Trump about to rip off the US public for $10T... again!

[User]

4 minutes ago, godzilla said:

chill out man. no one is lying. i provided the citation on the $10T number. here it is again.

Trump’s Tax Cut-A-Rama Total So Far: $9.75 Trillion

if you have another number then please submit it.

I already responded to this... you ignored me and now you are lying again. 

Summary: That is a link evaluating the proposed tax cuts, not what the previous Trump Tax cut "cost"

Stop lying. Get some integrity. 

[godzilla]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Trump's cuts did substantially benefit the middle class and even the lower class. Your statement that it did not was wrong.

Income inequality is not a problem.

jeesh. we started talking about the class source of the nouveau riche because you simply stated "everyone" can become rich if they tried hard enough. you failed to comment at all on the "success paradox". it wasn't part of my original post at all. wasn't sure why you brought it up.

but now you're making a connection between the rich coming more from the middle class and the poor and Trumps tax cuts? thats a stretch. the article seemed to imply that the shift has been happening since the 1960's.

wealth inequality is not a problem. you stick with that. no need to read all the citations i supply. i mean, if what you mean is that its not a problem "at the moment" or in relation to Trumps economic policies... then thats maybe an argument that you can make.

but the general argument that "wealth inequality is not a problem" doesn't hold water in economic circles. just take it to the extreme. one guy has all the money. no problem?

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, godzilla said:

one guy has all the money. no problem?

There'll be a big problem without this guy. No poor man ever gave me a job.

[User]

24 minutes ago, godzilla said:

but the general argument that "wealth inequality is not a problem" doesn't hold water in economic circles. just take it to the extreme. one guy has all the money. no problem?

No, the argument is that if you are going to argue that the wealth inequality we currently have is a problem, it is incumbent on you to explain precisely how. 

We don't have one guy with all the wealth. 

 

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, godzilla said:

chill out man. no one is lying. i provided the citation on the $10T number. here it is again.

Trump’s Tax Cut-A-Rama Total So Far: $9.75 Trillion

 

But your thread was that he was doing it "again" . As in in the future, not the past. 

Further it's wrong. As noted it doesn't account for any increase caused in increased investment and employment, which did happen. 

And lastly....  it's NOT "COSTING" MONEY WHEN YOU LEAVE IT WITH THE PEOPLE WHO EARNED IT

It's a decidedly 'left wing' concept that if you DON"T take people's money away from them somehow that's costing the gov't.  That's not how it works.  Trump SAVED people 10 trillion, and offset that gov't revenue with increased revenues from the subsequent increase in financial activity. 

So no matter how you want to slice it the initial premise is still very wrong. 

 

[godzilla]

51 minutes ago, User said:

No, the argument is that if you are going to argue that the wealth inequality we currently have is a problem, it is incumbent on you to explain precisely how. 

We don't have one guy with all the wealth. 

 

here's my whole post that you didn't read i guess over again...

How income inequality threatens democracy

Wealth inequality, democracy and economic freedom

"Wealth inequality significantly hampers economic freedom and this effect is reinforced at a lower level of democracy."

Inequality Spurs Democratic Backsliding

How Inequality Undermines Democracy

Support for Democracy in the Age of Rising Inequality and Population Aging

i could go on all day.

and for the contrarian view... since you guys love the Koch Institute... i mean, the Cato Institute.

Has Wealth Inequality Eroded U.S. Democracy?

"In short, the evidence for wealth inequality leading to democratic capture is extraordinarily thin."

hmm... well maybe not so contrarian. they just said it was "thin".

but more importantly... from the Harvard Business Review

Income Inequality Makes Whole Countries Less Happy

Edited January 13 by godzilla

[User]

7 minutes ago, godzilla said:

i could go on all day.

You are not going on at all. You are just spamming links. If you have an argument to make, lets hear it, back it up with a quote from a link. 

I am not playing this dumb game of link spamming. 

 

[godzilla]

16 minutes ago, User said:

You are not going on at all. You are just spamming links. If you have an argument to make, lets hear it, back it up with a quote from a link. 

I am not playing this dumb game of link spamming. 

 

hilarious. talk about confirmation bias.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

jeesh. we started talking about the class source of the nouveau riche because you simply stated "everyone" can become rich if they tried hard enough. you failed to comment at all on the "success paradox". it wasn't part of my original post at all. wasn't sure why you brought it up.

Well that's not true. I brought that up as a result of your discussions about income inequity. I wasn't the one that started the subject I was responding to your previous comments on the subject.

But if it makes you feel any better it's extremely typical for lefties around here to be mad about the fact that something they did didn't go their way and to want it to be my fault  

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

but now you're making a connection between the rich coming more from the middle class and the poor and Trumps tax cuts?

