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

[Luckyone]

Well Komrad "Luckyone", it was your friends at CCP China who created and released that COVID virus upon the world.

IIRC, it was you marxist libturds who called Trump a xenophobe when you started to ban travel to and from certain countries the CCP Chinese had infected with COVID.

It was CCP China who allowed hundreds of thousands to travel to their country to celebrate the Asian/Chinese New Year;

Chinese New Year 2020 - Calendar Date

Chinese New Year 2020 is on Saturday, January 25, the first day of the year for the Chinese lunar calendar also known as the Lunar New Year.

www.calendardate.com

Which facilitated the global spread of their biological weapon (WMD).

Nothing short of starting World War Three would have allowed Trump to prevent what CCP China did.

You know Stryder, I am starting to think that you might be one of those Russian agents I was referring to.

You have been putting FAKE NEWS on all my posts and the most recent one about the Republicans walking out on Gaetz when Gaetz was talking about replacing McCarthy is NOT FAKE NEWS. It happened and it is clearly on Video. It is not an AI generated video given that it was also reported by the people that were there.

As such, you putting a FAKE NEWS comment on that video, strongly suggests that you have an agenda (not interested in debating or in fact) and the agenda of the Russians is to destabilize us on Social Media and you seem to be doing exactly that.

Go right ahead and continue to do what you are doing. You are being shown for who you likely are.

Oh and another thing I just noticed. You spelled Komrad with a "K" and Americans spell Comrade with a "C".................that looks fishy.

 

[TruthNotBS]

While a small tax cut might seem beneficial at first glance, it doesn't amount to much when other expenses are skyrocketing.

I agree, a small tax cut doesn't make up for Bidenflation.

Trump's tax cuts primarily benefited the wealthy and corporations, while simultaneously leading to proposals for cuts in programs like Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies, programs that millions of working-class Americans rely on to make ends meet.

Proposals? Not actual cuts?

Todd, dismissing Trump’s proposals to cut essential programs as “just proposals” misses the bigger issue. The fact that these cuts were even considered shows where Trump’s priorities lie, certainly not with the working class. If those cuts didn’t fully materialize, it was thanks to Democrats who fought to protect these programs. Trump’s intent to gut Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies was clear, and just because he didn’t get everything he wanted doesn’t mean his policies didn’t hurt working people.

Beyond the threat of program cuts, let’s talk about the real expenses the working class faced, which wiped out any benefits from those modest tax cuts. Health insurance premiums continued to rise, and Trump's attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act only added to that burden. Housing costs surged in many parts of the country, making it harder for people to afford rent or buy homes (Trump is against rent controls and providing adequate rental assistance to working-class families that need it).

Childcare costs remained high, and for many, the cost of education, whether paying off student loans or saving for their kids, continued to be a heavy financial strain. Utility costs, transportation, and even food prices edged up, squeezing family budgets even tighter.

So, while you might downplay the impact of Trump's proposals as not being fully realized, the reality is that his policies and the expenses working-class families had to bear, far outweighed any small gains from tax cuts. The working class ended up with more bills and fewer protections, all while the wealthy and corporations enjoyed the lion’s share of the benefits.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Todd, your claim that the middle class always does well when taxes and regulations are cut is simply not true.

Well, if you have some evidence from a time when they didn't do well when taxes and regulations were cut, I'd be happy to look at it with you.

Over the past few decades, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation have led to stagnant wages for the working class, while the rich have seen their wealth skyrocket.

Show me.

For example, during economic downturns, Keynesian policies advocate for government intervention to stimulate demand through public spending, which has proven effective in preventing deeper recessions and helping economies recover.

What about the other half of Keynesian policies?

1. "Well, if you have some evidence from a time when they didn't do well when taxes and regulations were cut, I'd be happy to look at it with you."

The 2008 financial crisis is a clear example of when deregulation and tax cuts didn't benefit the middle class. In the years leading up to the crisis, there was significant deregulation in the financial sector, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to engage in risky investment activities. Additionally, the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s primarily benefited the wealthy, contributing to growing income inequality. When the housing bubble burst, it was the working and middle classes who bore the brunt of the economic fallout—losing jobs, homes, and savings—while the wealthy were often shielded by government bailouts and the ability to recover quickly due to their accumulated wealth.

