Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

There is a very simple way to come up with the money. Tax billionaires and rich corporations, like 30 years ago. The continuous tax breaks for the ultra rich and big corporations has been ongoing for decades, and has only accelerated under the former Trump Administration.

Why cut health care, social security, or pensions? 

Short sights are usually not very accurate. Unfortunately Red Dots were never made to target economics.

Posted
1 hour ago, Legato said:

Short sights are usually not very accurate. Unfortunately Red Dots were never made to target economics.

LOL that's one of the most brilliantly accurate and yet amusing comments that nobody but a couple of us are ever going to get that i've heard you say :) 

Posted
6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

How much more would be the fair share?

I say 75% of the other 55 you didn't account for.

But I bet paying that in higher wages for their employees would create a much bigger bang for the economy.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I say 75% of the other 55 you didn't account for.

But I bet paying that in higher wages for their employees would create a much bigger bang for the economy.

You're right, you should start up a major corporation and make sure that all of the people are paid well to set an example. I mean since it's so easy and all

Posted
2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I say 75% of the other 55 you didn't account for.

But I bet paying that in higher wages for their employees would create a much bigger bang for the economy.

You do know consumers pay the wages of employees? One of two things will happen:

-prices go up

-jobs leave the country

 

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

You do know consumers pay the wages of employees? One of two things will happen:

-prices go up

-jobs leave the country

Yup, this is why more countries are willing to talk about standardizing their tax regimes with other nations similarly fed up with being played like saps.

Grotesque economic inequality is a deeply global issue that needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Edited by eyeball

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

You do know consumers pay the wages of employees? One of two things will happen:

-prices go up

-jobs leave the country

 

Or both as the rich take their investment elsewhere. Which is precisely what's happening to canada right now (first time in history more money is leaving than is coming in. )

Posted
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yup, this is why more countries are willing to talk about standardizing their tax regimes with other nations similarly fed up with being played like saps.

Grotesque economic inequality is a deeply global issue that needs to be dealt with accordingly.

Well as trump is about to demonstrate that's not a plan that can last very long. And when he backs out everybody's going with him because they want business there

Income inequity is not a problem in the slightest. The way our system works is that when somebody gets filthy rich a bunch of other people's economic situation improves as well even down to the lowest level. Getting rich creates activity, activity creates opportunity, and not spreads to every level

Which is why the average wage in the US comes close to double what the average wage is in Canada. You can't create wealth equity by destroying wealth, unless you mean you can make everybody equally poor

Posted
On 12/8/2024 at 2:43 PM, gatomontes99 said:

I mean, who would make weapons as a nonprofit?

If you'll remember, Obama had gutted the military to the point that they didn't have money to fly training missions or shoot rifles or fix ships or vehicles. It was bad. Trump spent money to fix all of that. But he also worked on pulling our troops out of places that we didn't need to be.

 

So... where are we then ?  Pay more or pay less... maybe decide which one is better...

Posted
3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So... where are we then ?  Pay more or pay less... maybe decide which one is better...

Well, it appears we are at the place where you play silly games again. 

The issue is not to just cut military spending to cut military spending, it is to cut the waste and promote a more efficient and lethal military. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
19 minutes ago, User said:

Well, it appears we are at the place where you play silly games again. 

The issue is not to just cut military spending to cut military spending, it is to cut the waste and promote a more efficient and lethal military. 

 

In what universe is asking for clarification playing silly games ?

You act as though the views of someone who supports Trump's inscrutable take on militarism are 100% clear.

I'm dubious that something as vast as the defense dept budget can be boiled down to some convenient political aphorisms, is all.  You don't trust me anyway so maybe don't comment on my discussions with others until you do trust me.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

In what universe is asking for clarification playing silly games ?

I don't. 

When you make comments like this, it is:

"Pay more or pay less... maybe decide which one is better..."

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes because I see comments that are ambiguous on that topic.  Asking broad questions isn't necessarily an 'attack'.

I did not say it was an attack. 

Are you unable to respond to what is actually being said?

  • Like 1

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

In what universe is asking for clarification playing silly games ?

You act as though the views of someone who supports Trump's inscrutable take on militarism are 100% clear.

I'm dubious that something as vast as the defense dept budget can be boiled down to some convenient political aphorisms, is all.  You don't trust me anyway so maybe don't comment on my discussions with others until you do trust me.

Mike...its not a case or "more" or "less". Its a case of "smart" or "wasteful".

  • Like 1

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
14 minutes ago, User said:

 

Are you unable to respond to what is actually being said?

What you said ?

If I respond to the post without addressing a certain point, it means I have nothing to dispute, nothing to add.  You can take it as tacit acceptance.

