Punk compares Trump to KKK boss: "A racist is a racist"

Squarechoke said:
It's a fact that you dishonestly changed the quote, and quotes must always be exactly similar. Here's the quote you presented "Trump doesn't know when actually important things happen, like the Internet rights being sold out and that the wealth gap is increasing.", and here's what I actually wrote "A perfect example where someone is dazzled by minor things, so he doesn't know when actually important things happen, like the Internet rights being sold out and that the wealth gap is increasing." You also display your lack of reading comprehension since the paragraph starts with a line about how you are being played, so it's obvious that the quoted line is about you. Your interpretation that it was about Trump makes no sense whatsoever since that would mean that I was saying that he's dazzled to the point of not knowing what he himself is doing.

So was your quote exactly the same as what I said, or did you alter the words? Are you aware of the fact that quotes should always be exact down to the letter (making you dishonest) or was that news to you (making you uneducated)?

The point isn't about you supposedly being literal (of course you weren't and why would you ever think that was my point?), it's about you pretty often using language that dorky teenagers do and certainly not adults with children, as that usually brings some maturity.

Whether you had a drop in the 80s and 90s isn't relevant to the situation today if you've been stable the last two decades. That's a clear case of having two different trends, and it's the current trend that's relevant to what actions you take today.

I'm still finding it funny that you attribute the low unemployment rate only to Trump, despite that unemployment was steadily going down during the big recession. That's hard to achieve. Trump came into office just after the global economic boom took off, when it's easy to increase the number of jobs. I'm not saying Trump hasn't done anything, I'm saying that you're being absurdly partisan when you say that it's only because of him. Saying the latter is closer to idol worship than analysis.

You still don't seem to be able to look up even the simplest facts about Europe. Here's a couple of graphs showing terrorism in Europe since 1970. I take the first because it's showing all the available information about deaths, and the second shows the total number of terror attacks.
ter-we-isl-20170523.png

(this graph does not include the flight that crashed in Irish airspace after a bomb exploded in 1985, where 329 people died)

KDr6ToCQjixqWjPJabO-YofC56U3rMobPmES4fmtDFw.jpg


As you can see, and should have known, the 70s was the worst decade for terrorism and the 80s the second worst.

You can't talk about facts and fake news at the same time as you're contradicting something without giving a source. Harley Davidson was praised by Trump as late as last year for manufacturing in the US and he also says that he's surprised that they are moving, and is attributing it to the EU's response to his tariff threats.

Trump spoke about the passed tax bill as being for the normal people, when it was the rich that benefited the most from it. That's a clear case of trying to focus on something small of a tax policy to draw attention away from the big matter. If he really did care about the normal people first hand as much as you give him credit for there would have been a lot of talk about reforming the tax to try to lower wealth gaps. One can't be so simple as to think that something that makes something a little better for one class and more significantly better for another is based purely on love for the former. Someone with a nuanced view on politics will realize that it's not just about something becoming better, it's how much better it gets in relation to what can be done. The sad thing about the US is that it's grown economically rigid and it actually has the lowest socioeconomic mobility of all developed nations, despite the classic talk about the American dream. Things like the tax bill cements that, and I'd say that if you guys really want a change that needs to be something you start raising voices over.

I think the risk is that partisanship, together with only having two relevant options, causes too many people to just praise their side even when it fails to live up to what it could (and all sides fail at that to some degree). Sweden's politics is currently a mess since it's really hard to create a majority government at the moment, but I guess there is some sign of health that a new party has arisen and, based on an average of different polls, is competing to be the second largest party in the upcoming elections, even though they only entered parliament two elections ago. People have been disappointed with what's been done and have actually voted in a way that has changed things.

You seem under the delusion that guaranteed vacation has anything to do with tax money. It's not the government that pays for that, they just set rules so people aren't cheated out of the standards that they deserve. That's why it has no relevance what the US spends on such things, because it's not spending anything on vacations regardless if the workers get 0 or 30 days. Your objection to this matter just isn't applicable.

