Do Democrats Really Hate the Working Class? Of Course They Do, They Always Have, Now They're Saying it Loud and Proud. I've Got the Receipts.
Into the Night
Verified User
What 'transfer of wealth'???
That's not happening either, Lurchy.
You do. They are just pawns to you.
Into the Night
Verified User
Mantra 1e. Lame.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
yes. they're completely treaties.
Into the Night
Verified User
Nope.
However, tariffs may be agreed between two nations through a treaty, which affects tariffs in both directions.
Nope. A treaty is an agreement between two nations. A tariff requires no such agreement.
However, tariffs may be agreed between two nations through a treaty, which affects tariffs in both directions.
Tobytone
Verified User
Warning, I'm recovering from a surgery so I'm on a nice medley of post-op drugs. I guess that's why I went a bit crazy on this one doing what Trump calls 'The weave' a little bit, but what the hell, the mood struck me, and my fingers started tapping. I figured whether anyone reads it or not, it provided me with a little project between five-minute naps every five minutes, lol.
Fortunately, I’m not worried about entitlement cuts hitting me personally, but I care about those who might face cuts later. Some people, especially those far left, don’t get that the government can’t create money from thin air. Printing more dollars just devalues what we have. It doesn’t cover soaring entitlement costs. The more they print, the more they’ll need to print because inflation eats up the new dollars’ value. This can be tricky to grasp, and shady politicians exploit it for propaganda, especially when debating entitlement cuts.
Here’s a simple example I heard long ago that helped me understand why printing money causes inflation and why we can’t just print a trillion dollars to pay bills. It's a microcosm that super-simplifies the entire economy but respresents the actual effects of printing money. Many people have probably heard this or some variation of it.
Picture a small economy with 10 oranges, representing all goods and services, and 10 coins, representing all money. There are 10 people, each with one coin. Each orange costs 1 coin, so the economy’s total value is 10 coins. Easy enough.
Now suppose the government makes 10 more coins, so each person has two coins, but nothing else changes. We still have just 10 oranges. (No new work or goods are produced.) With more coins but the same oranges, people offer more to buy one or maybe buy two. Sellers raise prices, and soon each orange costs 2 coins. That’s inflation: more money, no more stuff, so prices rise. It shows money represents goods and services, not something the government can just create.
I bring this up because if Democrats truly care about keeping benefits for those who need them, they should support efforts like Elon’s to root out fraud and scammers stealing from legitimate citizens and actual qualified beneficiaries. They should also back modest cuts in the rate of increases that affect the fewest people, target less critical benefits, and slow program growth.
Why? Current spending levels are unsustainable. We’re on a path to national bankruptcy if we don’t act. Then benefits vanish for everyone. It’s not debatable. It’s math.
Instead of being reasonable, Democrats, and frankly many Republicans, use this issue to raise campaign funds and cling to power by demonizing those trying to save these programs. They also wrongly claim tax cuts are like spending. Tax cuts aren’t spending. They let people keep more money, which they invest and spend on goods and services, boosting the economy faster than inefficient and corrupt government spending.
History shows major tax cuts always spark growth, leading to collecting more tax revenue. Raising taxes to cover runaway entitlement growth, which is often triple our GDP slows the economy and instead of bringing in more, revenues shrink, the opposite of what targeting the wealthy aims for. More growth means more revenue to sustain the programs Democrats say they care about.
The real solutions are clear but limited: eliminate fraud, trim non-essential services, and tighten eligibility, like work requirements for able-bodied people. Even then, we need strong economic growth to increase tax revenue to make it work. (tariffs will help as well)
My final point is we need to debate this without assuming anyone wants to hurt those relying on these programs or break our promises. Both sides need to do their jobs and talk honestly about what’s sustainable and what isn’t. Do you really believe that the majority of either party want to see needy citizens suffering without medical care and attention?
Wow, I'll admit that was long winded for sure, I have been writing it for like two hours literally unable to stay awake for more than a few minutes at a time. I almost deleted it, but that seems like a waste in case anyone is bored enough to read it, LOL.
