The nitpicking republicans do about Bernie or Warren paying for their programs is such hypocrisy

[Billy000]

Let me start off by saying that I don’t think Bernie’s tax plan to pay for his programs is sound. I do think his programs can be paid for by both new revenue and cutting our bloated defense budget, but that’s a topic for another time.

What I find so petty is republicans nitpicking these policies while blatantly supporting tax cuts and new spending. Trump is set to explode the debt and deficit because of his spending and tax cuts but repubs pretend like children that won’t happen.

Tell me: how exactly is Trump’a useless wall going to be paid for? How are we paying for the THOUSANDS of migrant kids being detained here indefinitely on the tax payer’s dime? It is impossible to take republicans seriously.

You are crazy. The French tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and the result was a mass exodus of the wealthy, and their tax revenue, from the country.

Venezuela tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and it has the poor eating their pets.

You see this? Absolute, undeniable, concrete proof that jacking up taxes on the rich, did not result in higher tax revenues in the past.

Your system has never worked. Never. There is nothing "nitpicking" about pointing out that your entire ideology in all human history, has never worked.

As opposed to cutting taxes and spending? That’s what you think is the better idea? How ridiculous. Also, the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP remained consistent is because of the loopholes and deductions that the wealthy have always taken advantage of. There is such a thing as an effective tax rate and an official tax rate. The official tax rate is essentially irrelevant in this day an age. Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth. Those are the facts.

 

[Billy000]

Lol so it just doesn’t matter to you that 10’s of thousands of kids are being held here indefinitely on the tax payer’s dime? Of course I really don’t buy your 70% reduction figure either way.

And it does not matter to you we have laws that we must follow because all you want is to toss this kids onto the streets so they can be abused and then demand society to pay more taxes for them on social welfare programs you support...

Fact is Billy you hear Warren and Sanders speak and you believe their ideas are achievable, so why not try it first on a State level before trying on a Federal Level?

Lol when did anyone say we should just toss these kids into the street? I just told you that they should be deported. Deported WITH their parents because that is basic human decency.

Again, when an Illegal Immigrant with their kids claim Asylum we have laws we must obey, so yes those kids will stay in detention until the courts can clear the matter up if the family is eligible for asylum or not.

What you want is to close down the system and toss those kids out on the street while ignoring the legal process that must be followed!

Lol the courts aren’t clearing up the matter. You do get that right? Either way, doesn’t it make more sense to deport them ASAP? That is how the process always worked.

WTF!

WHAT PART OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CAN NOT BE DEPORTED UNTIL THEIR COURT HEARING?

Even if they are truly no eligible they must be seen by a court first before being rejected and that is the requirement.

So now you do not care about the law either?

Illegals are deported!

Lol you’re so stupid. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are being treated the same. Those kids are in cages INDEFINITELY either way.

 

[Andylusion]

Let me start off by saying that I don’t think Bernie’s tax plan to pay for his programs is sound. I do think his programs can be paid for by both new revenue and cutting our bloated defense budget, but that’s a topic for another time.

What I find so petty is republicans nitpicking these policies while blatantly supporting tax cuts and new spending. Trump is set to explode the debt and deficit because of his spending and tax cuts but repubs pretend like children that won’t happen.

Tell me: how exactly is Trump’a useless wall going to be paid for? How are we paying for the THOUSANDS of migrant kids being detained here indefinitely on the tax payer’s dime? It is impossible to take republicans seriously.

You are crazy. The French tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and the result was a mass exodus of the wealthy, and their tax revenue, from the country.

Venezuela tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and it has the poor eating their pets.

You see this? Absolute, undeniable, concrete proof that jacking up taxes on the rich, did not result in higher tax revenues in the past.

Your system has never worked. Never. There is nothing "nitpicking" about pointing out that your entire ideology in all human history, has never worked.

As opposed to cutting taxes and spending? That’s what you think is the better idea? How ridiculous. Also, the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP remained consistent is because of the loopholes and deductions that the wealthy have always taken advantage of. There is such a thing as an effective tax rate and an official tax rate. The official tax rate is essentially irrelevant in this day an age. Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth. Those are the facts.

Two wrongs, does not make a right.

You can't say... "Well I should be able to murder people, because that guy over there did the same thing!"

Trump over spending, does not justify you over spending.

Further, as much as Trump has over spent.... your people are openly supporting over spending. You can't tell me that your people are better options because they openly say they are going to over spend.

There are no loopholes, and you people are just as much in favor of deductions. Hell, you had Obama in the white house, and senate, and why didn't Obama and the Democrats with complete and total control over government, completely eliminate all those loop holes and deductions?

Because of you. You are the reason. The Democrats know their brainless, partisan bigoted followers, are so completely stupid that they can ignore all the deductions and tax breaks for 8 full years... and then as soon as a Republican is elected, turn on the partisan bickering again, and you morons will be right back here crying about it.

They play you fools like you were flute. And you never think for yourself, so you just mindless repeat whatever they say.

Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth.

No, this graph right here are the facts.

Fact is, in the 1950s with higher tax rates, we had lower over all revenue as a percentage of GDP.
At the very best, most optimistic view, we have almost the same amount of revenue.

That is the facts.

So regardless on how you mindless Democrat talking point parrots want to spin it, the reality is, we did not have the revenue for all the free programs Bernie and Warren want to push back in the 1950s, and going back to those bad tax rates, will not bring in the revenue for those programs today.

Those are the facts.

 

[Andylusion]

And it does not matter to you we have laws that we must follow because all you want is to toss this kids onto the streets so they can be abused and then demand society to pay more taxes for them on social welfare programs you support...

Fact is Billy you hear Warren and Sanders speak and you believe their ideas are achievable, so why not try it first on a State level before trying on a Federal Level?

Lol when did anyone say we should just toss these kids into the street? I just told you that they should be deported. Deported WITH their parents because that is basic human decency.

Again, when an Illegal Immigrant with their kids claim Asylum we have laws we must obey, so yes those kids will stay in detention until the courts can clear the matter up if the family is eligible for asylum or not.

What you want is to close down the system and toss those kids out on the street while ignoring the legal process that must be followed!

Lol the courts aren’t clearing up the matter. You do get that right? Either way, doesn’t it make more sense to deport them ASAP? That is how the process always worked.

WTF!

WHAT PART OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CAN NOT BE DEPORTED UNTIL THEIR COURT HEARING?

Even if they are truly no eligible they must be seen by a court first before being rejected and that is the requirement.

So now you do not care about the law either?

Illegals are deported!

Lol you’re so stupid. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are being treated the same. Those kids are in cages INDEFINITELY either way.

If the Asylum seeker is entering the country illegally, then yes.

