Doge Clock...

QP! said:
Damocles a serious question if you will answer.

Now i suspect you will not answer as it would force you to recognize that Trump and Elon and maga lied to you and suckered you and many prefer to just ignore or live in denial of that truth but...

Now that it is clear that the main focus of the Budget bill the Magats in the House are pushing is deepening again, the tax cuts for the wealthiest American's and locking them in as permanent, while allowing the lesser tax relief provided to the middle class and poor to expire and also cutting Medicaid and food programs and all programs across the board that help the working poor, do you acknowledge that Trumps ENTIRE populist, 'i am for the working man' schtick was all just a lie?
Click to expand...
Um... Why do you think I would have a problem answering this? I don't like Trump, nor did I vote for him. I voted for Chase.

Anyway the "big beautiful bill" as they call it locks in the tax rates that were set to expire in 2025, since there was a tax cut for the middle class in there it does not raise their taxes, nor do their tax cuts expire in the bill, they remain the same permanently rather than expire. So, since the middle class got a tax cut, this makes them permanent and your base premise just words without meaning. Anyway, the "big beautiful bill" also provides more child tax credits and other things that will reduce the tax burdens on the Middle Class.

I think that you'd be hard pressed to get a Union Man at the Ford Plant to agree with you that it is a "schtick", his protectionism seems to be the norm with him, there was a reason they stood by Trump in his campaign. Oddly, Sanders and other folks were for these idiotic protectionist tariffs before they became a Trump "idea". I have never been for that kind of thing, because Tariffs are a tax we pay at the retail level just as taxes on corporations are just more taxes we pay for at the retail level (in order to pay the tax they have to make the money and they aren't going to take less just because you call it tax), they are hidden sales tax. I don't think we should increase sales taxes unless we get rid of income taxes, using a constitutional amendment so it can't just go back after we institute a "national sales tax"....

Now, one thing I do know, with 1.5 years (I was wrong in the OP they have 1.5 years to come up with these "savings"), even if they "save" all that money we will still be deficit spending and increasing debt. DOGE does nothing to pay down debt.

While I find this kind of thing entertaining, and enjoy posting their number, I think that they are largely spinning their wheels with no forward momentum. I also like that we who are not takers get to point out that anyone looking to end government waste and excess will be met with anger and hatred from the left.
 
Damocles said:
Um... Why do you think I would have a problem answering this? I don't like Trump, nor did I vote for him. I voted for Chase.
Click to expand...
Because you clap like a seal and demonstrate you BELIEVE Doge and Trump lies.

Damocles said:
Damocles said:
Anyway the "big beautiful bill" as they call it locks in the tax rates that were set to expire in 2025, since there was a tax cut for the middle class in there it does not raise their taxes, nor do their tax cuts expire in the bill, they remain the same permanently rather than expire. So, since the middle class got a tax cut, this makes them permanent and your base premise just words without meaning.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'll let AI correct you...


AI Overview


The "big beautiful bill," referring to a proposed tax bill, is not yet a law and its provisions could change. However, based on current discussions and proposals, it is likely that tax cuts for the working class, which are temporary, could expire, while some tax cuts for the wealthy may be made permanent. Some analysis suggests the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which is the framework for the "big beautiful bill," heavily favors the wealthy, with the top 1% receiving significantly larger tax cuts than those in the lower 60% of households. The TCJA also includes provisions that could see tax brackets revert to pre-TCJA levels, potentially increasing taxes for many Americans if the temporary cuts expire, ...

A bigger SALT deduction would benefit higher-income taxpayers who would already score a permanent extension of lower income tax rates from the big beautiful bill, as Republicans refer to it, which also bestows a $30 million exemption from the estate tax for America’s wealthiest heirs and heiresses. The legislation would offset part of the cost of the tax cuts by cutting $1 trillion from programs that help poor people afford food and medical care.

