![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/western_bulldogs.png)
- Dec 27, 2016
- 29,271
- 61,615
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #31
Here is US Politics - Pt 1
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Port Adelaide v Geelong - 7:40PM Thu
Squiggle tips Port at 72% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Finals Wk 1
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Wrong.Wasn't a deflection. Was just pointing out how poor and to be honest niave your comment was.
You should just admit you only hae an issue with billionaires funding politicians if the are ones you agree with.
I'm not ok with it but I'm not the one trying to score points of it. Then pretending it only happens on one side by deflecting with source?Wrong.
I think it's abhorrent that donation tallies are listed with polling numbers, and I absolutely agree with Sanders who wants to take donations out of politics and make elections publically funded.
I see you still have no source, and seem ok with a VP who is bought and owned by a billionaire.
Now, are you man enough to admit you made an incorrect assumption and apologise?
I don't care if they are GOP or Dems. It's plain wrong regardless. At least someone in the Dems (Sanders) publically opposes it. I've mentioned it many times.I'm not ok with it but I'm not the one trying to score points of it. Then pretending it only happens on one side by deflecting with source?
You can google Beto O'Rourke if you want. I'm sure there's more an I'm certain you already know there is more.
Do you have a source for this?I don't care if they are GOP or Dems. It's plain wrong regardless. At least someone in the Dems (Sanders) publically opposes it. I've mentioned it many times.
JD is bought by a billionaire to represent a party that is increasing taxes on people earning less than $75k and cutting taxes on people earning over $5m.
The cult are cool with this. It's weird.
Historically, societies crumble when wealth inequality reaches a certain infection point and there are useful idiots in the US cheering on policies that will gut the middle class. We'll be somewhat shielded in Australia (we may actually benefit in the short term from Trump's impending trade war with China) for a while, but I hope we don't follow the same path of robbing the majority to prop up the 1%.
FWIW I'd be doing everything possible to reduce donations and influence in Australian politics too, even if our imperfect system is miles better than what they US have.
Yes.Do you have a source for this?
* Guessing it's a Project 2025 thing that Trump has distanced himself from.
Where does it say taxes forYes.
JCX-68-17
www.jct.gov
It's a paper from 2017 - "Distributional Effects Of The Conference Agreement For H.R.1, The Tax Cuts And Jobs Act"
It accounts for all other policy effects on US household income (e.g. healthcare penalties).
For an idea of how Trump's tax cuts for the rich (and little movement for everyone else) work without the associated penalties, this link has graphs:
![]()
The 2017 Trump Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Policymakers and the public should understand that the 2017 Trump tax law was skewed to the rich, was expensive and eroded the U.S. revenue base, and failed to deliver promised economic benefits. A 2025 course correction is needed.www.cbpp.org
View attachment 2053105
Trump and his billionaire cronies have played the US public for fools.
So where does it say Trump wants to increase the taxes for under 75k?Yes.
JCX-68-17
www.jct.gov
It's a paper from 2017 - "Distributional Effects Of The Conference Agreement For H.R.1, The Tax Cuts And Jobs Act"
It accounts for all other policy effects on US household income (e.g. healthcare penalties).
For an idea of how Trump's tax cuts for the rich (and little movement for everyone else) work without the associated penalties, this link has graphs:
![]()
The 2017 Trump Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Policymakers and the public should understand that the 2017 Trump tax law was skewed to the rich, was expensive and eroded the U.S. revenue base, and failed to deliver promised economic benefits. A 2025 course correction is needed.www.cbpp.org
View attachment 2053105
Trump and his billionaire cronies have played the US public for fools.
No, he wasn'tHe was there for nearly 4 hours from 5:10 to 9pm.
In San Francisco on Friday, police were called at about 2.30 a.m. to the Pelosi residence to check on Paul Pelosi, said Scott.
No, they didn'tPolice on the scene said that the broken glass was on the outside, not the inside.
Another rumour supporting the idea that the two men knew each other claimed that the shattered glass door of the house was broken from the inside, suggesting Mr Pelosi or a third person had let Mr DePape in.
...
The FBI complaint quotes Mr DePape as saying that he "broke into the house through a glass door, which was a difficult task that required the use of a hammer".
No, they're notWhere was Pelosi’s security? They’re there even when Nancy is not.
Nancy Pelosi was in Washington and under the protection of her security detail, which does not extend to family members.
That’s not how it played out. When Trump took office in January 2017, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting that federal budget deficits would be 2% to 3% of our gross domestic product during Trump’s term. Instead, the deficit reached nearly 4% of gross domestic product in 2018 and 4.6% in 2019.
Extending the 2017 tax cuts that expire next year will cost roughly $5 trillion over 10 years, but, even with that hefty price tag, making the law permanent will still leave millions of U.S. households with bigger tax bills.
That’s according to a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center, which estimated that extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would leave 13% of middle-income households with higher taxes than they would have if provisions expire as scheduled.
That’s because the 2017 tax-code revamp doubled the child tax credit to $2,000 and increased the standard deduction but eliminated or reduced personal exemptions and several other deductions that many middle-class households had relied on.