If the Asylum seeker is being processed at a port of entry where they wait outside the border for processing of their claim, or if they apply at the US embassy in Mexico, or any other country, where they wait for processing outside the country....

then no, they are not being treated the same.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Let me start off by saying that I don’t think Bernie’s tax plan to pay for his programs is sound. I do think his programs can be paid for by both new revenue and cutting our bloated defense budget, but that’s a topic for another time.

What I find so petty is republicans nitpicking these policies while blatantly supporting tax cuts and new spending. Trump is set to explode the debt and deficit because of his spending and tax cuts but repubs pretend like children that won’t happen.

Tell me: how exactly is Trump’a useless wall going to be paid for? How are we paying for the THOUSANDS of migrant kids being detained here indefinitely on the tax payer’s dime? It is impossible to take republicans seriously.

You are crazy. The French tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and the result was a mass exodus of the wealthy, and their tax revenue, from the country.

Venezuela tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and it has the poor eating their pets.

You see this? Absolute, undeniable, concrete proof that jacking up taxes on the rich, did not result in higher tax revenues in the past.

Your system has never worked. Never. There is nothing "nitpicking" about pointing out that your entire ideology in all human history, has never worked.

As opposed to cutting taxes and spending? That’s what you think is the better idea? How ridiculous. Also, the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP remained consistent is because of the loopholes and deductions that the wealthy have always taken advantage of. There is such a thing as an effective tax rate and an official tax rate. The official tax rate is essentially irrelevant in this day an age. Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth. Those are the facts.

Now stuff it. Quit making crap up and pretending to be educated.
You really are an idiot.

"An individual's effective tax rate is calculated by dividing the number on line 16 of their 1040 Form, "Total Tax," by the number on line 11(b) of that form, "Taxable Income." For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by dividing total tax expenses by the company's earnings before taxes.Nov 27, 2019"

Effective Tax Rate

 

[Billy000]

Let me start off by saying that I don’t think Bernie’s tax plan to pay for his programs is sound. I do think his programs can be paid for by both new revenue and cutting our bloated defense budget, but that’s a topic for another time.

What I find so petty is republicans nitpicking these policies while blatantly supporting tax cuts and new spending. Trump is set to explode the debt and deficit because of his spending and tax cuts but repubs pretend like children that won’t happen.

Tell me: how exactly is Trump’a useless wall going to be paid for? How are we paying for the THOUSANDS of migrant kids being detained here indefinitely on the tax payer’s dime? It is impossible to take republicans seriously.

You are crazy. The French tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and the result was a mass exodus of the wealthy, and their tax revenue, from the country.

Venezuela tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and it has the poor eating their pets.

You see this? Absolute, undeniable, concrete proof that jacking up taxes on the rich, did not result in higher tax revenues in the past.

Your system has never worked. Never. There is nothing "nitpicking" about pointing out that your entire ideology in all human history, has never worked.

As opposed to cutting taxes and spending? That’s what you think is the better idea? How ridiculous. Also, the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP remained consistent is because of the loopholes and deductions that the wealthy have always taken advantage of. There is such a thing as an effective tax rate and an official tax rate. The official tax rate is essentially irrelevant in this day an age. Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth. Those are the facts.

Two wrongs, does not make a right.

You can't say... "Well I should be able to murder people, because that guy over there did the same thing!"

Trump over spending, does not justify you over spending.

Further, as much as Trump has over spent.... your people are openly supporting over spending. You can't tell me that your people are better options because they openly say they are going to over spend.

There are no loopholes, and you people are just as much in favor of deductions. Hell, you had Obama in the white house, and senate, and why didn't Obama and the Democrats with complete and total control over government, completely eliminate all those loop holes and deductions?

Because of you. You are the reason. The Democrats know their brainless, partisan bigoted followers, are so completely stupid that they can ignore all the deductions and tax breaks for 8 full years... and then as soon as a Republican is elected, turn on the partisan bickering again, and you morons will be right back here crying about it.

They play you fools like you were flute. And you never think for yourself, so you just mindless repeat whatever they say.

Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth.

No, this graph right here are the facts.

Fact is, in the 1950s with higher tax rates, we had lower over all revenue as a percentage of GDP.
At the very best, most optimistic view, we have almost the same amount of revenue.

That is the facts.

So regardless on how you mindless Democrat talking point parrots want to spin it, the reality is, we did not have the revenue for all the free programs Bernie and Warren want to push back in the 1950s, and going back to those bad tax rates, will not bring in the revenue for those programs today.

Those are the facts.

Lol you sound so petty. “Well Obama didn’t do xyz so waaahhh”. Yeah no shit Obama didn’t fix this problem. I didn’t claim he did. What separates democrats from republicans, however, is that democrats propose tax plans to pay for government spending. Whether or not they do, is a different story. Republicans on the other hand don’t give a shit if government spending is paid for. They just cut more taxes.

You seem to think you are informed on this issue but really aren’t if you aren’t aware of the difference between the official tax rate and the effective tax rate. Facts are facts: the effective tax rate was higher in the 50’s than it is now and that was a time of economic growth. Those facts make your claim about high official tax rates on the rich meaningless. The rich have never paid the official tax rate. We do know however that they paid more in taxes effectively in the 50’s than they did now. That means the principle of paying more in taxes isn’t inherently flawed because we do know it works.

 

[Billy000]

Lol when did anyone say we should just toss these kids into the street? I just told you that they should be deported. Deported WITH their parents because that is basic human decency.

Again, when an Illegal Immigrant with their kids claim Asylum we have laws we must obey, so yes those kids will stay in detention until the courts can clear the matter up if the family is eligible for asylum or not.

What you want is to close down the system and toss those kids out on the street while ignoring the legal process that must be followed!

Lol the courts aren’t clearing up the matter. You do get that right? Either way, doesn’t it make more sense to deport them ASAP? That is how the process always worked.

WTF!

WHAT PART OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CAN NOT BE DEPORTED UNTIL THEIR COURT HEARING?

Even if they are truly no eligible they must be seen by a court first before being rejected and that is the requirement.

So now you do not care about the law either?

Illegals are deported!

Lol you’re so stupid. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are being treated the same. Those kids are in cages INDEFINITELY either way.

If the Asylum seeker is entering the country illegally, then yes.

If the Asylum seeker is being processed at a port of entry where they wait outside the border for processing of their claim, or if they apply at the US embassy in Mexico, or any other country, where they wait for processing outside the country....

then no, they are not being treated the same.

Okay but that obviously isn’t what is happening. They get here, trying to seek asylum, and then they get thrown in cages. This isn’t hard to figure out.

 

[Billy000]

Let me start off by saying that I don’t think Bernie’s tax plan to pay for his programs is sound. I do think his programs can be paid for by both new revenue and cutting our bloated defense budget, but that’s a topic for another time.