Elaboration:
  • Temporary vs. Permanent:
    The "big beautiful bill" (as it is currently being debated) proposes to extend some tax cuts that were originally scheduled to sunset. However, it is also possible that tax cuts for the working class, which are often in the form of tax brackets or deductions, may expire, while the tax cuts for the wealthy are locked in.
  • Focus on the Wealthy:
    The TCJA, which is the basis for the "big beautiful bill," is widely criticized for its disproportionate benefit to the wealthy. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Joint Economic Committee have noted that the top 1% receives a much larger average tax cut than those in the lower 60% of households.
  • Expiration Concerns:
    If the "big beautiful bill" does not include permanent extensions, the sunset of temporary provisions could lead to a rise in taxes for many Americans as the tax brackets revert to pre-TCJA levels, according to ...
 
Fox News kindest analysis.


No millionaire tax hike in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'​

House Republicans have seemingly dropped plans for a new millionaire tax hike to pay for other priorities in Trump's bill​


House Republicans have seemingly dropped plans for a new millionaire's tax hike to pay for other priorities in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill."...

...It would also raise the debt limit by $4 trillion ...

...Notably absent from the sweeping piece of legislation is a proposal floated last week that would have established a new tax bracket for people making $2.5 million per year or more, taxing them at 39.6% – which was the top tax rate before TCJA lowered it to 37%. ...
 
QP! said:
Because you clap like a seal and demonstrate you BELIEVE Doge and Trump lies.


I'll let AI correct you...


AI Overview


The "big beautiful bill," referring to a proposed tax bill, is not yet a law and its provisions could change. However, based on current discussions and proposals, it is likely that tax cuts for the working class, which are temporary, could expire, while some tax cuts for the wealthy may be made permanent. Some analysis suggests the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which is the framework for the "big beautiful bill," heavily favors the wealthy, with the top 1% receiving significantly larger tax cuts than those in the lower 60% of households. The TCJA also includes provisions that could see tax brackets revert to pre-TCJA levels, potentially increasing taxes for many Americans if the temporary cuts expire, ...

A bigger SALT deduction would benefit higher-income taxpayers who would already score a permanent extension of lower income tax rates from the big beautiful bill, as Republicans refer to it, which also bestows a $30 million exemption from the estate tax for America’s wealthiest heirs and heiresses. The legislation would offset part of the cost of the tax cuts by cutting $1 trillion from programs that help poor people afford food and medical care.

Elaboration:
  • Temporary vs. Permanent:
    The "big beautiful bill" (as it is currently being debated) proposes to extend some tax cuts that were originally scheduled to sunset. However, it is also possible that tax cuts for the working class, which are often in the form of tax brackets or deductions, may expire, while the tax cuts for the wealthy are locked in.
  • Focus on the Wealthy:
    The TCJA, which is the basis for the "big beautiful bill," is widely criticized for its disproportionate benefit to the wealthy. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Joint Economic Committee have noted that the top 1% receives a much larger average tax cut than those in the lower 60% of households.
  • Expiration Concerns:
    If the "big beautiful bill" does not include permanent extensions, the sunset of temporary provisions could lead to a rise in taxes for many Americans as the tax brackets revert to pre-TCJA levels, according to ...
Click to expand...
*sigh*

The "Big Beautiful Bill," as proposed by House Republicans, includes a mix of permanent and temporary tax provisions. Here's the breakdown based on available information:



In summary, the bill does not allow the core TCJA tax cuts for the middle class (like lower tax rates and the standard deduction) to expire, as it makes them permanent. However, several additional middle-class tax benefits, such as the boosted standard deduction, enhanced Child Tax Credit, and exemptions for tips and overtime, are temporary and set to expire after 2028, unless extended by future legislation.
 
Damocles said:
I find it weak that they weren't able to keep the "no taxes on Social Security" promise.
Click to expand...
Do you also find it weak that you AGAIN fell for more lies with regards to the tax cuts for the rich, that are proposed to be made permanent, while the ones for everyone else are proposed to expire?
 
Damocles do you agree or disagree with this statement:

- Trump and the Magat House bill are trying in every way to find tax cuts and other bonuses for the richest Americans but knowing that Republican deficit hawks will vote against ballooning debt, they are trying to find numerous ways to lessen the impact of those tax cuts to the richest by making the middle class and poorest pay more to cover it?


