The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

News and events of the day
Glennfs
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Glennfs »

A wealth tax is 100pct wrong and nothing more than a back door way liberals aka the democratic party can raise top tax rate to near 100pct.

Joe rich guy earns 50 million on his billion. Current tax rate he pays about 15 million.
But
Wait there is more his net worth goes up to 1.1 billion. At 2pct Joe rich guy owes a 22 million democratic party we aren't really socialist wealth tax.
Making his tax bill on his 50 million 37 million or 74pct.

Now if the we are not socialist party were to raise the top rate to over 70pct. Voters would be outraged.

But as we all know the we aren't really socialist party voters are low information a 1 to 2pct so called wealth tax will easily be supported by those low information voters.

Good for scotus. A wealth tax would hurt our economy and people like most of us who are in the middle class.

Because socialism has never been successful anywhere it has been tried
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:53 pm You REALLY don’t know what you’re talking about. Too bad you’ve never read the Constitution. You only know what the right has told you about it.
You often say that when people disagree with you. It’s you who REALLY doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If you did you wouldn’t have to lie all the time.

The debate over a strong central government versus a weak government resulted in the republic we have today. It dates back to founding fathers. It’s reflected in our Congress. It’s reflected in the electoral college. It’s reflected in the Constitution which established three co equal branches of government.



The Federal Government does not have unlimited power.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:59 pm You often say that when people disagree with you. It’s you who REALLY doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If you did you wouldn’t have to lie all the time.

The debate over a strong central government versus a weak government resulted in the republic we have today. It dates back to founding fathers. It’s reflected in our Congress. It’s reflected in the electoral college. It’s reflected in the Constitution which established three co equal branches of government.



The Federal Government does not have unlimited power.
Nobody said it did, now, did they?

No one or nothing on this planet has unlimited power. You sound like an idiot saying that. That’s called a straw man argument. Making up a straw man to knock down, instead of dealing with a real debate.

Let’s just remember you’ve already proved that you haven’t read the Constitution, and have no idea what’s in it. You just repeat whatever the right tells you to.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:16 pm Nobody said it did, now, did they?

No one or nothing on this planet has unlimited power. You sound like an idiot saying that. That’s called a straw man argument. Making up a straw man to knock down, instead of dealing with a real debate.

Let’s just remember you’ve already proved that you haven’t read the Constitution, and have no idea what’s in it. You just repeat whatever the right tells you to.
Again, with the talking point. Means nothing to me. It’s just noise. Heard it before from you. But I note, you haven’t rebutted anything I just posted. So when you can’t argue the facts, you resort to the tired worn out talking points. You only know what you can google. To reason or think on your own is beyond your capability.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:27 pm Again, with the talking point. Means nothing to me. It’s just noise. Heard it before from you. But I note, you haven’t rebutted anything I just posted. So when you can’t argue the facts, you resort to the tired worn out talking points. You only know what you can google. To reason or think on your own is beyond your capability.
What is "The Federal Government does not have unlimited power."? Sounds like a talking point to me, especially since NO ONE IN THE FUCKING UNIVERSE HAS SAID THEY DO.

Why don't you do something you've never done before, and go and read the goddamned Constitution for your own damned self?

Or would that mean you wouldn't be able to plead ignorance anymore, so it's the last fucking thing you'll ever do?
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:34 pm What is "The Federal Government does not have unlimited power."? Sounds like a talking point to me, especially since NO ONE IN THE FUCKING UNIVERSE HAS SAID THEY DO.

Why don't you do something you've never done before, and go and read the goddamned Constitution for your own damned self?

Or would that mean you wouldn't be able to plead ignorance anymore, so it's the last fucking thing you'll ever do?
The Federal Governments power is limited by the US Constitution. Just a fact. Maybe a talking point as well.

If you want to read the Constitution, knock yourself out. You are in no position to make demands of me. I was conversing with Bird. I’m more than happy to post with him. Do what you will.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:44 pm The Federal Governments power is limited by the US Constitution. Just a fact. Maybe a talking point as well.
Again, you're arguing something no one is arguing with. The Federal Government doesn't have unlimited power.

