Time Magazine cover story: If He Wins

[HisArpy]

Blah blah blah......Putin was going to invade no matter who won the Oval office. He preferred Trump beingre-elected, since Trump would have not been very willing to help Ukraine.

Strange, when Trump won the Presidency in 2016 the talk was that it was the signal for Putin to invade.

Yet he DIDN'T.

Instead he waited until a feeble chicken shit coward was elected in 2020. the same feeble chicken shit who was VP the last time he invaded Ukraine.

And here you are thinking it's not a coincidence. Or that the evidence doesn't point directly to the conclusion I'm making.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Strange, when Trump won the Presidency in 2016 the talk was that it was the signal for Putin to invade.

Talk....

Yet he DIDN'T.

Logistics

Instead he waited until a feeble chicken shit coward was elected in 2020. the same feeble chicken shit who was VP the last time he invaded Ukraine.

Sure he did....*chuckles*

And here you are thinking it's not a coincidence. Or that the evidence doesn't point directly to the conclusion I'm making.

Anyone can see the build up. It was going on while Trump was President....

But hey lets pivot to another topic you like to crow about....

TRUTH SOCIAL....

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/01/djt-shares-crack-50-as-trump-media-continues-stock-bounce-back.html

 

[HisArpy]

Talk....

Well, it was the headlines - Trump was going to cause WWIII.

Logistics

FACTS. You want to dispute the historical record, do it someplace else or risk being called what you are. A liar.

Sure he did....*chuckles*

Again, FACT. And denialism doesn't change anything.

Anyone can see the build up. It was going on while Trump was President....

And yet it didn't. Putin waited 4 years to attack despite the talk that Trump was his puppet.

You know why? Trump's response in Syria.

But hey lets pivot to another topic you like to crow about....

TRUTH SOCIAL....

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/01/djt-shares-crack-50-as-trump-media-continues-stock-bounce-back.html

Deflection. Those ass cheeks of yours must really be burning right now.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Well, it was the headlines - Trump was going to cause WWIII.

Again Talk, the only action was Putin building up his logistics.

FACTS. You want to dispute the historical record, do it someplace else or risk being called what you are. A liar.

I'm not disputing the facts, I want you to show me some.....

Again, FACT. And denialism doesn't change anything.

Kellyann's "alternative facts" aren't real councillor.......

And yet it didn't. Putin waited 4 years to attack despite the talk that Trump was his puppet.

Putin didn't wait four years. It took over 6 years to gather up the required ( or so Putin thought) forces and and equipment to run a successful 3 day military operation to take control of Ukraine.

This took more than just military opps, but also propaganda opps. Putin needed to convince his population to support this as well.

You know why? Trump's response in Syria.

This response?

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-syria-shambles/

Deflection. Those ass cheeks of yours must really be burning right now.

Nah, my ass cheeks are fine, trying to educate idiots such as yourself isn't embarrassing, it's entertaining....

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

and as proof, you actually admitted you knew the tax cuts were a fiscal problem....

lol. No, I’ve never said the TCJA was a problem or that Americans are under taxed. Thanks for taking the time to dig through my posts going all the way back to 2019 and reposting the one where I noted that tax receipts were actually up 3.8% in the first year of the TCJA.

I’m very critical of the excessive spending by both parties. The federal debt rose $7.8 trillion under the Trump administration and is on pace to exceed that under Biden’s watch. Its already reached $6.7 trillion during the first 3 years.

Here’s a graphic from the CBO that shows what’s happened to revenue and spending. As you can see, revenues as a % of GDP held pretty close to the average over the past half century. Actually slightly higher. Spending unfortunately is a different story.

Do you seriously think Democrats won’t extend the TCJA individual tax rates when they expire at the end of 2025? If so, you are very naive.

There *might* be enough Dems on board with increasing the top rate from 37% to 39.7% as Biden has proposed, but I doubt it. Too many Democrats from wealthy districts. Even if they did, that would only raise $245 billion over ten years.

Fear not. Our individual income tax cuts are here to stay.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

lol. No, I’ve never said the TCJA was a problem or that Americans are under taxed. Thanks for taking the time to dig through my posts going all the way back to 2019 and reposting the one where I noted that tax receipts were actually up 3.8% in the first year of the TCJA.

Tax revenue's vary from year to year. They are not static. The point was, even you understand you can't cut revenue, without cutting spending, and expect to ballance.

