5 ms·

I'm going to assume good faith here. Yesterday they just asked congress for $4.3 trillion in deficit spending (debt increase) to fund tax cuts for the people wh

I'm going to assume good faith here. Yesterday they just asked congress for $4.3 trillion in deficit spending (debt increase) to fund tax cuts for the people who pay the lowest taxes already. The majority of government spending is on defense, which hasn't been auditable in decades. You're either wildly misinformed, or trolling.

gadders 2y ago
[flagged]
- cycomanic 2y ago
  You care about debt, so why did you vote for the guy who increased the debt more than his successor https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225 https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and... Also it seems like you're confused by what a budget plan is for, it is what they want to do, not about the past.
  - gadders 2y ago
    >>so why did you vote for the guy who increased the debt more than his successor But less than his predecessor. And I didn't vote, I'm not a US citizen or resident.
    - cycomanic 2y ago
      You are aware that Obamas presidency lasted twice as long? So DJT added almost as much debt in absolute terms (6.7T vs 7.7T) and just over half as much in relative terms (33% vs 64%) in half the time. That's why I compared to Biden. They are much easier to compare.
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    Debt is the wrong metric. You really should be using deficit. Bush ran up a massive deficit from from '00 to '08, which Obama then inherited. The debt increasing under Obama is Bush's fault. The deficit LOWERED under Obama.
- whoitwas 2y ago
  Based on your reply, you don't really understand much. That's okay. It's okay to be ignorant. It's an opportunity to learn and improve. Congress asked for a debt increase because they plan to cut taxes. The debt hasn't been accrued yet, they plan to cut taxes and it will cost 4.3 trillion. DOGE isn't trying to make the government better or more efficient. They want to cut programs and staff they're ideologically opposed to which is in theory all government, but in practice all government that doesn't enrich Trump or Musk.
  - gadders 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - whoitwas 2y ago
      What do you find objectionable about that statement? I don't consume any social media. This is the closest thing. I assume you must at least use Twitter or some other right wing propaganda outlet to think DOGE is about efficiency. Most government spending is military. DOGE has targeted things like: Meals on Wheels, the Department of Education, National Institute of Health. The evidence I see suggests DOGE wants to implement Project 2025 with Elon's personal touch. An opportunity he paid for with his 270$ his campaign contribution.
      - gadders 2y ago
        [flagged]
        whoitwas 2y ago
        What's low hanging about USAID? That will have untold consequences such as the impact on Meals on Wheels, which was a USAID program. It seems like USAID was something Elon hates because of their work helping to end apartheid in his home country. Elon's companies are great beneficiaries of government funding. Yesterday the federal government decided to acquire $400 million in armored Teslas. I have no idea what opera in Guatemala you're describing. That sounds like something you would learn on social media. Not very concrete. Trump was in debt prior to the 2016 election. Had hundreds of millions in debt that he could never pay. Now he's rich and still scamming because ??? I think it's because he's been so criminal he has no choice. I don't consider it democracy. Democracy has been co-opted through mass manipulation and mind control with social media. Donald Trump and now Elon Musk have found a way to defeat reality.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Take a look at how much the deficit increased in Trumps first term. Did Trumps tax cuts put money if your pocket? They didn’t put money in mine (but Biden’s tax policies - child tax credits - did, ironically).
  - orthecreedence 2y ago
    > Did Trumps tax cuts put money if your pocket? Yes, the standard deduction effectively doubled. That helped lower my federal income tax, and probably the taxes of anyone who didn't own multiple properties. I'm not a fan of Trump at all, but he did cut income taxes in his first term.