Kamala's plan would add nearly 2 $Billion to the debt.

[Woodznutz]

Do you mean $2trillion instead of $2billion? Otherwise your math doesn't work.

But yes, Kamala is just throwing wild stuff in the air to trick people into voting for her. These proposals don't have a prayer of becoming reality unless she has a Democrat House and Senate or unless she illegally takes the money from other departments and I'm pretty sure, like Biden, if she thinks she could get away with that she would do that.

But all the new taxes she wants--allowing the Trump tax reforms to expire next year plus taxing unrealized capital gains are perhaps the worst of all of them--will cost Americans trillions along with a lot of other uglies that come with really REALLY bad economic policies.

My math was off. It should be $20Billion X 90 percent failure = $18Billion added to the debt.

 

[Woodznutz]

Hilarious

Yea, the $16 a month until you file your taxes.

$160 a month, net savings.

 

[otto105]

My math was off. It should be $20Billion X 90 percent failure = $18Billion added to the debt.

Your math sucks.

 

[Woodznutz]

Another failed thread from Trumpers.

If Trump wins his plan will add 5.8 trillion dollars to the debt. Kamala’s plan is more fiscally sound not to mention her plan will actually add jobs and increase productivity.

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/28/trump-harris-national-debt-election

Her housing plan will break the bank. She not only wants to incentivize buyers but will have to incentivize builders as well as city planners. No one wants 'affordable housing' in their neighborhood. Just incentivizing buyers will cost $75Billion over four years. She will then have to bribe the builders (another $75Billion?) and then the city planners.

 

[Woodznutz]

Your math sucks.

I only missed it by one zero.

 

[Orangecat]

Kamala's plan is to give a $50,000 tax credit to new business startups.

100,000 startups per year X $50,000 X 4 years = $2Billion
Success rate of 10 percent = 90 percent failure.
90 percent of $2Billion = $1,800,000.000 added to national debt.

*100,000 startups per year may be a low figure, based on the incentive.

I have to be intellectually consistent here:
Reducing taxation does not add to the debt. Only spending above revenue levels does that. If these tax credits are offset with spending cuts, no harm, no foul.
The real problem with her plan is she’s trying to sell it by implying that new businesses will get a $50,000 windfall to help them get started when they actually will only get taxed less after they’ve already started.

 

[otto105]

Her housing plan will break the bank. She not only wants to incentivize buyers but will have to incentivize builders as well as city planners. No one wants 'affordable housing' in their neighborhood.

Not true at all. And great NIMBY fuckup.

Tell us all, how imposing a 100% tariff on imported goods would affect our economy.

 

[otto105]

I have to be intellectually consistent here:
Reducing taxation does not add to the debt. Only spending above revenue levels does that. If these tax credits are offset with spending cuts, no harm, no foul.
The real problem with her plan is she’s trying to sell it by implying that new businesses will get a $50,000 windfall to help them get started when they actually will only get taxed less after they’ve already started.

Hilarious

Reducing revenue does increase deficits.

 

[Woodznutz]

I have to be intellectually consistent here:
Reducing taxation does not add to the debt. Only spending above revenue levels does that. If these tax credits are offset with spending cuts, no harm, no foul.
The real problem with her plan is she’s trying to sell it by implying that new businesses will get a $50,000 windfall to help them get started when they actually will only get taxed less after they’ve already started.

The tax credit will be parceled out over a period of years, I'm guessing five. So, by the time many businesses finally fail they will have received the full $50,000 tax credit.

 

[Orangecat]

Hilarious

Reducing revenue does increase deficits.

Incorrect. Only spending above revenue increases debt. Logic.

 

[Woodznutz]

Not true at all. And great NIMBY fuckup.

Tell us all, how imposing a 100% tariff on imported goods would affect our economy.

Tariffs are a terrible idea. Trump should know better.

 

[otto105]

Incorrect. Only spending above revenue increases debt. Logic.

Hilarious

 

[Orangecat]

Hilarious

Only to imbeciles.

 

[otto105]

Only to imbeciles.

So, government takes $100,000 to run and some idiot reduces tax revenue to $90,000 that ain’t increasing the deficit.

Huh?

 

[Orangecat]

So, government takes $100,000 to run and some idiot reduces tax revenue to $90,000 that ain’t increasing the deficit.

Huh?

Overspending causes debt, not reduced income. Try using your head for something other than a hat stand, Snotto.

 

[otto105]

Overspending causes debt, not reduced income. Try using your head for something other than a hat stand, Snotto.

Hilarious

 

[Orangecat]

Hilarious

Only to imbeciles.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Compared to $8T that got us nothing. I’ll take it.

3M new home owners.... sounds like a good investment for $75 billion.

Compared to $8T that got us nothing. I’ll take it.

I agree, we shouldn't blame Harris for the $8T that the Biden/Harris team added to the debt.

3M new home owners.... sounds like a good investment for $75 billion.

Sounds like you want a new real estate bubble. Aren't home prices already too high?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah yes, trickle down which has led to every recession since 1987.

Supply side economics works every time it's tried.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Learn more…Opens in new tab

In 2020, the poverty rate in the United States decreased due to government assistance and tax policies, which helped prevent a near-record increase in poverty. The poverty rate was 11.4% using the official poverty measure, but 9.1% using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). This was the first time the SPM rate was lower than the official poverty rate.


Here are some other details about poverty in 2020:

• Government assistance
  Social Security, unemployment insurance, and stimulus payments helped move millions of people out of poverty.
  
  
  
• Poverty rate by race
  The poverty rate for non-Hispanic Whites was 8.2%, for Hispanics it was 17.0%, and for Blacks it was 19.5%.
  
  
  
• Poverty rate by age
  The poverty rate for people under 18 was 16.1%, for people aged 18 to 64 it was 10.4%, and for people aged 65 and older it was 9.0%.
  
  
  
• Poverty rate by occupation
  The poverty rate was lowest for people in management, professional, and related occupations, and highest for people in service occupations.

The poverty rate was 11.4% using the official poverty measure, but 9.1% using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). This was the first time the SPM rate was lower than the official poverty rate.

The poverty measure that ignores non-cash government benefits has never been higher than the poverty measure that includes non-cash government benefits?

That doesn't sound possible.