2 ways to fix the deficit. One is cut every damn program without giving tax breaks to the wealty and corporations. Repugs are not going to do that.
The other is to tax the wealthy and corporations at previous levels, while slashing loopholes. That is raising revenue. The debt will soar because the wealthy never have enough. Apparently Repub voters get rich when Musk and billionaires get tax cuts.
Tobytone
Verified User
I don’t just claim, I know they do, and I served up a prime example from one of your fellow lefty drones. Your problem? You think holding back cash from the world’s most wasteful, corrupt, inefficient institution means robbing the needy, when really it’s just stopping the enrichment of the wrong people. Taxes transfer wealth, siphoning money from those who earn it to wherever the government feels like blowing it.
Tax cuts? They let hardworking people keep more of their own money to spend as they choose. You’re the clueless one. You equate any slowdown in spending growth with yanking critical aid, never bothering to ask how much we’re spending or where the hell it’s going. How about some specifics, exactly who is losing what? Not what your Hivemaster tell you could happen, but what exactly are people losing. Show the receipts, you won't because that takes a little work and you'd rather just parrot bullshit.
To you and your ilk, the price tag’s irrelevant as long as you can vilify those “greedy rich” to foot the bill and think you've done something about the problem but bitching about it. Meanwhile, you ignore the fraud, waste, and outright theft that fattens the wallets of the con artists who’ve got you parroting their talking points like a loyal little soldier. Wake up and smell the scam, dumbass.
Tobytone
Verified User
Yeah, he decided to edit his rage against the 'fat ass losers that drive their ford F-150's to their shit jobs' to only Trump supporters and of course you ate it up like a drone does.
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
No, I'm not reading this. Try to make your point more succinctly. Some of us have jobs.
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
Is his translator here? I'll just be a moment, trumptard. Wait for me here, I'll be right back.
Tobytone
Verified User
It’s hilarious how you ignore history. When Democrats controlled the White House, Senate, and House in recent years, they didn’t touch the debt except to gut our military. Obama even had a Senate supermajority with 60 votes, meaning he could’ve passed anything he wanted. Yet, crickets on spending cuts. Just more of the same big-government bloat.
You’re dead wrong about fixing the deficit with your “tax the rich” mantra. I’ve already explained why, and every major tax cut in U.S. history backs me up: tax cuts always boost revenue. Take Reagan. His massive tax cuts doubled federal revenue in five or six years. His only mistake? Trusting Democrats to cut spending as promised. Spoiler: they didn’t. Revenue doubled, but spending more than tripled, and here we are. It wasn't just Reagan, Kennedy did the same and had the same results along with every single major tax cut in our history.
To fix the deficit, we need to slash spending and cut taxes for everyone, especially the wealthy. Why? They’re the ones building thriving businesses that drive economic growth and fill government coffers, even at lower rates. Raising taxes on Corporations is just dumb, it's like the tariff argument with one key difference, it punishes all products and all consumers whether they are made in America or not. Corporate taxes are simply added to the cost of the product, there is no Mr. or Mrs Corporate that takes less home because their taxes went up, the taxes went up on everyone with a mutual fund and everyone that ever buys anything. It’s also proven that reasonable taxes mean fewer people cheat, the risk and cost of dodging them just aren’t worth it anymore.
Think of a guy drowning in credit card debt. Any decent money manager will tell him to boost his income with a better job or side hustle and cut expenses wherever possible. Our deficit’s no different. We need to grow our way out through economic expansion, not by punishing hard work with higher taxes. Stop chanting the lefty playbook and start facing reality.
Tobytone
Verified User
Yeah, I know it does take some people more than a minute I suppose. I often forget just how slow some people read, sorry. Maybe I'll remember to try Memes with you, and I'll make sure there are only a few words.
Tobytone
Verified User
Sorry, you're not worth the wait. I'll just move to another libtard, you're all the same.