Too bad you can't make a REAL argument against what Bird and we are saying.
If you want to read the Constitution, knock yourself out. You are in no position to make demands of me. I was conversing with Bird. I’m more than happy to post with him. Do what you will.
God knows you have no idea what the Constitution REALLY says, since you've basically proven you've never read it yourself, and don't really know what IS in it.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:53 pm Again, you're arguing something no one is arguing with. The Federal Government doesn't have unlimited power.

Too bad you can't make a REAL argument against what Bird and we are saying.
God knows you have no idea what the Constitution REALLY says, since you've basically proven you've never read it yourself, and don't really know what IS in it.
If you read Birds post that’s pretty much what he said. Is he “no one” to you? Are you so arrogant you speak for everyone else. How ego centric you are. If this conversation is beneath your intellect, you don’t have to stick around. Matter not to me. I’ve heard all your talking points before.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:59 pm If you read Birds post that’s pretty much what he said. Is he “no one” to you? Are you so arrogant you speak for everyone else. How ego centric you are. If this conversation is beneath your intellect, you don’t have to stick around. Matter not to me. I’ve heard all your talking points before.
How hilarious you are. Why don't you go read the Constitution yourself, then you'd know yourself, instead of just repeating what others tell you to.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:17 pm A wealth tax is 100pct wrong and nothing more than a back door way liberals aka the democratic party can raise top tax rate to near 100pct.

Joe rich guy earns 50 million on his billion. Current tax rate he pays about 15 million.
But
Wait there is more his net worth goes up to 1.1 billion. At 2pct Joe rich guy owes a 22 million democratic party we aren't really socialist wealth tax.
Making his tax bill on his 50 million 37 million or 74pct.

Now if the we are not socialist party were to raise the top rate to over 70pct. Voters would be outraged.

But as we all know the we aren't really socialist party voters are low information a 1 to 2pct so called wealth tax will easily be supported by those low information voters.

Good for scotus. A wealth tax would hurt our economy and people like most of us who are in the middle class.

Because socialism has never been successful anywhere it has been tried
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald- ... en-2019-10
  • In November 1999, Donald Trump proposed a wealth tax far more severe than the "Ultra Millionaire Tax" now being proposed by the Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, who the president has called "Uber Left."
  • Trump had said a one-off 14.25% tax on fortunes over $10 million would eliminate US national debt, then $5.66 trillion. Americans under the threshold would have been given tax breaks, Trump said.
  • "It is a win-win for the American people, an idea no conventional politician would have the guts to put forward," Trump, who was considering running in the 2000 presidential election, said at the time.
Tell me, Glenn, how will we ever bring down our debt if we don't do something different?

You're just too scared about hurting the rich. Stupid.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 9:04 pm How hilarious you are. Why don't you go read the Constitution yourself, then you'd know yourself, instead of just repeating what others tell you to.
Let me know when you have something new to say on topic. Otherwise you are just wasting time.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 9:12 pm Let me know when you have something new to say on topic. Otherwise you are just wasting time.
Let ME know when you quit refusing to debate me. You're so fucking scared of me it's hilarious.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:52 am Let ME know when you quit refusing to debate me. You're so fucking scared of me it's hilarious.
You disqualified yourself. You said you can’t have an honest discussion with a liar. That’s you. A liar. Debate with a liar isn’t a debate. Your words. Not mine.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:01 am You disqualified yourself. You said you can’t have an honest discussion with a liar. That’s you. A liar. Debate with a liar isn’t a debate. Your words. Not mine.
You can't debate. I mean, how can someone debate the Constitution when you haven't even READ it?

And I just need to remind you that you're the ADMITTED liar. So you have no room to accuse anyone else.

Look, it's YOU guys that whine about the debt and how terrible it is. So, what are you going to do about it? How do you raise revenue to pay it down? Because you simply don't want ANY taxes at all, especially on the rich.

I, for one, would think a one-time wealth tax would be a great idea to pay it down. And, no, Glenn, not talking about a 100% tax. But when you have wealthy people getting a 20% a year increase in their income, I'd think it would be something that would be fairly painless for them.