Let's also not pretend that the US military actions, and other more covert actions, tend to be done for altruistic reasons.

If we talk about things that do cost money there's still a lot of room for that, given that the US doesn't have high taxes so you could increase them to pay for things (I can imagine the chock of Americans reading that line). Especially since you have the largest wealth gaps you could redistribute some of the money that the rich have, to offset some of the gap and benefit the nation as a while (returning the wealth distribution to something closer to what studies have shown that both Republican and Democrat voters think is ideal, as they don't actually see things differently in that regard). For example with free higher education, which is a good investment in the population as it helps increase the worth of it as a working force. So even if you keep spending absurd amounts of money on the military and foreign interventions you could still get the money, although of course you could spend less on that and get the money that way as well. The options are there and it's for the voters to make it known that they want something to happen, if that's what they want that is. Maybe you don't really want these things, and then it's of course as easy as to do nothing. The current fad is to talk about how countries like Sweden used to be great and that they are now ruined due to immigration, but the fact is that before all of this the right in the US still had few good things to say about Sweden, just talking about how bad it was with our welfare system, free healthcare, free higher education, etc. So maybe such things are just unwanted and there's no issue at all, as it's the American people that chooses for their country and no one else.
Click to expand...
Today's English lesson: $40
I just looked back at what I wrote and I did put the first quote " in the wrong spot. Sorry, I made a mistype, so please don't sue me. I thought I wrote it and I should have wrote it this way: You said Trump "doesn't know when actually important things happen, like the Internet rights being sold out and that the wealth gap is increasing"
You in fact, used "Trump", "he", and "his" in conjoined sentences. I am not sure how I was supposed to understand that "he" meant me when you were talking directly to me about him (Trump). Since you were speaking directly to me, there would be no reason to say "he" if you meant me, as the correct word would be "you", when speaking directly to someone. If, as I requoted it, would have used the word "he" instead of Trump, in the context of what I was saying, "he" could have been any unknown person and would have not made sense in my context as I was not previously speaking about Trump as you clearly were. I was not trying to change your quote. You began the paragraph with his (Trump) name, used the words "someone" and "he" in the part quoted and then, your very next sentence is: "His tax policies are actually more catered to the rich than the most right leaning party in Sweden". I guess when you said "His tax policies" you were clearly referring to "my" tax policies since I have authored so many tax policies for the US gov. and since he and him used back to back would refer to the same person. Its OK. I know English is not your primary language so there are minor communication issues. It seems it was a simple misunderstanding from not being clearly written. If you want "he" to refer to me, while talking to me, please say "you" instead. It would have been much more clear, if you really did not mean he to be Trump, as it seems you did the way it was written.

Here we go with the relevancy god BS again. It most certainly is relevant to the situation today that there was a drop in the 80s and 90s. The 80's and 90's was when the birth of the modern "free trade" globalist backstabbing ideals began. Claiming history to be irrelevant is you not acting like a grown adult. Thinking that the only relevant time is the last 14-18 years, which might your entire lifetime, is the way a kid would think. The globalist & the deep state did not sow their seeds of global domination in just the last few years. This plan has been in place and evolved over the course of many decades. Of course when the facts don't support your narrative and beliefs, the facts are just "irrelevant".


Your graphs on terrorism reek with the stench of fake news. "Official" numbers of terrorist attacks are completely skewed by the politics involved. There is a concerted effort by the globalist and their fake news minions to label terror attacks as anything but a terrorist attack. For example, the Fort Hood shooting was committed by an Arabic man yelling allahu akbar, and yet the official globalist fake news determination was that this incident was "work place violence". Your chart shows that in 2016 there were 150 terror attacks in Europe. I already posted a link in this discussion that showed that in 2016, there were 395 acids attacks in London alone. This 395 acid attacks is more terror attacks by itself than any single year on your graph. Just because the globalist controlled fake news declares a terror attack was not a terror attack, does not actually mean that it truly is not a terror attack. It just means they want you to think it was not a terror attack so that their hideous policies will not be blamed. Once again you have been proved way too easily fooled, and once again, I turn out to be right on all accounts.