2. "Show me."

Let's talk about wage stagnation. According to data from the Economic Policy Institute, from 1979 to 2019, the top 1% of earners saw their wages grow by 158%, while the bottom 90% saw only a 24% increase. Meanwhile, productivity increased by 70.3% during this period. This disparity is largely due to policies that favored the wealthy, such as tax cuts, deregulation, and the weakening of labor protections. These policies allowed the rich to capture most of the economic gains, leaving the working class with stagnant wages despite increased productivity.

3. "What about the other half of Keynesian policies?"

Elaborate.

 

[TruthNotBS]

name something that went up in expense. Gas dropped to 1.80 a gallon. Is that not good for middle class? Or in your math is 5.00 a gallon better?

another headline without data

Headline without evidence.

why hasn't biden and harris stopped it?

yeah, medicare is being denied at hospitals now, under joe.

did he?

another headline minus evidence to support it. your newspaper isn't interesting at all.

If it wasn't for more left-leaning Dems, stopping Trump from having his way, the working class would've had it much worse. It's a fact, that the tax cuts did nothing to help working class families and significantly reduced taxes for the rich. If he wins again, he won't do much if anything for the working class.

 

[Faun]

You said bush went to war on a lie. A lie approved by congress

How could they approve a lie not yet told?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Well, the reality is that all leaders in the world (not only Democrats) are telling their people that things will get better. Everyone in the world is struggling to pay bills/rent for the past 4 years.

Nonetheless, it isn't the fault of the Democrats. It is the fault of this man for all of it:

View attachment 1002349

Nonetheless, in looking at Biden to see what exactly he IS responsible for, I found this funny stat:

View attachment 1002350


After seeing this, I think I have to go and kiss Biden's ass. He did a good job!

Again… I guess you know better than most of the country. They must be all making up their economic struggles and problems. LOL

You’re like the Democrat or MSM journalist who was saying how with it Biden is before the debate

I don’t think you’ll get many people buying what you’re trying to sell

 

[jc456]

How could they approve a lie not yet told?

What is it you think congress did?

 

[jc456]

If it wasn't for more left-leaning Dems, stopping Trump from having his way, the working class would've had it much worse. It's a fact, that the tax cuts did nothing to help working class families and significantly reduced taxes for the rich. If he wins again, he won't do much if anything for the working class.

I thought you wanted a serious discussion. How lame is this shit right here headline man? anything, got bullshit for anything and everything to push the agenda. NOt with me friend. No games, all honest approach. I'm waiting on what the tax cuts were in 1981, you conveniently allowed the post to go by? dishonest hack is all you've shown to be.

 

[jc456]

If it wasn't for more left-leaning Dems, stopping Trump from having his way, the working class would've had it much worse. It's a fact, that the tax cuts did nothing to help working class families and significantly reduced taxes for the rich. If he wins again, he won't do much if anything for the working class.

by the way, you didn't post what the expense was middle class endured under Trump? why not headline guy?

 

[Faun]

What is it you think congress did?

What I said they did. Voted to let Bush decide whether or not war was needed in accordance with the resolution. To which you moronically replied, that's not how it works; even though that's exactly how it worked.

So how did Congress approve a lie not yet told?

 

[Luckyone]

Again… I guess you know better than most of the country. They must be all making up their economic struggles and problems. LOL

You’re like the Democrat or MSM journalist who was saying how with it Biden is before the debate

I don’t think you’ll get many people buying what you’re trying to sell

What is the MATTER with you? Are you able to use your head to think.

Can't you understand that inflation and hardship came to all the world because of the virus and that it was NOT Biden that caused it? If we were the ONLY country in the world with inflation, then that approach might be right. Nonetheless and unless you are going to accuse Biden of the worldwide inflation, it is clear as a bell what caused the problem.