What I find so petty is republicans nitpicking these policies while blatantly supporting tax cuts and new spending. Trump is set to explode the debt and deficit because of his spending and tax cuts but repubs pretend like children that won’t happen.

Tell me: how exactly is Trump’a useless wall going to be paid for? How are we paying for the THOUSANDS of migrant kids being detained here indefinitely on the tax payer’s dime? It is impossible to take republicans seriously.

You are crazy. The French tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and the result was a mass exodus of the wealthy, and their tax revenue, from the country.

Venezuela tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and it has the poor eating their pets.

You see this? Absolute, undeniable, concrete proof that jacking up taxes on the rich, did not result in higher tax revenues in the past.

Your system has never worked. Never. There is nothing "nitpicking" about pointing out that your entire ideology in all human history, has never worked.

As opposed to cutting taxes and spending? That’s what you think is the better idea? How ridiculous. Also, the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP remained consistent is because of the loopholes and deductions that the wealthy have always taken advantage of. There is such a thing as an effective tax rate and an official tax rate. The official tax rate is essentially irrelevant in this day an age. Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth. Those are the facts.

Now stuff it. Quit making crap up and pretending to be educated.
You really are an idiot.

"An individual's effective tax rate is calculated by dividing the number on line 16 of their 1040 Form, "Total Tax," by the number on line 11(b) of that form, "Taxable Income." For corporations, the effective tax rate is computed by dividing total tax expenses by the company's earnings before taxes.Nov 27, 2019"

Effective Tax Rate

So how does this contradict what I am saying? You don’t know because you didn’t even know what this was until you looked it up lol

 

[Andylusion]

Let me start off by saying that I don’t think Bernie’s tax plan to pay for his programs is sound. I do think his programs can be paid for by both new revenue and cutting our bloated defense budget, but that’s a topic for another time.

What I find so petty is republicans nitpicking these policies while blatantly supporting tax cuts and new spending. Trump is set to explode the debt and deficit because of his spending and tax cuts but repubs pretend like children that won’t happen.

Tell me: how exactly is Trump’a useless wall going to be paid for? How are we paying for the THOUSANDS of migrant kids being detained here indefinitely on the tax payer’s dime? It is impossible to take republicans seriously.

You are crazy. The French tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and the result was a mass exodus of the wealthy, and their tax revenue, from the country.

Venezuela tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and it has the poor eating their pets.

You see this? Absolute, undeniable, concrete proof that jacking up taxes on the rich, did not result in higher tax revenues in the past.

Your system has never worked. Never. There is nothing "nitpicking" about pointing out that your entire ideology in all human history, has never worked.

As opposed to cutting taxes and spending? That’s what you think is the better idea? How ridiculous. Also, the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP remained consistent is because of the loopholes and deductions that the wealthy have always taken advantage of. There is such a thing as an effective tax rate and an official tax rate. The official tax rate is essentially irrelevant in this day an age. Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth. Those are the facts.

Two wrongs, does not make a right.

You can't say... "Well I should be able to murder people, because that guy over there did the same thing!"

Trump over spending, does not justify you over spending.

Further, as much as Trump has over spent.... your people are openly supporting over spending. You can't tell me that your people are better options because they openly say they are going to over spend.

There are no loopholes, and you people are just as much in favor of deductions. Hell, you had Obama in the white house, and senate, and why didn't Obama and the Democrats with complete and total control over government, completely eliminate all those loop holes and deductions?

Because of you. You are the reason. The Democrats know their brainless, partisan bigoted followers, are so completely stupid that they can ignore all the deductions and tax breaks for 8 full years... and then as soon as a Republican is elected, turn on the partisan bickering again, and you morons will be right back here crying about it.

They play you fools like you were flute. And you never think for yourself, so you just mindless repeat whatever they say.

Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth.

No, this graph right here are the facts.

Fact is, in the 1950s with higher tax rates, we had lower over all revenue as a percentage of GDP.
At the very best, most optimistic view, we have almost the same amount of revenue.

That is the facts.

So regardless on how you mindless Democrat talking point parrots want to spin it, the reality is, we did not have the revenue for all the free programs Bernie and Warren want to push back in the 1950s, and going back to those bad tax rates, will not bring in the revenue for those programs today.

Those are the facts.

Lol you sound so petty. “Well Obama didn’t do xyz so waaahhh”. Yeah no shit Obama didn’t fix this problem. I didn’t claim he did. What separates democrats from republicans, however, is that democrats propose tax plans to pay for government spending. Whether or not they do, is a different story. Republicans on the other hand don’t give a shit if government spending is paid for. They just cut more taxes.

You seem to think you are informed on this issue but really aren’t if you aren’t aware of the difference between the official tax rate and the effective tax rate. Facts are facts: the effective tax rate was higher in the 50’s than it is now and that was a time of economic growth. Those facts make your claim about high official tax rates on the rich meaningless. The rich have never paid the official tax rate. We do know however that they paid more in taxes effectively in the 50’s than they did now. That means the principle of paying more in taxes isn’t inherently flawed because we do know it works.

The democrats propose tax plans that never pay for anything. They say words, but it never has the results you claim they do. Again, wealth taxes have been tried, and it failed.

So proposing a plan we already know for a fact doesn't work..... if that is what separates Democrats from Republicans, then you are saying object stupidity is what makes Democrats better.

Did you learn nothing from the 1990s Yacht Tax? That destroyed the yacht industry? What do you think a tax on all stock trades is going to do? Are you really this dumb?

Yeah, Democraps propose all sorts of ways of paying for stuff. Look at California.... highest tax rates in the entire country... and

State of California Debt Clock

Looky looky! Good thing those Democraps in California proposed how to pay for their spending! A state with half a Trillion dollars in debt! This explains why they are so much better than Republicans. They proposed stuff... of course none of it worked, as all tax and spend policies never do, but at least they proposed stuff we historically knew wouldn't work.

Good job. So much better.

 

[Billy000]

Let me start off by saying that I don’t think Bernie’s tax plan to pay for his programs is sound. I do think his programs can be paid for by both new revenue and cutting our bloated defense budget, but that’s a topic for another time.

What I find so petty is republicans nitpicking these policies while blatantly supporting tax cuts and new spending. Trump is set to explode the debt and deficit because of his spending and tax cuts but repubs pretend like children that won’t happen.

Tell me: how exactly is Trump’a useless wall going to be paid for? How are we paying for the THOUSANDS of migrant kids being detained here indefinitely on the tax payer’s dime? It is impossible to take republicans seriously.

You are crazy. The French tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and the result was a mass exodus of the wealthy, and their tax revenue, from the country.

Venezuela tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and it has the poor eating their pets.

You see this? Absolute, undeniable, concrete proof that jacking up taxes on the rich, did not result in higher tax revenues in the past.

