how much taxes they pay as compared to everyone else, but my math says what I just stated. What does yours show? Either over time or the last few years is perfectly acceptable.This? Over what period of time? Who do you define as the rich? Now if you want me to accept the "last few years", then are you saying that the rich have four times as much wealth now as compared, let's say, to five years ago?

Do it any way you want JL, and if it's more than a factor of 4, then its worse than I thought. I tried using the most conservative figure but your methodology is yours to choose from.

I tell you what. I'll make a deal with you. I won't ask you to verify my statements, and then you don't ask me to verify your statements, especially considering that I already verify mine, and this particular statement of yours is so ridiculously vague that it's hopeless anyway.

No deal!

There is for me. I am ALWAYS prepared to back up my statements. You should be as well.

I asked for your input if you got nothing please just say so instead of your usual dodge dismissal and attack some more. The time you wasted you could have gotten the numbers done them and given your analysis.

You didn't ask for input. You asked me to verify your vague and data free statement.

I still want to know what "tweaking" you have in mind for the tax code which is going to double the GDP and solve all the tax and income problems.

You didn't ask for input. You asked me to verify your vague and data free statement.

I still want to know what "tweaking" you have in mind for the tax code which is going to double the GDP and solve all the tax and income problems.

Just to inject some reality; a broad based consumption tax has this effect, and you accompany it with a reduction in income tax to make the pill palatable. What it does is solve the problem of fairness because everyone pays the tax, which seems a stumbling block for you when you keep harping on how unfair it is for the top 20% to pay most of the tax. This is not theory, it was done here years ago and the economy took off and the level of tax collections were unexpected. To inject fairness all sales taxes have to be absorbed in the new system and tax revenues shared equitably

Of course, the top 20% will still pay most tax because they have greater spending ability but the tax base will be different. I cannot see it getting up there because of states rights

Almost all our states have some sort of consumption tax (https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/taxes/states-without-sales-tax-14724964) and an income tax already, (https://www.sapling.com/6116873/states-dont-income-sales-tax) Clete, and the ones that don't have their own taxing system that amounts to the same thing. One of the problems with the our tax system and monetary system, are the ways that anybody can get around them and escape through all sorts of loopholes to not just have some money exempted, but half a fortune goes untaxed, and the more you have the more you hide. Mostly in other countries. That doesn't help our economy, and with the landmark decision (https://www.sapling.com/6116873/states-dont-income-sales-tax) by SCOTUS that corporations are people too, there is virtually no limits to corporations and their uber rich overseers, to fund candidates that are making laws and policy friendly to maximize their bottom lines. Under such conditions it's very easy to see not just where the real untaxed money is, how it's used, and why half the country is under employed and stuck in a minimum wage that has not changed in decades, and the people stuck at that end of the economy will be there all their natural lives.

So call me a liberal all you want but the fix has been in for so long even conservatives are so dependent on bending the knee to the one that finances their slow trickle so they can essentially reap huge profits for their own personal use. They refuse to see that their liberty and freedom has been subverted by the oligarchs that control the flow of money and the government of the people, and make the least the cause of the problems.

No poor person has ever laid off workers, shut down factories and built new ones somewhere else, or tanked the economy. That's the exclusive domain of the uber rich and the governments they control. Even close examination of wars and trade wars is the underlying international corporate interest doing what it does to make MO'MONEY, and put profits over people and no people are exempt from being exploited for that profit.

No poor person has ever built a factory here, employed many people, paid 85% of the income taxes, contributed heavily to charitable organizations, started universities, funded scholarships for needy students, paid large amounts of property taxes that funded the paving of roads and building of schools, made large purchases of consumer goods that help others have jobs, or funded the building of hospitals and clinics for the sick.



and why half the country is under employed and stuck in a minimum wage that has not changed in decades, and the people stuck at that end of the economy will be there all their natural lives.Half of the country works at minimum wage? No. The correct figure is 2%, and most people START and minimum wage and then work their way up to a better position. No one is "stuck" anywhere. The woods are full of people who started small and yet ended up in a good situation. My parents were two of them. My brother in law is another, but all of them were not afraid of work.

Almost all our states have some sort of consumption tax (https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/taxes/states-without-sales-tax-14724964) and an income tax already, (https://www.sapling.com/6116873/states-dont-income-sales-tax) Clete, and the ones that don't have their own taxing system that amounts to the same thing. One of the problems with the our tax system and monetary system, are the ways that anybody can get around them and escape through all sorts of loopholes to not just have some money exempted, but half a fortune goes untaxed, and the more you have the more you hide. Mostly in other countries. That doesn't help our economy, and with the landmark decision (https://www.sapling.com/6116873/states-dont-income-sales-tax) by SCOTUS that corporations are people too, there is virtually no limits to corporations and their uber rich overseers, to fund candidates that are making laws and policy friendly to maximize their bottom lines. Under such conditions it's very easy to see not just where the real untaxed money is, how it's used, and why half the country is under employed and stuck in a minimum wage that has not changed in decades, and the people stuck at that end of the economy will be there all their natural lives.

Yes used to be a problem here so what we have is a uniform taxation system, it is the same all over the country, no states rights to get in the way, they just argue about the distribution of the revenue. You let SCOTUS screw up your system, making quasi laws

The decision on corporations was a correct one.

Paraclete: In the U.S., SCOTUS makes no LAWS....SCOTUS interprets Constitution and laws.

That is true in theory, but the Roe Wade decision, for example, was not based on existing law.

http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/12/Sowell-6.jpeg?resize=580%2C406&fbclid=IwAR1_3s8GMAys1G4g5gaGRoDMw77u_SXKX20H5u7FJ h_3_TQaoUBhX90lDDg

Wow! Powerful statement from Thomas Sowell!

No poor person has ever built a factory here, employed many people, paid 85% of the income taxes, contributed heavily to charitable organizations, started universities, funded scholarships for needy students, paid large amounts of property taxes that funded the paving of roads and building of schools, made large purchases of consumer goods that help others have jobs, or funded the building of hospitals and clinics for the sick.


Half of the country works at minimum wage? No. The correct figure is 2%, and most people START and minimum wage and then work their way up to a better position. No one is "stuck" anywhere. The woods are full of people who started small and yet ended up in a good situation. My parents were two of them. My brother in law is another, but all of them were not afraid of work.

You are be correct, but minimum wages at $7.25 don't tell the story of those making a buck or two more (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minimum-wage-2019-almost-half-of-all-americans-work-in-low-wage-jobs/) and trying to manage a family ballooning that 2% by a lot, so lets not be selective specific as it's no wonder that states raised their own minimums as referendums during the last election in effort to raise people from poverty. Yes people do move up the ladder, and even the working poor work hard to be poor, but if almost half the country work low paying jobs paying $18,000 a year, even a two job family is still POOR. Got little or nothing to do with work ethics, but of the value of ones efforts which are set by others for a profit. I often use and still do the Walmart business model of workers low wages subsidized by local government, where two people still can't afford a decent rent nor child care nor shelter, while the corporations using cheap overseas labor for products they sell Americans.

Sure they raised wages and gave bonuses because states wrote a freaking law forcing them too, but that's after making huge profits for decades for the family. That's but ONE example of profits over people and the ones stuck in it. I feel insulted too, in that you list all the good works of corporations and degrade the poor people who CANNOT contribute to those good things, and fail to reveal the tax benefits to rich "philanthropist". Maybe you don't know but I've talked about it enough and the facts are out there, yet you still shill for the uber rich, and berate the poor as you always do.

I just wish you would think for a minute your "they pay 85% of taxes" rant is hiding the fact that's a small part of their wealth being taxed in the first place. Those good deeds you so give them credit for are very profitable for them, or else they wouldn't do it, and don't for those that WORK for them to have that profit.

I ask you to do the math yourself, you balked instead, returning to the same old rag on the poor and glory to the rich guy benefactors and the virtue of hard work and ignoring the ceilings they impose on people. I suppose though you can keep deluding yourself into believing your work ethic got you to a BETTER circumstance than just being poor, and entitles you to denigrate the ones that you left behind. More disgusting is how proud of yourself to do so, and so clueless as to not want to hear truth, and rock your fantasy world about how hard YOU work, and others do not!