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Yes, the standard deduction doubled, but that was offset by the reduction in the personal exceptions per dependent and dropping the individualized deductions, so for families with children (like us), unless they were higher income (which we are not), the tax cuts just about broke even. Maybe you're higher income or don't have kids. Here's a summary of the impact[0] > The average tax refund was $90 higher in 2018 than 2017, according to 2019 IRS data. (This statistic covers tax filers who used a version of Form 1040.) However, more detailed IRS data, released February 2020, shows that the refunds were not equally distributed across the population. > Taxpayers with an AGI of less than $10,000 received 11.5% fewer refunds in 2018 than 2017, and the total value of their refunds was 17% less. (A 2018 analysis from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found single filers who earned minimum wage and had no children were least likely to save on their income taxes in 2018.) Across tax returns with an AGI between $1 and $50,000, taxpayers received 4.5% fewer refunds in 2018 and their refunds were worth 2.7% less. > Taxpayers with AGI between $50,000 and $100,000 received 2.5% more refunds but those refunds were worth 1.8% less than in 2017. Those with an AGI of more than $200,000 received 45% more refunds in 2018 and the value of those refunds was 203.4% higher. Taxpayers with an AGI of $1 million or more received 216% more refunds than in 2017 and those refunds were worth 394.3% more. [0] https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/who-benefited-most-from-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/ https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/who-benefited-most-from-t...
belorn 2y ago
I am always reminded by a critique of the Obama v Mitt Romney (2012) how if there is one thing the left and right are in full agreement on, it is to massively spend on the military. The left and the right can disagree on health, taxes, and the economy, but when it comes to the military they are in a full agreement. This old video from rap news still ring very true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXU
BoiledCabbage 2y ago
> I'm going to assume good faith here. Yesterday they just asked congress for $4.3 trillion in deficit spending (debt increase) to fund tax cuts for the people who pay the lowest taxes already. Completely - it's again propaganda vs reality. They keep showing exactly what they believe by their actions, but from.what I see people on the right keep believing their words/propaganda. There is such and echo chamber on the contermporary right it's incredible. No matter how much tangible, see-it-with-your-own-eyes evidence of something is presented, as long as there is a cover story given that denies it people seem to keep believing the story. And then afterwards when it becomes clear that reality was the case and not the story it all swaps over to rationalizations and the cycle begins again with a new topic. I remember when it was "there is no way this candidate really will do the extreme things he claims. He's just saying them for effect." To "he doesn't really mean he'll work to be a dictator from day one when he says it" "he doesn't really mean vote for him and you'll never need to vote again". Then when he starts doing it but gives a different cover story it: "Yah he's not really doing that, he's just cutting waste", to what will be "he's not really doing that he's just fixing unfair election procedures" and so on. Then finally it will be again "yes he actually did those things but here's why its ok and it doesn't change my mind". Extremely prominent SV backers in the VP side of the administration have said/implied multiple times if it's democracy or their world views, they choose instituting their world views - and somehow people are still making justifications saying "they don't really mean that, they won't really do that." Even with the clear evidence of what's happening now. Why do people refuse to believe people when they are explicitly stating their intentions? Sidestepping any specific political topic, this new view of "I'm against the other party's political touch point item that I'd rather throw out 250 years of democracy" is really wild to witness.
casey2 2y ago
How can you repeat exactly what he said verbatim and then call him misinformed or trolling? I'm going to assume bad faith here and remind other readers that only a small portion of the country is productive and those people should be incentivized to work above all others, even if it means paying them. This has been the status quo for a long time, rather than pay taxes and get it all back in controversial and bloated government contracts (which is what gives the appearance of government spending working) it's better to stay lean and just have them not pay, as this removes the middlemen. Let a company do it's job and you get people crying about them raping the planet and exploiting workers Stick a company with red tape, tax them a billion, give them (and yourself) a billion to complete a political project that goes nowhere and it's labeled a great success with people cheering in the street and using it as an example of socialist success for the next 60 years.
muddi900 2y ago
The largest discretionary spending is the military. The issue Americans have is that they can't really afford non-discretionary welfare spending.