So, this is just another discussion for you to tuck your tail between your legs and run away from.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

bird wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:32 pm Since the document itself only forbids three things: ex post facto laws, bills of attainder and religious tests to hold office, any case not involving these three things (and issues related to the bill of rights/amendments) obviously becomes a battle of personal opinion and belief structures. An example is the Dodd decision. Alito wrote that the right to an abortion does not appear in the constitution. Setting aside the juvenile statement we must also note that the vast majority of human actions and interactions do not appear in the constitution. As a point of my own opinion, abortion is a fourth amendment issue meaning a person to feel secure in their person. But I digress slightly. You do not have a right to drive a car under the constitution as that human action does not appear there as an example. You do not have a right to do virtually anything including medical procedures using Alito’s logic. No, the fact (imo😉) is that the opinions of the justices are their personal opinions, nothing more, nothing less. The citing of various other cases is simply citing other judges personal opinions that happen to mesh with their own.

The pie-in-the-sky wish that humans no matter who they are will be able to put aside personal bias is simplistic and can be dangerous.

The document has more than three “no,no’s’


The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.“

And the “no capitation “ no,no is why we have the 16th amendment and an amendment is necessary for a wealth tax.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Wed Jun 28, 2023 9:03 am That’s your ideology, Green Grass. Obviously George Washington felt differently.
Washington was referencing import taxes, excise, taxes, transaction taxes. He was smart enough to understand the no capitation or direct tax restriction in the constitution.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:18 am Washington was referencing import taxes, excise, taxes, transaction taxes. He was smart enough to understand the no capitation or direct tax restriction in the constitution.
Via NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019 ... titutional
In 1794, President George Washington signed into law what might be considered the first federal wealth tax. It was a tax on property: horse-drawn carriages. We have an entire episode about this tax and the subsequent legal battle over it.

The Supreme Court upheld the carriage tax. The justices called the apportionment rule "absurd" and "radically wrong." One justice said the rule should only be adopted in cases where "it can reasonably apply," and if it results in wildly unequal tax rates between the states, it's not reasonable. Another justice said that this provision in the Constitution was entirely about appeasing the South, which wanted to make it hard to tax the pillars of its slave-based economy. That's why he said the direct tax rule only clearly applied to taxes on land and slaves, and it "ought not to be extended" beyond this.

Scholars like Ackerman point to these opinions as supporting the constitutional case for a wealth tax. After the ruling, Ackerman says, the Supreme Court upheld every single tax that came across its radar. This included the income tax in 1880. He considers Pollock to be an aberration. It led to a public outcry, and he says, the Supreme Court backtracked, upholding the constitutionality of the inheritance tax in 1900. Pollock, he says, was then formally "repudiated" by the 16th Amendment, which said the income tax would not have to follow the direct tax rule.
Personally, I think taxes on stock trading is something we should look at seriously, since the right just doesn't want to have income taxes on the rich.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:24 am Via NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019 ... titutional


Personally, I think taxes on stock trading is something we should look at seriously, since the right just doesn't want to have income taxes on the rich.
I think there are a lot of transaction tax opportunities.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:27 am I think there are a lot of transaction tax opportunities.
But as soon as it's suggested, you guys start screaming "NO NEW TAXES!" There's a large part of your party that WANT to destroy our government and let it go broke. Remember all the Republicans that voted AGAINST raising the cap. Hell, only 17 GOP Senators voted for it.

There are no adults left in the GOP.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:08 am You can't debate. I mean, how can someone debate the Constitution when you haven't even READ it?

And I just need to remind you that you're the ADMITTED liar. So you have no room to accuse anyone else.

Look, it's YOU guys that whine about the debt and how terrible it is. So, what are you going to do about it? How do you raise revenue to pay it down? Because you simply don't want ANY taxes at all, especially on the rich.

I, for one, would think a one-time wealth tax would be a great idea to pay it down. And, no, Glenn, not talking about a 100% tax. But when you have wealthy people getting a 20% a year increase in their income, I'd think it would be something that would be fairly painless for them.

So, this is just another discussion for you to tuck your tail between your legs and run away from.
You are the proven liar. Repeatedly proven liar.

You make me laugh. You go back years to one incident where I didn’t buy into your self serving explanation about your loss of employment. I didn’t then. I don’t now. You lie about everything else. So why would anyone believe your explanation about why you were asked to leave your “dream job”. So you keep bringing it up. It obviously bothers you. Maybe a self esteem problem on your part. I dunno. But keep bringing it up if you like. I am more than happy to provide some context.

