Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 1/1/2025 at 10:24 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Because it’s a transfer from future to present and represents structural expansion of the deficit and the debt. Ands for your “both sides,” I should hope that I’ve made it clear over the last 23 years that I don’t care at all about any of that. 

The tax REVENUE increased after the cuts.  In fact, it increased 47% from 3.33T in 2018 to 4.9T in 2022.

Assuming,  the dumbass gov't didn't increase spending, then the deficit would decrease and the debt would grow slower.

But then, even IF the dumbass gov't DID increase spending, the debt would STILL grow slower than without them...

Please explain how DECREASING the rate that the debt increases is a "wealth transfer" from future generations when they will owe LESS with those tax cuts.

 

Posted
14 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Well, thanks, @Ag with kids, for the opportunity to point out the turnip party wants to cut SS, and, perhaps, Medicare, despite those two programs having a dedicated tax, which legally employed citizens pay into, and for that half of the country you mention, at 100% of their income. 

You DO understand that SS and MC will soon not take in enough money to pay out current benefits within a decade, right?

In a decade, if something doesn't get fixed/reformed/whateveryouwanttocallit with both programs, the "wealth transfer" that bozo doesn't want WILL occur...

So, if you'd like to ignore the upcoming problem, feel free...

But, at some point in time, even the Democrats will be voting to reduce benefits when they realize the "Social Security Trust Fund" is nothing more than this:

5b04f4c806c8bb013fba9bb09ff5d9db.jpg

Posted (edited)

would you rather have cash in the trust fund that doesn't earn interest?

 

it's far too late to go back in time to when reagan didn't bring rates back down* and keep it a program that pretty much always ran with a thin buffer. now we've had 40 years of the social security tax being locked in, when for the first 50 years it changed pretty often. and we've trained 3 generations that the social security tax rate doesn't change.

at that time we also changed the tax code to vastly prefer the economy pay out in capital gains to wage income, leading to a reduction in the social security tax base.

 

 

*leading to huge surpluses he used to mask the deficits he was intentionally running.

Edited by elfenix
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

You DO understand that SS and MC will soon not take in enough money to pay out current benefits within a decade, right?

In a decade, if something doesn't get fixed/reformed/whateveryouwanttocallit with both programs, the "wealth transfer" that bozo doesn't want WILL occur...

So, if you'd like to ignore the upcoming problem, feel free...

But, at some point in time, even the Democrats will be voting to reduce benefits when they realize the "Social Security Trust Fund" is nothing more than this:

5b04f4c806c8bb013fba9bb09ff5d9db.jpg

Yes, I am aware of the crunch. Maybe, because of my age, I am also aware of Democrats who tried to set aside the inflow for today’s outflow and were outvoted by Republicans who wanted those funds included in the general budget (generally speaking.) I am also cognizant of the income cap, beyond which taxpayer’s income is no longer subject to these specific taxations. 
 

I am open to learning how taxing all income for these programs isn’t sufficient to the need, as well as that rate which would do so. Truth is, I haven’t the desire to learn what exactly is currently necessary to meet this nation’s promises, given the profligate motivations of past Republicans.

Edited to recognize you are aware that your claim that 50% of US citizens pay no tax is utter bullshit.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Posted

it's amazing to me that you can post this chart and then post the bolded text in the same day

200405.png.f97106320b50d61e6ddd4286200284bc.png

On 1/1/2025 at 10:11 PM, Ag with kids said:

How is it a "wealth transfer" when the tax rates went DOWN?

And when 50% of people pay 0% taxes...what wealth is being transferred where?

NOW...the spending part is Dumbass 101, but that's on both sides...

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
On 1/1/2025 at 10:54 PM, Willfully Horn said:

Who pays zero tax? How do they avoid sales and property taxes? How do they avoid paying into social security and Medicare?
 

 

Sigh...we're discussing FEDERAL INCOME taxes.  There are not any FEDERAL sales or property taxes (well, I'm sure the tax code has some fucked up obscure ones, but not for the vast majority of people).

Some people avoid SS by working in jobs that don't pay into it.  Texas teachers, for instance.

But, almost 50% of workers do not pay ANY federal income taxes.

The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.

And there are a significant percentage of those bottom 50% that pay a NEGATIVE income tax rate.

