Trump 2.0

[Seattle]

I saw a clip from Joe Rogan's interview with JD Vance in which Vance is going on and on about people celebrating abortions. Rogan interjects, "Well, I don't think people are really celebrating abortions."

When pretty much every argument and every policy is premised upon a strawman, and Joe Rogan is the sole voice of reason in the "conversation"... The distractions, lies, redirects are effective for many, I suppose, but a lot of people understand that Social Security is mostly self-funding and does not contribute to the debt (yes, it's more complicated than that; but even were we to wholly isolate this aspect, something like 83 or 85 percent of payment would be guaranteed regardless); and a lot understand that funding by the extremely wealthy through income tax would not put much of a dent in the deficit (with people like Jeff Bezos only making like 80 thousand a year), but a wealth tax sure as hell would (it doesn't take a whole lot of education or critical thinking to grasp that the terms "high earners" and "wealthy" imply different things, even if the Venn diagrams largely overlap); and a lot understand the implications of unchecked aggress even when it occurs thousands of miles away. I guess they know and understand their audience: the uneducated will just eat up this shit, while the extremely rich--and likely better informed--fully know it's utter nonsense, but so long as it lines their coffers.

Make the argument that a wealth tax would put a significant dent in the deficit.

 

[parmalee]

Make the argument that a wealth tax would put a significant dent in the deficit.

Sure, after you identify the strawman argument from the examples posted by billvon a couple of months back. Or maybe after you demonstrate that you can use terms like "bothsideism", "relevant", "nuance" or "prose" correctly in a sentence. Take your pick.

 

[billvon]

Make the argument that a wealth tax would put a significant dent in the deficit.

Sure, that's trivial. A 26% wealth tax (NOT income tax) on US billionaires only would eliminate the deficit completely, assuming it stays the same from 2024. It is very likely that Trump will increase it, but we have to assume some number.

That is, of course, not a good idea, since it is neither sustainable nor desirable.

A 10% wealth tax (which is sustainable, but probably not a good idea) would reduce the deficit by more than 1/3.

 

[parmalee]

Sure, that's trivial. A 26% wealth tax (NOT income tax) on US billionaires only would eliminate the deficit completely, assuming it stays the same from 2024. It is very likely that Trump will increase it, but we have to assume some number.

That is, of course, not a good idea, since it is neither sustainable nor desirable.

A 10% wealth tax (which is sustainable, but probably not a good idea) would reduce the deficit by more than 1/3.

But if you cut spending by 100 percent, that would also reduce the deficit completely. Wouldn't do a damn thing for the debt, really, nor for anyone's well-being, but those are trivial concerns.

 

[Seattle]

Sure, after you identify the strawman argument from the examples posted by billvon a couple of months back. Or maybe after you demonstrate that you can use terms like "bothsideism", "relevant", "nuance" or "prose" correctly in a sentence. Take your pick.

So you don't have an argument.

 

[Seattle]

Sure, that's trivial. A 26% wealth tax (NOT income tax) on US billionaires only would eliminate the deficit completely, assuming it stays the same from 2024. It is very likely that Trump will increase it, but we have to assume some number.

That is, of course, not a good idea, since it is neither sustainable nor desirable.

A 10% wealth tax (which is sustainable, but probably not a good idea) would reduce the deficit by more than 1/3.

So far all of these suggestions, in your words, are not a good idea. That's not much of a plan.

 

[parmalee]

So you don't have an argument.

Nope. It's more that--as I have made abundantly clear about a gazillion times now--I'm disinclined to attempt "conversation" with someone who, to all indications, can neither read nor write; who is regularly dishonest and cannot (apparently) engage in good faith; and whose concept of "research" seems to be googling a couple of words and going with the heading of a random link from page one of the search.

 

[Seattle]

So far all of these suggestions, in your words, are not a good idea. That's not much of a plan.

Your {Bill) response will be "I didn't say it was" and on we go...

We could raise the tax on everyone that currently pays Federal Income taxes (60% of the people) by 67% and that would balance the budget.

 

[parmalee]

Your {Bill) response will be "I didn't say it was" and on we go...

We could raise the tax on everyone that currently pays Federal Income taxes (60% of the people) by 67% and that would balance the budget.

Like I said, to all indications, you can neither read nor write and you are seemingly incapable of being honest or engaging in good faith. How about throwing in some of that "research" that you are so good at to make my day?

 

[Seattle]

Like I said, to all indications, you can neither read nor write and you are seemingly incapable of being honest or engaging in good faith. How about throwing in some of that "research" that you are so good at to make my day?

