The President Trump Megathread

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
31,357
Likes
13,596
Location
PREM
Decimal point one place off...so your proposal would require a 40% national tax on everything, not 4%. Sorry.

The point at which this could all have been painlessly unf***ed is long since passed.
When you come to the realization that the "economy" is nothing more than an "agreement" between us all on what constitutes value for value, it isn't difficult to make the leap to realizing that a new, or even a coexisting alternate economy can be created with no more difficulty than a group (ok, a very large group) of people agreeing on the new rules.

It would take nothing more than that new agreement to allow the healthcare industry and the providers to "live" in that alternate economy, where they are fairly compensated for their contributions to the new Caduceus society. That doesn't HAVE to bear any relation to the costs it would have incurred in our world-wide, conventional economy.

I'm not proposing this is a good idea to follow. I'm just saying it *could* be done without any impact whatsoever on the economy. It won't happen, ever, but not because it isn't "possible".
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,698
Likes
7,299
The issue is the income tax will never go away.... It's all a pipe dream. Europe has the VAT plus high income taxes. No thanks.

The real issue of course is .gov spending never goes down and we have borrowed too much. There's no easy way out of this and no will amongst our pols to cut spending. Worse still, the leading candidate for the Dems is proposing another 30 trillion in spending over 10 years. Great!
I disagree that the income tax will not go away.

If prohibition can be repealed so can most anything else

Agree on other points......the dem party is the party of death, poverty and destruction
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,698
Likes
7,299
I don't understand what you mean. Regressive and progressive have very specific meanings in economics and in taxes...
Progressive = Some people have rights and others have the responsibility to pay for them
Regressive = Some people have rights and others have the responsibility to pay for them

Its communism 101.......from each according to their ability to each according to their ability.....enforced at the barrel of the gun of gov
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,698
Likes
7,299
It's both sides. Bush and Trump arent exactly champions of personal liberty.
Now you're going for the binary 1/0 response?

Bush was a big gov progressive......fundamentally no different than clinton or obama......the fight there was not about whether or not gov should be in control but rather which party should be operating the levers of gov

Trump is the first president in more than 50 years to actually roll back gov regulations/laws......he ran on that platform and he's following thru on that commitment

My bet is that in his second term we'll see Trumps actions reflect on his personal experience having been persecuted/abused by the partisan/deep state bureucracy that is in most every way an even greater threat to constitutional gov/personal liberty than the dem party is
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,698
Likes
7,299
Becuase exporting work to China is putting in work for the US. The same country with camps exterminating undesirables, today as I write this.

And I'm the pinko [rofl]
Clearly engrish isnt your first language......you want to take another stab at sentence structure comrade?
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,698
Likes
7,299
Decimal point one place off...so your proposal would require a 40% national tax on everything, not 4%. Sorry.

The point at which this could all have been painlessly unf***ed is long since passed.
Thanks councilor.....start slashing size of fed budget and get it down to 3T or less and the tax could be cut to less than 20%

If you consider how much we already pay on a lot of products (fuel = 18cents and diesel = 24 cents its still more workable

Even better that it would reduce the federal work force required to administer it

Its a far better solution imho than the current farked income tax debaucle
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
15,983
Likes
4,616
Thanks councilor.....start slashing size of fed budget and get it down to 3T or less and the tax could be cut to less than 20%

If you consider how much we already pay on a lot of products (fuel = 18cents and diesel = 24 cents its still more workable

Even better that it would reduce the federal work force required to administer it

Its a far better solution imho than the current farked income tax debaucle
How much we pay for fuel? Compared to who? Our fuel prices are among the lowest in the 1st world. Our fuel is ultra cheap. That said I don't support raising taxes on it.