No. Nobody said anything like that at all. Now you're just getting delusional

 

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

i mean, if what you mean is that its not a problem "at the moment" or in relation to Trumps economic policies... then thats maybe an argument that you can make.

It's not a problem at all. And none of your citations indicate that it is. The fact that something exists does not mean it's a problem.

As I previously noted well inequity is a result of the capitalist system that makes everybody richer. Because of its nature some people will become richer than others but everybody including the "poor" gets richer. 

Any other system sees EVERYBODY poorer. 

So again well inequity isn't a problem. It's a byproduct of a system that creates the most wealth for the most number of people including the so-called poor who compared to many points in history and even other countries live what would be normally considered a wealthy life by others.

 

Sorry you're just wrong about this. You've been wrong about just about every one of your claims so far. And your citations do not seem to say what you are arguing.

[godzilla]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

But your thread was that he was doing it "again" . As in in the future, not the past. 

Further it's wrong. As noted it doesn't account for any increase caused in increased investment and employment, which did happen. 

And lastly....  it's NOT "COSTING" MONEY WHEN YOU LEAVE IT WITH THE PEOPLE WHO EARNED IT

It's a decidedly 'left wing' concept that if you DON"T take people's money away from them somehow that's costing the gov't.  That's not how it works.  Trump SAVED people 10 trillion, and offset that gov't revenue with increased revenues from the subsequent increase in financial activity. 

So no matter how you want to slice it the initial premise is still very wrong. 

 

he is doing it again. he said so. he's extending the Trump tax cuts.

i supplied you with citations that provided that there was no economic advantage in the first year of the tax cuts. you said that COVID distorting things for the next year so i gave you that. there is no proof that those tax cuts generated any economic benefit. if there is then you should cite it.

and you're wrong about the last point. when tax cuts are provided and the government has to borrow to cover costs then the interest on that is a cost. its also a debt that has to be paid later. possibly by an even more regressive tax regime.

Trump added 8 trillion to the national debt in his first term.

Edited January 13 by godzilla

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, godzilla said:

he is doing it again. he said so. he's extending the Trump tax cuts.

As we went over the evidence you provided does not support that.  And you're flip flopping between claiming you're talking about the past and then that you're talking about the future.  You can't use incomplete evidence from the past that leaves out critical information and then claim that's proof of a future that contains dozens of variables you can't account for. 

 

And in fact look at this, federal revenues went UP between 2017 and 2019.  The changes trump made did not result in a reduction of revenues as you claim. Over all revenues were higher. And corporate taxes were a big hunk of that jump

Government Revenue | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

You've just got no where left to go with this.  Trump didn't cost anyone any money, never mind 10 trillion or the like.  He lowered taxes and expenses for all, grew gov't revenue by improving the economy and reducing gov't costs as a percent of gdp, and not a single person is poorer just because the rich are rich, in fact they're better off because of the rich's success. 

you fought hard and made at least somewhat reasonable arguments which is why I'm not laughing at you or calling you names but there's no where left to go with this. By every metric and by every way of interpretation your original premise was entirely wrong and no premise that you brought up since then is doing any better

[godzilla]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry you're just wrong about this. You've been wrong about just about every one of your claims so far. And your citations do not seem to say what you are arguing.

yeah, i could cite all day long about how wealth inequality is bad for democracy and society but you're not going to read any of it. its something your confirmation bias is never going to get past.

[CdnFox]

Just now, godzilla said:

yeah, i could cite all day long about how wealth inequality is bad for democracy and society but you're not going to read any of it.

LOL i've literally shot down every one of your cites so far, don't get mad at me just because your cites don't say what you want them to   You've made zero case that the wealth gap is a hugely negative thing in the slightest. 

The majority of people who want the wealth gap to be a problem fall into one or both of two catagories.  Those who are jealous as hell that other people have more than them without considering what they had to do to get it and the fact their own lives are pretty good,  and those who want to steal what those others have earned and are looking to justify it. 

Wealth inequity is not a problem, other than it can technically be a sign of other flaws in a system such as the feudal one. 

You earn what you earn and you can afford what  you can afford regardless of what elon musk earns. Sorry. 

[godzilla]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As we went over the evidence you provided does not support that.  And you're flip flopping between claiming you're talking about the past and then that you're talking about the future.  You can't use incomplete evidence from the past that leaves out critical information and then claim that's proof of a future that contains dozens of variables you can't account for. 