Your system has never worked. Never. There is nothing "nitpicking" about pointing out that your entire ideology in all human history, has never worked.

As opposed to cutting taxes and spending? That’s what you think is the better idea? How ridiculous. Also, the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP remained consistent is because of the loopholes and deductions that the wealthy have always taken advantage of. There is such a thing as an effective tax rate and an official tax rate. The official tax rate is essentially irrelevant in this day an age. Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth. Those are the facts.

Two wrongs, does not make a right.

You can't say... "Well I should be able to murder people, because that guy over there did the same thing!"

Trump over spending, does not justify you over spending.

Further, as much as Trump has over spent.... your people are openly supporting over spending. You can't tell me that your people are better options because they openly say they are going to over spend.

There are no loopholes, and you people are just as much in favor of deductions. Hell, you had Obama in the white house, and senate, and why didn't Obama and the Democrats with complete and total control over government, completely eliminate all those loop holes and deductions?

Because of you. You are the reason. The Democrats know their brainless, partisan bigoted followers, are so completely stupid that they can ignore all the deductions and tax breaks for 8 full years... and then as soon as a Republican is elected, turn on the partisan bickering again, and you morons will be right back here crying about it.

They play you fools like you were flute. And you never think for yourself, so you just mindless repeat whatever they say.

Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth.

No, this graph right here are the facts.

Fact is, in the 1950s with higher tax rates, we had lower over all revenue as a percentage of GDP.
At the very best, most optimistic view, we have almost the same amount of revenue.

That is the facts.

So regardless on how you mindless Democrat talking point parrots want to spin it, the reality is, we did not have the revenue for all the free programs Bernie and Warren want to push back in the 1950s, and going back to those bad tax rates, will not bring in the revenue for those programs today.

Those are the facts.

Lol you sound so petty. “Well Obama didn’t do xyz so waaahhh”. Yeah no shit Obama didn’t fix this problem. I didn’t claim he did. What separates democrats from republicans, however, is that democrats propose tax plans to pay for government spending. Whether or not they do, is a different story. Republicans on the other hand don’t give a shit if government spending is paid for. They just cut more taxes.

You seem to think you are informed on this issue but really aren’t if you aren’t aware of the difference between the official tax rate and the effective tax rate. Facts are facts: the effective tax rate was higher in the 50’s than it is now and that was a time of economic growth. Those facts make your claim about high official tax rates on the rich meaningless. The rich have never paid the official tax rate. We do know however that they paid more in taxes effectively in the 50’s than they did now. That means the principle of paying more in taxes isn’t inherently flawed because we do know it works.

The democrats propose tax plans that never pay for anything. They say words, but it never has the results you claim they do. Again, wealth taxes have been tried, and it failed.

So proposing a plan we already know for a fact doesn't work..... if that is what separates Democrats from Republicans, then you are saying object stupidity is what makes Democrats better.

Did you learn nothing from the 1990s Yacht Tax? That destroyed the yacht industry? What do you think a tax on all stock trades is going to do? Are you really this dumb?

Yeah, Democraps propose all sorts of ways of paying for stuff. Look at California.... highest tax rates in the entire country... and

State of California Debt Clock

Looky looky! Good thing those Democraps in California proposed how to pay for their spending! A state with half a Trillion dollars in debt! This explains why they are so much better than Republicans. They proposed stuff... of course none of it worked, as all tax and spend policies never do, but at least they proposed stuff we historically knew wouldn't work.

Good job. So much better.

Lol I love how you cherry pick California yet ignore the economic shithole red states like Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, or Louisiana. California on the other hand is home to one of the biggest economies in the world. That’s the difference.

 

[Andylusion]

Again, when an Illegal Immigrant with their kids claim Asylum we have laws we must obey, so yes those kids will stay in detention until the courts can clear the matter up if the family is eligible for asylum or not.

What you want is to close down the system and toss those kids out on the street while ignoring the legal process that must be followed!

Lol the courts aren’t clearing up the matter. You do get that right? Either way, doesn’t it make more sense to deport them ASAP? That is how the process always worked.

WTF!

WHAT PART OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CAN NOT BE DEPORTED UNTIL THEIR COURT HEARING?

Even if they are truly no eligible they must be seen by a court first before being rejected and that is the requirement.

So now you do not care about the law either?

Illegals are deported!

Lol you’re so stupid. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are being treated the same. Those kids are in cages INDEFINITELY either way.

If the Asylum seeker is entering the country illegally, then yes.

If the Asylum seeker is being processed at a port of entry where they wait outside the border for processing of their claim, or if they apply at the US embassy in Mexico, or any other country, where they wait for processing outside the country....

then no, they are not being treated the same.

Okay but that obviously isn’t what is happening. They get here, trying to seek asylum, and then they get thrown in cages. This isn’t hard to figure out.

Again... if they enter illegally... which is what most of them are doing... then yes you get tossed in cages.

You know who else gets tossed into cages? absolutely anyone who breaks the law.

The ones the apply for asylum legally, are not being tossed in cages, because they are not entering the country illegally.

At least I have not heard of it.

 

[Andylusion]

You are crazy. The French tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and the result was a mass exodus of the wealthy, and their tax revenue, from the country.

Venezuela tried the 'tax the rich' plan, and it has the poor eating their pets.

You see this? Absolute, undeniable, concrete proof that jacking up taxes on the rich, did not result in higher tax revenues in the past.

Your system has never worked. Never. There is nothing "nitpicking" about pointing out that your entire ideology in all human history, has never worked.

As opposed to cutting taxes and spending? That’s what you think is the better idea? How ridiculous. Also, the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP remained consistent is because of the loopholes and deductions that the wealthy have always taken advantage of. There is such a thing as an effective tax rate and an official tax rate. The official tax rate is essentially irrelevant in this day an age. Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth. Those are the facts.

Two wrongs, does not make a right.

You can't say... "Well I should be able to murder people, because that guy over there did the same thing!"

Trump over spending, does not justify you over spending.

Further, as much as Trump has over spent.... your people are openly supporting over spending. You can't tell me that your people are better options because they openly say they are going to over spend.

There are no loopholes, and you people are just as much in favor of deductions. Hell, you had Obama in the white house, and senate, and why didn't Obama and the Democrats with complete and total control over government, completely eliminate all those loop holes and deductions?

Because of you. You are the reason. The Democrats know their brainless, partisan bigoted followers, are so completely stupid that they can ignore all the deductions and tax breaks for 8 full years... and then as soon as a Republican is elected, turn on the partisan bickering again, and you morons will be right back here crying about it.

They play you fools like you were flute. And you never think for yourself, so you just mindless repeat whatever they say.

Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth.

No, this graph right here are the facts.

