GOP megabill’s final score

[Crepitus]

But they cut budgets!

Sure, but only those that help regular people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So 340B per year.

We spend almost 7 trillion per year?


Where was your outrage when Biden requested almost 7 trillion for 2024 alone?

Is it the money they're outraged at? Or is it that the money isn't being spent on THE PEOPLE, but on billionaires?

They've taken money from poor people who need basic services, and given it to people who have EVERYTHING, so much of everything that they want for nothing.

 

[Mack The Finger]

$3.4T in red ink and 10 million kicked off health insurance, CBO says​

And that's even with them cutting a trillion from medicare.

Most of the red ink is from the permanent extension of the billionaire's tax cuts.

Those people being kicked off of Medicare will raise costs for the rest of us, BTW. When they turn up at hospitals and have to be treated without insurance the rest of us will pay more to make up the difference.

Who told you that the commie news network or the NY Slimes ?

 

[The Duke]

This is just duplicates. Medium to large city full of duplicates.
Wonder how many were illegals? Might be some piggybacking going on there.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Since when do you refute comedy?

Im not aware we were being comedic

 

[ThisIsMe]

. When they turn up at hospitals and have to be treated without insurance the rest of us will pay more to make up the difference.

Thats ironic because, thats what illegals have been doing all this time, and none of you were ever concerned with the cost it would add to the rest of the population then.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Is it the money they're outraged at? Or is it that the money isn't being spent on THE PEOPLE, but on billionaires?

They've taken money from poor people who need basic services, and given it to people who have EVERYTHING, so much of everything that they want for nothing.

They haven't "given" anyone a dime. They are merely giving people tax breaks, and its not just the rich who are getting them.

 

[BluesLegend]

Can you list the last time the CBO ever got a prediction correct?

I'll have to go with NEVER. Meanwhile Trump just scored $550 BILLION in a single trade deal with a single nation that will create several hundred thousand jobs for Americans. Oddly, the CBO didn't score that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They haven't "given" anyone a dime. They are merely giving people tax breaks, and its not just the rich who are getting them.

Depends on how you look at tax. You see tax as the government taking people's money. I see tax as people paying for things that need to be paid for.

For example, you walk into a shop and they say "six bucks" and you say "that's theft". Doesn't make sense.

You run a successful business, it happens because you have security, infrastructure and an educated populace to choose from. That all COSTS MONEY.

Now, the shop is saying "six bucks" and you say "well, I control the shop, I want to pay one buck" and the shop says "okay". Who pays the other five bucks?

 

[Independent thinker]

$3.4T in red ink and 10 million kicked off health insurance, CBO says​

And that's even with them cutting a trillion from medicare.

Most of the red ink is from the permanent extension of the billionaire's tax cuts.

Those people being kicked off of Medicare will raise costs for the rest of us, BTW. When they turn up at hospitals and have to be treated without insurance the rest of us will pay more to make up the difference.

3.4 over 10 years is far, far better than we have been doing. Thank you president Trump!

 

[ThisIsMe]

Depends on how you look at tax. You see tax as the government taking people's money. I see tax as people paying for things that need to be paid for.

And the top 10% pay more in taxes than the bottom 80% combined. But, we can never get a democrat to tell us exactly how much their fair share should be. They always say the rich dont pay their fair share but they never explain what % is a "fair share%

For example, you walk into a shop and they say "six bucks" and you say "that's theft". Doesn't make sense.

You run a successful business, it happens because you have security, infrastructure and an educated populace to choose from. That all COSTS MONEY.

Now, the shop is saying "six bucks" and you say "well, I control the shop, I want to pay one buck" and the shop says "okay". Who pays the other five bucks?

Nobody. If the shop sells a $6 item for $1, they go out of business

 

[frigidweirdo]

And the top 10% pay more in taxes than the bottom 80% combined. But, we can never get a democrat to tell us exactly how much their fair share should be. They always say the rich dont pay their fair share but they never explain what % is a "fair share%



Nobody. If the shop sells a $6 item for $1, they go out of business

And the top 10% also use way more services than the bottom 80%.

They made it rich because of the security, that costs a LOT OF MONEY. They made it rich because of the education, the infrastructure.

They're paying for what they're using, but they're probably not paying enough for what they're actually using.

"fair share" is not an "exact" thing. You say "we can never get a democrat to tell us exactly how much their fair share should be" because you can't quantify a lot of things.

How do you quantify security? How do you say "well, you make x amount of money per year, the security helps you to make that much money?"

There is no "exact" figure here.

We can look at places like Somalia. There's barely any state (outside of Somaliland) and how rich and how poor are people? Poor people are super poor, the rich are going to be super rich compared to the poor.

The rich end up having to pay way, way, WAY more for security. In 1990s Russia you had to pay the mafia money to protect you, if you didn't pay enough you got wacked by another mafia, or even the ones you paid. In the US the rich pay way, way, way less than the rich in 1990s Russia. So, how much should they pay?

One person might say "everyone should pay the same", another "everyone should pay the same percentage of their income" another "the rich should pay more because they benefit more" and another "well, if there were no security, the rich would be paying way more for security than they currently do".