I suspect you NEED an excuse to be better than somebody else, and forget that could be you still stuck at the bottom of the pile. Naw you work way too hard to even consider where you came from. Indeed I think while you revel in your own righteousness you fail to see that any and all efforts to help the least is a good thing, and I say that about the rich too even if it gains them profits.



Wow! Powerful statement from Thomas Sowell!

A very achieved conservative libertarian supply sider. No surprise he would tug at your conservative hearts.

almost half the country work low paying jobs paying $18,000 a year, Documentation?


I just wish you would think for a minute your "they pay 85% of taxes" rant is hiding the fact that's a small part of their wealth being taxed in the first place. Documentation?

Wealth is not taxed by the feds. Income is taxed. They are not the same thing.


Those good deeds you so give them credit for are very profitable for them, or else they wouldn't do it, and don't for those that WORK for them to have that profit.Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. Giving away millions of dollars of income to build a new building at a college is a sure way to make profit. Do you ever really think about what you say?


I ask you to do the math yourself,Why don't you just get over yourself. That old fake news is getting tiresome. There was nothing to do math on, and even at that it's not my job to document your wild statements like the one about half the country making minimum wage when, in fact, it is more like 2%.

I thought we don't have to document our statements even though I did, but of course you ignored or dismissed it, so as usual missing the point yet again, on purpose it seems to engage in your usual nonsense BS excuses. Even after I acknowledge you were right about 2% being paid the minimum, you failed to acknowledge the ones who make a dollar above that not being much better.

You flunked math right? You had to because you darn sure can't do it.

I thought we don't have to document our statements even though I did, The ole comprehension monster has reared its head again. You are supposed to document your own statements. There is no documentation above, so I'll just feel free to dismiss it.

Flunked math? Can't do it? Aren't you the guy who magically transformed 2% of the country making minimum wage in "half of the country"? I mean two percent become 25 times greater in your system of math, but then you want to question someone else's math? Really? See why I don't trust your statements and ask for documentation?

Of course the ones making a buck above minimum wage aren't much better off. That's kind of blindingly obvious and has not been a matter of disagreement at any time.

The ole comprehension monster has reared its head again. You are supposed to document your own statements. There is no documentation above, so I'll just feel free to dismiss it.

Flunked math? Can't do it? Aren't you the guy who magically transformed 2% of the country making minimum wage in "half of the country"? I mean two percent become 25 times greater in your system of math, but then you want to question someone else's math? Really? See why I don't trust your statements and ask for documentation?

Of course the ones making a buck above minimum wage aren't much better off. That's kind of blindingly obvious and has not been a matter of disagreement at any time.

You have proven to be the greatest ducker of truth I've ever met, so I can only conclude you have had an awful lot of practice, as well as BS word salad responses. LMAO, as I feel free to dismiss you as ridicules. Please forgive me for bullying you!

You have proven to be the greatest ducker of truth I've ever met, so I can only conclude you have had an awful lot of practice, as well as BS word salad responses. LMAO, as I feel free to dismiss you as ridicules. Please forgive me for bullying you!I can always tell when you're cornered. You come out swinging with the usual load of nonsense. I'll say it again. You find some data that I've presented which is wrong and we can talk about it. You fussed about the media income data but, as it turned out, it was completely accurate and you didn't understand what a "median" was and so endlessly paraded around the supposed error that (gasp!!) half the country was making below the median. Or in another case, if I have tried to say that half the country is making min wage when it's really only two percent, then we can discuss it, though to your credit you have acknowledged your mistake. Otherwise, your protests are just so much hot air.

Cornered? Naw, consider it ignoring and dismissing your position as disengenuous and irrelevant, and useful for only the entertainment value of practicing my rock throwing. Excuse me as I gather more rocks.

Like I said. I can always tell you're cornered when you can come up with nothing specific and end up having to refer to being disingenuous, irrelevant, and throwing rocks. Many words but no content.

Like I said. I can always tell you're cornered when you can come up with nothing specific and end up having to refer to being disingenuous, irrelevant, and throwing rocks. Many words but no content.


Then take it for what it is, as a personal rebuke in which it was intended. Makes me no difference whatsoever how you take it or whatever game you think you're playing.

And again, nothing specific, but just these vague generalities about a "personal rebuke", playing games, and so forth. There is nothing specific because, as we both know, you don't have anything. If you did, you would bring it up, so I have no concern about your phony rebuke. I assure you that I am absolutely not playing games. I am dead serious and that's why I come across sometimes as abrasive. It's because these issues are important to me.

jlisenbe: You said that WEALTH isn't taxed, income is, and that they aren't the same....but wealth is taxed in terms of "property", right? So the Wealthy do pay quite a bit more from both ends.

Vac, I said wealth is not taxed by the feds, which is basically true unless you want to get into the death tax. The feds basically work off of income tax. But you are certainly correct that the wealthy get hit hard on prop taxes.

jlisenbe: Got you! Thanks!

Dudes you cannot have wealth without INCOME (Inheritance doesn't count), and our tax code is but a structure as the real control of who has income and how much, in the first place are rich guys that assign their value to you. The tax code GIVES them that power over everybody, and that's been my point. Just examine the FACTS as how come teachers and first responders are not worth more than a slick day trader? How come the conversation is cutting taxes on those people who hide half their wealth and INCOME, and think that's even fair while we have half the country below the median national income, and we are FORCED (JL's word not mine) to have OUR money given to them?

Fact is the fat cat incomes have risen over the last decade much faster than the median income and that just ain't fair, and it doesn't matter how much taxes they pay! Only a fool makes the case that the poor pays no taxes at all, WELL DUH, he ain't got enough income to pay nuthin' let alone taxes. Even the working poor pay taxes before they get that check no matter how many checks he has to get to survive and waits a year for a refund, not his idea, and he can't stop them either from doing it. That's tax policy! Who makes the tax policy, government, who elects the government? The people. Who tells the government what to do? RICH GUYS!

You think rich guys who pay the big chunk JL touts to the treasury and doesn't get something for it? Do I have to call dirty names to get people to wake the freak up who runs this place? Absurd to think it's fair. Not even close.

Dudes you cannot have wealth without INCOME (Inheritance doesn't count), and our tax code is but a structure as the real control of who has income and how much, in the first place are rich guys that assign their value to you. The tax code GIVES them that power over everybody, and that's been my point. Just examine the FACTS as how come teachers and first responders are not worth more than a slick day trader? How come the conversation is cutting taxes on those people who hide half their wealth and INCOME, and think that's even fair while we have half the country below the median national income, and we are FORCED (JL's word not mine) to have OUR money given to them?

1. I'm glad you've finally seen the light on median income stats.
2. I don't think you can make much of an argument about rich people making the tax code advantageous to them when rich people are paying 85% of the income taxes and pay a much higher average percentage of their income into taxes.
3. Anyone who wants to make the money that a day trader makes should become a day trader. That's the glory of living in a free country. I was a teacher/principal most of my adult life and have no complaints about what I made.
4. You can have wealth without income. That is the case with some people who inherit wealth and then basically manage that wealth and live off the interest income. But I'll grant you that that is not normally the case.

As to the rest of your comments, rich guys get one vote apiece just like the rest of us. This illusion you have of them wielding great power is a false narrative. Your comments are so typical of the liberal mindset. It's always about someone else doing something wrong and never about what the individual can do differently to make his/her life better. I will tell anyone that if you're jealous of the money that CEO's make, then become one, but be prepared to work your arse off and be willing to take the enormous pressure that comes from being in that position. But then it's a lot easier just to sit back and whine about it.

Naw, I would rather speak out against unfairness and those that approve of that unfairness, in an effort to make things more fair. My idea of making this country great again is to make things fair for everybody, so am not sure where your position comes from either ignorance of reality (BS), or just something mentally health related (Or just BLINDNESS?), but given that all the corporations send thousands of lobbyist to your elected officials to write favorable legislation to feed their bottom line I would say my position and cause has more merit backed by actual facts than your does.

Speaking up against unfairness and inequality is whining? You prove me correct that you don't have a clue with every post. I don't know why you express feelings that go against the FACTS and evidence.