 

And in fact look at this, federal revenues went UP between 2017 and 2019.  The changes trump made did not result in a reduction of revenues as you claim. Over all revenues were higher. And corporate taxes were a big hunk of that jump

Government Revenue | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

You've just got no where left to go with this.  Trump didn't cost anyone any money, never mind 10 trillion or the like.  He lowered taxes and expenses for all, grew gov't revenue by improving the economy and reducing gov't costs as a percent of gdp, and not a single person is poorer just because the rich are rich, in fact they're better off because of the rich's success. 

you fought hard and made at least somewhat reasonable arguments which is why I'm not laughing at you or calling you names but there's no where left to go with this. By every metric and by every way of interpretation your original premise was entirely wrong and no premise that you brought up since then is doing any better

fill me in? you're claiming that the Trump tax cuts took until the Biden administration to start returns? nothing to do with Biden administration policy? figures...

Edited January 13 by godzilla

[godzilla]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL i've literally shot down every one of your cites so far, don't get mad at me just because your cites don't say what you want them to   You've made zero case that the wealth gap is a hugely negative thing in the slightest. 

The majority of people who want the wealth gap to be a problem fall into one or both of two catagories.  Those who are jealous as hell that other people have more than them without considering what they had to do to get it and the fact their own lives are pretty good,  and those who want to steal what those others have earned and are looking to justify it. 

Wealth inequity is not a problem, other than it can technically be a sign of other flaws in a system such as the feudal one. 

You earn what you earn and you can afford what  you can afford regardless of what elon musk earns. Sorry. 

let me know when you wake from your dream state. you're so deep in it.

"Income inequality can be detrimental to a country's wellbeing, leading to financial instability, poorer economic growth, and lower government investment in services like healthcare and education. Countries with higher Gini indexes also tend to have higher household debt."

even Google AI is a "leftist" plot! ahahaha!

Edited January 13 by godzilla

[User]

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

hilarious. talk about confirmation bias.

There's nothing hilarious about it. I am not going to indulge your lazy game. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

here's my whole post that you didn't read i guess over again...

How income inequality threatens democracy

Wealth inequality, democracy and economic freedom

"Wealth inequality significantly hampers economic freedom and this effect is reinforced at a lower level of democracy."

Inequality Spurs Democratic Backsliding

How Inequality Undermines Democracy

Support for Democracy in the Age of Rising Inequality and Population Aging

i could go on all day.

and for the contrarian view... since you guys love the Koch Institute... i mean, the Cato Institute.

Has Wealth Inequality Eroded U.S. Democracy?

"In short, the evidence for wealth inequality leading to democratic capture is extraordinarily thin."

hmm... well maybe not so contrarian. they just said it was "thin".

but more importantly... from the Harvard Business Review

Income Inequality Makes Whole Countries Less Happy

Sorry kiddo, they're wrong or they're not talking about what you think they are, depending on the article. 

You can post what is essentially the same argument 100000 times but it still has the same flaws. 

First off Every single one of them is making the democracy argument. So obviously you don't have a problem with wealth inequality other than democracy

They all have exactly the same premise, that democracy requires that we all have equal standing and then it suggests that you can't possibly have equal standing if you don't have equal wealth.

The problem is this is blatantly false. This last election proved that Beyond any sane doubt. Harris had vastly more money. She also had far more influential people and stars backing her. All of the supposed advantages of wealth were hers and at her fingertips. And she still got her ass handed to her by a reasonably broke convicted felon whom she outspent by something stupid like 10 to 1 or something. 

In fact every citizen has the same standing and while they may use different methods the most effective method is always organizing and a single person with next to no money is quite capable of standing up and starting an organization and organizing people and we have seen that many many times.

 

So the inequity is not a democratic inequity. Money doesn't win elections. Fame and power doesn't win elections.

 

Sorry I didn't see this one earlier respond to it but there's so many. Anyway do you got anything left? Kind of feels like we've been through everything

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

let me know when you wake from your dream state. you're so deep in it.

It's called reality kid, and while it's true that logic and reason are not dreams the only one woke here is you  

Quote

 

"Income inequality can be detrimental to a country's wellbeing, leading to financial instability, poorer economic growth, and lower government investment in services like healthcare and education. Countries with higher Gini indexes also tend to have higher household debt."

even Google AI is a "leftist" plot! ahahaha!

 

Of course it is. AI doesn't actually think for itself, it's a product of what it's fed. If 10,000 lefties like yourself go on the web and post articles about how terrible for democracy income inequality is then that's what the AI is going to spit out. There are people at Google right now feeding articles into the AI for it to learn, they are notoriously left-wing.

This is why the big companies have just backed away from their fact-checking organizations who all turned out to be left wing and acting deliberately to minimize right wing ad revenue.

As I said before we just had an election that proved every single thing you are saying is wrong

[godzilla]

On 1/12/2025 at 9:48 PM, CdnFox said:

Money doesn't win elections. Fame and power doesn't win elections.

yeah, right.

you don't read the cites. money IS power. Bannon says himself that with Musks money then Trump wouldn't have gotten over the finish line.