Fact is, in the 1950s with higher tax rates, we had lower over all revenue as a percentage of GDP.
At the very best, most optimistic view, we have almost the same amount of revenue.

That is the facts.

So regardless on how you mindless Democrat talking point parrots want to spin it, the reality is, we did not have the revenue for all the free programs Bernie and Warren want to push back in the 1950s, and going back to those bad tax rates, will not bring in the revenue for those programs today.

Those are the facts.

Lol you sound so petty. “Well Obama didn’t do xyz so waaahhh”. Yeah no shit Obama didn’t fix this problem. I didn’t claim he did. What separates democrats from republicans, however, is that democrats propose tax plans to pay for government spending. Whether or not they do, is a different story. Republicans on the other hand don’t give a shit if government spending is paid for. They just cut more taxes.

You seem to think you are informed on this issue but really aren’t if you aren’t aware of the difference between the official tax rate and the effective tax rate. Facts are facts: the effective tax rate was higher in the 50’s than it is now and that was a time of economic growth. Those facts make your claim about high official tax rates on the rich meaningless. The rich have never paid the official tax rate. We do know however that they paid more in taxes effectively in the 50’s than they did now. That means the principle of paying more in taxes isn’t inherently flawed because we do know it works.

The democrats propose tax plans that never pay for anything. They say words, but it never has the results you claim they do. Again, wealth taxes have been tried, and it failed.

So proposing a plan we already know for a fact doesn't work..... if that is what separates Democrats from Republicans, then you are saying object stupidity is what makes Democrats better.

Did you learn nothing from the 1990s Yacht Tax? That destroyed the yacht industry? What do you think a tax on all stock trades is going to do? Are you really this dumb?

Yeah, Democraps propose all sorts of ways of paying for stuff. Look at California.... highest tax rates in the entire country... and

State of California Debt Clock

Looky looky! Good thing those Democraps in California proposed how to pay for their spending! A state with half a Trillion dollars in debt! This explains why they are so much better than Republicans. They proposed stuff... of course none of it worked, as all tax and spend policies never do, but at least they proposed stuff we historically knew wouldn't work.

Good job. So much better.

Lol I love how you cherry pick California yet ignore the economic shithole red states like Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, or Louisiana. California on the other hand is home to one of the biggest economies in the world. That’s the difference.

Well yes...... that is *MY* point.

A: You claimed that Republicans and Democrats are different, because Democrats tax people to pay for stuff. Then you have an entire state that is on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet has the highest taxes in the country.

That proves your claim false.

B: You claimed that California has one of the largest economies in the world. True. But that makes *MY* point. Mississippi and Alabama do not have massive economies. That's my point. Wouldn't you expect a State with a GDP of barely $230 Billion, to have more debt, than a state that has a GDP of $3.1 Trillion? Yes you would. Certainly with Democraps in control of a state that has $600 Billion in tax revenue a year, compared to Alabama with $40 Billion, they should be able to pay for stuff without going deeply into debt.

Think about it... California collects in one month, more tax revenue than Alabama does in a year. Yet California is over half a trillion dollars in debt.

Remember *YOU* claimed Democraps were better because they proposed ways to pay for spending. I didn't make any claim either way... you did. Evidence is a bit contrary to that claim.

 

[Billy000]

Lol the courts aren’t clearing up the matter. You do get that right? Either way, doesn’t it make more sense to deport them ASAP? That is how the process always worked.

WTF!

WHAT PART OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CAN NOT BE DEPORTED UNTIL THEIR COURT HEARING?

Even if they are truly no eligible they must be seen by a court first before being rejected and that is the requirement.

So now you do not care about the law either?

Illegals are deported!

Lol you’re so stupid. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are being treated the same. Those kids are in cages INDEFINITELY either way.

If the Asylum seeker is entering the country illegally, then yes.

If the Asylum seeker is being processed at a port of entry where they wait outside the border for processing of their claim, or if they apply at the US embassy in Mexico, or any other country, where they wait for processing outside the country....

then no, they are not being treated the same.

Okay but that obviously isn’t what is happening. They get here, trying to seek asylum, and then they get thrown in cages. This isn’t hard to figure out.

Again... if they enter illegally... which is what most of them are doing... then yes you get tossed in cages.

You know who else gets tossed into cages? absolutely anyone who breaks the law.

The ones the apply for asylum legally, are not being tossed in cages, because they are not entering the country illegally.

At least I have not heard of it.

Trump’s new rules are rejecting any asylum seekers by separating families. The same as he is doing for anyone coming here illegally.

 

[Billy000]

As opposed to cutting taxes and spending? That’s what you think is the better idea? How ridiculous. Also, the reason why revenue as a percentage of GDP remained consistent is because of the loopholes and deductions that the wealthy have always taken advantage of. There is such a thing as an effective tax rate and an official tax rate. The official tax rate is essentially irrelevant in this day an age. Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth. Those are the facts.

Two wrongs, does not make a right.

You can't say... "Well I should be able to murder people, because that guy over there did the same thing!"

Trump over spending, does not justify you over spending.

Further, as much as Trump has over spent.... your people are openly supporting over spending. You can't tell me that your people are better options because they openly say they are going to over spend.

There are no loopholes, and you people are just as much in favor of deductions. Hell, you had Obama in the white house, and senate, and why didn't Obama and the Democrats with complete and total control over government, completely eliminate all those loop holes and deductions?

Because of you. You are the reason. The Democrats know their brainless, partisan bigoted followers, are so completely stupid that they can ignore all the deductions and tax breaks for 8 full years... and then as soon as a Republican is elected, turn on the partisan bickering again, and you morons will be right back here crying about it.

They play you fools like you were flute. And you never think for yourself, so you just mindless repeat whatever they say.

Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth.

No, this graph right here are the facts.

Fact is, in the 1950s with higher tax rates, we had lower over all revenue as a percentage of GDP.
At the very best, most optimistic view, we have almost the same amount of revenue.

That is the facts.

So regardless on how you mindless Democrat talking point parrots want to spin it, the reality is, we did not have the revenue for all the free programs Bernie and Warren want to push back in the 1950s, and going back to those bad tax rates, will not bring in the revenue for those programs today.

Those are the facts.

Lol you sound so petty. “Well Obama didn’t do xyz so waaahhh”. Yeah no shit Obama didn’t fix this problem. I didn’t claim he did. What separates democrats from republicans, however, is that democrats propose tax plans to pay for government spending. Whether or not they do, is a different story. Republicans on the other hand don’t give a shit if government spending is paid for. They just cut more taxes.