EDITED for civility.

Naw, I would rather speak out against unfairness and those that approve of that unfairness, in an effort to make things more fair.What we have is the result of that misguided effort. You would be better served to tell young people the three keys to staying out of poverty, but that would require discipline and common sense, two qualities currently in short supply.


but given that all the corporations send thousands of lobbyist to your elected officials to write favorable legislation to feed their bottom line I would say my position and cause has more merit backed by actual facts than your does.I do agree that the business of lobbying in not a good thing.


Only a zip darn fool takes speaking up against unfairness and inequality as whining in my book bud! You prove me correct with every post.So says "Mr. Non-Judgemental". It's OK to point out LEGITIMATE areas of unfairness and inequality, but your stunning silence on areas of individual responsibility is regrettable.

Talaniman: I have to agree with you about the rate of climb in salaries of high end earners Vs low end earners....my pay raises don't even keep up with Cost Of Living rises and while I am not on the low end by any means, I certainly am not on the high end, either....I get that point.

But, I don't wage control is a good idea and too steep of a slope on a sliding scale makes those innovative, job creating upper end people lose interest in being overly eager to stay innovative...its a motivation kill!

I believe the ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (RCA, remember those damn things when something screwed up in the plant, Talaniman?) for this whole controversy is this:

1) Who set up the TAX LAWS the way they are set up?
2) Why did they set up the TAX LAWS the way they are set up?
3) When did these changes in TAX LAWS occur?
4) Who was IN CHARGE when the TAX LAWS were changed to benefit the wealthy, as you claim Talaniman?
5) Why is there any catalyst, whatsoever, for those writing the TAX LAWS to write them so that they preferentially benefit the wealth?

Once you answer Question #5 you will have revealed the root of the problem: If the wealthy UNDULY INFLUENCE LAWMAKERS, THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM! THE TAX LAW ITSELF IS NOT THE PROBLEM, IT IS A FRUIT OF THE REAL PROBLEM! It all gets down to HOW can we remove BIG $$$s from overly/disproportionally influencing THE PEOPLE WE HIRE (LAWMAKERS)from making decisions that favor the wealthy. DID I OVERSIMPLY THE PROBLEM? I don't think I did.

5) Why is there any catalyst, whatsoever, for those writing the TAX LAWS to write them so that they preferentially benefit the wealth?Vac, I'll ask you the same answer I've asked Tal. How can you say that the tax laws have been written to benefit the wealthy when the wealthy pay more than 85% of the income taxes and pay a higher percentage of their income into taxes? In what way does that "preferentially benefit the wealthy?"

What we have is the result of that misguided effort. You would be better served to tell young people the three keys to staying out of poverty, but that would require discipline and common sense, two qualities currently in short supply.

Anyone can have things happen beyond their control and fall to poverty, for short or long term, and for whatever reason be lacking discipline, or common sense sufficient to deal with their own circumstance, and baffled how to get the right help.


I do agree that the business of lobbying in not a good thing.

Ya THINK! That my friend is as grand an understatement that has ever been uttered and is further EVIDENCE you don't have a clue what your talking about.


So says "Mr. Non-Judgemental". It's OK to point out LEGITIMATE areas of unfairness and inequality, but your stunning silence on areas of individual responsibility is regrettable.

I edited my post, but the subject is about monetary policy and not individual responsibility. Start a thread, I'm sure to respond on that too. No excuse though for your own intransigence's on the current topic or any other you post. I'm not judging you my friend, but make no mistake I will oppose those views I just don't agree with, it's not just you either.

Talaniman: I have to agree with you about the rate of climb in salaries of high end earners Vs low end earners....my pay raises don't even keep up with Cost Of Living rises and while I am not on the low end by any means, I certainly am not on the high end, either....I get that point.

But, I don't wage control is a good idea and too steep of a slope on a sliding scale makes those innovative, job creating upper end people lose interest in being overly eager to stay innovative...its a motivation kill!

I believe the ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (RCA, remember those damn things when something screwed up in the plant, Talaniman?) for this whole controversy is this:

1) Who set up the TAX LAWS the way they are set up?
2) Why did they set up the TAX LAWS the way they are set up?
3) When did these changes in TAX LAWS occur?
4) Who was IN CHARGE when the TAX LAWS were changed to benefit the wealthy, as you claim Talaniman?
5) Why is there any catalyst, whatsoever, for those writing the TAX LAWS to write them so that they preferentially benefit the wealth?

Once you answer Question #5 you will have revealed the root of the problem: If the wealthy UNDULY INFLUENCE LAWMAKERS, THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM! THE TAX LAW ITSELF IS NOT THE PROBLEM, IT IS A FRUIT OF THE REAL PROBLEM! It all gets down to HOW can we remove BIG $$$s from overly/disproportionally influencing THE PEOPLE WE HIRE (LAWMAKERS)from making decisions that favor the wealthy. DID I OVERSIMPLY THE PROBLEM? I don't think I did.

You laid that out so well nothing to add except maybe you can explain that to your southern brother in a way he can understand. I fail miserably.

Vac, I'll ask you the same answer I've asked Tal. How can you say that the tax laws have been written to benefit the wealthy when the wealthy pay more than 85% of the income taxes and pay a higher percentage of their income into taxes? In what way does that "preferentially benefit the wealthy?"

I guess that 85% of the tax contribution is not a true representation of the total income or wealth. Just a fraction of it. The real question should be why you think that paying taxes on half you income AFTER HUGE deductions is fair. Yeah it's a lot of money still but a drop in the bucket that good old common sense tells you it benefits them to pay because guys like you come along and says wow, look at all the money they pay that the rest of us don't or can't.

Sure they pay more, but they also keep more. A lot more legally, because that is the way they wrote the code. FACTOID; Amazon has 100 lobbyists in Washington alone (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-21/amazon-hires-army-lobbyists-political-spending-outpaces-walmart-exxonmobil). They paid NO TAXES until this year (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/amazon-had-to-pay-federal-income-taxes-for-the-first-time-since-2016.html) going back a few years!

I guess that 85% of the tax contribution is not a true representation of the total income or wealth. Just a fraction of it. The real question should be why you think that paying taxes on half you income AFTER HUGE deductions is fair. The key phrase there is "I guess". As to your "half you income" assertion, I'd like to see documentation on that. I don't think it is even close to being accurate. Your guesswork is not compelling,


Sure they pay more, but they also keep more. A lot more legally, because that is the way they wrote the code. FACTOID; Amazon has 100 lobbyists in Washington alone (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-21/amazon-hires-army-lobbyists-political-spending-outpaces-walmart-exxonmobil). They paid NO TAXES until this year (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/amazon-had-to-pay-federal-income-taxes-for-the-first-time-since-2016.html) going back a few years!Again, you are guessing about how much they keep, the tax code, and so forth, but if Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos (who is a democrat and a major one) is not paying taxes, then I would agree with you that it's an outrage. I'd love to see the explanation for that.

I obviously know things you don't, but I much rather you find that easily and readily available data for yourself without any influence, or undue guidance from me. There is just so much stuff on this subject it will boggle your mind.

How the rich hide there money. A very simple exercise in copy/paste/Google, or whatever search engine you use! I sincerely want to know what you think.

Not about party at all.

I obviously know things you don't, but I much rather you find that easily and readily available data for yourself without any influence, or undue guidance from me. There is just so much stuff on this subject it will boggle your mind.

How the rich hide there money. A very simple exercise in copy/paste/Google, or whatever search engine you use! I sincerely want to know what you think.It's like I've told you before, I'll document my statements, but I've followed too many of your "links to nowhere" to spend time with yours. That's your job. You say it, then you doc it. Even you said it yourself. "I'm guessing."

Bear in mind that the point of disagreement is your statement that they only pay taxes on half of their income. Everyone takes tax deductions. That's old news, but they only pay taxes on half of what they make? That's what I'm questioning.

Such an arrogant word salad as an excuse not to give YOUR opinion on what the FACTS are of your own findings? The very reason I didn't provide my links. Now that's just plain LAZY!