The analysis also shows that the vast majority of the $5 trillion in tax cuts would go to households earning more than $450,000 and shift the overall burden of funding the U.S. government to middle- and lower-income Americans.
Trump plans to slash 80% of public sector and abolish income tax. The IRS is an Enemy of the State.Do you have a source for this?
* Guessing it's a Project 2025 thing that Trump has distanced himself from.
Yep, blow up the criminal banking cartel and replace it with gold, energy and resources backed financial system. Criminals making money from thin air will be smashed into a million pieces.^ No analysis from after 2017 by the billionaire simps. No surprise.
View attachment 2053142
Trump tried bankrupt the US the first time around - debt exploded under Trump. He'll do it again.
![]()
Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) That It’ll Weigh Down the Economy for Years
The “King of Debt” promised to reduce the national debt — then his tax cuts made it surge. Add in the pandemic, and he oversaw the third-biggest deficit increase of any president.www.propublica.org
The SRP simps are now the conspiracy theorists!
This talking point has been fake news since it reared its ugly head in 2017. Rather than being a critique on Trump's policy itself, it is speculation about what might happen in the future if certain other changes occur. I could write a report stating:Yes.
JCX-68-17
www.jct.gov
It's a paper from 2017 - "Distributional Effects Of The Conference Agreement For H.R.1, The Tax Cuts And Jobs Act"
It accounts for all other policy effects on US household income (e.g. healthcare penalties).
For an idea of how Trump's tax cuts for the rich (and little movement for everyone else) work without the associated penalties, this link has graphs:
![]()
The 2017 Trump Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Policymakers and the public should understand that the 2017 Trump tax law was skewed to the rich, was expensive and eroded the U.S. revenue base, and failed to deliver promised economic benefits. A 2025 course correction is needed.www.cbpp.org
View attachment 2053105
Trump and his billionaire cronies have played the US public for fools.
They're Trump biggest donors. Not going to happenYep, blow up the criminal banking cartel and replace it with gold, energy and resources backed financial system. Criminals making money from thin air will be smashed into a million pieces.
Amazing that you go that from an analysis of what happened.This talking point has been fake news since it reared its ugly head in 2017. Rather than being a critique on Trump's policy itself, it is speculation about what might happen in the future if certain other changes occur. I could write a report stating:
Biden's student loan forgiveness policy will result in every kitten and puppy on earth being brutally murdered*^°
* in 10 years time
^ if X, Y and Z also occur
° maybe
And it would be similarly credible (and spread as a talking point by folks who don't read the links they share!)
For more fun, google who funds the "non-partisan" CBPP. Hint: they share a major donor with Airwars (the think-tank that Chuckles and others get their absurd drone stats from).
Superb.This talking point has been fake news since it reared its ugly head in 2017. Rather than being a critique on Trump's policy itself, it is speculation about what might happen in the future if certain other changes occur. I could write a report stating:
Biden's student loan forgiveness policy will result in every kitten and puppy on earth being brutally murdered*^°
* in 10 years time
^ if X, Y and Z also occur
° maybe
And it would be similarly credible (and spread as a talking point by folks who don't read the links they share!)
For more fun, google who funds the "non-partisan" CBPP. Hint: they share a major donor with Airwars (the think-tank that Chuckles and others get their absurd drone stats from).
I'm not defending trickle-down, I'm defending the truth here m8. Dems have repeated the lie about the 2017 tax cuts only benefiting the wealthy so often that many have started simply believing this line without question. Backed up by twisted data presented by official-sounding organisations that are in fact, ironically, propaganda fronts for billionaires with agendas of their own.Amazing that you go that from an analysis of what happened.
Trickle-down is dead, dude.
Bless you ET, you are too kind. I have nothing but love for these kind-hearted (yet occasionally gullible) contributors to this fine thread. We have all at one point or another heard a false talking point that reinforces our biases and found a nonsense source that gives us that squirt of dopamine by backing it up. As always, compassion and education are the answer.Superb.
You’ve decimated both his fragile argument and lack of credible sources. You quickly identified his rambling post is most likely a copy paste from reddit or similar.
The most impressive part of your post is you were able to destroy his irrational premise without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
You continue to inspire and impress.
A Trump fan talking about "truth" is pretty funny.I'm not defending trickle-down, I'm defending the truth here m8.
"The Great Reset" being the exact words quoted by the Christchurch mass-murderer in their online manifesto.Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is director of the Socialism Research Center at The Heartland Institute and the co-author, with Glenn Beck, of the forthcoming book “The Great Reset: Joe Biden and the Rise of 21st Century Fascism.”
Yet, as critics also warned, the TCJA did not lead to these types of investments. Upon the bill’s passage, corporations began funneling their extra tax windfall to shareholders instead. A recent analysis from the International Monetary Fund found that the top S&P 500 companies directed just 20 percent of their increased cashflow toward capital expenditures or research and development, while putting the other 80 percent toward buybacks, dividends, and other asset planning adjustments. These types of expenditures overwhelmingly benefit foreign investors and the wealthy, who own the majority of corporate stocks.