You seem to think you are informed on this issue but really aren’t if you aren’t aware of the difference between the official tax rate and the effective tax rate. Facts are facts: the effective tax rate was higher in the 50’s than it is now and that was a time of economic growth. Those facts make your claim about high official tax rates on the rich meaningless. The rich have never paid the official tax rate. We do know however that they paid more in taxes effectively in the 50’s than they did now. That means the principle of paying more in taxes isn’t inherently flawed because we do know it works.

The democrats propose tax plans that never pay for anything. They say words, but it never has the results you claim they do. Again, wealth taxes have been tried, and it failed.

So proposing a plan we already know for a fact doesn't work..... if that is what separates Democrats from Republicans, then you are saying object stupidity is what makes Democrats better.

Did you learn nothing from the 1990s Yacht Tax? That destroyed the yacht industry? What do you think a tax on all stock trades is going to do? Are you really this dumb?

Yeah, Democraps propose all sorts of ways of paying for stuff. Look at California.... highest tax rates in the entire country... and

State of California Debt Clock

Looky looky! Good thing those Democraps in California proposed how to pay for their spending! A state with half a Trillion dollars in debt! This explains why they are so much better than Republicans. They proposed stuff... of course none of it worked, as all tax and spend policies never do, but at least they proposed stuff we historically knew wouldn't work.

Good job. So much better.

Lol I love how you cherry pick California yet ignore the economic shithole red states like Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, or Louisiana. California on the other hand is home to one of the biggest economies in the world. That’s the difference.

Well yes...... that is *MY* point.

A: You claimed that Republicans and Democrats are different, because Democrats tax people to pay for stuff. Then you have an entire state that is on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet has the highest taxes in the country.

That proves your claim false.

B: You claimed that California has one of the largest economies in the world. True. But that makes *MY* point. Mississippi and Alabama do not have massive economies. That's my point. Wouldn't you expect a State with a GDP of barely $230 Billion, to have more debt, than a state that has a GDP of $3.1 Trillion? Yes you would. Certainly with Democraps in control of a state that has $600 Billion in tax revenue a year, compared to Alabama with $40 Billion, they should be able to pay for stuff without going deeply into debt.

Think about it... California collects in one month, more tax revenue than Alabama does in a year. Yet California is over half a trillion dollars in debt.

Remember *YOU* claimed Democraps were better because they proposed ways to pay for spending. I didn't make any claim either way... you did. Evidence is a bit contrary to that claim.

Not only are those red states small economies, they have have big deficits and high poverty rates. Those economic pitfalls could be avoided regardless of how big their economies are.

 

[Andylusion]

WTF!

WHAT PART OF ASYLUM SEEKERS CAN NOT BE DEPORTED UNTIL THEIR COURT HEARING?

Even if they are truly no eligible they must be seen by a court first before being rejected and that is the requirement.

So now you do not care about the law either?

Illegals are deported!

Lol you’re so stupid. Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are being treated the same. Those kids are in cages INDEFINITELY either way.

If the Asylum seeker is entering the country illegally, then yes.

If the Asylum seeker is being processed at a port of entry where they wait outside the border for processing of their claim, or if they apply at the US embassy in Mexico, or any other country, where they wait for processing outside the country....

then no, they are not being treated the same.

Okay but that obviously isn’t what is happening. They get here, trying to seek asylum, and then they get thrown in cages. This isn’t hard to figure out.

Again... if they enter illegally... which is what most of them are doing... then yes you get tossed in cages.

You know who else gets tossed into cages? absolutely anyone who breaks the law.

The ones the apply for asylum legally, are not being tossed in cages, because they are not entering the country illegally.

At least I have not heard of it.

Trump’s new rules are rejecting any asylum seekers by separating families. The same as he is doing for anyone coming here illegally.

If I understand it right, that rule is that if you travel through other countries with US embassies, that you are required to apply for asylum there.

I don't see a problem.

 

[Andylusion]

Two wrongs, does not make a right.

You can't say... "Well I should be able to murder people, because that guy over there did the same thing!"

Trump over spending, does not justify you over spending.

Further, as much as Trump has over spent.... your people are openly supporting over spending. You can't tell me that your people are better options because they openly say they are going to over spend.

There are no loopholes, and you people are just as much in favor of deductions. Hell, you had Obama in the white house, and senate, and why didn't Obama and the Democrats with complete and total control over government, completely eliminate all those loop holes and deductions?

Because of you. You are the reason. The Democrats know their brainless, partisan bigoted followers, are so completely stupid that they can ignore all the deductions and tax breaks for 8 full years... and then as soon as a Republican is elected, turn on the partisan bickering again, and you morons will be right back here crying about it.

They play you fools like you were flute. And you never think for yourself, so you just mindless repeat whatever they say.

Of course, either way, in the 50’s the effective tax rate was HIGHER than it is now and that was a time of great economic growth.

No, this graph right here are the facts.

Fact is, in the 1950s with higher tax rates, we had lower over all revenue as a percentage of GDP.
At the very best, most optimistic view, we have almost the same amount of revenue.

That is the facts.

So regardless on how you mindless Democrat talking point parrots want to spin it, the reality is, we did not have the revenue for all the free programs Bernie and Warren want to push back in the 1950s, and going back to those bad tax rates, will not bring in the revenue for those programs today.

Those are the facts.

Lol you sound so petty. “Well Obama didn’t do xyz so waaahhh”. Yeah no shit Obama didn’t fix this problem. I didn’t claim he did. What separates democrats from republicans, however, is that democrats propose tax plans to pay for government spending. Whether or not they do, is a different story. Republicans on the other hand don’t give a shit if government spending is paid for. They just cut more taxes.

You seem to think you are informed on this issue but really aren’t if you aren’t aware of the difference between the official tax rate and the effective tax rate. Facts are facts: the effective tax rate was higher in the 50’s than it is now and that was a time of economic growth. Those facts make your claim about high official tax rates on the rich meaningless. The rich have never paid the official tax rate. We do know however that they paid more in taxes effectively in the 50’s than they did now. That means the principle of paying more in taxes isn’t inherently flawed because we do know it works.

The democrats propose tax plans that never pay for anything. They say words, but it never has the results you claim they do. Again, wealth taxes have been tried, and it failed.

So proposing a plan we already know for a fact doesn't work..... if that is what separates Democrats from Republicans, then you are saying object stupidity is what makes Democrats better.

Did you learn nothing from the 1990s Yacht Tax? That destroyed the yacht industry? What do you think a tax on all stock trades is going to do? Are you really this dumb?

Yeah, Democraps propose all sorts of ways of paying for stuff. Look at California.... highest tax rates in the entire country... and

State of California Debt Clock

Looky looky! Good thing those Democraps in California proposed how to pay for their spending! A state with half a Trillion dollars in debt! This explains why they are so much better than Republicans. They proposed stuff... of course none of it worked, as all tax and spend policies never do, but at least they proposed stuff we historically knew wouldn't work.