Ain't no in other words involved except the ones you make up! I have done the research and the math, stated FACT, but you must have missed it, ignored it, or too ashamed to acknowledge and dicuss it! If you rather just keep throwing rocks and baseless aspersions that's fine with me.

Such an arrogant word salad as an excuse not to give YOUR opinion on what the FACTS are of your own findings?

You didn't ask for my opinion and you know it. What's wrong with you today? I asked for documentation for your wild allegation and you suggested I look it up. That's becoming a habit with you.

Ain't no in other words involved except the ones you make up! I have done the research and the math, stated FACT, but you must have missed it, ignored it, or too ashamed to acknowledge and dicuss it!That's a flat out lie. You haven't posted jack squat to document your contention that the wealthy only pay taxes on half of their income. If you have, then it should be easy enough to quote here, shouldn't it???

How can you say that the tax laws have been written to benefit the wealthy when the wealthy pay more than 85% of the income taxes and pay a higher percentage of their income into taxes?

You have conveniently omitted the factor that makes all the difference - the dollars involved.

The wealthy who pay 85% of income tax revenue and a higher percentage of their income are left with enormous sums of money relative to any typical non-wealthy citizen. 50 million dollars of after tax income is light years more than the typical earner is left with after taxes. So is $5 million or $500,000.

To complain about the rich paying a higher percentage is nonsense. As is the 85%. In addition to whatever talent they may have (excluding those who inherit, of course), the wider society is the source of their wealth. Jeff Bezos doesn't get a nickel until somebody buys his product. Trust me, the rich are rarely concerned about their tax burden, they know they have far more than enough. Buffett is a great example - "I pay a lower tax rate than my secretary".

Studies of tax payers - rich and poor - commonly conclude that tax payers are primarily concerned that taxes are used effectively. Even in super-high taxation in Scandanavia, the consensus is about effectiveness, not rates.

To complain about the rich paying a higher percentage is nonsense. As I have told you before, I am complaining about nothing. That stat is my reply to anyone who makes the ludicrous claim that the wealthy have formulated a tax policy that favors them. If they are paying 85% of the income tax receipts, then that doesn't sound like an idea they came up with.


Jeff Bezos doesn't get a nickel until somebody buys his product. Trust me, the rich are rarely concerned about their tax burden,What possible reason would there be to trust you? I certainly have no confidence that you know what the wealthy as a large group think.

That stat is my reply to anyone who makes the ludicrous claim that the wealthy have formulated a tax policy that favors them. If they are paying 85% of the income tax receipts, then that doesn't sound like an idea they came up with.

The wealthy have not "formulated" tax policy, but they certainly influence tax policy makers. Their 85% contribution is a drop in the bucket for them.

Their 85% contribution is a drop in the bucket for them.I haven't looked it up recently, but the wealthy pay something like 25% of their income into income tax. That naturally does not include prop taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and so forth. That does not seem to me to be "a drop in the bucket". Still, I have found that most people, especially liberals, seem to think rather casually of the taxes that others pay.

I haven't looked it up recently, but the wealthy pay something like 25% of their income into income tax. That naturally does not include prop taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, and so forth. That does not seem to me to be "a drop in the bucket".

When you're left with $50 million, or $5 million, or $500,000, that's a drop in the bucket.

Like I said, it's always easiest to justify the taking of someone else's money. It's always easy to suggest it does them no harm.

Like I said, it's always easiest to justify the taking of someone else's money. It's always easy to suggest it does them no harm.

Taxation is theft, so the elections are to decide who are the greatest theives

Like I said, it's always easiest to justify the taking of someone else's money. It's always easy to suggest it does them no harm.


or if you are nanny Bloomy you say you are taxing the poor for their own good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqyEzuABWXg

Like I said, it's always easiest to justify the taking of someone else's money. It's always easy to suggest it does them no harm.

Not a suggestion at all - it IS a drop in the bucket.

Not a suggestion at all - it IS a drop in the bucket.


I think the argument here is who's bucket? obviously one with many holes in it

Like I said, it's always easiest to justify the taking of someone else's money. It's always easy to suggest it does them no harm.

Let me guess you got out voted on the federal/state/and local level about taking your money. I guess the dufus didn't give you enough of it back to make you happy.



Taxation is theft, so the elections are to decide who are the greatest theives

That's a false premise to describe a lawful process to raise money to handle a countries business. Now if you had said thieves are populating the taxation process we would be on the same page. Is taxation a theft in Aussieland?


I think the argument here is who's bucket? obviously one with many holes in it

I got no bucket just a water bottle and coffee cup! Where can I get a bucket of anything besides crap?

Let me guess you got out voted on the federal/state/and local level about taking your money. I guess the dufus didn't give you enough of it back to make you happy.Aren't you the same guy who almost fell over in a dead faint when I suggested we raise your taxes???


I got no bucket just a water bottle and coffee cup! Where can I get a bucket of anything besides crap?You might as well forget that. No one here believes you.

Is taxation a theft in Aussieland?


It is theft no matter where it occurs, successive conservative governments have reduced the burden of taxation and gone after the thieves in corporateland

Much worse than taxation, which is necessary on some level, is the use of borrowed money. It is theft from future generations, and it is a clear symbol, both here, in Aussie land, and wherever it occurs, of a shameful, cowardly, foolish population, more intent on the accumulation of things than in protecting the futures of children and grandchildren.

great rhetoric also B/S. Everything has been turned on its ear. once governments were financed by tariffs but that became unpopular as rich nations objected to their wares being taxed, and the fallacy of a level playing field became popular, so various other forms were devised. Even a modest tax started a revolution. Taxation led reform, but taxation is at the heart of discontent

Even a modest tax started a revolution. BAM AND RIGHT ON !!!!!! Now we have every candidate of a party arguing not whether people should get taxed but how much of their wealth can they seize .

great rhetoric also B/S. Everything has been turned on its ear. once governments were financed by tariffs but that became unpopular as rich nations objected to their wares being taxed, and the fallacy of a level playing field became popular, so various other forms were devised. Even a modest tax started a revolution. Taxation led reform, but taxation is at the heart of discontentWhat does any of this have to do with budget deficits? They are MUCH WORSE than taxes. We are spending our taxes, and we are spending the future income of our children and grandchildren. What cowards we are to allow that to continue. Rhetoric? Only in another universe.

What does any of this have to do with budget deficits? They are MUCH WORSE than taxes. We are spending our taxes, and we are spending the future income of our children and grandchildren. What cowards we are to allow that to continue. Rhetoric? Only in another universe.

Yes you are right but who is going to build that bridge or that highway, fund that school or hospital, buy that aircraft carrier. The universe of the agrarian society has gone but the ideas and laws remain. The maw always asks for more, it never asks who pays and what can I contribute, no this is the give me more society with a complaint on every street corner

The mawWho??

America keeps electing the leaders who cater to the gimme crowd. We can rail against them ;but we elect them .when was the last time a representative except Rand Paul made debt reduction an issue ?

Very true, Tom. It will mean cutting out some goodies or raising taxes or both. An immature people don't like hearing such things.

.when was the last time a representative except Rand Paul made debt reduction an issue ?


Your Donald Trump made that very promise. He has failed miserably and accomplished the opposite.

I'm afraid you are entirely correct about that. Of all the things from the Obama era to copy, why did he have to pick that one???

not my Trump I identified him early as a big government liberal .I did not vote for him in 2016 I wrote in Cruz. However he has been a better President than I expected But I have no illusions that he will do anything regarding debt reduction .

At some point, the U.S. may opt to default on their loans.....This sounds like a horrible idea but the U.S. can become self-sufficient in every meaningful way. The move will smash the Chinese economy and they would reciprocate by seizing U.S. manufacturing plants in China. Our Military strength would guarantee no reprisals from anyone in terms of debt collection......It is just a thought but we have to begin to think out of the box a little bit if we are to get out from under this mess...especially since we seem unable and unwilling to do what is right and stop spending money we don't have at our disposal.