I have said before there are a number of issues with so called wealth taxes. I think it would be a boom for tax accountants and appraisers and would be a nightmare for taxpayers. Our system is set up to tax income. We should stay there. There is much work to do on that front rather than getting into something much more complicated. A wealth tax is another talking point that won’t happen. It has way to many problems to get passed.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:33 am You are the proven liar. Repeatedly proven liar.

You make me laugh. You go back years to one incident where I didn’t buy into your self serving explanation about your loss of employment. I didn’t then. I don’t now. You lie about everything else. So why would anyone believe your explanation about why you were asked to leave your “dream job”. So you keep bringing it up. It obviously bothers you. Maybe a self esteem problem on your part. I dunno. But keep bringing it up if you like. I am more than happy to provide some context.
I'm NOT a proven liar, but you are an ADMITTED liar. You had no problem making up shit out of thin air about me, and pretending it was the truth. That says it all about you.
I have said before there are a number of issues with so called wealth taxes. I think it would be a boom for tax accountants and appraisers and would be a nightmare for taxpayers. Our system is set up to tax income. We should stay there. There is much work to do on that front rather than getting into something much more complicated. A wealth tax is another talking point that won’t happen. It has way to many problems to get passed.
Except that you guys keep cutting taxes so that we can't pay for the government, let alone the debt. Why is it the FIRST thing a Republican always does when elected is cutting taxes? Why do you believe that the answer to EVERY problem is giving the rich a tax cut?

You guys aren't reasonable people.

I do see you ignored my point about how to bring down the debt. You have no answers. I think I'd vote for the party that had SOME answers, instead of the idiots with no answers.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:37 am I'm NOT a proven liar, but you are an ADMITTED liar. You had no problem making up shit out of thin air about me, and pretending it was the truth. That says it all about you.

Except that you guys keep cutting taxes so that we can't pay for the government, let alone the debt. Why is it the FIRST thing a Republican always does when elected is cutting taxes? Why do you believe that the answer to EVERY problem is giving the rich a tax cut?

You guys aren't reasonable people.

I do see you ignored my point about how to bring down the debt. You have no answers. I think I'd vote for the party that had SOME answers, instead of the idiots with no answers.
It wasn’t out of thin air. It was based on what YOU posted. I just didn’t buy your self serving explanation. I still don’t. I believe you when you say you we asked to leave. I get that totally and completely understand how and why that could happen. I just don’t buy the rest of your story. It’s your problem. You lie all the time and then expect people to take you at your word. Doesn’t work like that. That says it all about you. You might have more credibility if you didn’t spend all your time “gleaning” (lying) about other posters. You say a man has got to know his limitations. Well you are a serial liar and you have little to no credibility. That’s your limitation. You obviously need to learn to deal with it.

I don’t think I have ever said cutting taxes was the answer to every problem. You perhaps can provide a post to back that up or are you “gleaning” again? There is more than one way to reduce debt. Debt is a function of cash inflows and cash outflows. There are a number of variables that affect both sides of that function. If you truly want to manage debt you have to deal with both sides. There are no easy answers. But we aren’t all the good at tackling difficult problems until they become a crisis. But that day is coming. The numbers 10 years out don’t work.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:31 am But as soon as it's suggested, you guys start screaming "NO NEW TAXES!" There's a large part of your party that WANT to destroy our government and let it go broke. Remember all the Republicans that voted AGAINST raising the cap. Hell, only 17 GOP Senators voted for it.

There are no adults left in the GOP.
Not my party.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 8:51 am It wasn’t out of thin air. It was based on what YOU posted. I just didn’t buy your self serving explanation. I still don’t. I believe you when you say you we asked to leave. I get that totally and completely understand how and why that could happen. I just don’t buy the rest of your story. It’s your problem. You lie all the time and then expect people to take you at your word. Doesn’t work like that. That says it all about you. You might have more credibility if you didn’t spend all your time “gleaning” (lying) about other posters. You say a man has got to know his limitations. Well you are a serial liar and you have little to no credibility. That’s your limitation. You obviously need to learn to deal with it.
Now you’re lying again. “Oh, I didn’t lie” Yes, you did, and you admitted it. Now you’re pissing backwards again. You admitted it on the board.
I don’t think I have ever said cutting taxes was the answer to every problem. You perhaps can provide a post to back that up or are you “gleaning” again? There is more than one way to reduce debt. Debt is a function of cash inflows and cash outflows. There are a number of variables that affect both sides of that function. If you truly want to manage debt you have to deal with both sides. There are no easy answers. But we aren’t all the good at tackling difficult problems until they become a crisis. But that day is coming. The numbers 10 years out don’t work.
You have to take a stand to have credibility. You don’t. “I don’t think I’ve ever said that cutting taxes was the answer to every problem”.