 

19 hours ago, Bookman said:

Yes aren't the numbers you posted incomplete at best? 

Could you expound on this?

Posted
24 minutes ago, elfenix said:

it's amazing to me that you can post this chart and then post the bolded text in the same day

 

200405.png.f97106320b50d61e6ddd4286200284bc.png

 

You DO understand that is a graph of federal REVENUES, right?

Can you explain how those revenues increasing contradicts my other post?

Posted
41 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Yes, I am aware of the crunch. Maybe, because of my age, I am also aware of Democrats who tried to set aside the inflow for today’s outflow and were outvoted by Republicans who wanted those funds included in the general budget (generally speaking.) I am also cognizant of the income cap, beyond which taxpayer’s income is no longer subject to these specific taxations. 
 

I am open to learning how taxing all income for these programs isn’t sufficient to the need, as well as that rate which would do so. Truth is, I haven’t the desire to learn what exactly is currently necessary to meet this nation’s promises, given the profligate motivations of past Republicans.

The SSA not only disagrees with you, but they point to a different party that changed the accounting rules...

Quote

Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget."

Note that in 1968, the Democrats controlled the Senate, House, and Presidency...

 

Quote

Edited to recognize you are aware that your claim that 50% of US citizens pay no tax is utter bullshit.

I posted above some data for you.

Posted
4 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Could you expound on this?

It seems to me that those numbers should be compared to what otherwise would have been. 

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

The tax REVENUE increased after the cuts.  In fact, it increased 47% from 3.33T in 2018 to 4.9T in 2022

Because you are a partisan Republican (like @Brisketexan was) you have been trained to believe that the causational relationship between fiscal stimulus via tax cuts and revenue recovery = eventual debt reduction. That’s political sleight of hand, not economic reality. 

7 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Assuming,  the dumbass gov't didn't increase spending, then the deficit would decrease and the debt would grow slower.

But then, even IF the dumbass gov't DID increase spending, the debt would STILL grow slower than without them...

 

image.png.8d87013bb15a122d0d4999eb3374013d.png

7 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Please explain how DECREASING the rate that the debt increases is a "wealth transfer" from future generations when they will owe LESS with those tax cuts.

Sure- and pay close attention here, because you seem to have missed a point I've been making for 22 years: we’re talking about specific, real-life events here, not hypothetical ones. Debt funded stimulus during expansion (2001, 2003, 2017) is stupid because organic growth is picking all the low hanging fruit, and stimulus is therefore inflationary.
So in this scenario it’s because the cost of the debt that was incurred to stimulate the economy was higher than whatever additional revenue was generated through the stimulus. 
 

 

7 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

You DO understand that SS and MC will soon not take in enough money to pay out current benefits within a decade, right?

In a decade, if something doesn't get fixed/reformed/whateveryouwanttocallit with both programs, the "wealth transfer" that bozo doesn't want WILL occur...

So, if you'd like to ignore the upcoming problem, feel free...

Oh, bless your heart.

 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 2
Posted
7 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

The SSA not only disagrees with you, but they point to a different party that changed the accounting rules...

Note that in 1968, the Democrats controlled the Senate, House, and Presidency...

 

I posted above some data for you.

Johnson borrowed money against SS to pay for the Vietnam War. Reagan and Bush borrowed money against SS to pay for tax cuts.

But, again, those citizens at the bottom of the pay scale pay federal payroll taxes. They pay into SS and Medicare. Do you claim teachers, or other government employees, those who exempt from SS tax and also from benefits, do not pay federal income tax? 
 

Yeah, I am concerned about not letting old people starve and also about medical care for sick people. And, while I am open to means testing for recipients, I know where the vast majority of wealth this nation has created over the past half century is located, and I support WW2 era tax policies upon that wealth.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

You DO understand that SS and MC will soon not take in enough money to pay out current benefits within a decade, right?

In a decade, if something doesn't get fixed/reformed/whateveryouwanttocallit with both programs, the "wealth transfer" that bozo doesn't want WILL occur...

So, if you'd like to ignore the upcoming problem, feel free...