Vac, you might want to read this first. Most of the debt is owed to US. Everything from the so-called Social Security Trust Fund to pension funds to Treasury Bonds. So if we default, it's going to devastate our own country.

https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124

Bottom line. There's no free lunch.

jlisenbe: Then we need to begin borrowing like a mad man right now, especially from foreign banks and especially China, to pay down SS, pensions, and Treasury Bond....then, once those debts are paid off, default on the foreign bank loans, wreck the ChiComs economy and pass amendments that REQUIRE Federal Governments to balance the budget henceforth.

Yes. I'm sure they will all stand there and watch while we do this.

Why wouldn't we just pass the amendments now?

Repubs ain't got the heart or expertise to govern effectively having spent a decade building power with sycophants and butt kissers for a dufus who thinks he is a king! Go ahead use your power to keep building up the military budgets, but stop hollering about a balanced budget, and cutting stuff that benefits people.

You painted yourself in a stupid corner and want everybody else to help you out! Silly conservatives. You never learn, but you will get screwed like the rest of us when the dufus gets re elected.

Repubs ain't got the heart or expertise to govern effectively having spent a decade building power with sycophants and butt kissers for a dufus who thinks he is a king! Go ahead use your power to keep building up the military budgets, but stop hollering about a balanced budget, and cutting stuff that benefits people.

You painted yourself in a stupid corner and want everybody else to help you out! Silly conservatives. You never learn, but you will get screwed like the rest of us when the dufus gets re elected.Yeah. It's all the repubs fault. Sure would be nice if we could go back to the days of good ole "Balanced Budget Obama" again. What a wonderful role model he was. And that's not to mention, of course, the balanced budgets being put forward by this dem House.

Says the guy who refuses to acknowledge the very real GFC, won't cut the military, LOVES his deficit funded rich guy tax cut while hollering about all the money that gets stolen from him and given to the underserving charity cases he hates, and blames liberals for what conservatives do. You just keep holding your nose and keep your head shoulder deep up dufus a$$!

For FACT it is repub fault!

Wow. Thank goodness you've given up being judgmental! Of course it's all the repub's fault. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with Obama doubling the national debt in only eight years, or in this dem House, where all spending must originate by law. Yes. It's bound to be Trump's fault. After all, you hate him so much, it just has to all be his fault.

Why is a simple statement of fact being judgemental? You scream the debt and deny the reason for it, and I'm judgmental? Blasting Obama for his debt he used to save the world is the lie you keep telling yourself to put down liberal accomplishments. and cover your own stupidity about the dufus. Dude you have a perfect right to exercise your prerogative to stick your head shoulder deep up the dufus arse, but don't lie and tell me I should do it too!

That's pretty idiotic but par for the course for ultra right wing conservatives. Eat your own dog food and stop blaming libs for your bad breath! You must think I'm as dumb as you blaming a dem house for anything after only a year on the job and repubs have had government lock stock and barrel for 6 years under Obama, and 2 under the dufus. Do they math and deal with reality that it is your fault and stop the bald face LIE it's somebody else fault.

You broke it you own it so pay up!

Yeah. How could anyone think a balanced, well-reasoned statement like this was judgmental? "You just keep holding your nose and keep your head shoulder deep up dufus a$$!" Or this one, "Dude you have a perfect right to exercise your prerogative to stick your head shoulder deep up the dufus arse, but don't lie and tell me I should do it too!" I'm sure you did a lot of research on those two. Does it have all the elements a person would expect coming from many hours of sound thinking, or does it just sound like the rantings of a judgmental, bitter, mean-spirited person? I vote for the second one. I'll bet the second one would win in a landslide. If you want to say you are non-judgmental, then at some point you actually have to BECOME non-judgmental. I don't really care what you say, but it would be nice to see a little honesty.

Blaming the House?? Have they proposed a balanced budget, or do they even talk about balancing a budget? And isn't it funny how, when the repubs had the House, they had the government "lock, stock, and barrel", but when the dems have the House, then it's more like they've only been on the job a year.

TDS. Pure and simple. Obama was wonderful and he couldn't possibly have been responsible for anything bad in your view. If a dem comes by your house and takes everything you own, then you would find a way to blame Trump for it. It's TDS and a severe case of it at that.

Yeah. How could anyone think a balanced, well-reasoned statement like this was judgmental? "You just keep holding your nose and keep your head shoulder deep up dufus a$$!" Or this one, "Dude you have a perfect right to exercise your prerogative to stick your head shoulder deep up the dufus arse, but don't lie and tell me I should do it too!" I'm sure you did a lot of research on those two. Does it have all the elements a person would expect coming from many hours of sound thinking, or does it just sound like the rantings of a judgmental, bitter, mean-spirited person? I vote for the second one. I'll bet the second one would win in a landslide. If you want to say you are non-judgmental, then at some point you actually have to BECOME non-judgmental. I don't really care what you say, but it would be nice to see a little honesty.

Don't like it when someone aggressively challenges your ideology do you? Too bad, your fault for not being an honest yourself! The dufus is peeing on Americas head and you love it and I don't. Now that's honest and no deep thought necessary. Add the inability to accept EVIDENCE and FACTS, is as dishonest as it gets for the guy wanting honesty. Just another thing you are incapable of processing.



Blaming the House?? Have they proposed a balanced budget, or do they even talk about balancing a budget? And isn't it funny how, when the repubs had the House, they had the government "lock, stock, and barrel", but when the dems have the House, then it's more like they've only been on the job a year.


How ridicules can you get? NO shame at not doing your own math bud! I mean how many balanced budgets has the repubs proposed when they had the house? You blame dems for that? What a maroon!



TDS. Pure and simple. Obama was wonderful and he couldn't possibly have been responsible for anything bad in your view. If a dem comes by your house and takes everything you own, then you would find a way to blame Trump for it. It's TDS and a severe case of it at that.

I see you don't mind adding dumb and deluded to ridicules in regard to your smatterings. I at least only blame repubs and the dufus for stuff he actually does. You can forget your pipe dream of helping you blast Obama. Do it by yourself and we will see what history says about them both.

Don't like it when someone aggressively challenges your ideology do you?
That's what you call it? Oh. I thought you were just being intentionally insulting since you couldn't think of anything thoughtful to say.


Now that's honest and no deep thought necessaryObviously.



How ridicules can you get? NO shame at not doing your own math bud! I mean how many balanced budgets has the repubs proposed when they had the house? You blame dems for that? What a maroon!Yet more evidence of deep thought. I have said all along that BOTH parties are guilty. You are the only one living in your fantasy world.

I will admit when someone makes sly insults instead of cogient statements I do tend to get aggressive. I'm not easily dismissed either, when my questions get ducked. You can expect to be pressed as I have asked for your math concerning the widening of income inequality. Not use to people running like scalded dogs from simple questions and that tends to raise my suspicions.

You can expect to be pressed as I have asked for your math concerning the widening of income inequality.No you haven't. I never raised the issue. My point was the median income showing that the country is better off than 30 years ago. That is unquestionably true. If you want to make a point about income inequality, then go for it, but don't expect me to do your math or research for you.
Not use to people running like scalded dogs from simple questions and that tends to raise my suspicions.I have not run from your questions.


I will admit when someone makes sly insults instead of cogient statementsYou mean like you've been doing? Like that?

You have probably already done the simple math and don't have the guts to admit it because you finally realize I am right and you feel stupid with those nonsense arguments you have been making, so there would be no need for me to humiliate you further as that would bring me no satisfaction whatsoever. So we can drop this conversation and move beyond it.

As to the dufus budget, its dead on arrival as even repubs would pay a heavy price among their own base voters if they managed to pass any of his cuts, so it seems my friend you will just be forced to have your money taken and given to some needy person in your state.

Sorry.

You have probably already done the simple math and don't have the guts to admit it because you finally realize I am right and you feel stupid with those nonsense arguments you have been making, so there would be no need for me to humiliate you further as that would bring me no satisfaction whatsoever. So we can drop this conversation and move beyond it.I guess we should since neither I nor anyone else, and probably not even you, has the slightest idea of whatever loony tune idea you're talking about. I worry about you sometimes.

Worry about yourself my friend, the rest of us have a good grasp on income inequality.

Yeah. It's the current state of reality that you are struggling with. Things like what's been said and not said.

