I'll let you know when Congress declares war on Iran.

Right now the U.S. is just taking strategical military offenses, against known individual terrorists.

 

In terms of dollars or lives?

Did it occur to any despicables that Trump is meeting his first obligation, to protect America's security?

Shooter thinks it might have, but is irrelevant to despicables cause the mission is to get Trump.

No matter what.
No matter collateral damage.
No matter the depths of sleaze required.

Just. Get. TRUMP.

 

Well now I guess @shootersa will have to come out and say he's all for cutting Social Security to pay for tax cuts for billionaires like Trump. And just like when on the Campaign trail when Trump said he would not cut Social Security and Medicare he meant he would only cut it until after Mexico pays for the wall.

Trump admits he will seek to cut Social Security while ‘hobnobbing with billionaires’ in Davos

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/tr...-while-hobnobbing-with-billionaires-in-davos/

 

Right now white people over the age of 65 and white blue collar workers usually vote Republican. That will change pretty quickly if Trump tries to cut Social Security and Medicare. Blue collar workers rarely have retirement programs at work. They rarely make enough money to save for retirement. Democrat politicians need to make the most of this.

 

Pew Research Center, MARCH 21, 2019

When asked to think about the long-term future of Social Security, only 25% say some reductions in benefits for future retirees will need to be made, while 74% say benefits should not be reduced in any way.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/03/21/retirement-social-security-and-long-term-care/

 

See, yet again despicables spew their shit no matter what Trump says or the context.

First, the questions were about "entitlements" which are not Social security or medicare.
In the midlle of that, while trump is answering a question the reporter injects social security and medicare. Which gives rear admiral butt nugget his propaganda opening and lets distant lover inject his peculiar form of deplorable bashing.

Second, no matter what was said, taxes to fund social security, medicare, and unemployment benefits are dedicated taxes: they cannot be diverted to any other purpose. And, they are not entitlements.

Third, trying to scare senior citizens by threatening to take away their social security is an old despicable tactic that is ....... despicable, and underscores the truism that what government gives government can take away.

So, while we're scaring senior citizens lets scare the hell out of everyone and offer up medicare for all, or single payor healthcare, or whatever we're calling it now.

 

Every domestic spending item has a powerful constituency to protect it. The largest and most expensive domestic spending programs are the most popular. The United States government grew to its present size in response to popular demand. It is not possible to cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget without cutting or eliminating domestic spending programs most Americans and many Republican voters will insist on keeping. Republican leaders should have learned this during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George the Lesser. It is unfortunate that we have to go through this silly charade every time Republican politicians and commentators feel powerful.

 

Dotard rump is a spoild pos ass

 

Did the tax bill pass?

 

You are not just a total fraud @shootersa. You are a fucking hilariously laughable total non fucking fraud,

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/entitlement.htm

 

And you, rear admiral butt nugget lack any ethical or moral standing.

 

"entitlements" which are not Social security or medicare.

social security, medicare, they are not entitlements.

 

Now you got it.
Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements.

Trump has never said he's for cutting either program. He is in favor of closing loopholes that let people double dip, for example to collect Social Security disability and unemployment benefits at the same time.

But you already know this.

 

Social Security Administration

There is often confusion about Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) because you apply for both programs with the Social Security Administration. But, the programs are different. The Social Security benefit programs are “entitlement” programs. This means that workers, employers and the self-employed pay for the benefits with their Social Security taxes. The taxes that are collected are put into special trust funds. You qualify for these benefits based on your work history (or your spouse or parent). The amount of the benefit is based on these earnings.

https://www.ssa.gov/sf/FactSheets/aianssavsssifinalrev.pdf

 

Of interest, Trump has never said he would cut social security.

Thats a despicable ploy to scare pensioners.

 

All you do is lie @shootersa. And just really stupid probable childlike lies at that.


The remarks came in an interview with CNBC‘s Joe Kernen in Davos, and although the news outlet did not report them in their initial write-up of the exchange, they were captured in the transcript:

KERNEN: Do I dare— one last question.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Go ahead.

KERNEN: Entitlements ever be on your plate?

TRUMP: At some point they will be. We have tremendous growth. We’re going to have tremendous growth. This next year I—it’ll be toward the end of the year. The growth is going to be incredible. And at the right time, we will take a look at that. You know, that’s actually the easiest of all things, if you look, cause it’s such a—

KERNEN: If you’re willing—

TRUMP: —big percentage.

KERNEN: —to do some of the things that you said you wouldn’t do in the past, though, in terms of Medicare—

TRUMP: Well, we’re going—we’re going to look….

 

This week in Trumponomics: Warning signs for Trump

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/this-week-in-trumponomics-warning-signs-for-trump-184201286.html

 

People who are struggling economically are unlikely to enjoy hearing a man who brags about his wealth tell them how well off they are. Nevertheless, Trump's lower income white supporters are largely motivated by their hatred for non whites, Jews - who they do not think are white - and liberals. These will stick with Trump even if they become more poor. Those people will not vote for a Democrat presidential candidate. They might stay home next election day if they conclude that Trump is not doing enough to inflict suffering on all the people they hate. Needless to say, they do not like Trump telling them how well blacks are doing.

 

Hey guys where's that 3%, 4%, 5%, or more GDP growth Trump and the Republicans promised? We are running a trillion dollar budget deficits and Trump and Republicans promised their tax cut would pay for itself and growth would just take off. Why isn't that happening.