In addition, why can't you give Biden the credit he deserves for bringing down inflation more than all of the other G7 countries. HE did that.

and by the way, "I" am not trying to "sell" anything. It is all cold hard FACT!

I guess the old saying about "you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink" applies here to you.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

What is the MATTER with you? Are you able to use your head to think.

Can't you understand that inflation and hardship came to all the world because of the virus and that it was NOT Biden that caused it? If we were the ONLY country in the world with inflation, then that approach might be right. Nonetheless and unless you are going to accuse Biden of the worldwide inflation, it is clear as a bell what caused the problem.

In addition, why can't you give Biden the credit he deserves for bringing down inflation more than all of the other G7 countries. HE did that.

and by the way, "I" am not trying to "sell" anything. It is all cold hard FACT!

I guess the old saying about "you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink" applies here to you.

Biden caused inflation increases by injecting the economy with 5.5 trillion in new spending.

He did it. He owns it.

 

[jc456]

What I said they did. Voted to let Bush decide whether or not war was needed in accordance with the resolution. To which you moronically replied, that's not how it works; even though that's exactly how it worked.

So how did Congress approve a lie not yet told?

no you didn't. what information did they review? Do you know? you think bush called and asked and they said eh ok? hahhaahahahahahaha I got a bridge in Pennsylvania.

 

[Stryder50]

LOLOLOL

Now I see the problem here...

You're fucking nuts.

Here's a screenshot from that BEA spreadsheet showing exactly what I posted...

View attachment 1002351​

... which of course is exactly what I posted since all I did was copy/paste the data from their spreadsheet and then typed in a header.

Now everyone here sees you're dumb as shit. Too stupid to navigate a link... too stupid to think I posted from my own personal spreadsheet... too stupid to scroll down in the BEA spreadsheet to the years Obama was in office. No wonder you looked at the debtclock showing 162m jobs in 2000 and didn't even think to question how we could possibly have fewer jobs in 2024 than we did in 2000.

I only copy-pasted a part of the top of that spreadsheet to provide an example, while not burning up bandwidth like you and a few others do.

Also it appears American English is not your primary language since you distort and mis-present what I and others say.

You know Stryder, I am starting to think that you might be one of those Russian agents I was referring to.

You have been putting FAKE NEWS on all my posts and the most recent one about the Republicans walking out on Gaetz when Gaetz was talking about replacing McCarthy is NOT FAKE NEWS. It happened and it is clearly on Video. It is not an AI generated video given that it was also reported by the people that were there.

As such, you putting a FAKE NEWS comment on that video, strongly suggests that you have an agenda (not interested in debating or in fact) and the agenda of the Russians is to destabilize us on Social Media and you seem to be doing exactly that.

Go right ahead and continue to do what you are doing. You are being shown for who you likely are.

Oh and another thing I just noticed. You spelled Komrad with a "K" and Americans spell Comrade with a "C".................that looks fishy.

There are limits on the negative reply ("thanks" tab) that can be used, only two compared to @ six for positive.

I used "fake news" to also refer to the conclusions one makes in their posts as well as/in place of their sources. The "disagree" is too vague and imprecise. We could use, but don't have a "Liar" or "you are wrong" that would be more accurate.

In the case you refer to here, it wasn't the video but your interpretation/implication that I was tagging as "fake news".

I do Komrade with a "k" for the benefit of our marxists here, like you.

 

[Stryder50]

1. "Well, if you have some evidence from a time when they didn't do well when taxes and regulations were cut, I'd be happy to look at it with you."

The 2008 financial crisis is a clear example of when deregulation and tax cuts didn't benefit the middle class. In the years leading up to the crisis, there was significant deregulation in the financial sector, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to engage in risky investment activities. Additionally, the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s primarily benefited the wealthy, contributing to growing income inequality. When the housing bubble burst, it was the working and middle classes who bore the brunt of the economic fallout—losing jobs, homes, and savings—while the wealthy were often shielded by government bailouts and the ability to recover quickly due to their accumulated wealth.

2. "Show me."