Don't blame your failings on me. The things you cannot grasp are your responsibility to correct. Plus I have my own issues to deal with.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB105qJ6.img?h=416&w=624&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

Talaniman: Its different, isn't it, when its yours: They both can be bastards but its O.K. when its your BILLIONAIRE BASTARD?

The things you cannot grasp are your responsibility to correct. Kind of hard to grasp that which is never said.


Plus I have my own issues to deal with.We have a winner!

Kind of hard to grasp that which is never said.

We have a winner!

You probably missed it or didn't recognize it. You are getting on in age.


Talaniman: Its different, isn't it, when its yours: They both can be bastards but its O.K. when its your BILLIONAIRE BASTARD?

No difference, but to beat a BB, you might need another BB.

You probably missed it or didn't recognize it. You are getting on in age.Nah. Never said. You're living in your fantasy world again.

Others responded so maybe you missed that too!

Actually, that didn't happen either. Our discussion centered around median income. Sorry.

Amazing how you think your narrow definition excludes all the factors of a conversation. No wonder you missed it.

Says the man who cannot come up with even a whisper of a quote to prove his point. We were discussing median income. There was no math to do. I have no idea what you are talking about and I don't think you do either.

You can only discuss an isolated statistic for so long, in this case it proves nothing because of massive population growth

, in this case it proves nothing because of massive population growthMassive pop growth in the U.S. in the past twenty years? An addition of forty million does not amount to some sort of massive pop growth for a country of 330 million. If it did anything, it would drive wages down and lower the median.

Why are you guys so resistant to the simple truth that our economy is doing very well? Unemployment figures and median income figures both tell the same story. I think Tal doesn't like it because he doesn't like Trump, and Clete doesn't like it because it might reflect well on the United States and he seems to resent that.

What is the debate here ? There is no question the economy is better now . How do I know ? Because the emperor tried to take credit for it .

What is the debate here ? I am wondering the same thing. I have no idea. I guess we could throw GDP growth in there as well as it's been above 2% in 11 of the past 12 quarters.

My economy has been going very well since 2002. Challenges and glitchs, nothing big. Not everyone everywhere has been as fortunate as I have.

My economy has been going very well since 2002. Challenges and glitchs, nothing bigOf course I'm glad you're doing well, but you do realize we are not just talking about your well being? We're talking about how the country is doing.

I think, by and large, albeit not in every single case, that the left in general has a difficult time giving accolades to Trump because he is a Republican AND he, by comparison to many Beltway and lawyerly political types, is not smooth, not polished, not polite, crass, and is definitely an OUTSIDER compared to other Presidents...some would say he isn't Presidential. BUT, could you imagine, ROMNEY would have been all of those things, would have had all of the "attributes" and would have been a HORRIBLE PRESIDENT!

We have to get past the things that don't matter when looking at EFFECTIVENESS in people, and that includes our elected leaders. Trump has done a great job with the economy and only bitter people cannot come to admit this truth.

Trump has done a great job with the economy and only bitter people cannot come to admit this truth.
...while leaning on Obama's being able to pull it out of the hole W put it into. And the economy is the only thing that tRump can brag about at all.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/4gkp5M_eG-_yGayvAwJGh6hNGESK2N5D9wtK9RAVR0Vwf42YMeTZLD2SRLnm Tj_an2taGYs1Cj0bJYaiF1h7Yt27TMVRJFoMwIWmI7NaBv50gE RmtquIrcwEqvpS-2NkGQ1Cpu2m4LjVxy32nqlCC1L-Kgsb (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Freconomy.org%2Fthe-economy-its-stupid%2F&psig=AOvVaw0WpBsT32RxuC2gSPd6_LFO&ust=1582540972817000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJj4utu-5-cCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ)

Of course I'm glad you're doing well, but you do realize we are not just talking about your well being? We're talking about how the country is doing.

Very true, but many are not sharing in how well the country is doing. If they did, the country could do even better.


I think, by and large, albeit not in every single case, that the left in general has a difficult time giving accolades to Trump because he is a Republican AND he, by comparison to many Beltway and lawyerly political types, is not smooth, not polished, not polite, crass, and is definitely an OUTSIDER compared to other Presidents...some would say he isn't Presidential. BUT, could you imagine, ROMNEY would have been all of those things, would have had all of the "attributes" and would have been a HORRIBLE PRESIDENT!

We have to get past the things that don't matter when looking at EFFECTIVENESS in people, and that includes our elected leaders. Trump has done a great job with the economy and only bitter people cannot come to admit this truth.

LOL, I well remember the right wing noise machine being all over Obama for 8 years whether they were in power or not, but when they were it was 6 years of obstruction. Sure Moscow Mitch can make the point to make Obama a one term president from day one, so getting the same back is something repubs and righties should get use to.


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/4gkp5M_eG-_yGayvAwJGh6hNGESK2N5D9wtK9RAVR0Vwf42YMeTZLD2SRLnm Tj_an2taGYs1Cj0bJYaiF1h7Yt27TMVRJFoMwIWmI7NaBv50gE RmtquIrcwEqvpS-2NkGQ1Cpu2m4LjVxy32nqlCC1L-Kgsb (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Freconomy.org%2Fthe-economy-its-stupid%2F&psig=AOvVaw0WpBsT32RxuC2gSPd6_LFO&ust=1582540972817000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCJj4utu-5-cCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ)

That's what makes incumbent tough to beat. Repub economies though seem to change in that second term historically, though.

Greatest Leader of my lifetime.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8d/2f/11/8d2f1165009c4b0d94475946d1a9764d.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b7/bc/2b/b7bc2baf1f49c21eb1528b6d26b79e0a.jpg?fbclid=IwAR1l 44dcs8GMX0Yr_cT_ZuXsjMeVbcnhdUpV8tzUmByPncm94DjAg0 CuRyw

LOL, a monster has been created. The dufus is certainly riding high right now.

jlisenbe: Almost as bad as the GLOBAL WARMING arguments: Its GW if it gets to record heat and its GW if it gets to record cold! BRAIN DEAD, SUB-RATIONAL THINKERS, ONE-DIMENSIONAL THINKERS!

jlisenbe: Almost as bad as the GLOBAL WARMING arguments: Its GW if it gets to record heat and its GW if it gets to record cold! BRAIN DEAD, SUB-RATIONAL THINKERS, ONE-DIMENSIONAL THINKERS!

We have seen some extreme weather Vac, for whatever the reason.

There has always been extreme weather. There will always be extreme weather. The frequency of extreme weather is not increasing.

There has always been extreme weather. There will always be extreme weather. The frequency of extreme weather is not increasing.
Glaciers are steadily melting. Put on your hipboots!

"The melting is speeding up. Glaciers are now losing mass twice as fast as they were in the period from 1901–1950, three times as fast as in the period from 1851–1900, and four times as fast as in the period from 1800–1850, the researchers found."
https://thinkprogress.org/worlds-glaciers-melting-faster-than-ever-before-recorded-study-finds-3ee73aa09038/

Glaciers are steadily melting. Put on your hipboots!

"The melting is speeding up. Glaciers are now losing mass twice as fast as they were in the period from 1901–1950, three times as fast as in the period from 1851–1900, and four times as fast as in the period from 1800–1850, the researchers found."
https://thinkprogress.org/worlds-glaciers-melting-faster-than-ever-before-recorded-study-finds-3ee73aa09038/

I wonder are glaciers losing mass as fast as 10,000 years ago?

And does ANYONE REALLY THINK that we can change nature's own time table or its own kinetics? Aren't we being just a tad bit arrogant? Can we stop earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, droughts, or any other weather pattern. We can stop Coronavirus? Not yet, for sure. We need to get off our high horse and face facts and be HUMBLE, for once and admit what we all know and what many of us have a hard time accepting: WE AREN'T IN CHARGE OF SH&T! And guess what else? We are not here forever, we are all going to die. Change what you can and ACCEPT THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT CHANGE: This is the WISDOM OF THE WORLD. We are no different than any other living thing in nature in terms of adhering to a life cycle, accept it! Accept the Laws Of Nature and Natural Law: It makes life that much easier.