You said: "You can't talk about facts and fake news at the same time as you're contradicting something without giving a source. Harley Davidson was praised by Trump as late as last year for manufacturing in the US and he also says that he's surprised that they are moving, and is attributing it to the EU's response to his tariff threats."
Again, I have to do your research for you. I am going to start charging you for that as well. Sources that speak of HD's plans to move from the US as far back as 2015 and all of them dated before any of Trump's tariffs were enacted.
https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/harley-davidsons-financial-fortunes-brighten-milwaukees-dim/
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387120-harley-davidson-to-open-plant-in-thailand-after-closing-one-in-kansas-city
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/05/11/union-harley-davidson-ship-work-thailand-closing-u-s-plant/601033002/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/harley-davidson-took-its-tax-cut-closed-a-factory-and-rewarded-shareholders/ar-AAxD6bK
Trump praised HD because they lied to him and told him what he wanted to hear. I am unable for find Trump "attributing it to the EU's response to his tariff threats." Please give me your source. This is Trump's response and he points out the same thing as in my links above:
"Early this year Harley-Davidson said they would move much of their plant operations in Kansas City to Thailand. That was long before Tariffs were announced. Hence, they were just using Tariffs/Trade War as an excuse. Shows how unbalanced & unfair trade is, but we will fix it....."

The Trump tax plan is just so terrible for average Americans. I was just talking to some people the other day and we were all surprised and trying to figure out why our electric bills are so low this year with summer in full swing and our AC's running.
Today, I saw this and now I have the answer for everyone..
Over 100 electric, gas ,and water utilities have cut their customer charges due to the Trump tax cuts. That amounts to a total savings of about $3 billion:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/29/a-very-trumpian-may-american-incomes-and-savings-rose-while-utility-bills-fell/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+breitbart+(Breitbart+News)

Damn that Donald Trump and his tax plan. I liked it better with Jihad Barry running things and paying larger utility bills.

Fuck Trump.


​
 
Squarechoke said:
It's a fact that you dishonestly changed the quote, and quotes must always be exactly similar. Here's the quote you presented "Trump doesn't know when actually important things happen, like the Internet rights being sold out and that the wealth gap is increasing.", and here's what I actually wrote "A perfect example where someone is dazzled by minor things, so he doesn't know when actually important things happen, like the Internet rights being sold out and that the wealth gap is increasing." You also display your lack of reading comprehension since the paragraph starts with a line about how you are being played, so it's obvious that the quoted line is about you. Your interpretation that it was about Trump makes no sense whatsoever since that would mean that I was saying that he's dazzled to the point of not knowing what he himself is doing.

So was your quote exactly the same as what I said, or did you alter the words? Are you aware of the fact that quotes should always be exact down to the letter (making you dishonest) or was that news to you (making you uneducated)?

The point isn't about you supposedly being literal (of course you weren't and why would you ever think that was my point?), it's about you pretty often using language that dorky teenagers do and certainly not adults with children, as that usually brings some maturity.

Whether you had a drop in the 80s and 90s isn't relevant to the situation today if you've been stable the last two decades. That's a clear case of having two different trends, and it's the current trend that's relevant to what actions you take today.

I'm still finding it funny that you attribute the low unemployment rate only to Trump, despite that unemployment was steadily going down during the big recession. That's hard to achieve. Trump came into office just after the global economic boom took off, when it's easy to increase the number of jobs. I'm not saying Trump hasn't done anything, I'm saying that you're being absurdly partisan when you say that it's only because of him. Saying the latter is closer to idol worship than analysis.

