You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Protectionist, your attempt to dismiss my arguments with a condescending tone doesn’t change the fact that your claims are riddled with inaccuracies and half-truths. Let’s address them point by point.

1. Trump's Tax Cuts:

You claim that Trump cut taxes more for the lower income groups than for the rich. While it’s true that Trump's tax cuts included reductions for all income brackets, the reality is that the wealthiest Americans received a much larger absolute benefit from these cuts. The top 1% saw their after-tax income increase significantly more than any other group. Additionally, the corporate tax rate was slashed from 35% to 21%, overwhelmingly benefiting the wealthy and large corporations. These tax cuts also contributed to ballooning the deficit, which Republicans conveniently ignore when they benefit the rich but use as a pretext to cut social programs that help the working class.

Despite the tax cuts under the Trump administration, other expenses for the working class have increased, effectively negating any benefits that the tax cuts might have provided. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Healthcare Costs:
   
   • Under the Trump administration, there were efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which led to uncertainty and rising healthcare costs for many Americans. Premiums for health insurance, prescription drug prices, and out-of-pocket healthcare expenses continued to rise, putting a strain on working-class families despite the tax cuts.
2. Housing Costs:
   
   • The cost of housing has continued to rise, particularly in urban areas. Rent and home prices have increased significantly, outpacing wage growth. The tax cuts did nothing to address the housing affordability crisis, and in some cases, the reduction in federal revenue contributed to cuts in programs that could have helped alleviate these issues.
3. Education Costs:
   
   • College tuition and student loan debt have continued to skyrocket, placing an increasing burden on working-class families. The Trump administration rolled back some consumer protections for student borrowers, which further exacerbated the financial challenges related to education.
4. State and Local Taxes:
   
   • The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 capped the state and local tax (SALT) deduction at $10,000, disproportionately affecting middle-class taxpayers in states with higher taxes. This cap increased the effective tax burden for many working- and middle-class households in those states.
5. Public Services and Infrastructure:
   
   • The federal tax cuts led to reduced revenue for the government, which in turn resulted in budget cuts at the state and local levels. This has affected public services like education, transportation, and infrastructure, leading to higher costs for the working class, who often rely on these services.
6. Inflation and Cost of Living:
   
   • While the Trump tax cuts provided a short-term boost in take-home pay for some, the longer-term effects included increased deficits and national debt, which can contribute to inflationary pressures. As a result, the cost of living has continued to rise, particularly for essential goods and services, effectively diminishing the purchasing power of the tax cuts.

2. Biden and Taxation:

Your claim that there has been "no change in taxation on the rich" under Biden is misleading. The Biden administration has proposed several tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and corporations, including raising the corporate tax rate and increasing the top marginal tax rate for high earners. The challenge, however, lies in the Senate, where Republican obstruction and a few conservative Democrats have stalled these proposals. The fact remains that Biden's administration is working to increase taxes on the wealthy to fund essential social programs and infrastructure investments that benefit everyone, not just the rich.

3. Rent Control in Blue States:

You cherry-pick examples of blue states with bans on rent control or without statewide rent control laws, but this doesn’t tell the whole story. Many blue states and cities have strong tenant protections and rent control measures in place, especially in areas with significant housing affordability issues. For example, New York City and San Francisco have well-established rent control policies. Furthermore, Democrats at the federal level have consistently advocated for increased affordable housing and rental assistance programs. Republicans, on the other hand, have largely opposed these measures, favoring market-based solutions that have proven ineffective in addressing the housing crisis.

Republicans complaining about Dem rent control policies:

Democrats are more likely to be pro-rent control than Republicans. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best.
​

4. Wall Street Donations:

Yes, Hillary Clinton received significant donations from Wall Street during her campaign, which is a point of criticism from progressives and socialists alike. However, this doesn’t change the fact that Democratic policies generally favor stronger regulations on financial institutions, protections for consumers, and support for working families. In contrast, Republicans have consistently pushed for deregulation, which led to the 2008 financial crisis, and continue to advocate for policies that benefit the wealthy elite at the expense of the working class.