In the pursuit of the tenets of the RELIGION OF GLOBAL WARMING we have forgotten the tenets of the RELIGION OF GOD! In the name of GW, we have imposed restrictions on our industrial capacities that have costs millions of high paying jobs, imposed restrictions on our capacity to compete economically, and given incredible strength to the ChiComs, a sworn enemy of the U.S., and "other" nations: Enough is enough! We look like a bunch of dumbarses!

You had me cheering until you threw human stuff into the equation. In the name of money it's okay to foul the air, land, and air? I can't quite go along with that. That makes us look like dumba$$es as much as trying to make a buck off our "sworn" enemies. Why are they are sworn enemies is my question, and if so why is Big Biz trying to make a buck off them?

What's more farmers ain't planting be it this silly trade war or the creeks and rivers flooding, and every body is getting a viral bug. Triple whammy on us dumb humans, and that's just the bigger stuff. Lot's of other stuff we humans just aren't dealing with very well right now.

Talaniman: Its the "DEATH SPIRAL" we get into when greed takes over and we ALLOW U.S. companies to close down plants in the U.S. and shift production to Red China....the effect of this move is incredibly harmful:

1) It puts Americans out of a job
2) It puts more money into the hands of the ChiComs
3) It transfers TECHNOLOGY to the ChiComs
4) It allows American companies to ESCAPE U.S. EPA regulations by manufacturing in Red China
5) It increases the NET POLLUTION LOAD to the planet because the ChiComs pollution restrictions are not as strident as are the U.S.'s laws
6) It puts any remaining and competing U.S. manufactures at an extreme disadvantage versus the U.S.-ChiCom manufacture because the ROI can't be as great due to U.S. wages being higher and Environmental Control costs being higher

When the above SIX Effects are accounted for, the only recourse left for the U.S. is to reduce FIXED COSTS: 1) lower wages and 2) lower commitment to Environmental Control. Don't you see how this forces us into a horrible position?

Talaniman: You don't see the ChiComs as a sworn enemy? But you see THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION as a sworn enemy? How come Red China is O.K. but Russia is not O.K.? The ChiComs are a much bigger problem than is Russia. You are upset with RUSSIAN MEDDLING but you aren't upset with Red Chinese coercion of the Entertainment Industry, of Google, Of the NBA, of U.S. Manufactures, and of U.S. Politicians? ChiCom influence in the U.S. is WAY, WAY, WAY GREATER than is Russian influence on any level.

Talaniman: Its the "DEATH SPIRAL" we get into when greed takes over and we ALLOW U.S. companies to close down plants in the U.S. and shift production to Red China....the effect of this move is incredibly harmful...
Let's start with Ivanka Trump's clothing and accessories companies.

Let's start with Ivanka Trump's clothing and accessories companies.Yeah. That will certainly solve the problem.

Yeah. That will certainly solve the problem.
It's a START and will set the example! Sheesh! She's making millions, maybe even billions.

it's the american way

It's a START and will set the example!Did you ask the same of Michelle Obama?

Did you ask the same of Michelle Obama?
Yup. And everyone else who is using cheap labor in other countries to create products that are sold for high prices in the US.

Yup. And everyone else who is using cheap labor in other countries to create products that are sold for high prices in the US.Do you purchase those products, or do you purchase only those items which are made in America? If you purchase foreign goods, then aren't you contributing to the problem as well?

I'm glad to hear that you were even handed enough to be critical of MO. I've never seen you post a critical remark of the Obamas, so perhaps this is a sign of progress.

Do you purchase those products, or do you purchase only those items which are made in America? If you purchase foreign goods, then aren't you contributing to the problem as well?

I'm glad to hear that you were even handed enough to be critical of MO. I've never seen you post a critical remark of the Obamas, so perhaps this is a sign of progress.
I buy only American. And I haven't said anything about Obama except only once or twice, and never, until now, about Michelle. (Are you the AMHD perfection monitor, JL?)

I buy only American. And I haven't said anything about Obama except only once or twice, and never, until now, about Michelle. (Are you the AMHD perfection monitor, JL?)I struggle to believe that you don't buy items not made in America. Even Barbie dolls are made overseas now. The list of items no longer made here is long. But I'm still glad you're making progress on the "equal opportunity criticizer" front! It's encouraging.

I struggle to believe that you don't buy items not made in America. Even Barbie dolls are made overseas now. The list of items no longer made here is long. But I'm still glad you're making progress on the "equal opportunity criticizer" front! It's encouraging.
I rarely buy anything except food and am very careful. I no longer get out to shop, I don't have any grandchildren to spoil with foreign-made toys and clothes, and any extra money goes into my nursing-home savings fund. Sorry you have to "struggle."

P.S. I thought you were going to stop with the snarky comments, "But I'm still glad you're making progress on the 'equal opportunity criticizer' front! It's encouraging."

I rarely buy anything except food and am very careful.That would make it kind of easy.


P.S. I thought you were going to stop with the snarky comments, "But I'm still glad you're making progress on the 'equal opportunity criticizer' front! It's encouraging."it was actually intended to be humorous. Still, I don't recall taking any pledge to not be snarky. Sometimes it's called for.

Talaniman: You don't see the ChiComs as a sworn enemy? But you see THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION as a sworn enemy? How come Red China is O.K. but Russia is not O.K.? The ChiComs are a much bigger problem than is Russia. You are upset with RUSSIAN MEDDLING but you aren't upset with Red Chinese coercion of the Entertainment Industry, of Google, Of the NBA, of U.S. Manufactures, and of U.S. Politicians? ChiCom influence in the U.S. is WAY, WAY, WAY GREATER than is Russian influence on any level.

The Russians are thugs and criminals with Putin as the head surrounded by hand picked Oligarchs that pay Putin to do business in Russia. They invade other countries for profit and power, while they lie cheat and steal. Are they better than the Chinese? Maybe not, but there is a reason Big Biz goes to China and not Russia. If Big Biz was not so greedy they could cut a deal they want, or cut bait! How else do you explain the US/Chinese relationship except that Big Biz wants those paying customers more than they want a fair deal. With Russia it's people can do the stuff that makes us money and are indeed prohibited.

Now if the Chinese are better at the cyber stuff and so is Russia then that's a problem to be addressed. So why aren't we? Why isn't Big Biz? Is it there fault for exploiting our weaknesses, or our responsibility to tighten up on our back stroke and stop whining about what they are doing to us. If said entities you mention allow themselves to be played for chumps for a few bucks is that the business of government? I don't thinks so.

My point here Vac is it doesn't matter what China and Russia do! What counts is what we do. Greedy cheap bastards running big biz should handle their business better. They influence us because they can.

You brought China in from the cold, you never brought Russia in, although they are logical allies. You still trade with China though they represent the greater threat

Talaniman: I can assure you that I agree with a lot more of what you say than you may at first realize. I really have a ill will toward American companies SELLING OUT in Red China (to hell with the term "INVESTING IN CHINA", they do so at the U.S.'s expense!). I am all for yanking the citizenship of any of these bastards so they CAN'T live in the U.S. (I know that is radical!).

But, remember: Russia, outside of the time right after WWI when we tried to help the "White" Russians defeat the Bolsheviks, have never opening fought and killed Americans but the ChiComs have killed Americans in conflicts.

I don't see much of any hope for good, legitimate relationships with Red China but I do with Russia: The "THUGS" won't be in charge forever in Russia.

I don't see much of any hope for good, legitimate relationships with Red China but I do with Russia: The "THUGS" won't be in charge forever in Russia.

Russia has a history of Czars no matter what you call them, it is ingrained in the psyche, looking to a strong leader, Putin is getting older, he won't stay forever but the regime is what it is. It would take another revolution to change it

Paraclete: I sense you have a very astute grasp of Russian history and the Russian dynamic. The U.S. is being "charmed" by the ChiComs while the real potential for us lies in improving the Russian-U.S. relationship and expanding that relationship to include military agreements of mutual defense to isolate the ChiComs.