Do you understand that is why Trump loves tariffs as they end up taxing disproportionately the middle class in a way they can claim is not a tax increase for the MC? Do you recognize that is spin they give you?
 
QP! said:
Damocles do you agree or disagree with this statement:

- Trump and the Magat House bill are trying in every way to find tax cuts and other bonuses for the richest Americans but knowing that Republican deficit hawks will vote against ballooning debt, they are trying to find numerous ways to lessen the impact of those tax cuts to the richest by making the middle class and poorest pay more to cover it?


Do you understand that is why Trump loves tariffs as they end up taxing disproportionately the middle class in a way they can claim is not a tax increase for the MC? Do you recognize that is spin they give you?
Click to expand...
Who are "they"? You talk about "them" without identifying "them".

Do you realize that pretty much every time they make a new tax cut they put an expiration date on it to get it past the more liberal of the Republicans and to bring some of the more conservative Democrats over to their side? Lately not as often for the latter because Democrats lately tend to be lock step boot stompers, but definitely for the former. I noticed that when Democrats were in charge of both chambers, that tax cuts for the middle class, even temporary ones, were not their priority, and when tax cuts were extended or enacted new taxes often would offset any tax cut they gave to the middle class. Did you notice that too?

What I realize is that Kamala wasn't for no tax on tips, until Trump was. Both of them were populists. Do you realize that I vote for Libertarians because I am not Republican, or are you broken brained and think that because I give information that you sometimes do not like that I must always vote Republican?

You misconstrue posts, cannot read English and then repeat stuff you say I believe without regard to reality.

You've convinced me. I will not vote for Trump.
 
Both of you ignore the fact that when Trump's original tax cuts were put into effect, government revenue INCREASED, so I don't give a flying fig as long as that increased revenue is applied to reducing our debt.
 
Lionfish said:
Both of you ignore the fact that when Trump's original tax cuts were put into effect, government revenue INCREASED, so I don't give a flying fig as long as that increased revenue is applied to reducing our debt.
Click to expand...
It never is, that's the problem. We are still deficit spending. Even when we supposedly had a "surplus" (none existed, we borrowed money to pay the interest on our debt) we never used this supposed "surplus" to pay down debt. Not even one dollar was paid down. "More revenue/less revenue" doesn't matter when you never, and I mean never, even get close to paying any of the principal of the debt.
 
Damocles said:
It never is, that's the problem. We are still deficit spending. Even when we supposedly had a "surplus" (none existed, we borrowed money to pay the interest on our debt) we never used this supposed "surplus" to pay down debt. Not even one dollar was paid down. "More revenue/less revenue" doesn't matter when you never, and I mean never, even get close to paying any of the principal of the debt.
Click to expand...
You are preaching to the choir.
This guy was on the right track,

Grover Norquist, who founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 at the urging of President Reagan, declared in 2001: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

Trump advocated shrinking the government as early as 2000.
 
Lionfish said:
Both of you ignore the fact that when Trump's original tax cuts were put into effect, government revenue INCREASED, so I don't give a flying fig as long as that increased revenue is applied to reducing our debt.
Click to expand...
You have two problems with that though.

First is that even if Revenue goes up, if the result is increasing deficits and debt massively that is a failure. It would be like having a company deep in debt and drowning under it, cutting prices on their goods so much that soared and gross revenues increased a lot, but since the items were being sold below cost, the most sell and increase revenues, the more you lose. When it comes to politics it is the type of slight of hand that Politicians often do to fool the most stupid amongst us.

Second problem is what you say is simply a lie...

The Trump Tax Cuts Led to Record-Low, Not High, Revenues Outside of a Recession​


The tax legislation that President Donald Trump signed in December 2017 significantly reduced federal revenues, with the largest tax cuts going to the richest Americans. Following the enactment of these tax cuts, federal revenues fell dramatically—as the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected would occur at the time the law passed1—and they remain below projections of federal revenues made prior to their enactment.