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
<yawn>, Oh, I'm sorry, did you slobber something?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
I could jump in here with a great, sneering, and snarky insult but it's Friday so I'll pass
Tobytone
Verified User
Thought so, LOL
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Exactly. If they hold differing views, they can even be executed and you will cheer. So what's the answer to gfm7175's question, i.e. why should he support you leftists? He absolutely shouldn't, right? In fact, no rational adult should support you irrational HATE-mongers.
Yep, I was right. I set my countdown timer to 12 seconds when you would pretend to speak for countless others. You came in at 11.83 seconds (which rounds up to 12).
Trump signed an executive order requiring drug manufacturers to offer Americans the lowest price available in any OECD country. American patients may be able to buy medications directly from manufacturers at the Most Favored Nation price, bypassing middlemen. If drug companies refuse to comply, the administration may impose mandatory price caps and take legal action against anti-competitive practices.
Americans will be paying the lowest prices in the world for medication.
I just asked an expert who depends on tips. She says you are greatly mistaken. I have to go with what the experts say, I'm sorry.
Don't be such a chump.
Nomad
Every trumper is a N4T.
Are you suggesting that the trumper taco shithole right doesn't do the exact same thing but on an even sleazier and more dishonest level???
GTFOH, loser.
More pot kettle black shit gurgling from the toilet mouth of the forum's #1 drool bucket.
On May 11, the day before he held a White House event to sign the executive order, Trump posted on Truth Social, “Prescription drug and pharmaceutical prices will be reduced, almost immediately, by 30% to 80%.”
However, the executive order’s text unveiled May 12 undercut the president’s description about how soon consumers could experience this potential boon.
The idea of the executive order, he said, was to lower high prescription drug costs in the U.S. to levels more typical in other countries.
“We’re going to equalize,” Trump said at the order signing. “We’re all going to pay the same. We’re going to pay what Europe pays.”
Experts said Trump’s action could potentially lower the cost of prescription drugs, perhaps by the 30 percent to 80 percent scale Trump said, but they cautioned that the order’s required procedural steps would make it far from an immediate fix.
The executive order says that within 30 days, administration officials must determine and communicate to drugmakers what Trump calls the “most favored nation price targets,” to push the companies to “bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations.”
After an unspecified period of time, the administration will gauge whether “significant progress” toward lower pricing has been achieved. If not, the order requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to “propose a rulemaking plan to impose most-favored-nation pricing,” which could take months or even years before taking effect.
“Executive orders are wish lists,” said Joseph Antos, an emeritus health care policy senior fellow with the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The order “hopes that manufacturers will unilaterally lower U.S. prices. The legal authority to intervene in the market is unclear if this implausible scenario doesn’t happen.”
When contacted for comment, the White House did not provide evidence that the executive order would provide immediate results.
Trump said because of his new executive order, prescription drug prices will be reduced “almost immediately.”
Experts said that if the goals of the executive order are achieved, price reductions would not happen “almost immediately.”
The order sets out a 30-day period to develop pricing targets for drugmakers, followed by an unspecified amount of time to see if companies achieve the targets. If they don’t, a formal rulemaking process would begin, requiring months or even years. And if Trump intends to lower prices for all consumers, not just those who have federal coverage like Medicare, Congress would likely have to pass a law to do it.
Trump gives the impression that Americans will shortly see steep decreases in what they pay for prescription drugs. But even if the executive order acts as intended — which would require a lot to go right — it could take months or years.
The statement contains an element of truth but ignores evidence that would give a different impression.
Even tacotrump never claimed that
"The idea of the executive order, he said, was to lower high prescription drug costs in the U.S. to levels more typical in other countries.
“We’re going to equalize,” Trump said at the order signing. “We’re all going to pay the same. We’re going to pay what Europe pays.”
Take taco's nutsack out of your mouth.
So your gay boyfriend who works as a waiter at the local Hamburger Mary's disagrees.
Nobody cares.
Go tell your reflection in the mirror.