The federal budget definitely needs to be cut. Specifically "defense" spending which is basically the economy at this time. It's going to break and when it does its not going to be pretty.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
635
Likes
13
Location
Hanover, NH
Progressive = Some people have rights and others have the responsibility to pay for them
Regressive = Some people have rights and others have the responsibility to pay for them

Its communism 101.......from each according to their ability to each according to their ability.....enforced at the barrel of the gun of gov
A progressive tax takes more (as a percentage of) income from higher earners, a regressive tax takes more (as a percentage of) income from lower earners. It has nothing to do with communism.
 

SteelShooter

NES Member
Rating - 100%
31   0   0
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
8,824
Likes
1,790
Location
MA
How much we pay for fuel? Compared to who? Our fuel prices are among the lowest in the 1st world. Our fuel is ultra cheap. That said I don't support raising taxes on it.

The federal budget definitely needs to be cut. Specifically "defense" spending which is basically the economy at this time. It's going to break and when it does its not going to be pretty.
I was just in St Maarten and paid $8 a gallon for gas.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
31,357
Likes
13,596
Location
PREM
A progressive tax takes more (as a percentage of) income from higher earners, a regressive tax takes more (as a percentage of) income from lower earners. It has nothing to do with communism.
You're the one that said Google doesn't have the ability to profile people individually, aren't you? [laugh]

Read the post again, slowly: (I highlighted the interesting bit)

... Its communism 101.......from each according to their ability to each according to their ability ...
You didn't challenge his definition of communism. Instead you challenged his characterization of certain taxes as communism. (I forgive his typo - the second "ability" is "need")

Now I'd like you to review what you posted in response:

A progressive tax takes more (as a percentage of) income from higher earners, a regressive tax takes more (as a percentage of) income from lower earners. ...
Ok.

... It has nothing to do with communism.
If you accept the simplified description of communism and matrix that with YOUR description of progressive taxes, then how do you not see them as one and the same?

Mind you, I'm not saying they ARE. I'm saying that you accepted stipulations that prove his point but turn around and say it proves the opposite.


When you say "it" has nothing to do with communism, are you referring to "progressive taxes" or something else? Perhaps I just misunderstood what you're saying.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
635
Likes
13
Location
Hanover, NH
You're the one that said Google doesn't have the ability to profile people individually, aren't you? [laugh]
No, that's not what I said. I said that if Google wanted to give everyone who used Google individual search results, it would be incredibly difficult to scale. The last time Google claimed a figure (in 2012) it said that it processed 1.2 trillion searches a year. To give all of those users individually-customized search results for each search would be incredibly difficult. Current estimates are close to 4 trillion searches a year.

You didn't challenge his definition of communism. Instead you challenged his characterization of certain taxes as communism. (I forgive his typo - the second "ability" is "need")
Yes, I know what the correct quote is, I've read Karl Marx. If I had to go through and critique every single economic or political factual inaccuracy on a forum, I'd need a slightly longer day ;)

If you accept the simplified description of communism and matrix that with YOUR description of progressive taxes, then how do you not see them as one and the same?
For one thing, I didn't accept anyone's definition of communism. I was only trying to clarify that the use of progressive versus regressive taxes requires the correct definition of those things -- they are formal terms and academics that use them in their fields agree on what they mean.

When you say "it" has nothing to do with communism, are you referring to "progressive taxes" or something else? Perhaps I just misunderstood what you're saying.
I guess what I'm saying is, you can have progressive taxes or regressive taxes in any type of socioeconomic system. Having regressive (or progressive) taxes doesn't automatically make you a communist or socialist society.
 

