Go back
$2 Trillion Deficit

$2 Trillion Deficit

Debates


@AverageJoe1 said
Contrare’ little thinker.

Work is already rewarded in America. People can start businesses, invest, invent, build wealth, and move upward more than in most of human history. What you call ‘rewarding pre-existing wealth’ is often just rewarding risk, investment, and long-term success that created jobs, companies, and economic growth in the first place.

What I say her ...[text shortened]... cannot imagine. I love the Rich. I love the Rich. I love the Rich. Make America great and greater..
What you're saying is what people have said forever: It takes money to make money.

This is why you hate the poor.



For once in your lifetime, try to look beyond yourself. Your road is a dead end.

1 edit

@wildgrass said
Those folks are miserable.
Aren't they, Mott?



Just to be clear and a disclaimer, I'm not talking to you, wildgrass, I'm talking to Mott, as a continuation of your post to him.


( I know you get it, he doesn't. )


@no1marauder said
In reality economic mobility in the US trails most of the countries in Europe esp. the "socialist" Nordic ones which have higher tax rates. And most studies show that economic mobility has decreased since 1980.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States
Because of the rise of Trumpist conservatism, I say.


@Mott-The-Hoople said
“Tax cuts for the wealthy does not increase economic growth.”

You win the prize for most stupid comment.
There is no "trickle down", jackass.

That was Reagan's fantasy, debunked a billion times since then.


@no1marauder said
Your arguments are spurious.

If I pay my plumber $500 should he not pay any taxes on that because I already paid taxes on my income? That's logically indistinguishable from your argument and just as stupid.

The truth is that elites run the country and the tax code is set.up to favor them and disfavor workers.
No, your plumber example is not the same thing at all.

The plumber is receiving payment for a new service he personally performed. That is newly created earned income. The stock investor is often selling an asset purchased with “already-taxed”money that was put at risk for years, and whose value may already reflect corporate taxes, inflation, and prior taxation along the way. This is an example of where you and Wildgrass get a bit sideways. You simply must see the big picture. You write it too simply, there are a lot of factors.

You are flattening completely different economic activities into “some money changed hands.”Simply put, tax code distinguishes between , inheritance, consumption, and capital gains, and investments , many things,because they affect economic behavior differently.

Think, for instance, that middle-class Americans would NOT own homes, retirement accounts, pensions, mutual funds, 401(k)s, IRAs, or small businesses if the USA tax code were designed for the elite.Their assets, holdings benefit from lower capital-gains treatment and investment incentives, too.

You may dislike the policy tradeoffs, diff treatments , but that does not make them irrational or corrupt. No, it’s not perfect. But wild grass has some really good ideas to clean it all up. He and Senator Warren.
And I would not say the elite run the country, , although some of the people that are running
the country are indeed elite. Again, that is the nature of our society. I think there was a time when you and/or Shav were suggesting that all the people that work on assembly lines should be involved in the running of the corporation, which is a room full of elite people.
You leave me aghast.


@wildgrass said
Many of the rich people you idolize are not in the top 10% of taxpayers. Instead, the top 10% of taxpayers are the people who work for a living.

I think that needs to change. You call me a socialist extremist for that?

You cannot find $2 trillion in savings in the federal budget without severe cuts to Medicare or DoW. So, that's not happening. Now, you say the bottom ...[text shortened]... ax shelters in place for billionaires?

Sorry, man. Your position is a lot more extreme than mine.
Gotta have billionaires. They built this country for starters. If you had been around in the last century or so I guess you would’ve done away with Vanderbilt Carnegie, Tesla, Rockefeller, all of those sorry ass billionaires. Hershey?
Do you think this country could get along if all of the billionaires just took off and bought Haiti and lived there? Naaaaa Chew on your pillow with that one.


@wildgrass said
Curious though as an example… Why would America couple with 100,000 pay no taxes.? why would anybody in the United States of America not pay taxes?. Are they riding on the road that I pay for? Do you want to pay for their visits?

Sorry that's just referring to the proposed federal wealth tax. I think it seems reasonable. Doesn't seem like socialism at all, t ...[text shortened]... l all taxes socialism. As a reminder, deficits are inflationary and should not be run in perpetuity.
Sorry, with all the fluff, all I hear you saying is that we could reduce the trillions if we get money from the billionaires. No I think we should leave them alone, I think they are about to invent something called AI. It will change the world. I hope you’re investing and you will get Rich too like they are. And AI, created by billionaires, will benefit our country greatly, which flows to the citizens. It will trickle down to the citizens.!
Not everyone will invest or try to increase their lot in life. But that is their choice, one of my favorite words. But no problem …. All they need to do is live within their means.
The real indigent,? Let us set aside $ for those 35 million to pay for the lives. and then we can get on with running our country.
Hey, better than that… Reelect people to run the government and they’re not gonna listen to us anyway. I recommend that you instead live within your means and enjoy life and you will have to let the chips fall where they may. And volunteer work for the indigent. I do that all the time.
Doesn’t this make more sense than soaking the Rich, who will just leave? Wake up, man.