Let's talk about wage stagnation. According to data from the Economic Policy Institute, from 1979 to 2019, the top 1% of earners saw their wages grow by 158%, while the bottom 90% saw only a 24% increase. Meanwhile, productivity increased by 70.3% during this period. This disparity is largely due to policies that favored the wealthy, such as tax cuts, deregulation, and the weakening of labor protections. These policies allowed the rich to capture most of the economic gains, leaving the working class with stagnant wages despite increased productivity.

3. "What about the other half of Keynesian policies?"

Elaborate.

Again.
No documentation for your claims makes them suspect as fabrications and/or mis-interpretations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For your knowledge, I am getting tired of you repeating yourself adnauseum.

Let me say it in a way you may understand but even if you don't, this is the "end of the story" on this story.

From here on in, you can take your views directly to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and argue with them THEIR numbers.

I didn't personally poll or count the numbers. They did. When it is said that 96% of the jobs created was under Democratic presidencies, it is THEY that gave those statistics. Take it up with THEM.

I am finished with this conversation. You want to keep communicating with me, pick another topic.

The topic I am interested in is what is going to happen in November and thereafter. I believe that the Republican way of thinking is wrong. Trickle down economics does not work. Our country is not about the rich people giving the other 90% of the population crumbs.

This is about all Americans working as a team to make the U.S. win the World Series of freedom, economics, and equality.

If you want to discuss that topic, I will gladly do so.

Bottom line is this and it has to change:

View attachment 1002336

From here on in, you can take your views directly to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and argue with them THEIR numbers.

The BLS numbers are fine, it's your moronic misinterpretation of them that I have an issue with.

I am finished with this conversation.

You'll stop making stupid claims? Or you'll ignore it when I point out your stupid claims?

Trickle down economics does not work

Cutting taxes and reducing moronic regulations works every time it's tried.

 

[Stryder50]

There you go! China is at fault. Having said that, who was president when that happened and allowed it to happen to a higher degree than it should have? Trump! Trump failed to control or beat the Chinese. They were better than Trump. They caused over 1.4 million Americans to die and Trump was not good enough to beat the Chinese.

Hey, he was so bad that he raised tariffs on them and the tariffs cost us more than the Chinese.

Talk about proof of incompetency. Here it is and by your own words.

and you say it was the marxist libturds? Where they in power, or was Trump in power. If they were in power, then Trump was a stooge for them and if he was in power, he allowed them to do it to him.

How much more incompetent a person be? even libtards and Chinese beat him?

If you had been in Trump's position as POTUS, what would you have done in January-February 2020 different than he did?

Especially given what was known then, which included limited and distorted information from China on the disease.

The CCP COVID caused far more deaths in other nations of the world and they did even less to penalize China than the USA did.

I said you libturds ~ MSM, DNC, etc. ~ criticized Trump, not that you had political power other than your seats in Congress.

When you consider how much of our debt is held by the Chinese, and how a majority of our manufactured imports are from China, there are realistic limits to what could have been done that wouldn't have hurt the USA more than China.

Leftist lies to the contrary, a POTUS is not a dictator. Though admittedly most DemocRAT POTUS think they are a dictator.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, dismissing Trump’s proposals to cut essential programs as “just proposals” misses the bigger issue. The fact that these cuts were even considered shows where Trump’s priorities lie, certainly not with the working class. If those cuts didn’t fully materialize, it was thanks to Democrats who fought to protect these programs. Trump’s intent to gut Medicaid, food assistance, and housing subsidies was clear, and just because he didn’t get everything he wanted doesn’t mean his policies didn’t hurt working people.

Beyond the threat of program cuts, let’s talk about the real expenses the working class faced, which wiped out any benefits from those modest tax cuts. Health insurance premiums continued to rise, and Trump's attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act only added to that burden. Housing costs surged in many parts of the country, making it harder for people to afford rent or buy homes (Trump is against rent controls and providing adequate rental assistance to working-class families that need it).

Childcare costs remained high, and for many, the cost of education, whether paying off student loans or saving for their kids, continued to be a heavy financial strain. Utility costs, transportation, and even food prices edged up, squeezing family budgets even tighter.