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Mike...its not a case or "more" or "less". Its a case of "smart" or "wasteful".

Sure but the original context, which I have now forgotten, provided as it's basis a single-dimension spending summary.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

It sounds like people are saying spending will be going down.  So let's put a pin in that.  I don't see it, based on history.  

Posted
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

What you said ?

Yes, what i said. Are you going to play more games and just repeat the what I just said with a ? mark now?

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

If I respond to the post without addressing a certain point, it means I have nothing to dispute, nothing to add.  You can take it as tacit acceptance.

The issue was that you responded to something I did not say...

Just more games. 

Up next, you will threaten to ignore me again. 

  • Haha 1

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
8 minutes ago, User said:

1. Yes, what i said. Are you going to play more games and just repeat the what I just said with a ? mark now?

2. The issue was that you responded to something I did not say...

3. Just more games. 

4. Up next, you will threaten to ignore me again. 

1. Here, Mr. "Games", is your statement "Are you unable to respond to what is actually being said?"  

"What is being said" is an example of the passive voice, in grammar.  So my natural question is "what is being said by whom" ?  To which you accuse me of playing more games.

You seriously pick apart every single thing I say because you suspect every statement is loaded.  It's just not.

As I said, you don't trust me so discussion is at best very difficult.  

2. Yes, I make an assumption that your parsing of my every word is because you see some kind of attack laying in wait.  

3.  In your mind.  Since you don't trust me, it's bizarre as to why you continue to engage.

4.  I do ignore you a lot of the time, as should you if you don't trust me.

Speaking of games, this interaction isn't amounting to much more than a game at this point.  Do you trust me any more after these explanations ?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Speaking of games, this interaction isn't amounting to much more than a game at this point.  Do you trust me any more after these explanations ?

No, because you are still ignoring what you did. 

  • Like 2

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

So... where are we then ?  Pay more or pay less... maybe decide which one is better...

Pay for the things we need. Obama used the military like it was the Red Cross. Our military needs to be ready and home. Spend the money to have the military ready to fight on 3 fronts with all equipment in a state of readiness and our troops current at their position. 

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sure but the original context, which I have now forgotten, provided as it's basis a single-dimension spending summary.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

It sounds like people are saying spending will be going down.  So let's put a pin in that.  I don't see it, based on history.  

OK so...let's try to clarify.

Will DOGE cut out any redundant or wasteful bureaucratic costs? Apparently.

Will overall military spending be reduced? That depends on a number of factors.

1. Will the US repatriate forces posted in places deemed non-essential to US security?

2. Will the US military refurbish the hardware sent to Ukraine and Israel?

3. Will the US military require an increase of soldiers?

  • Like 1

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
30 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

OK so...let's try to clarify.

Will DOGE cut out any redundant or wasteful bureaucratic costs? Apparently.

Will overall military spending be reduced? That depends on a number of factors.

1. Will the US repatriate forces posted in places deemed non-essential to US security?

2. Will the US military refurbish the hardware sent to Ukraine and Israel?

3. Will the US military require an increase of soldiers?

  At least you trust me enough to respond.  Thanks for the clarity.

 

Posted
36 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

  At least you trust me enough to respond.  Thanks for the clarity.

 

Huh...well its not that I trust you. I trust very few people.

But it looked like the discussion had been derailed and needed to be put back on the tracks.

Knowing what we think we know from my last post, is DOGE a bad idea? I say not only is it A good idea, but that its necessary.

  • Like 2

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
On 12/8/2024 at 2:47 PM, DUI_Offender said:

There is a very simple way to come up with the money. Tax billionaires and rich corporations, like 30 years ago. The continuous tax breaks for the ultra rich and big corporations has been ongoing for decades, and has only accelerated under the former Trump Administration.

Why cut health care, social security, or pensions? 

You want to tax the investor class. The wealthy already pay the lion's share of the taxes.

Most of the government’s federal income tax revenue comes from the nation’s top income earners. In 2021, the top 5% of earners — people with incomes $252,840 and above — collectively paid over $1.4 trillion in income taxes, or about 66% of the national total. If you include the top 10% — everyone who made at least $169,800 — that figure rises to $1.7 trillion, or 76% of the total.

The top 50% of earners contributed 97.7% of federal income tax revenue.

Corporations do pay taxes too. And when they get taxed more, they can pass them on to consumers.

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Posted
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

  At least you trust me enough to respond.  Thanks for the clarity.

 

It requires no trust to respond. You're still a garbage human Mike. And when people call you on your games and high school debate tactics you get pissy and moan about trust as if it's their fault.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,858
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    onegroupholiday
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • A Freeman went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Tony Eveland earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dick Green earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...