Paraclete: I sense you have a very astute grasp of Russian history and the Russian dynamic. The U.S. is being "charmed" by the ChiComs while the real potential for us lies in improving the Russian-U.S. relationship and expanding that relationship to include military agreements of mutual defense to isolate the ChiComs.
The US is not charmed by China, but reality is the two economies are intertwined but their militaries are in opposition. The US cannot undo asian history, China was a power in the region in ancient times and it is again, but this time it is an economic power made so by the US, it is also a very populous nation and inevitably it will look to expand. It is surrounded by infertile lands and old rivalies so the US is not threatened unless it intervenes as it is want to do

Paraclete: One huge NOTE: EVERY CHICOM "COMPANY" IS AN EXTENSION OF THE PEOPLES LIBERATION ARMY! Every U.S. Company in China, has an office of a Political Officer (PLA!)...I KNOW THIS INTIMATELY.

But, where does this leave Russian in the U.S.-Red China disgusting orgy?

Paraclete: One huge NOTE: EVERY CHICOM "COMPANY" IS AN EXTENSION OF THE PEOPLES LIBERATION ARMY! Every U.S. Company in China, has an office of a Political Officer (PLA!)...I KNOW THIS INTIMATELY.

But, where does this leave Russian in the U.S.-Red China disgusting orgy?

Opposed to the US because it does business with its inevitable enemy. The three great nations of the world are paranoid, two because they have been invaded many times, the other, well it faced an attack once or twice

Until the Russian people get tired of Vlad and his restore the USSR to it's former glory, and scarfing up their economy, we are stuck with this dude and Xi for that matter too! Neither is going anyplace fast and we deal with them as we always have, where we can and oppose what we are against just as they do.

There is still a huge world out there to deal with also, some with nukes, some with huge issues. Like we don't have issues too!

Until the Russian people get tired of Vlad and his restore the USSR to it's former glory, and scarfing up their economy, we are stuck with this dude and Xi for that matter too! Neither is going anyplace fast and we deal with them as we always have, where we can and oppose what we are against just as they do.

There is still a huge world out there to deal with also, some with nukes, some with huge issues. Like we don't have issues too!
The USSR is gone, communism is on the nose, in what world will the USSR be restored? Putin has not shown himself to be rabidly expansionist. Only one country dictates to others what they can or cannot do

Western allies didn't like Vlad rolling into Crimea, or the Ukraine or interference in Eastern Europe. The Cold War is back, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_Vladimir_Putin)or haven't you noticed.

Western allies didn't like Vlad rolling into Crimea, or the Ukraine or interference in Eastern Europe. What did they actually do about it?

What did they actually do about it?

The Ukraine is traditionally Russian so they pushed back against western influence. The west is a paper tiger, Europe a spent force, only the US has a real interest in opposing Russia

mgParaclete: There are the filthy Germans, did you forget? They are firebrands who do everything they can to pit the U.S. against Russia. Germany is just waiting to build up their military and become another world power.

mgParaclete: There are the filthy Germans, did you forget? They are firebrands who do everything they can to pit the U.S. against Russia. Germany is just waiting to build up their military and become another world power.
Germany is an economic power, but a spent force militarily and as part of the EU there are checks and balances. Under the US umbrella, Germany hasn't had to maintain military might

What did they actually do about it?

They levied sanctions and kicked them out of the G8. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation)

Thought you knew since it was a BIG deal at the time.


The Ukraine is traditionally Russian so they pushed back against western influence. The west is a paper tiger, Europe a spent force, only the US has a real interest in opposing Russia

I disagree since the aid the EU has given to Ukraine is rather enormous.

They levied sanctions and kicked them out of the G8. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation)

Thought you knew since it was a BIG deal at the time.Fair enough. I actually didn't know. I knew there was no military action taken.

They levied sanctions and kicked them out of the G8. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation)

Thought you knew since it was a BIG deal at the time.



I disagree since the aid the EU has given to Ukraine is rather enormous.

Yes these days aid is used to buy allegiance everyone wants to join the EU until they learn the price

everyone wants to join the EU until they learn the priceI think you're right about that.

We have had our country shattered before when the north and south disagreed on policy and many died. At least we no longer have the bloodshed and found that politics is a safer venue of arguments and conflicts but the EU fails because you have soveriegn countries instead of states, with no overall checks and balances to equalize the playing field. While our states are autonmous and can't tell each other what to do, not so with EU members, where some governments are actually better than others, and seek to exercise more control than other member states, individual sovereignty prevents a central representative authority. There is no profit sharing just debt distribution. Imagine Texas loaning Mississippi a trillion bucks at a moderate interest knowing full well MS. cannot pay any of it. That won't work so we 9The Feds) give Ms. a grant to keep it from just going full bankruptcy and dragging everyone else down with it. Same dynamic in many continents, too many sovereign nations, and not enough states with an overall central governing body. Africa comes to mind, where we have partnerships but no overall governing policy. Not that the USA has it down pat, corruption runs rampant enough to slow any productive progress but we slog along better than most places in the world which may not be the shiny badge of honor the spin says it is.

A lot of work in order to form a MORE perfect union yet to be done.

GERMANY is the "Dirty Bastard" in the E.U.....their ambitions go way beyond just wanting the E.U. to succeed: They want to run Europe in entirety!

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/euro-turns-20--has-monetary-union-been-a-good-thing.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/05/austerity-over-in-europe-greece-what-does-that-mean-for-the-region.html


Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy — arguably those hit the most by the sovereign debt crisis — have all been relaxing their economic policies.

Talaniman: Well, they are on a "Death Wish Watch List".....Greece is a habitual offender: Germany is like a crack dealer: Hand out loans for ridiculous interest rates and they will always be on the hook.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/euro-turns-20--has-monetary-union-been-a-good-thing.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/05/austerity-over-in-europe-greece-what-does-that-mean-for-the-region.html


Portugal, Spain, Greece and Italy — arguably those hit the most by the sovereign debt crisis — have all been relaxing their economic policies.




All those economies that relax below the snow line, enjoying the sunshine, but now the coronavirus will become a problem

Spreading everywhere rather quickly is pretty inevitable if China is any indication, and do we know where it comes from yet? Looks like a long battle against a bug here, folks.

It was a ChiCom superbug biological weapon that either got away from them/escaped or was unleashed as a test and got out of hand OR was done purposely: The ChiCom can lose half their population and still be the 2nd largest country in the world, so they can absorb large loses: WE CANNOT!

Even the Chinese haven't had those kinds of death rates yet, but obviously it's everywhere and the dufus has put Pence in charge (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/26/pence-record-on-hiv-crisis-criticized-as-trump-puts-him-in-charge-of-coronovirus/4887566002/)after lying to us that everything is under control. This after slashing budgets and ending programs (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/10/29/20936921/usaid-predict-pandemic-preparedness) that were design specifically for this kind of event.

Don't even watch Wall Streets response.

Even the Chinese haven't had those kinds of death rates yet, but obviously it's everywhere and the dufus has put Pence in charge (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/26/pence-record-on-hiv-crisis-criticized-as-trump-puts-him-in-charge-of-coronovirus/4887566002/)after lying to us that everything is under control.
Hmmm, isn't Pence one of those fundie Christians who's looking ahead to the apocalypse and the rapture? Now he can do his part to make them happen! (Why does he always have the same facial expression? Have we ever heard him speak?)

Talaniman: With the "traffic" that now exist in this world, isolating a virus is going to be impossible, especially one that has a 14 day incubation period WHERE THAT SAME PERSON IS CONTAGIOUS EVEN BEFORE SYSMPTOMS ARE SHOWN. You can imagine one person's circle of contact expanded over a 14 day period and then expand those contacts into and ever wider circle of contacts: The expansion rate become exponential. I think this epidemic is going to be hard to make into a political football.

People will be judged by how they react to this health crisis. That means all the leaders. Any crisis can be a political football if the leaders don't address this situation correctly, as well they should be. This is where the rubber meets the road and I doubt there will be much tolerance of just lip service from any leader.

Not a good look to get rid of people whose job it is to handle pandemics, and then have one is it? That's not politicalizing an issue, just the reality of the consequences of short sited political decision that will no doubt have consequences unless the right correction is made..PDQ! You worried he is up to the task or something? Have you no faith he and he alone can fix it as he bragged?

This is when the tough get going and talkers get gone. Plain and simple.