You still don't seem to be able to look up even the simplest facts about Europe. Here's a couple of graphs showing terrorism in Europe since 1970. I take the first because it's showing all the available information about deaths, and the second shows the total number of terror attacks.
ter-we-isl-20170523.png

(this graph does not include the flight that crashed in Irish airspace after a bomb exploded in 1985, where 329 people died)

KDr6ToCQjixqWjPJabO-YofC56U3rMobPmES4fmtDFw.jpg


As you can see, and should have known, the 70s was the worst decade for terrorism and the 80s the second worst.

You can't talk about facts and fake news at the same time as you're contradicting something without giving a source. Harley Davidson was praised by Trump as late as last year for manufacturing in the US and he also says that he's surprised that they are moving, and is attributing it to the EU's response to his tariff threats.

Trump spoke about the passed tax bill as being for the normal people, when it was the rich that benefited the most from it. That's a clear case of trying to focus on something small of a tax policy to draw attention away from the big matter. If he really did care about the normal people first hand as much as you give him credit for there would have been a lot of talk about reforming the tax to try to lower wealth gaps. One can't be so simple as to think that something that makes something a little better for one class and more significantly better for another is based purely on love for the former. Someone with a nuanced view on politics will realize that it's not just about something becoming better, it's how much better it gets in relation to what can be done. The sad thing about the US is that it's grown economically rigid and it actually has the lowest socioeconomic mobility of all developed nations, despite the classic talk about the American dream. Things like the tax bill cements that, and I'd say that if you guys really want a change that needs to be something you start raising voices over.

I think the risk is that partisanship, together with only having two relevant options, causes too many people to just praise their side even when it fails to live up to what it could (and all sides fail at that to some degree). Sweden's politics is currently a mess since it's really hard to create a majority government at the moment, but I guess there is some sign of health that a new party has arisen and, based on an average of different polls, is competing to be the second largest party in the upcoming elections, even though they only entered parliament two elections ago. People have been disappointed with what's been done and have actually voted in a way that has changed things.

You seem under the delusion that guaranteed vacation has anything to do with tax money. It's not the government that pays for that, they just set rules so people aren't cheated out of the standards that they deserve. That's why it has no relevance what the US spends on such things, because it's not spending anything on vacations regardless if the workers get 0 or 30 days. Your objection to this matter just isn't applicable.

Let's also not pretend that the US military actions, and other more covert actions, tend to be done for altruistic reasons.

If we talk about things that do cost money there's still a lot of room for that, given that the US doesn't have high taxes so you could increase them to pay for things (I can imagine the chock of Americans reading that line). Especially since you have the largest wealth gaps you could redistribute some of the money that the rich have, to offset some of the gap and benefit the nation as a while (returning the wealth distribution to something closer to what studies have shown that both Republican and Democrat voters think is ideal, as they don't actually see things differently in that regard). For example with free higher education, which is a good investment in the population as it helps increase the worth of it as a working force. So even if you keep spending absurd amounts of money on the military and foreign interventions you could still get the money, although of course you could spend less on that and get the money that way as well. The options are there and it's for the voters to make it known that they want something to happen, if that's what they want that is. Maybe you don't really want these things, and then it's of course as easy as to do nothing. The current fad is to talk about how countries like Sweden used to be great and that they are now ruined due to immigration, but the fact is that before all of this the right in the US still had few good things to say about Sweden, just talking about how bad it was with our welfare system, free healthcare, free higher education, etc. So maybe such things are just unwanted and there's no issue at all, as it's the American people that chooses for their country and no one else.
Click to expand...
I really was not talking so much about vacation, as healthcare. Vacations and more time off work is great, and I do agree it increases productivity. However, vacations are more of a luxury while healthcare is a necessity. I will tell you my Obamacare experience. Before Obamacare, I paid my families medical insurance. It costed me about $500/month. When Obamacare was passed, I received a letter from my insurance informing me that my coverage was being dropped as they were no longer offering my plan and gave an effective date this would take place. They told me to go to healthcare.gov and sign up under Obamacare and the health care marketplace. I did. I ended up with the same insurance company and essentially the same policy as before. I even pay the same $500/month as I was paying before. My insurance company gets the same $500/month from me. Now here's the kicker. On top of $500 they get from me, they also receive a $1000/month government subsidy of tax payer dollars strait from the US treasury for insuring me and my family. A fine example of US politicians making good deals on behalf of the American people. Good job Jihad Barry. Good job Demo-rats. We just have to pass it and then we will read it---Nancy Pelosi