Money in elections means that not everyone has an equal say because not everyone has an equal influence.

and your argument that everyone gets richer is BS. a quarter of the workforce in the US makes under $15/hour. over half make less than $19/hour. in the last 50 years the buying power of the bottom half just drops. yes, they can afford plastic tooth brushes that didn't exist 40 years ago... but not homes!

they are doing worse than their parents. how is it that real estate continues to go up in value when the demand side for people who need homes goes down? because is the investment class that is buying these homes including those who want to own several homes for their own enjoyment.

[User]

1 minute ago, godzilla said:

yeah, right.

you don't read the cites. money IS power. Bannon says himself that with Musks money then Trump wouldn't have gotten over the finish line.

Money in elections means that not everyone has an equal say because not everyone has an equal influence.

and your argument that everyone gets richer is BS. a quarter of the workforce in the US makes under $15/hour. over half make less than $19/hour. in the last 50 years the buying power of the bottom half just drops. yes, they can afford plastic tooth brushes that didn't exist 40 years ago... but not homes!

they are doing worse than their parents. how is it that real estate continues to go up in value when the demand side for people who need homes goes down? because is the investment class that is buying these homes including those who want to own several homes for their own enjoyment.

If money won elections as you argue here... Harris should have won. She had more of it, she had more billionaires backing her. She spent more of it. 

Money certainly helps get the message out, to fund campaigns, to fund the people on the ground organizing, sure. 

But in the end, it is still people voting. 



 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, godzilla said:

yeah, right.

Sorry but that's the way it is. Harper I'll spend the liberals by a considerable margin in 2015 and lost. Kamala outspent trump by almost 5 to 1 And had a vast array of celebrity endorsements, and lost badly. In fact historically if you look at it there's absolutely no correlation between who spent the most money and who won the election. In either country.

Money can help there's no doubt. Being able to advertise is important.

But it is not the largest determining Factor and it absolutely cannot buy an election for you and history is absolutely clear

And it is foolish to say everyone doesn't have an equal say. They absolutely do. This is especially true in Canada of course. But democracy is all about the Grassroots, and anybody can organize the local people to get out door knock work with candidates so on and so forth and get their message out. Again the results prove that this is true

America has a higher average working wage than Canada by far. As to the percentage of workers earning lower incomes of course. Most of those jobs are not intended to be careers. Most are entry-level jobs allowing young people to gain work experience and flush out their resumes. A paper route is not intended to provide a living wage. In addition that statistic does not account for tips. Many entertainment or bar workers do in fact get paid less than $15 an hour, but then receive tips in excess of their hourly earnings.

Absolutely is everybody is richer when are allowed to earn as much as they can. People becoming millionaires and billionaires drives up the wealth of a country even at the poorest level.

As to the kids in Canada not being able to afford homes but can afford plastic toothbrushes (????)  That is entirely due to government policy and has nothing to do with people getting rich. And the demand side is going up not down, especially in Canada. It has nothing to do with people wanting multiple homes. The market will build whatever number of homes people want if allowed to operate freely

In the states what holds people back is inflation, but inflation has happened as a result of Biden's policies almost exclusively. Had he made different choices inflation would have been much lower and for a shorter time.

 

There is a reason why the phrase Get woke go broke has become popularized. It is the simple truth.

When you let a regulated free market do its job as much as possible and you make good policy decisions everyone prospers and the fact that some people prosper tremendously well still benefits those who only prosper a little bit better.

Sorry if this crushes your dreams of a communist Utopia  

[eyeball]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

When you let a regulated free market do its job as much as possible and you make good policy decisions everyone prospers

Soon we'll get to see what an unleashed market with the richest most powerful people making all the policy decisions looks like again.

"History Doesn't Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes” – Mark Twain.

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Soon we'll get to see what an unleashed market with the richest most powerful people making all the policy decisions looks like again.

"History Doesn't Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes” – Mark Twain.

 

No, I'll get to see it. You will only see what your brain allows after it's been completely filtered through the haze of your bigotry, hatred, bitterness over having failed for 10 years, desire for everyone to feel worse than you so that you don't feel as bad, and delusion. 

But either way, should be fun  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You will only see what your brain allows after it's been completely filtered through the haze of your bigotry, hatred, bitterness over having failed for 10 years,

Not at all, I'm getting over the failure just fine, I've seen it coming for decades after all.  It's time to embrace the horror.

 

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not at all, I'm getting over the failure just fine, I've seen it coming for decades after all.  It's time to embrace the horror.

There's a good leftie.  If truth and reality are inconvenient and troublesome then a complete pigheaded unwillingness to look facts in the face will see you through!