U.S. GDP growth slows to 2.3% in 2019

*Hey guys didn't Trump, his administration and the Republicans say if we give a trillion dollars to corporations they will invest it in expanding and hiring more people? ]What happened to that? You know it sure looks like they were just telling the lie of conservatism again and all you "conservatives" are non-fucking liars.

https://www.axios.com/us-gdp-2019-q4-2eb196fa-85ec-43c4-8361-721bb719f130.html

 

Here’s how we’ll pay for Trump’s trillion-dollar deficits

Who will pay for America's trillion-dollar deficits?





Taxes are going up. Maybe not soon, but the mushrooming national debt will eventually leave Washington no choice but to hike taxes. And the longer we wait, the more it will hurt.

The Congressional Budget Office recently forecast annual federal deficits of more than $1 trillion for 2020, and each of the next 10 years. By 2030, CBO says, the deficit will hit $1.7 trillion. Economists generally think a fiscal deficit of around 3% of GDP is healthy and manageable. U.S. deficits over the next decade will average 4.8% of GDP.

Annual deficits spiked during the Great Recession, when tax receipts plunged and stimulus spending soared. The $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009, at the nadir of the recession, was the worst on record.

Deficits fell sharply as the economy recovered, however, and hit a post-recession low of $442 billion in 2015. Then they ticked up again, mostly because of runaway health spending on Medicare and Medicaid. Then came the Trump tax cuts, which went into effect in 2018.

Those tax cuts pushed corporate tax revenue to the lowest levels ever as a portion of federal revenue. Tax revenue from individuals has gone up slightly, because of economic growth. But it would have gone up more without the Trump tax cuts, or with cuts limited to middle- and lower-income workers, say. The twin effect of depressed federal revenue and health care costs growing faster than the economy are driving those trillion-dollar deficits.


Graphic by David Foster
This isn’t a crisis today, even though some economists thought it would be by now. But widening deficits at this level aren’t sustainable, either, because they’ll crowd out private investment and depress productivity. Growing interest payments on all that debt will leave less and less for highways, airports and everything else taxpayers expect after mandatory health and retirement spending.

[Check out our Electionomics podcast on Apple and Google.]

Will Americans tolerate the sharp cuts in social programs and defense that are one way to close this gaping budget gap? Eh, maybe, a little, possibly. But tax hikes will be part of the prescription too, and the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project recently published a comprehensive list of the soundest options. Here are five types of tax hikes that would reduce Washington’s indebtedness:

A new inheritance tax. The average tax rate on income is 15.8%. On inherited wealth, it’s just 2.1%. The estate tax is meant to limit the growth of family dynasties and an American aristocracy, but it’s so weak and riddled with loopholes that it barely raises any revenue at all any more. A new inheritance tax would tax wealth received by an heir as normal income. There’d be an exemption threshold, so those subject to the tax would probably be paying at the top rate of 37%. At an exemption threshold of $2.5 million, this tax would raise $34 billion per year, according to the Tax Policy Center. At a lower threshold of $1 million, it would raise $92 billion. That’s a start.

A wealth tax. Policymakers and politicians have gotten interested in wealth taxes because the richest families in America earn most of their money from investing, rather than working. And there are several ways to defer and sharply reduce taxation on investments, which leaves the wealthy paying lower tax rates than ordinary working stiffs. Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren both favor a wealth tax to fund programs such as free college and government-paid health care.

The Hamilton Project proposes four types of wealth taxes that vary by the type of assets taxed and the exact method of taxation. Starting thresholds range from $8.25 million in net worth to $25 million. But each tax would raise a hefty $300 billion per year or so, and each would cut the estate tax provision that eliminates capital gains taxes on profitable investments passed on to heirs. There’s one crucial catch: Some experts think a wealth tax could be unconstitutional, which basically guarantees a legal challenge.

A value-added tax. This is the mother of all taxes, the quickest way to raise vast sums if ever needed. All developed nations except the United States have a VAT, which is a tax levied at various levels of production for goods and services. Prices typically rise and consumers end up paying much of the tax, but businesses adjust, which helps make this an efficient tax. There would need to be provisions protecting low-income consumers, small businesses and other vulnerable parties. But many other nations have devised proven protections. A 10% VAT would raise around $1 trillion per year and “provide an enormous pool of resources to address social and economic problems,” according to the Hamilton Project report. Some of that money could be spent on economic stimulus programs, to assure rising prices don’t cause a recession.

A financial transaction tax. Sanders and Warren like this tax, too, which would put a fee of 10 basis points, or 0.1%, on trades of stocks, bonds and derivatives. There are concerns about unintended consequences, such as higher costs on ETFs and mutual funds held by mom and pop investors, and a new incentive to move money offshore. So the Hamilton Project recommends a 4-year phase-in period, with the tax starting at 2 basis points and regulators monitoring markets closely for negative repercussions. They could make changes if problems crop up. Hong Kong, France, Italy and the United Kingdom impose similar taxes, with no obvious drawbacks. It could raise $60 billion per year once fully implemented.

Higher corporate taxes. The trick here is to capture more revenue from the corporate sector without driving corporate money overseas or wrecking incentives to do business in the United States. One approach would be to work with other developed countries to establish provisions that make tax rates comparable among nations and prevent the kind of profit shifting corporations have practiced during the last 20 years, to take advantage of low rates in places like Ireland and Luxembourg. Raising the corporate tax rate might work, from the new level of 21% set by the Trump tax cuts to 25%, say, or 28%. But that would have to be paired with other tax incentives for things like new investment and research and development, to assure businesses stayed put in the United States. A well-designed set of corporate tax reforms could raise $110 billion per year, while boosting economic growth by stimulating investment. Makes you wonder what they’re waiting for in Washington.