People have been disappointed in the way things have been done in the US as well. We also did vote to change things. The establishment fights the results of that vote and paints the person we voted for and the voters themselves as racists and Nazis with every breath.



You will never get me to pretend that US military actions and covert ops are done for altruistic reasons. Nearly all US military actions are done to further the interest of globalism and a one world government run by elites at the expense and bloodshed of the common man.



I actually agree the US tax rate is not high when compared to other countries. Statistics prove that to be a fact. I believe most US citizens would not mind paying more tax if we would actually see results from it. The problem is, the politicians have proven time and time again that they care not to use tax dollars for the peoples benefit. They have proven time and time again that they do not have the ability to smartly use tax dollars and produce results for the people. US citizens do not want to pay more taxes because we know that the leaders will use it to the benefit of their own special interests and to enrich themselves. They could tax us at a rate of 100% and still want more while still failing to produce any positive results for the people. It is not "the American people who choose for their country and no one else". That is merely a projected illusionary image. Another falsehood you gullibly fell for from afar. Donald Trump has spoken a great deal about returning the power to the people. That's what makes him a racist and a Nazi and generally enemy number one for those that have benefited from corruption for so long. I just hope that Trump continues the good fight and is at least somewhat successful at this goal before they find a way to bring him down. I agree many options exist, but lets not pretend its only up to the voters. ​
 
I like David Duke and countless people like him for exposing Jewish hypocrisy and control of our nation

But, but.. White supremacy
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
A guy talking up David Duke getting angry that people think he's white supremacist.
Click to expand...

The thing that bothers me most about white supremacists isnt even the ugly things they think but the fact that the refuse to own it and get mad when called on it

Leads me to believe that they dont even agree with it and it isnt worth the debate ya know ?
 
What if - hear me out here - not every policy with which you disagree is morally equivalent to the policies of the worst mass murderers in history?
 
Crystaline Entity said:
Today's English lesson: $40
I just looked back at what I wrote and I did put the first quote " in the wrong spot. Sorry, I made a mistype, so please don't sue me. I thought I wrote it and I should have wrote it this way: You said Trump "doesn't know when actually important things happen, like the Internet rights being sold out and that the wealth gap is increasing"
You in fact, used "Trump", "he", and "his" in conjoined sentences. I am not sure how I was supposed to understand that "he" meant me when you were talking directly to me about him (Trump). Since you were speaking directly to me, there would be no reason to say "he" if you meant me, as the correct word would be "you", when speaking directly to someone. If, as I requoted it, would have used the word "he" instead of Trump, in the context of what I was saying, "he" could have been any unknown person and would have not made sense in my context as I was not previously speaking about Trump as you clearly were. I was not trying to change your quote. You began the paragraph with his (Trump) name, used the words "someone" and "he" in the part quoted and then, your very next sentence is: "His tax policies are actually more catered to the rich than the most right leaning party in Sweden". I guess when you said "His tax policies" you were clearly referring to "my" tax policies since I have authored so many tax policies for the US gov. and since he and him used back to back would refer to the same person. Its OK. I know English is not your primary language so there are minor communication issues. It seems it was a simple misunderstanding from not being clearly written. If you want "he" to refer to me, while talking to me, please say "you" instead. It would have been much more clear, if you really did not mean he to be Trump, as it seems you did the way it was written.