5. Comparing Red and Blue States:

Comparing red and blue states on rent control is a disingenuous tactic. The reality is that rent control and tenant protection policies are typically stronger in blue states and cities, where Democrats have more control. The absence of statewide rent control in some blue states doesn’t negate the fact that Democratic lawmakers and city governments in these states are actively working to address housing affordability through various means, including rent control, affordable housing initiatives, and rental assistance programs.

On the other hand, Republican-controlled states and cities often reject these measures, leading to higher rents and fewer protections for tenants.

Protectionist, your arguments rely on selective data and misleading claims. The truth is that Democratic policies are far more aligned with protecting the working class, advocating for affordable housing, and regulating the excesses of the wealthy and powerful. Republicans, including Trump, have consistently prioritized tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and policies that exacerbate income inequality and housing insecurity. Your attempt to paint the Democratic Party as hypocritical while ignoring the blatant pro-wealthy policies of the Republican Party doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

the wealthiest Americans received a much larger absolute benefit from these cuts.

Well duh. Doesn't refute his point.

 

[Luckyone]

That explains why you can so easily support far-left "solutions".

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

the wealthiest Americans received a much larger absolute benefit from these cuts.

Well duh. Doesn't refute his point.

Yeah, it does.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, it does.

If one guy pays $500 in taxes and gets a $100 cut and another guy pays $5000 in taxes
and gets a $500 cut, the first guy saw a larger percentage cut in his rate.

Saying the second guy, who paid a much larger absolute amount, got a larger
absolute benefit doesn't refute the original claim.

Yes, a guy who makes $1,000,000 and gets a 1% rate cut saves more dollars than a guy making $100,000 who gets a 2% rate cut.

DURR

 

[Luckyone]

If one guy pays $500 in taxes and gets a $100 cut and another guy pays $5000 in taxes
and gets a $500 cut, the first guy saw a larger percentage cut in his rate.

Saying the second guy, who paid a much larger absolute amount, got a larger
absolute benefit doesn't refute the original claim.

Yes, a guy who makes $1,000,000 and gets a 1% rate cut saves more dollars than a guy making $100,000 who gets a 2% rate cut.

DURR

Buffett's secretary since 1993, Debbie Bosanek, sat next to her boss just hours after being invited by the president to the State of the Union address, where the president made her the face of tax inequality in America.

Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent. "I just feel like an average citizen. I represent the average citizen who needs a voice," said Bosanek. "Everybody in our office is paying a higher tax rate than Warren."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Buffett's secretary since 1993, Debbie Bosanek, sat next to her boss just hours after being invited by the president to the State of the Union address, where the president made her the face of tax inequality in America.

Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent. "I just feel like an average citizen. I represent the average citizen who needs a voice," said Bosanek. "Everybody in our office is paying a higher tax rate than Warren."

Buffett was so full of shit.

How much did he pay his secretary? I'll show how he lied.

 

[Luckyone]

Buffett was so full of shit.

How much did he pay his secretary? I'll show how he lied.

I am anxiously waiting for your proof that he lied.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am anxiously waiting for your proof that he lied.

Tell me her income and I'll be happy to show you the math.

 

[Luckyone]

Tell me her income and I'll be happy to show you the math.

I thought you knew? You stated that he lied, but now you are asking ME to give you the information you need to prove me wrong? Hahahaha. Ever hear of Google. Use it!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought you knew? You stated that he lied, but now you are asking ME to give you the information you need to prove me wrong? Hahahaha. Ever hear of Google. Use it!

Nope. That's why Buffett is so full of shit.
Without giving the actual numbers, he can make up any lie he wants.

 

[Luckyone]

Nope. That's why Buffett is so full of shit.
Without giving the actual numbers, he can make up any lie he wants.

So you use words (not facts) to prove your point. That means that it is YOU that is "full of shit".