But, at some point in time, even the Democrats will be voting to reduce benefits when they realize the "Social Security Trust Fund" is nothing more than this:

5b04f4c806c8bb013fba9bb09ff5d9db.jpg

Just because it’s the SS program that will be running a deficit doesn’t mean that it’s the SS program that will need to see benefit cuts.  

also

200.gif?cid=6c09b9524vzwsgayzj0kzdvb3nei

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

You DO understand that is a graph of federal REVENUES, right?

Can you explain how those revenues increasing contradicts my other post?

you DO understand that federal REVENUES includes payroll taxes which those "50% pay 0%" people pay, right?

 

apparently not or you wouldn't have posted dumb shit like "50% pay 0%" right after posting a graph of federal REVENUES.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

AWK is another one of those conservatives who I think really has become noticeably dumber during the Trump era.

He didn’t get dumber and they didn’t generally. They just retained a conservative political vocabulary even though their political tribe abandoned its conservative economic policy posture for this. So there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance there. It’s like you put Jay Gould’s brain in William Jennings Bryan’s mouth. 

Posted (edited)

Fortunately, it seems Amazon changed their tune, probably once they realized the media was in touch with her.

Alabama mom is hit by truck, then shot in New Orleans attack | Crime/Police | theadvocate.com

Quote

The Amazon warehouse where she works originally denied her request for a leave of absence, but the company said in a statement Friday that they've since spoken with her and given her time off with pay.

 

Rules

spacer.png

Edited by pacman
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Do we know what kind of leave of absence she was requesting?  I find it hard to imagine that they were telling her she'd be fired if she didn't show up to work today. I work at a place with stellar benefits, but if the same thing happened to me I'd be paid for as long as the sick time lasted and given an option for leave without pay after that. 

Posted

Yeah everyone is just high fiving that Jimmy Carter died so flags will be at half-staff when Trumps gets inaugurated. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

image.thumb.png.e69299a2ec4ea681eb9dee87ecc8031f.png

My wife predicted this response about 5 minutes into the special report that interrupted her watching the AKC Dog Show on ABC.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

AWK is another one of those conservatives who I think really has become noticeably dumber during the Trump era.

He’s not dumber. You’ve just noticed it.

I’m just reminded why I already had him on ignore.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Johnson borrowed money against SS to pay for the Vietnam War. Reagan and Bush borrowed money against SS to pay for tax cuts.

But, again, those citizens at the bottom of the pay scale pay federal payroll taxes. They pay into SS and Medicare. Do you claim teachers, or other government employees, those who exempt from SS tax and also from benefits, do not pay federal income tax? 
 

Yeah, I am concerned about not letting old people starve and also about medical care for sick people. And, while I am open to means testing for recipients, I know where the vast majority of wealth this nation has created over the past half century is located, and I support WW2 era tax policies upon that wealth.

 

 

Are you aware that wealth and income are two separate things?

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He’s not dumber. You’ve just noticed it.

I’m just reminded why I already had him on ignore.

Hell,  I had this entire forum on ignore until @Bozo_Casanova sucked me back in for the first time in a few years. :D

  • Fuck You 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Just because it’s the SS program that will be running a deficit doesn’t mean that it’s the SS program that will need to see benefit cuts.  

also

200.gif?cid=6c09b9524vzwsgayzj0kzdvb3nei

Nope.

They'll just borrow more.  Do more of that @Bozo_Casanova "wealth transfer" he's against...

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

Hell,  I had this entire forum on ignore until @Bozo_Casanova sucked me back in for the first time in a few years. :D

You don't add anything so just stay away.  A-M-C, gig 'em aigy, 1-2-3.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

Nope.

They'll just borrow more.  Do more of that @Bozo_Casanova "wealth transfer" he's against...

It’s hard to understand what you are saying when you’re still chewing the food you took from your kids’ mouths. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 3
  • Haha 4
Posted
12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It’s hard to understand what you are saying when you’re still chewing the food you took from your kids’ mouths. 

These stupid fucks claim they are worried about “spending” 

When is the last republican administration who made meaningful cuts in spending? 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
11 hours ago, TexasHooch said:

Fucking Jimmy did this on purpose!!!!!1

I hope his ghost shows up with the grim reaper on Inauguration Day and does one last good thing for the country.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

The artiste notes something that seems to be lost these days, that being that media has a public obligation beyond being a profit-making enterprise.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...