Here we go with the relevancy god BS again. It most certainly is relevant to the situation today that there was a drop in the 80s and 90s. The 80's and 90's was when the birth of the modern "free trade" globalist backstabbing ideals began. Claiming history to be irrelevant is you not acting like a grown adult. Thinking that the only relevant time is the last 14-18 years, which might your entire lifetime, is the way a kid would think. The globalist & the deep state did not sow their seeds of global domination in just the last few years. This plan has been in place and evolved over the course of many decades. Of course when the facts don't support your narrative and beliefs, the facts are just "irrelevant".


Your graphs on terrorism reek with the stench of fake news. "Official" numbers of terrorist attacks are completely skewed by the politics involved. There is a concerted effort by the globalist and their fake news minions to label terror attacks as anything but a terrorist attack. For example, the Fort Hood shooting was committed by an Arabic man yelling allahu akbar, and yet the official globalist fake news determination was that this incident was "work place violence". Your chart shows that in 2016 there were 150 terror attacks in Europe. I already posted a link in this discussion that showed that in 2016, there were 395 acids attacks in London alone. This 395 acid attacks is more terror attacks by itself than any single year on your graph. Just because the globalist controlled fake news declares a terror attack was not a terror attack, does not actually mean that it truly is not a terror attack. It just means they want you to think it was not a terror attack so that their hideous policies will not be blamed. Once again you have been proved way too easily fooled, and once again, I turn out to be right on all accounts.

You said: "You can't talk about facts and fake news at the same time as you're contradicting something without giving a source. Harley Davidson was praised by Trump as late as last year for manufacturing in the US and he also says that he's surprised that they are moving, and is attributing it to the EU's response to his tariff threats."
Again, I have to do your research for you. I am going to start charging you for that as well. Sources that speak of HD's plans to move from the US as far back as 2015 and all of them dated before any of Trump's tariffs were enacted.
https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/harley-davidsons-financial-fortunes-brighten-milwaukees-dim/
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/387120-harley-davidson-to-open-plant-in-thailand-after-closing-one-in-kansas-city
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/05/11/union-harley-davidson-ship-work-thailand-closing-u-s-plant/601033002/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/harley-davidson-took-its-tax-cut-closed-a-factory-and-rewarded-shareholders/ar-AAxD6bK
Trump praised HD because they lied to him and told him what he wanted to hear. I am unable for find Trump "attributing it to the EU's response to his tariff threats." Please give me your source. This is Trump's response and he points out the same thing as in my links above:
"Early this year Harley-Davidson said they would move much of their plant operations in Kansas City to Thailand. That was long before Tariffs were announced. Hence, they were just using Tariffs/Trade War as an excuse. Shows how unbalanced & unfair trade is, but we will fix it....."

The Trump tax plan is just so terrible for average Americans. I was just talking to some people the other day and we were all surprised and trying to figure out why our electric bills are so low this year with summer in full swing and our AC's running.
Today, I saw this and now I have the answer for everyone..
Over 100 electric, gas ,and water utilities have cut their customer charges due to the Trump tax cuts. That amounts to a total savings of about $3 billion:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/29/a-very-trumpian-may-american-incomes-and-savings-rose-while-utility-bills-fell/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+breitbart+(Breitbart+News)

Damn that Donald Trump and his tax plan. I liked it better with Jihad Barry running things and paying larger utility bills.

Fuck Trump.


​
Click to expand...

You see, looking up the facts is far more productive than going in juvenile defense mode. We could have gotten past this a few posts ago if you just looked at what was written. Admitting that you did it wrong wasn't so scary either, was it? I admit my pronouns were a bit unclear and it's likely because I changed around a sentence and didn't alter the one that followed it, so the reference became less clear. I still think that interpreting it as referring to Trump actually doesn't make sense, so if one reads it like that one should get confused and ask what was meant.