This issue brief provides new analysis of economic trends and federal revenues, finding:

  • Federal revenues remain below the levels that were projected before the enactment of the tax law—regardless of whether measured as a percentage of the economy, adjusted just for inflation, or adjusted for both inflation and growth in the adult population.
  • Revenues as a percentage of the economy are particularly low given the strength of the economy. Between 1986 and the enactment of the Bush tax cuts in 2001, every year in which the annual unemployment rate was below 5 percent saw revenues exceed 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Since then, in only one of nine years with the unemployment rate that low did revenues exceed 19 percent of GDP—and it was an outlier year due to the COVID-19 recovery.
  • Other politicians have cited increases in nominal revenues relative to pre-tax cut projections as evidence that the Trump tax cuts increased revenues. But much of this reflects COVID-19 policies, the expiration of the tax law’s business provisions that proponents want to extend, and higher-than-expected inflation. In 2023, nominal revenues were 6 percent below pre-pandemic projections after adjusting for inflation....
 
Damocles said:
Who are "they"? You talk about "them" without identifying "them".

Do you realize that pretty much every time they make a new tax cut they put an expiration date on it to get it past the more liberal of the Republicans and to bring some of the more conservative Democrats over to their side? Lately not as often for the latter because Democrats lately tend to be lock step boot stompers, but definitely for the former. I noticed that when Democrats were in charge of both chambers, that tax cuts for the middle class, even temporary ones, were not their priority, and when tax cuts were extended or enacted new taxes often would offset any tax cut they gave to the middle class. Did you notice that too?

What I realize is that Kamala wasn't for no tax on tips, until Trump was. Both of them were populists. Do you realize that I vote for Libertarians because I am not Republican, or are you broken brained and think that because I give information that you sometimes do not like that I must always vote Republican?

You misconstrue posts, cannot read English and then repeat stuff you say I believe without regard to reality.

You've convinced me. I will not vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
They is Trump and the House Magats, as i have said.

And i have shown you and you cannot deny that AGAIN, the balance of Trump tax cuts equals 'permanent' and the 'rich getting richer', while the middle class and working poor on balance, will pay much more and get poorer.

You can spin and spin and spin on behalf of Trump Damocles but the one thing YOU CANNOT do is make an argument that over all when you look at expiring tax cuts, addition of tariffs and the cuts to Medicaid all being pushed by them, that this is the BIGGEST yet redistribution of wealth from the middle and lower class up to the uber rich.

And the most stupid amongst us (magats, ie you Damo) will continue to clap like seals as they do it.
 
Lionfish said:
You are preaching to the choir.
This guy was on the right track,

Grover Norquist, who founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 at the urging of President Reagan, declared in 2001: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

Trump advocated shrinking the government as early as 2000.
Click to expand...
AHAHAHA.

The above is likely the most stupid statement in the history of this forum and that is saying a lot with Damocles regularly posting here...


Ya Trump was "on the right track" if you wanted the country bankrupted like most of Trump's businesses prior.

9ubl9m.jpg



When someone says 'on the right track' that means just allow the current trend to continue and you will realize the end result and that will be success. Anyone not an idiot magat and cultist can see the track Trump put America on was sure bankruptcy if someone did not change that direction and course.
 
I have to revisit both LyingFish's statements below as they exactly explain why Trump loves the poorly educated as they are so easily duped.

Even if we accept the lie 'government revenue increased', that is meaningless if you other actions spike debt to record levels. Only a stupid person would celebrate 'revenue rising' as the problem 'debt' is increased to record levels.

And why does it matter if Trump SAYS he is for shrinking gov't in 2000 when he gets in power and expands it?

It shows magats only pay attention to the lies Trump tells and never look to see what he actually does and what the result is.

Lionfish said:
Both of you ignore the fact that when Trump's original tax cuts were put into effect, government revenue INCREASED, so I don't give a flying fig as long as that increased revenue is applied to reducing our debt.
Click to expand...
Lionfish said:
You are preaching to the choir.
This guy was on the right track,
...
Trump advocated shrinking the government as early as 2000.
Click to expand...

No, Donald Trump Did Not 'Shrink' Government
Annual federal spending grew by $940 billion under his signature, even before the coronavirus
 
As usual, the Republicans are cranking the deficit up. This time it is 4 trillion. They do this every time, giving tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top