@Suzianne said
And thanks to you Climate Change will kill all of us.

If I had a time machine, I'd take you to 2100 to show you what kind of planet you're leaving for your descendants.
20 years ago, AOC said that climate change would kill us all in 12 years. She was wrong, I’m betting you are wrong too


@Suzianne said
And prop up the Dow Jones balloon.

I left out your nonsense analogies.
Well yes🤔
Grow the markets.
…. 🤔


@Suzianne said
Unless you are addressing me directly, keep my name out of your filthy mouth.
I apologize. He sure did write a lot of the things that you write. I have to keep my guard up. You are aware that I am in the lower one percent on the forum.
I swim in dark waters


@Suzianne said
Aren't they, Mott?



Just to be clear and a disclaimer, I'm not talking to you, wildgrass, I'm talking to Mott, as a continuation of your post to him.


( I know you get it, he doesn't. )
Probably so, of their own doing.

That the part you don’t get…democrats plantation.


@AverageJoe1 said
No, your plumber example is not the same thing at all.

The plumber is receiving payment for a new service he personally performed. That is newly created earned income. The stock investor is often selling an asset purchased with “already-taxed”money that was put at risk for years, and whose value may already reflect corporate taxes, inflation, and prior taxation along t ...[text shortened]... d in the running of the corporation, which is a room full of elite people.
You leave me aghast.
You don't make any sense. A capital gain on a stock is "newly earned income" just as much as the plumber's fee and its source is the earnings of someone who has already been taxed. So there is no difference in reality.

The rest just shows a profound ignorance of economic theory and reality. The tax code provisions I stated overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and any ancillary benefit to workers and the middle class is trivial by comparison.


@AverageJoe1 said
Gotta have billionaires. They built this country for starters. If you had been around in the last century or so I guess you would’ve done away with Vanderbilt Carnegie, Tesla, Rockefeller, all of those sorry ass billionaires. Hershey?
Do you think this country could get along if all of the billionaires just took off and bought Haiti and lived there? Naaaaa Chew on your pillow with that one.
The Haitians might have something to say about that attempted takeover.

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/23/nx-s1-5618242/texas-haiti-gonave-island-plot

1 edit

@AverageJoe1 said
Sorry, with all the fluff, all I hear you saying is that we could reduce the trillions if we get money from the billionaires. No I think we should leave them alone, I think they are about to invent something called AI. It will change the world. I hope you’re investing and you will get Rich too like they are. And AI, created by billionaires, will benefit our country greatl ...[text shortened]... he time.
Doesn’t this make more sense than soaking the Rich, who will just leave? Wake up, man.
I'll go further; treating the sale of stock better than work makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Economists don't consider stock trades "Investment":

"By investment, economists mean the production of goods that will be used to produce other goods." https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Investment.html

When there is economic investment, something is added to the productive capacity of a nation - a factory, a machine, etc. etc. etc.

But what happens when a stock is traded? One day Jim has a piece of paper saying "1 share of Widget Inc." and Bill has a piece of paper saying "$100". The next day Bill has a piece of paper saying "1 share of Widget, Inc." and Jim has a piece of paper saying "$100". As far as the nation's economy is concerned absolutely nothing has changed, so there is no reason to encourage such behavior.

In fact there's good reason to discourage it. If people weren't wasting their time and effort buying stocks they'd have to do something that actually encourages productive activity like buying capital goods or consuming which encourages Investment (in economic terms). Thus, giving a tax advantage to paper capital gains makes no sense economically and is done purely because the wealthy primarily benefit from stock holdings; the richest 1% own over 50% of stock and the wealthiest 10% around 90%. https://inequality.org/article/stock-ownership-concentration/


@AverageJoe1 said
Gotta have billionaires. They built this country for starters. If you had been around in the last century or so I guess you would’ve done away with Vanderbilt Carnegie, Tesla, Rockefeller, all of those sorry ass billionaires. Hershey?
Do you think this country could get along if all of the billionaires just took off and bought Haiti and lived there? Naaaaa Chew on your pillow with that one.
Carnegie was extremely damaging to the economy and the government had to step in and break up his business.