So, while you might downplay the impact of Trump's proposals as not being fully realized, the reality is that his policies and the expenses working-class families had to bear, far outweighed any small gains from tax cuts. The working class ended up with more bills and fewer protections, all while the wealthy and corporations enjoyed the lion’s share of the benefits.

Todd, dismissing Trump’s proposals to cut essential programs as “just proposals” misses the bigger issue.

It misses the issue that the spending wasn't cut. DURR

Beyond the threat of program cuts, let’s talk about the real expenses the working class faced, which wiped out any benefits from those modest tax cuts.

It's true that the tax cuts paid for some of the rising expenses.
Not enough to pay for Bidenflation, obviously.

(Trump is against rent controls

That's good, they're a stupid, harmful idea.

the expenses working-class families had to bear, far outweighed any small gains from tax cuts.

Were there any Biden tax cuts to help the working-class pay for expenses?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. "Well, if you have some evidence from a time when they didn't do well when taxes and regulations were cut, I'd be happy to look at it with you."

The 2008 financial crisis is a clear example of when deregulation and tax cuts didn't benefit the middle class. In the years leading up to the crisis, there was significant deregulation in the financial sector, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to engage in risky investment activities. Additionally, the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s primarily benefited the wealthy, contributing to growing income inequality. When the housing bubble burst, it was the working and middle classes who bore the brunt of the economic fallout—losing jobs, homes, and savings—while the wealthy were often shielded by government bailouts and the ability to recover quickly due to their accumulated wealth.

2. "Show me."

Let's talk about wage stagnation. According to data from the Economic Policy Institute, from 1979 to 2019, the top 1% of earners saw their wages grow by 158%, while the bottom 90% saw only a 24% increase. Meanwhile, productivity increased by 70.3% during this period. This disparity is largely due to policies that favored the wealthy, such as tax cuts, deregulation, and the weakening of labor protections. These policies allowed the rich to capture most of the economic gains, leaving the working class with stagnant wages despite increased productivity.

3. "What about the other half of Keynesian policies?"

Elaborate.

The 2008 financial crisis is a clear example of when deregulation and tax cuts didn't benefit the middle class. In the years leading up to the crisis, there was significant deregulation in the financial sector, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to engage in risky investment activities.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent banks from writing bad mortgages. It wouldn't have prevented the crisis. The GSE mandates to buy subprime mortgages were a regulation that caused harm, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1. "Well, if you have some evidence from a time when they didn't do well when taxes and regulations were cut, I'd be happy to look at it with you."

The 2008 financial crisis is a clear example of when deregulation and tax cuts didn't benefit the middle class. In the years leading up to the crisis, there was significant deregulation in the financial sector, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to engage in risky investment activities. Additionally, the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s primarily benefited the wealthy, contributing to growing income inequality. When the housing bubble burst, it was the working and middle classes who bore the brunt of the economic fallout—losing jobs, homes, and savings—while the wealthy were often shielded by government bailouts and the ability to recover quickly due to their accumulated wealth.

2. "Show me."

Let's talk about wage stagnation. According to data from the Economic Policy Institute, from 1979 to 2019, the top 1% of earners saw their wages grow by 158%, while the bottom 90% saw only a 24% increase. Meanwhile, productivity increased by 70.3% during this period. This disparity is largely due to policies that favored the wealthy, such as tax cuts, deregulation, and the weakening of labor protections. These policies allowed the rich to capture most of the economic gains, leaving the working class with stagnant wages despite increased productivity.

3. "What about the other half of Keynesian policies?"

Elaborate.

Let's talk about wage stagnation. According to data from the Economic Policy Institute, from 1979 to 2019, the top 1% of earners saw their wages grow by 158%, while the bottom 90% saw only a 24% increase. Meanwhile, productivity increased by 70.3% during this period.

That's not proof that tax cuts and deregulation caused the top 1% to grow more than the bottom 90%.

Elaborate.

You mentioned the recipe for a downturn, what does he say for an expansion?