Good job. So much better.

Lol I love how you cherry pick California yet ignore the economic shithole red states like Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, or Louisiana. California on the other hand is home to one of the biggest economies in the world. That’s the difference.

Well yes...... that is *MY* point.

A: You claimed that Republicans and Democrats are different, because Democrats tax people to pay for stuff. Then you have an entire state that is on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet has the highest taxes in the country.

That proves your claim false.

B: You claimed that California has one of the largest economies in the world. True. But that makes *MY* point. Mississippi and Alabama do not have massive economies. That's my point. Wouldn't you expect a State with a GDP of barely $230 Billion, to have more debt, than a state that has a GDP of $3.1 Trillion? Yes you would. Certainly with Democraps in control of a state that has $600 Billion in tax revenue a year, compared to Alabama with $40 Billion, they should be able to pay for stuff without going deeply into debt.

Think about it... California collects in one month, more tax revenue than Alabama does in a year. Yet California is over half a trillion dollars in debt.

Remember *YOU* claimed Democraps were better because they proposed ways to pay for spending. I didn't make any claim either way... you did. Evidence is a bit contrary to that claim.

Not only are those red states small economies, they have have big deficits and high poverty rates. Those economic pitfalls could be avoided regardless of how big their economies are.

Which changes nothing of what I said.

Further, to claim that it is just as easy to avoid an economic pitfall, when your economy is only $40 Billion, instead of $3.1 Trillion, is ridiculous.

You dumb democraps, are such partisan bigots. So if I posted a thread "You can just as easily void economic pitfalls on minimum wage at Wendy's, as CEO of Walmart" you would come on there in complete agreement?

Of course not.

And more poor people in poor states with small economies? Brilliant Holmes. Any other words of wisdom, Captain Economist?

 

[whitehall]

Everybody including socialist democrats complain about taxes especially around this time of the year but only socialist democrats fail to see the hypocrisy in it. In another issue of hypocrisy the democrat congressional majority spends the money and they blame the President. The hypocrite media makes sure the Dept is only an issue only during republican administrations

 

[Billy000]

Lol you sound so petty. “Well Obama didn’t do xyz so waaahhh”. Yeah no shit Obama didn’t fix this problem. I didn’t claim he did. What separates democrats from republicans, however, is that democrats propose tax plans to pay for government spending. Whether or not they do, is a different story. Republicans on the other hand don’t give a shit if government spending is paid for. They just cut more taxes.

You seem to think you are informed on this issue but really aren’t if you aren’t aware of the difference between the official tax rate and the effective tax rate. Facts are facts: the effective tax rate was higher in the 50’s than it is now and that was a time of economic growth. Those facts make your claim about high official tax rates on the rich meaningless. The rich have never paid the official tax rate. We do know however that they paid more in taxes effectively in the 50’s than they did now. That means the principle of paying more in taxes isn’t inherently flawed because we do know it works.

The democrats propose tax plans that never pay for anything. They say words, but it never has the results you claim they do. Again, wealth taxes have been tried, and it failed.

So proposing a plan we already know for a fact doesn't work..... if that is what separates Democrats from Republicans, then you are saying object stupidity is what makes Democrats better.

Did you learn nothing from the 1990s Yacht Tax? That destroyed the yacht industry? What do you think a tax on all stock trades is going to do? Are you really this dumb?

Yeah, Democraps propose all sorts of ways of paying for stuff. Look at California.... highest tax rates in the entire country... and

State of California Debt Clock

Looky looky! Good thing those Democraps in California proposed how to pay for their spending! A state with half a Trillion dollars in debt! This explains why they are so much better than Republicans. They proposed stuff... of course none of it worked, as all tax and spend policies never do, but at least they proposed stuff we historically knew wouldn't work.

Good job. So much better.

Lol I love how you cherry pick California yet ignore the economic shithole red states like Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, or Louisiana. California on the other hand is home to one of the biggest economies in the world. That’s the difference.

Well yes...... that is *MY* point.

A: You claimed that Republicans and Democrats are different, because Democrats tax people to pay for stuff. Then you have an entire state that is on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet has the highest taxes in the country.

That proves your claim false.

B: You claimed that California has one of the largest economies in the world. True. But that makes *MY* point. Mississippi and Alabama do not have massive economies. That's my point. Wouldn't you expect a State with a GDP of barely $230 Billion, to have more debt, than a state that has a GDP of $3.1 Trillion? Yes you would. Certainly with Democraps in control of a state that has $600 Billion in tax revenue a year, compared to Alabama with $40 Billion, they should be able to pay for stuff without going deeply into debt.

Think about it... California collects in one month, more tax revenue than Alabama does in a year. Yet California is over half a trillion dollars in debt.

Remember *YOU* claimed Democraps were better because they proposed ways to pay for spending. I didn't make any claim either way... you did. Evidence is a bit contrary to that claim.

Not only are those red states small economies, they have have big deficits and high poverty rates. Those economic pitfalls could be avoided regardless of how big their economies are.

Which changes nothing of what I said.

Further, to claim that it is just as easy to avoid an economic pitfall, when your economy is only $40 Billion, instead of $3.1 Trillion, is ridiculous.

You dumb democraps, are such partisan bigots. So if I posted a thread "You can just as easily void economic pitfalls on minimum wage at Wendy's, as CEO of Walmart" you would come on there in complete agreement?

Of course not.

And more poor people in poor states with small economies? Brilliant Holmes. Any other words of wisdom, Captain Economist?

Lol their economies are small relatively speaking. You’re basically saying that they should be economic shitholes because they have smaller economies than California. That’s just stupid. Obviously the population size alone of these states makes them qualified to have good economies. They simply don’t because republicans tax cut and spend economic policies do not make any sense.

 

[Andylusion]

The democrats propose tax plans that never pay for anything. They say words, but it never has the results you claim they do. Again, wealth taxes have been tried, and it failed.

So proposing a plan we already know for a fact doesn't work..... if that is what separates Democrats from Republicans, then you are saying object stupidity is what makes Democrats better.

Did you learn nothing from the 1990s Yacht Tax? That destroyed the yacht industry? What do you think a tax on all stock trades is going to do? Are you really this dumb?

Yeah, Democraps propose all sorts of ways of paying for stuff. Look at California.... highest tax rates in the entire country... and

State of California Debt Clock

Looky looky! Good thing those Democraps in California proposed how to pay for their spending! A state with half a Trillion dollars in debt! This explains why they are so much better than Republicans. They proposed stuff... of course none of it worked, as all tax and spend policies never do, but at least they proposed stuff we historically knew wouldn't work.

Good job. So much better.

Lol I love how you cherry pick California yet ignore the economic shithole red states like Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, or Louisiana. California on the other hand is home to one of the biggest economies in the world. That’s the difference.