I’m very critical of the excessive spending by both parties. The federal debt rose $7.8 trillion under the Trump administration and is on pace to exceed that under Biden’s watch. Its already reached $6.7 trillion during the first 3 years.

The national debt will rise under Biden, even if Biden did makes cuts, just on the interest alone on the Debt Trump added. If you want to chase the tail on this, we need to go back to Reagan, or even further...Clinton is the only President to actual have not added to the National debt, in one of his 8 years....

Spending unfortunately is a different story.

Thanks for once again showing tax cuts without a source of revenue to offset them drives up the debt.

Do you seriously think Democrats won’t extend the TCJA individual tax rates when they expire at the end of 2025? If so, you are very naive.

I don't know what the Democrats will do. I just know what Trump DID.

There *might* be enough Dems on board with increasing the top rate from 37% to 39.7% as Biden has proposed, but I doubt it. Too many Democrats from wealthy districts. Even if they did, that would only raise $245 billion over ten years.

Thanks for admitting you're in a bad place debt wise. Praising a tax cut that only benefits you and others in this current fiscal period but will cause vast harm down the road is exactly what I stated at the outset.

Fear not. Our individual income tax cuts are here to stay.

I don't care if they stay, or go. I'm just pointing out, all you care about is you and the here and now. Fuck your children and grandchildren....even poor Biden's Navy....

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Tax revenue's vary from year to year. They are not static. The point was, even you understand you can't cut revenue, without cutting spending, and expect to ballance.

The national debt will rise under Biden, even if Biden did makes cuts, just on the interest alone on the Debt Trump added. If you want to chase the tail on this, we need to go back to Reagan, or even further...Clinton is the only President to actual have not added to the National debt, in one of his 8 years....

Thanks for once again showing tax cuts without a source of revenue to offset them drives up the debt.

I don't know what the Democrats will do. I just know what Trump DID.

Thanks for admitting you're in a bad place debt wise. Praising a tax cut that only benefits you and others in this current fiscal period but will cause vast harm down the road is exactly what I stated at the outset.

I don't care if they stay, or go. I'm just pointing out, all you care about is you and the here and now. Fuck your children and grandchildren....even poor Biden's Navy....

Sounds like you don’t think spending drives up debt. Or you simply don’t care.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Sounds like you don’t think spending drives up debt. Or you simply don’t care.

The real question is, do you care about the National Debt. So far I get the feeling the answer is no.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The real question is, do you care about the National Debt. So far I get the feeling the answer is no.

Yes I care about it, but nobody in DC does so there’s not much point in complaining about it. Both parties spend too much. The CARES Act passed under the Trump administration and $4.7 trillion in new spending has been added during the Biden Administration. I may have missed your criticism of all the big spending packages that have been sailing through Congress.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes I care about it,

No you don't, you might say you do, but if you really did, you wouldn't have cheered on Trump's tax cuts...

I may have missed your criticism of all the big spending packages that have been sailing through Congress.

In case you missed it, I'm not American. I'm just pointing out your personal selfishness. The same kind most Baby Boomers have shown through their entire existence.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

No you don't, you might say you do, but if you really did, you wouldn't have cheered on Trump's tax cuts...

In case you missed it, I'm not American. I'm just pointing out your personal selfishness. The same kind most Baby Boomers have shown through their entire existence.

Yes, us American taxpayers are very selfish. We don’t let our politicians spend nearly enough of of our money.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes, us American taxpayers are very selfish.

Yes you are. Nice of you to start admitting it. I'm sure your grandchildren will remember you for it.

 

[icanhelp1]

Sounds like you don’t think spending drives up debt. Or you simply don’t care.

If I remember correctly shortly after the Trump tax cuts revenue increased.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, us American taxpayers are very selfish. We don’t let our politicians spend nearly enough of of our money.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yes you are. Nice of you to start admitting it. I'm sure your grandchildren will remember you for it.

Absolutely. Our grandchildren will no doubt appreciate the assets my wife and I are able to leave for them when we’re gone. Their parents are raising them to recognize the virtues of small government.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Absolutely. Our grandchildren will no doubt appreciate disapprove of the assets National debt my wife and I are able to leave for them when we’re gone.

Yes I'm so sure they will appreciate no SS or Medicare....very much Gramps!!

Their parents are raising them to recognize the virtues of small government.