No, a trend in the 80s and 90s isn't relevant for action today if the current trend is different. That's an utterly absurd statement you made. It's as intelligent as saying that there was a recession in the 90s so I will make my economic decisions based on that, instead of the fact that we're in an economic boom right now. Reality is that manufacturing was declining in the US during the 80s and 90s but the US actually turned that trend and managed to become stable, which it's been for nearly two decades now so it's more than established. That means that unless you're a complete idiot you take steps based on what you want to do with a stable manufacturing that's just not growing more than inflation. You don't go into panic and take steps like if the manufacturing was plummeting. But go ahead, make your investments based on 90s economy if that's how you want to do things. Watch out for that IT bubble.

I showed clear statistics and you have nothing better to say than "fake news". Pathetic. You probably don't even know how the judgement of terror attacks are determined, nor did you probably not even consider that similar attacks on people at other times weren't classified as terrorism either. And this still doesn't change that you said that terrorism had never been a concern in Sweden before now, which is still completely wrong.

The most basic rule of making statements is that you are yourself responsible for backing them up. I didn't even actually ask for it, I just pointed out that you're uneducated to the point where you don't see where you are inconsistent and being a hypocrite. I know that HD has had dwindling sales in the US and that they aren't as interested in that market as some others. Since I'm not a hypocrite I won't cry about that you want a source for my statement but I'll gladly give it to you as I'm well beyond the level of education to know that it's my responsibility. There's a ton of sites reporting it and the first that came up was this:
http://www.dpa-international.com/to...tion-abroad-avoid-eu-tariffs-180625-99-882414

Your analysis of the tax situation shows again that you can just scratch the surface and therefor you don't see where things are skewed in favor of the rich. Of course that's how Trump would like you to be as he praises his tax plan and want you to swallow it whole and be happy that he has exactly your best interest in mind. Despite that it's not the case of course as he's really looking after his own kind. Looking at the effects of the tax plan over the course of a decade you start to see a trend that's not immediately obvious. Here's the change of how much money people of different income have left after taxes in 2027:
12-19-17tax-f2.png

The tax bill gradually shifts taxes so that the middle and lower classes move to a negative result, while the rich get more and more. Talking about that some companies can lower prices due to tax cuts just shows that you missed the actual target of the tax cut. If Trump truly was intending to work to support the middle and lower class he would have made a tax plan that avoided to tax those classes harder so they would have as much, or more, money to spend and then also get any potential savings from companies lowering prices. An effect like this tax bill has has never, and will never, be something made with the best interests of the lower and middle class in mind. Since the US literally has a wealth distribution like medieval Europe it's of highly questionable need to actually give the rich a tax relief, and even less so to at the same time tax the rest harder. It would probably be more in the interest of the country to tax the rich harder.

Even if I would have personally benefited from lower tax if I was a US resident I just can't say that it's responsible to give a tax relief to the rich at the same time as your budget has a serious deficit and significantly adds to the already massive debt of the US. Especially not in light of the country's wealth distribution.
 
Last edited:
The last few pages should go in the sherdog hall of fame for most characters used in a single argument.
 
Crystaline Entity said:
I really was not talking so much about vacation, as healthcare. Vacations and more time off work is great, and I do agree it increases productivity. However, vacations are more of a luxury while healthcare is a necessity. I will tell you my Obamacare experience. Before Obamacare, I paid my families medical insurance. It costed me about $500/month. When Obamacare was passed, I received a letter from my insurance informing me that my coverage was being dropped as they were no longer offering my plan and gave an effective date this would take place. They told me to go to healthcare.gov and sign up under Obamacare and the health care marketplace. I did. I ended up with the same insurance company and essentially the same policy as before. I even pay the same $500/month as I was paying before. My insurance company gets the same $500/month from me. Now here's the kicker. On top of $500 they get from me, they also receive a $1000/month government subsidy of tax payer dollars strait from the US treasury for insuring me and my family. A fine example of US politicians making good deals on behalf of the American people. Good job Jihad Barry. Good job Demo-rats. We just have to pass it and then we will read it---Nancy Pelosi



People have been disappointed in the way things have been done in the US as well. We also did vote to change things. The establishment fights the results of that vote and paints the person we voted for and the voters themselves as racists and Nazis with every breath.