Well yes...... that is *MY* point.

A: You claimed that Republicans and Democrats are different, because Democrats tax people to pay for stuff. Then you have an entire state that is on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet has the highest taxes in the country.

That proves your claim false.

B: You claimed that California has one of the largest economies in the world. True. But that makes *MY* point. Mississippi and Alabama do not have massive economies. That's my point. Wouldn't you expect a State with a GDP of barely $230 Billion, to have more debt, than a state that has a GDP of $3.1 Trillion? Yes you would. Certainly with Democraps in control of a state that has $600 Billion in tax revenue a year, compared to Alabama with $40 Billion, they should be able to pay for stuff without going deeply into debt.

Think about it... California collects in one month, more tax revenue than Alabama does in a year. Yet California is over half a trillion dollars in debt.

Remember *YOU* claimed Democraps were better because they proposed ways to pay for spending. I didn't make any claim either way... you did. Evidence is a bit contrary to that claim.

Not only are those red states small economies, they have have big deficits and high poverty rates. Those economic pitfalls could be avoided regardless of how big their economies are.

Which changes nothing of what I said.

Further, to claim that it is just as easy to avoid an economic pitfall, when your economy is only $40 Billion, instead of $3.1 Trillion, is ridiculous.

You dumb democraps, are such partisan bigots. So if I posted a thread "You can just as easily void economic pitfalls on minimum wage at Wendy's, as CEO of Walmart" you would come on there in complete agreement?

Of course not.

And more poor people in poor states with small economies? Brilliant Holmes. Any other words of wisdom, Captain Economist?

Lol their economies are small relatively speaking. You’re basically saying that they should be economic shitholes because they have smaller economies than California. That’s just stupid. Obviously the population size alone of these states makes them qualified to have good economies. They simply don’t because republicans tax cut and spend economic policies do not make any sense.

I never claimed they were sh!tholes. You did that. I don't have any problem with them having a small economy. Have you been to Alabama? I have. There are plenty of people that love that life style. Food is cheap. Rent is cheap. Sure they make very little, but it takes very little to live.

Yeah, they won't have all the flashy houses we have in richer states. My own condo, is like a luxury NYC apartment, compared to what they have. But they are fine with what they have. They don't need the big jobs, with the big pay, and all the bling bling, of the left-wing elitest "we're better than you" mentality.

Only the arrogant left, looks at that, and calls of them sh!tholes. This is why Trump won by the way. You keep putting down everyone that doesn't live like you do, and then scream and whine when someone like Trump, slaps you people around.

Lastly, you are absolutely bonkers, if you think that if only Mississippi jacked up taxes, and spending, that you could turn it into California. You must be a mental patient, if you think that's the case.

There is no example, anywhere in world history, that government came in, and regulated, taxed, and spent their way into prosperity.

In fact, even California itself, isn't an example. California, like all states, started off utterly poor. Government didn't show up, with high taxes, massive regulations, and then spent their way into wealth. They became wealthy from economic growth, the gold rushes, and investment, plus Ocean-port access with trade.

Then after already being wealthy, left-wing government increased tax-spend, and regulation policies, that now have California on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

[Billy000]

Lol I love how you cherry pick California yet ignore the economic shithole red states like Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama, or Louisiana. California on the other hand is home to one of the biggest economies in the world. That’s the difference.

Well yes...... that is *MY* point.

A: You claimed that Republicans and Democrats are different, because Democrats tax people to pay for stuff. Then you have an entire state that is on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet has the highest taxes in the country.

That proves your claim false.

B: You claimed that California has one of the largest economies in the world. True. But that makes *MY* point. Mississippi and Alabama do not have massive economies. That's my point. Wouldn't you expect a State with a GDP of barely $230 Billion, to have more debt, than a state that has a GDP of $3.1 Trillion? Yes you would. Certainly with Democraps in control of a state that has $600 Billion in tax revenue a year, compared to Alabama with $40 Billion, they should be able to pay for stuff without going deeply into debt.

Think about it... California collects in one month, more tax revenue than Alabama does in a year. Yet California is over half a trillion dollars in debt.

Remember *YOU* claimed Democraps were better because they proposed ways to pay for spending. I didn't make any claim either way... you did. Evidence is a bit contrary to that claim.

Not only are those red states small economies, they have have big deficits and high poverty rates. Those economic pitfalls could be avoided regardless of how big their economies are.

Which changes nothing of what I said.

Further, to claim that it is just as easy to avoid an economic pitfall, when your economy is only $40 Billion, instead of $3.1 Trillion, is ridiculous.

You dumb democraps, are such partisan bigots. So if I posted a thread "You can just as easily void economic pitfalls on minimum wage at Wendy's, as CEO of Walmart" you would come on there in complete agreement?

Of course not.

And more poor people in poor states with small economies? Brilliant Holmes. Any other words of wisdom, Captain Economist?

Lol their economies are small relatively speaking. You’re basically saying that they should be economic shitholes because they have smaller economies than California. That’s just stupid. Obviously the population size alone of these states makes them qualified to have good economies. They simply don’t because republicans tax cut and spend economic policies do not make any sense.

I never claimed they were sh!tholes. You did that. I don't have any problem with them having a small economy. Have you been to Alabama? I have. There are plenty of people that love that life style. Food is cheap. Rent is cheap. Sure they make very little, but it takes very little to live.

Yeah, they won't have all the flashy houses we have in richer states. My own condo, is like a luxury NYC apartment, compared to what they have. But they are fine with what they have. They don't need the big jobs, with the big pay, and all the bling bling, of the left-wing elitest "we're better than you" mentality.

Only the arrogant left, looks at that, and calls of them sh!tholes. This is why Trump won by the way. You keep putting down everyone that doesn't live like you do, and then scream and whine when someone like Trump, slaps you people around.

Lastly, you are absolutely bonkers, if you think that if only Mississippi jacked up taxes, and spending, that you could turn it into California. You must be a mental patient, if you think that's the case.

There is no example, anywhere in world history, that government came in, and regulated, taxed, and spent their way into prosperity.

In fact, even California itself, isn't an example. California, like all states, started off utterly poor. Government didn't show up, with high taxes, massive regulations, and then spent their way into wealth. They became wealthy from economic growth, the gold rushes, and investment, plus Ocean-port access with trade.

Then after already being wealthy, left-wing government increased tax-spend, and regulation policies, that now have California on the verge of bankruptcy.

Just answer this question. I get that you don’t like the democrat party approach to economics, but are you really going to tell me the GOP does it better? Revenue pays for government spending. You get that right? That is its inherent function. Can taxes be too high? Yeah obviously, but the solution isn’t to cut taxes and spend like normal or more. That’s just stupidity and that is what republicans do.