gadders 2y ago

[flagged]

cycomanic 2y ago
You care about debt, so why did you vote for the guy who increased the debt more than his successor https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225 https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and... Also it seems like you're confused by what a budget plan is for, it is what they want to do, not about the past.
- gadders 2y ago
  >>so why did you vote for the guy who increased the debt more than his successor But less than his predecessor. And I didn't vote, I'm not a US citizen or resident.
  - cycomanic 2y ago
    You are aware that Obamas presidency lasted twice as long? So DJT added almost as much debt in absolute terms (6.7T vs 7.7T) and just over half as much in relative terms (33% vs 64%) in half the time. That's why I compared to Biden. They are much easier to compare.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  Debt is the wrong metric. You really should be using deficit. Bush ran up a massive deficit from from '00 to '08, which Obama then inherited. The debt increasing under Obama is Bush's fault. The deficit LOWERED under Obama.
whoitwas 2y ago
Based on your reply, you don't really understand much. That's okay. It's okay to be ignorant. It's an opportunity to learn and improve. Congress asked for a debt increase because they plan to cut taxes. The debt hasn't been accrued yet, they plan to cut taxes and it will cost 4.3 trillion. DOGE isn't trying to make the government better or more efficient. They want to cut programs and staff they're ideologically opposed to which is in theory all government, but in practice all government that doesn't enrich Trump or Musk.
- gadders 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - whoitwas 2y ago
    What do you find objectionable about that statement? I don't consume any social media. This is the closest thing. I assume you must at least use Twitter or some other right wing propaganda outlet to think DOGE is about efficiency. Most government spending is military. DOGE has targeted things like: Meals on Wheels, the Department of Education, National Institute of Health. The evidence I see suggests DOGE wants to implement Project 2025 with Elon's personal touch. An opportunity he paid for with his 270$ his campaign contribution.
    - gadders 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - whoitwas 2y ago
        What's low hanging about USAID? That will have untold consequences such as the impact on Meals on Wheels, which was a USAID program. It seems like USAID was something Elon hates because of their work helping to end apartheid in his home country. Elon's companies are great beneficiaries of government funding. Yesterday the federal government decided to acquire $400 million in armored Teslas. I have no idea what opera in Guatemala you're describing. That sounds like something you would learn on social media. Not very concrete. Trump was in debt prior to the 2016 election. Had hundreds of millions in debt that he could never pay. Now he's rich and still scamming because ??? I think it's because he's been so criminal he has no choice. I don't consider it democracy. Democracy has been co-opted through mass manipulation and mind control with social media. Donald Trump and now Elon Musk have found a way to defeat reality.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Take a look at how much the deficit increased in Trumps first term. Did Trumps tax cuts put money if your pocket? They didn’t put money in mine (but Biden’s tax policies - child tax credits - did, ironically).
- orthecreedence 2y ago
  > Did Trumps tax cuts put money if your pocket? Yes, the standard deduction effectively doubled. That helped lower my federal income tax, and probably the taxes of anyone who didn't own multiple properties. I'm not a fan of Trump at all, but he did cut income taxes in his first term.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Yes, the standard deduction doubled, but that was offset by the reduction in the personal exceptions per dependent and dropping the individualized deductions, so for families with children (like us), unless they were higher income (which we are not), the tax cuts just about broke even. Maybe you're higher income or don't have kids. Here's a summary of the impact[0] > The average tax refund was $90 higher in 2018 than 2017, according to 2019 IRS data. (This statistic covers tax filers who used a version of Form 1040.) However, more detailed IRS data, released February 2020, shows that the refunds were not equally distributed across the population. > Taxpayers with an AGI of less than $10,000 received 11.5% fewer refunds in 2018 than 2017, and the total value of their refunds was 17% less. (A 2018 analysis from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found single filers who earned minimum wage and had no children were least likely to save on their income taxes in 2018.) Across tax returns with an AGI between $1 and $50,000, taxpayers received 4.5% fewer refunds in 2018 and their refunds were worth 2.7% less. > Taxpayers with AGI between $50,000 and $100,000 received 2.5% more refunds but those refunds were worth 1.8% less than in 2017. Those with an AGI of more than $200,000 received 45% more refunds in 2018 and the value of those refunds was 203.4% higher. Taxpayers with an AGI of $1 million or more received 216% more refunds than in 2017 and those refunds were worth 394.3% more. [0] https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/who-benefited-most-from-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/ https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/who-benefited-most-from-t...

belorn 2y ago

I am always reminded by a critique of the Obama v Mitt Romney (2012) how if there is one thing the left and right are in full agreement on, it is to massively spend on the military. The left and the right can disagree on health, taxes, and the economy, but when it comes to the military they are in a full agreement. This old video from rap news still ring very true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpMPu5p_QXU

BoiledCabbage 2y ago

> I'm going to assume good faith here. Yesterday they just asked congress for $4.3 trillion in deficit spending (debt increase) to fund tax cuts for the people who pay the lowest taxes already. Completely - it's again propaganda vs reality. They keep showing exactly what they believe by their actions, but from.what I see people on the right keep believing their words/propaganda. There is such and echo chamber on the contermporary right it's incredible. No matter how much tangible, see-it-with-your-own-eyes evidence of something is presented, as long as there is a cover story given that denies it people seem to keep believing the story. And then afterwards when it becomes clear that reality was the case and not the story it all swaps over to rationalizations and the cycle begins again with a new topic. I remember when it was "there is no way this candidate really will do the extreme things he claims. He's just saying them for effect." To "he doesn't really mean he'll work to be a dictator from day one when he says it" "he doesn't really mean vote for him and you'll never need to vote again". Then when he starts doing it but gives a different cover story it: "Yah he's not really doing that, he's just cutting waste", to what will be "he's not really doing that he's just fixing unfair election procedures" and so on. Then finally it will be again "yes he actually did those things but here's why its ok and it doesn't change my mind". Extremely prominent SV backers in the VP side of the administration have said/implied multiple times if it's democracy or their world views, they choose instituting their world views - and somehow people are still making justifications saying "they don't really mean that, they won't really do that." Even with the clear evidence of what's happening now. Why do people refuse to believe people when they are explicitly stating their intentions? Sidestepping any specific political topic, this new view of "I'm against the other party's political touch point item that I'd rather throw out 250 years of democracy" is really wild to witness.

casey2 2y ago

How can you repeat exactly what he said verbatim and then call him misinformed or trolling? I'm going to assume bad faith here and remind other readers that only a small portion of the country is productive and those people should be incentivized to work above all others, even if it means paying them. This has been the status quo for a long time, rather than pay taxes and get it all back in controversial and bloated government contracts (which is what gives the appearance of government spending working) it's better to stay lean and just have them not pay, as this removes the middlemen. Let a company do it's job and you get people crying about them raping the planet and exploiting workers Stick a company with red tape, tax them a billion, give them (and yourself) a billion to complete a political project that goes nowhere and it's labeled a great success with people cheering in the street and using it as an example of socialist success for the next 60 years.

muddi900 2y ago

The largest discretionary spending is the military. The issue Americans have is that they can't really afford non-discretionary welfare spending.