Small Government has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yes I'm so sure they will appreciate no SS or Medicare....very much Gramps!!

Small Government has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility.

Spending more than you take in is fiscally irresponsible. Tax revenues have held consistently around 17% of GDP for five decades. The government’s insatiable appetite to spend more keeps rising.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yes I'm so sure they will appreciate no SS or Medicare....very much Gramps!!

Small Government has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility.

You don’t understand how Medicare and SS is financed. It’s funded through payroll taxes on employers and employees, not through income taxes. There have been no cuts to Medicare and SS taxes. In fact the amount of each employee’s paycheck that’s subject to these taxes has risen and will keep rising due to changing demographics. Boomers like me comprise a greater proportion of the population who are collecting on these programs. People still working have to pay more and work longer to keep the programs afloat.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Spending more than you take in is fiscally irresponsible.

Just like cutting revenue without reducing expenditure is irresponsible. So which one of those two governing errors were we going on about? Oh right Trump's tax cut.

Tax revenues have held consistently around 17% of GDP for five decades. The government’s insatiable appetite to spend more keeps rising.

US population 1970 204 Million. US population in 2020 330 Million. US GDP in 1970 1,073,000. US GDP in 2020 21,000,000
US Dollar in 1970 = 7.81 Dollars in 2020. US National Debt 1970 354 Billion. US National Debt in 2020 23 Trillion dollars.

There's a formula in there that will show you where the revenue should be today, compared to 1970. But the last time I did a statistical analysis for you, you failed to comprehend.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You don’t understand how Medicare and SS is financed. It’s funded through payroll taxes on employers and employees, not through income taxes.

Do you have to work to receive Medicare? ( Yes you do need to have worked to receive SS)

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes I'm so sure they will appreciate no SS or Medicare....very much Gramps!!

Small Government has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility.

Yes it does. Smaller government = less spending

 

[icanhelp1]

Just like cutting revenue without reducing expenditure is irresponsible. So which one of those two governing errors were we going on about? Oh right Trump's tax cut.

US population 1970 204 Million. US population in 2020 330 Million. US GDP in 1970 1,073,000. US GDP in 2020 21,000,000
US Dollar in 1970 = 7.81 Dollars in 2020. US National Debt 1970 354 Billion. US National Debt in 2020 23 Trillion dollars.

There's a formula in there that will show you where the revenue should be today, compared to 1970. But the last time I did a statistical analysis for you, you failed to comprehend.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/the-numbers-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paid

The Biden White House issued a press release claiming “the Trump tax cuts had added $2 trillion to deficits over a decade.”

But the numbers tell a different story. Despite the political rhetoric, tax revenues are up.

Adjusting the forecasts to actual 2022 dollars, prior to the tax cuts the government projected $40.7 trillion of income tax, corporate tax, and payroll tax revenues between 2018 and 2027. The latest budget forecasts project $41.3 trillion of revenues for that period. Instead of reducing revenues by $1.5 trillion, the latest forecasts suggest tax revenues will come in $570 billion higher than expected.

What about the corporate tax cuts? Surely cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% must have dramatically reduced corporate tax revenue?

Not according to the government budget numbers.

The government now expects to bring in $3.8 trillion in corporate tax revenues between 2018 and 2027, almost identical to the $3.9 trillion forecasted prior to the tax cuts. Moreover, since taxes don’t exist in a vacuum—and the corporate tax reform propelled higher income growth and therefore higher income taxes and payroll taxes—the corporate tax reform likely paid for itself.

Could the Congressional Budget Office have simply underestimated tax revenues in the pre-tax cuts forecast?

 

[adrina]

2022.

Heritage.

What, no PJ Media?

If Biden told you idiots that the sky was blue, you'd pull up articles from Turley, Gateway Pundit et al that it was green.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Just like cutting revenue without reducing expenditure is irresponsible. So which one of those two governing errors were we going on about? Oh right Trump's tax cut.

Except revenue was not cut. It is trending toward 17.9% of GDP, slightly higher than the 50 year historical average. Spending on the other hand, is trending towards 24% of GDP, up from its 21% historical average.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes it does. Smaller government = less spending

No it doesn't. A government's spending has nothing to do with size or number of programs it offers. You can have 1 million programs and spend 1 dollar of funding on each, or 1 program and spend 10 million dollars of funding on that program.