Which one is right?

 

[Crepitus]

Thats ironic because, thats what illegals have been doing all this time, and none of you were ever concerned with the cost it would add to the rest of the population then.

I thought you said they got medicare?

Come on, kid. Pick a story and stick to it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And the top 10% also use way more services than the bottom 80%.

Really? Are you sure about that? There are WAAAY more middle class and lower class people, exponentially, than there are wealthy.

Those people use an immense amount more services than wealthy people.

They made it rich because of the security, that costs a LOT OF MONEY. They made it rich because of the education, the infrastructure.

Let me guess, "you didnt build that" right? Dave Ramsey did a study of 10,000 millionaires and almost very few of them inherited a dime. A lot of these wealthy people started with nothing and took a risk in the business world to create wealth and by creating wealth, created jobs that the rest of us can make a living at.

They're paying for what they're using, but they're probably not paying enough for what they're actually using.

What are they using? What services are thet able to take advantage of more than anyone else?

"fair share" is not an "exact" thing. You say "we can never get a democrat to tell us exactly how much their fair share should be" because you can't quantify a lot of things.

If you can't quantify it, then how do you know they are not paying their fair share? Are you talking about corporations who pay no taxes? Those are corporations, but the people who own those businesses pay taxes on THEIR income, generally capital gains, but thats the system we have, and if it doesn't work, then leftys can change the laws.

How do you quantify security? How do you say "well, you make x amount of money per year, the security helps you to make that much money?"

What security are you referring to?

There is no "exact" figure here.

There has to be. If you can't come up with a number, then how will we ever know what a fair share is?

We can look at places like Somalia. There's barely any state (outside of Somaliland) and how rich and how poor are people? Poor people are super poor, the rich are going to be super rich compared to the poor.

Ok, thats Somalia. We're talking about the US.

The rich end up having to pay way, way, WAY more for security. In 1990s Russia you had to pay the mafia money to protect you, if you didn't pay enough you got wacked by another mafia, or even the ones you paid. In the US the rich pay way, way, way less than the rich in 1990s Russia. So, how much should they pay?

I don't know, again, you're comparing the US to Russia. Two completely different cultures and economies.

One person might say "everyone should pay the same", another "everyone should pay the same percentage of their income" another "the rich should pay more because they benefit more" and another "well, if there were no security, the rich would be paying way more for security than they currently do".

Which one is right?

The one who's right is the one who is playing the game legally. If they are taking legal loopholes to avoid taxes, then that is what they will do. Want to change it? Close the loopholes.

What about the flat tax? Everyone pays....20%? Isn't that fair? Most wealthy people give generously to charity.

Here's my idea. You want to help poor people? The government should make a system where, if you donate money to charities, you can deduct it from your taxes, fully, all the way down to 20% so if your federal tax rate is 35%, rather than paying to thr government that whole 35%, you can give the government 20%, and give the other 15% to charity. Something like that.

Now you have billions flowing into these charities to help people out, and you dont need a wealth tax.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I thought you said they got medicare?

Come on, kid. Pick a story and stick to it.

Some do, but:

Illegal Immigrants Leave US Hospitals With Billions in Unpaid Bills | @AmacforAmerica

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are flooding U.S. hospitals for treatment and leaving billions in uncompensated health care costs

amac.us

 

[IM2]

Is there some reason the states can't fund these hospitals? Why does the federal government need to do it?

Why can other nations with less wealth have nationalized health care but we play stupid?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Really? Are you sure about that? There are WAAAY more middle class and lower class people, exponentially, than there are wealthy.

Those people use an immense amount more services than wealthy people.




Let me guess, "you didnt build that" right? Dave Ramsey did a study of 10,000 millionaires and almost very few of them inherited a dime. A lot of these wealthy people started with nothing and took a risk in the business world to create wealth and by creating wealth, created jobs that the rest of us can make a living at.



What are they using? What services are thet able to take advantage of more than anyone else?



If you can't quantify it, then how do you know they are not paying their fair share? Are you talking about corporations who pay no taxes? Those are corporations, but the people who own those businesses pay taxes on THEIR income, generally capital gains, but thats the system we have, and if it doesn't work, then leftys can change the laws.




What security are you referring to?



There has to be. If you can't come up with a number, then how will we ever know what a fair share is?



Ok, thats Somalia. We're talking about the US.



I don't know, again, you're comparing the US to Russia. Two completely different cultures and economies.




The one who's right is the one who is playing the game legally. If they are taking legal loopholes to avoid taxes, then that is what they will do. Want to change it? Close the loopholes.

What about the flat tax? Everyone pays....20%? Isn't that fair? Most wealthy people give generously to charity.

Here's my idea. You want to help poor people? The government should make a system where, if you donate money to charities, you can deduct it from your taxes, fully, all the way down to 20% so if your federal tax rate is 35%, rather than paying to thr government that whole 35%, you can give the government 20%, and give the other 15% to charity. Something like that.

Now you have billions flowing into these charities to help people out, and you dont need a wealth tax.