You will never get me to pretend that US military actions and covert ops are done for altruistic reasons. Nearly all US military actions are done to further the interest of globalism and a one world government run by elites at the expense and bloodshed of the common man.



I actually agree the US tax rate is not high when compared to other countries. Statistics prove that to be a fact. I believe most US citizens would not mind paying more tax if we would actually see results from it. The problem is, the politicians have proven time and time again that they care not to use tax dollars for the peoples benefit. They have proven time and time again that they do not have the ability to smartly use tax dollars and produce results for the people. US citizens do not want to pay more taxes because we know that the leaders will use it to the benefit of their own special interests and to enrich themselves. They could tax us at a rate of 100% and still want more while still failing to produce any positive results for the people. It is not "the American people who choose for their country and no one else". That is merely a projected illusionary image. Another falsehood you gullibly fell for from afar. Donald Trump has spoken a great deal about returning the power to the people. That's what makes him a racist and a Nazi and generally enemy number one for those that have benefited from corruption for so long. I just hope that Trump continues the good fight and is at least somewhat successful at this goal before they find a way to bring him down. I agree many options exist, but lets not pretend its only up to the voters. ​
Click to expand...

That's pretty odd since I never brought up healthcare, and I did talk a lot about things like vacation, so one would expect that you respond to the thing I spoke of and not something different. Vacation isn't just about luxury though, it actually helps with health issues as well. Working people that gets plenty of rest and are kept happy are sick less. That's one of the reasons some companies have had productivity increases by lowering workday hours from 8 to 6.

Regarding healthcare everything can be implemented poorly, and Obamacare does seem to have it's flaws. I haven't bothered looking into it deeply enough to make an analysis of it as a whole, as I've heard differing experience from individuals and can't make much of a complete picture out of that. One would think that it was as terrible as the worst voices say it would have been very easy to repeal it. I've never defended it though, although I do think that public healthcare is a good thing as a concept, as there are countries with public healthcare that have good quality care and don't pay that much for it. While I can afford to pay whatever I need for myself I also think that a respectable country should be able to take care of it's citizens' fundamental needs.

A big problem that it seems to me is that Americans seem to get gouged on healthcare even beyond the insurance bit. I'm sure there are many factors behind it but I saw a horrific example on this forum the other day where a vacationing foreign couple took in their young child to an emergency room because it had gotten ill, and the doctor just gave them the advice to have the child sleep it off, and later they got a bill for $18000 for a few minutes of service. I of course understand that this is an extreme case, but it's just insane that there's an environment where such a thing can even happen. My mother got sick on a vacation in Switzerland and had to get emergency surgery to remove her gallbladder. That surgery, and 4-5 days of recovery at the hospital, cost the equivalent of $12000 and things in general tend to be quite expensive in Switzerland.

Trump is running as a Republican and a part of the 1% so that's not that much of a change, it's just the normal difference that you get with candidates within the same party when looking at the effects of his politics compared to other Republicans. Of course as things are the chance of an actually independent candidate having success seems very far off, which also makes it a pretty self-fulfilling prophecy as people don't vote for them as it's seen as throwing their vote away just because it looks far off.

I wasn't actually suggesting a tax raise, I'm just saying that there are several ways to pay for what you could want. My comment that you quoted about the American people choosing was meant as a statement that it's the American people that vote for what they want and that I as an outsider shouldn't say what they should want. In the end it is up to the voters, those are the only ones that can show that change is possible. It will take more than just sitting at home and then going to the voting booth once every 4 years though. Then again, I often get told that the US is a place where everyone own guns for the sake of fighting the government if it's necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,677
Messages
55,433,805
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top