Why don't you just stop posting since you add nothing to the discussion?

I'd be OK with raising taxes on all existing taxpayers to that extent if it were combined in legislation with a balanced budget amendment. Otherwise, it wouldn't reduce the deficit. We would just spend more.

 

[parmalee]

Why don't you just stop posting since you add nothing to the discussion?

I'd be OK with raising taxes on all existing taxpayers to that extent if it were combined in legislation with a balanced budget amendment. Otherwise, it wouldn't reduce the deficit. We would just spend more.

I googled the price of tea in China and I got a bunch of different numbers. So when people make a big deal about the deficit it's just a political argument or someone from another country who doesn't understand what that means here.

 

[parmalee]

Why don't you just stop posting since you add nothing to the discussion?

I'd be OK with raising taxes on all existing taxpayers to that extent if it were combined in legislation with a balanced budget amendment. Otherwise, it wouldn't reduce the deficit. We would just spend more.

Please enlighten us on your proposition for educating wealth. First, what does that even mean? Frankly, it doesn't make any sense to me, but you're the expert.

 

[Seattle]

Please enlighten us on your proposition for educating wealth. First, what does that even mean? Frankly, it doesn't make any sense to me, but you're the expert.

"Educating wealth"? What are you talking about?

 

[parmalee]

"Educating wealth"? What are you talking about?

They're your own fucking words, idiot:

The left seems to focus only on wealth distribution. If you want the poorer members of society to do well why is there so little focus, by the left, on educating and creating wealth? It's all about taking and very little about how to create your own.

So how does one "educate wealth"? Or does the grammar nazi not know proper grammar?

 

[Seattle]

They're your own fucking words, idiot:

So how does one "educate wealth"? Or does the grammar nazi not know proper grammar?

I understand that you like to brag that you are able to read, and it probably is a great accomplishment for you but I didn't say "educate wealth". I said that there was little focus on educating and (on) creating wealth".

 

[parmalee]

I understand that you like to brag that you are able to read, and it probably is a great accomplishment for you but I didn't say "educate wealth". I said that there was little focus on educating and (on) creating wealth".

Nope. You "clarified" whatever the fuck it was that you were trying to say with this:

I'm talking about financial education.

So you weren't just talking about educating generally, it was something or other to do with "financial education".

Again, as noted repeatedly, you are an idiot, a liar, and not even capable of comprehending you own words.

Why don't you "educate" us some more about how Trump isn't really a rapist, because, well, sometimes people are drinking and maybe they know each other... Don't know what the fuck that's got to do with the E Jean Carroll case, or the rape of his first wife, for that matter. But you're the rape advocate and apologist, so maybe you could enlighten us.

Or maybe you could "educate" us about how Black people ought to keep their slave names if they really want to get into college--that was an intriguing proposition.

 

[parmalee]

I understand that you like to brag that you are able to read, and it probably is a great accomplishment for you but I didn't say "educate wealth". I said that there was little focus on educating and (on) creating wealth".

Also, you're the grammar nazi here, not me--the grammar nazi who doesn't know proper grammar, that is.

 

[Pinball1970]

Is this tarif idea their version of Brexit?

He has the audacity to blame drugs, specifically fentanyl coming into the States from those countries. China, Mexico and Canada are not doing enough therefore this tariff.

It would be interesting to know what the end game is here. Is there one?

 

[Sarkus]

He has the audacity to blame drugs, specifically fentanyl coming into the States from those countries. China, Mexico and Canada are not doing enough therefore this tariff.

It would be interesting to know what the end game is here. Is there one?

Inflation rises as a result.
Interest rates rise as a result.
The economy goes into recession.
Stocks crash, economy suffers.
Billionaires buy things up on the cheap.
Democrats win the next election, and implement a stimulus plan to get the economy back on track (i.e. picking up the pieces as best they can).

Due to the billionaires buying up all they can on the cheap, they'll then see their net worth sky-rocket even further as a result, while everyone else... don't.

Or is this too cynical.

 

[exchemist]

Inflation rises as a result.
Interest rates rise as a result.
The economy goes into recession.
Stocks crash, economy suffers.
Billionaires buy things up on the cheap.
Democrats win the next election, and implement a stimulus plan to get the economy back on track (i.e. picking up the pieces as best they can).

Due to the billionaires buying up all they can on the cheap, they'll then see their net worth sky-rocket even further as a result, while everyone else... don't.

Or is this too cynical.

Agree with most of that, except that Democrats won't win an election for a long time. The Trumpies will see to that.

The USA has sold its democratic birthright. Recovery from autocracy will be a long, hard process.