But maybe you did, right? That’s what you’re saying here. Thing is, you never want to take a stand on anything. You just want to attack what others do. Even here, you just put out a paragraph of bullshit that means nothing. Doublespeak.

Tell you what - you vote for every Republican and no Dems. Several times over the last few decades, the GOP has controlled the House, the Senate, or both.

Can you show me ONE YEAR that they’ve put in a budget that was LESS than the year before? Ever?

It’s funny how the GOP screams about the debt when the Dems control things, but don’t say a word when THEY are in office. That’s because they campaign on spending money. Hell, just this week a South Carolina Congresswoman who screamed about the Biden infrastructure bill, and voted against it, put out releases bragging about the new spending coming to their area, because of the bill she opposed. Biden called her out on her hypocrisy.

This country isn’t getting smaller. The population is growing, the economy is growing, and the need for the government is growing. Anyone who pretend they can cut spending to decrease the debt is lying. If you say they can then you’re a liar.

Clinton and the Dems PROVED that with reasonable taxation, you CAN AT LEAST BALANCE THE BUDGET. He even made a tiny beginning of paying down the debt.

But then you voted for GW Bush, and he said “IT’S YOUR MONEY!” And had a big tax cut and a few wars, and spent like a drunken sailor and threw the debt through the roof. And ultimately crashed the economy. After Obama spent eight years trying to fix it, then here comes Trump and what does he think the way to end the debt is? Why, “the biggest tax cut in history!’ How did that work out? And no, even BEFORE the pandemic, you guys were spending like drunken sailors again. You weren’t cutting spending. You never do.

So tell me why we should vote for your side. I don’t see it.
JoeMemphis

Re: The Supreme Court May Preemptively Ban a Federal Wealth Tax

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:19 am Now you’re lying again. “Oh, I didn’t lie” Yes, you did, and you admitted it. Now you’re pissing backwards again. You admitted it on the board.

You have to take a stand to have credibility. You don’t. “I don’t think I’ve ever said that cutting taxes was the answer to every problem”.

But maybe you did, right? That’s what you’re saying here. Thing is, you never want to take a stand on anything. You just want to attack what others do. Even here, you just put out a paragraph of bullshit that means nothing. Doublespeak.

Tell you what - you vote for every Republican and no Dems. Several times over the last few decades, the GOP has controlled the House, the Senate, or both.

Can you show me ONE YEAR that they’ve put in a budget that was LESS than the year before? Ever?

It’s funny how the GOP screams about the debt when the Dems control things, but don’t say a word when THEY are in office. That’s because they campaign on spending money. Hell, just this week a South Carolina Congresswoman who screamed about the Biden infrastructure bill, and voted against it, put out releases bragging about the new spending coming to their area, because of the bill she opposed. Biden called her out on her hypocrisy.

This country isn’t getting smaller. The population is growing, the economy is growing, and the need for the government is growing. Anyone who pretend they can cut spending to decrease the debt is lying. If you say they can then you’re a liar.

Clinton and the Dems PROVED that with reasonable taxation, you CAN AT LEAST BALANCE THE BUDGET. He even made a tiny beginning of paying down the debt.

But then you voted for GW Bush, and he said “IT’S YOUR MONEY!” And had a big tax cut and a few wars, and spent like a drunken sailor and threw the debt through the roof. And ultimately crashed the economy. After Obama spent eight years trying to fix it, then here comes Trump and what does he think the way to end the debt is? Why, “the biggest tax cut in history!’ How did that work out? And no, even BEFORE the pandemic, you guys were spending like drunken sailors again. You weren’t cutting spending. You never do.

So tell me why we should vote for your side. I don’t see it.
Making the claim that cutting taxes solves all problems is not a position I have ever advocated.

As for managing debt, it is as I stated. You have cash inflows and outflows. You have to manage both. The numbers have to work. Neither party has a long term plan on how to deal with this problem. Neither party has the discipline.
Post Reply