SpaceCritter

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
11,830
Likes
5,187
Location
In Orbit
No, that's not what I said. I said that if Google wanted to give everyone who used Google individual search results, it would be incredibly difficult to scale. The last time Google claimed a figure (in 2012) it said that it processed 1.2 trillion searches a year. To give all of those users individually-customized search results for each search would be incredibly difficult. Current estimates are close to 4 trillion searches a year.
Not sure if serious. It matters nary a whit how many searches they handle - their architecture is plenty scalable for that. What matters is their data structures for handling queries quickly. And, this morning, as we needed to pick up Albert's prescription renewal for his insulin, before I could finish typing the name of his vet, the FULL name was already included in the search suggestion dropdown. It's not that unusual a name (generically), so to see it populate "... veterinary clinic" immediately - EVEN BEFORE I actually committed to a search - meant they were correlating at least my location with my search on the fly.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
31,357
Likes
13,596
Location
PREM
No, that's not what I said. I said that if Google wanted to give everyone who used Google individual search results, it would be incredibly difficult to scale. The last time Google claimed a figure (in 2012) it said that it processed 1.2 trillion searches a year. To give all of those users individually-customized search results for each search would be incredibly difficult. Current estimates are close to 4 trillion searches a year. ...
Those numbers sound big to you, but it's just another Thursday for Google. They wouldn't even break a sweat.
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
15,983
Likes
4,616
I'm not sure you can attribute that price to taxes. It is interesting that the govt makes way more money on gasoline than the gasoline producers though
Denmark charges $2.95 and France charges $3.07 per gallon for gas excise tax. So they arent off to a strong start.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,698
Likes
7,299
How much we pay for fuel? Compared to who? Our fuel prices are among the lowest in the 1st world. Our fuel is ultra cheap. That said I don't support raising taxes on it.
Fuel in the US like many other products are inexpensive because we produce our own or nearly all of it AND because taxes on that fuel are relatively low

Fuel in the EU is much more expensive because they are reliant on other nations for fuel AND because they tax the living shit out of it to raise revenue as well as discourage use........its much like tobacco for dems.......they want to tax the shit out of it for revenue AND they want to discourage its use........the comedy of this is when states like Md raise their tobacco tax and people start buying out of state and revenue goes down they get butt hurt and the next year pass a law that criminalizes anyone that brings more than a pack or two back into Md......progressive stupidity

The federal budget definitely needs to be cut. Specifically "defense" spending which is basically the economy at this time. It's going to break and when it does its not going to be pretty.
Fed spending needs to be cut

Defense isnt the high prioority......in fact its the lowest priority for cuts.....enttlement programs/welfare far exceed defense spending and is what is crushing us long term

Trump is the first president in decades to end the irrational occupations/invasions and he's right to do it......but at the same time we need a strong defense and modernization of capabilities more than ever.....if you dont think so then do some research on what the chinese/russians are doing and why we have no defenses against stuff they're about to roll out
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,698
Likes
7,299
Denmark charges $2.95 and France charges $3.07 per gallon for gas excise tax. So they arent off to a strong start.
Most countries in EU pay more in TAXES for fuel than we pay for the fuel INCLUDING tax......

 

ldi

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
2,915
Likes
867
Location
South of Boston
Thanks for pointing that out, so many are oblivious to that fact that it brings us back to 2020.

Defense isnt the high prioority......in fact its the lowest priority for cuts.....enttlement programs/welfare far exceed defense spending and is what is crushing us long term

Trump is the first president in decades to end the irrational occupations/invasions and he's right to do it......but at the same time we need a strong defense and modernization of capabilities more than ever.....if you dont think so then do some research on what the chinese/russians are doing and why we have no defenses against stuff they're about to roll out
[/QUOTE]
 
Rating - 100%
99   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
15,983
Likes
4,616
The Russians have had weapon systems we've been unable to stop for ~50 years.


Ending welfare would be ideal. Provided they had a place to work that would provide them with enough income to afford anything.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
31,357
Likes
13,596
Location
PREM
The Russians have had weapon systems we've been unable to stop for ~50 years.


Ending welfare would be ideal. Provided they had a place to work that would provide them with enough income to afford anything.
That's EASY. Economies are just figments of the imagination. If people choose to, they can reset it.
 

Zappa

Road Warrior
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
43,481
Likes
13,663
Location
Living Free In The 603
 
Top Bottom