Yeah, I'm totally sure that the rich use more resources than the poor.

Imagine you have a company that uses physical resources. You have trucks on the road brings and taking things. That infrastructure makes you a lot of money.

A worker gets to work and does their thing, they use the roads for themselves and their family.

A business has ALL THE WORKERS coming in on roads and rail.

Your argument is there are more workers than rich people, which is true, but the rich are making money because of the poorer people. They have an educated workforce, so if they employ 1,000 people, they're taking a part of that education. Should they pay for it? They're paying for the infrastructure that allows them to move goods and receive goods, and the infrastructure for the workers to get to work.

They benefit from this. Go to a country where this infrastructure isn't in place, and they're not going to make anywhere near as much profit.

I didn't mention inheritance at all. Not sure why you're talking about it.

If you can't quantify something, then how do you know what's "fair"? Well, because "fair" is often an opinion. And as I said in my previous post, different people see things differently and I'm presenting my argument as to why the rich should pay more.

The rich will obviously spend loads of money telling easily malleable people why they shouldn't pay much in taxes at all because "they pay a lot more than poor people do".

Security, like the military, the police, they provide security. You, as CEO of a large company, are not going to get attacked by the mafia, assassinated etc etc, like happened in Russia in the 1990s.

"There has to be. If you can't come up with a number, then how will we ever know what a fair share is?"

Well, you can either be an adult about this conversation, or you can be a pedant. If it's the latter, I'm not going to bother.

 

[IM2]

Really? Are you sure about that? There are WAAAY more middle class and lower class people, exponentially, than there are wealthy.

Those people use an immense amount more services than wealthy people.




Let me guess, "you didnt build that" right? Dave Ramsey did a study of 10,000 millionaires and almost very few of them inherited a dime. A lot of these wealthy people started with nothing and took a risk in the business world to create wealth and by creating wealth, created jobs that the rest of us can make a living at.



What are they using? What services are thet able to take advantage of more than anyone else?



If you can't quantify it, then how do you know they are not paying their fair share? Are you talking about corporations who pay no taxes? Those are corporations, but the people who own those businesses pay taxes on THEIR income, generally capital gains, but thats the system we have, and if it doesn't work, then leftys can change the laws.




What security are you referring to?



There has to be. If you can't come up with a number, then how will we ever know what a fair share is?



Ok, thats Somalia. We're talking about the US.



I don't know, again, you're comparing the US to Russia. Two completely different cultures and economies.




The one who's right is the one who is playing the game legally. If they are taking legal loopholes to avoid taxes, then that is what they will do. Want to change it? Close the loopholes.

What about the flat tax? Everyone pays....20%? Isn't that fair? Most wealthy people give generously to charity.

Here's my idea. You want to help poor people? The government should make a system where, if you donate money to charities, you can deduct it from your taxes, fully, all the way down to 20% so if your federal tax rate is 35%, rather than paying to thr government that whole 35%, you can give the government 20%, and give the other 15% to charity. Something like that.

Now you have billions flowing into these charities to help people out, and you dont need a wealth tax.

Stop defending the 1 percent that has more wealth than the other 99 percent combined.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yeah, I'm totally sure that the rich use more resources than the poor.

Imagine you have a company that uses physical resources. You have trucks on the road brings and taking things. That infrastructure makes you a lot of money.

Do you realize the fuel cost each of those trucks generate? The taxes paid on every gallon of fuel. Oil, maintenance. You have IFTA, and a heavy use vehicle tax, every truck has multiple permits, licenses, inspections etc. All that costs money.

Also, those trucks, while help the company make money, they also drive the economy.

A worker gets to work and does their thing, they use the roads for themselves and their family.

And pays FAR less for using those roads, individually, than a company does.

A business has ALL THE WORKERS coming in on roads and rail.

And again, that means jobs, which drives the economy.

Your argument is there are more workers than rich people, which is true, but the rich are making money because of the poorer people.

They are rich because they make a product that people want. That demand creates jobs. The people need those jobs.

They have an educated workforce, so if they employ 1,000 people, they're taking a part of that education. Should they pay for it?

They do. If you have an education, a degree and a skill that a company wants, they tend to pay you more for it.

They're paying for the infrastructure that allows them to move goods and receive goods, and the infrastructure for the workers to get to work.

They benefit from this. Go to a country where this infrastructure isn't in place, and they're not going to make anywhere near as much profit.

Yes, they benefit from it, but the general public gets far more in services than rich people do. You're just using one example, of the highway system. There are a lot of other benefits that rich people dont use.

I didn't mention inheritance at all. Not sure why you're talking about it.

If you can't quantify something, then how do you know what's "fair"? Well, because "fair" is often an opinion. And as I said in my previous post, different people see things differently and I'm presenting my argument as to why the rich should pay more.

Ok, but until someone comes up with a number of how much more they should pay, I guess we're at a standstill.

The rich will obviously spend loads of money telling easily malleable people why they shouldn't pay much in taxes at all because "they pay a lot more than poor people do".

They pay as much as the tax code requires them to. If dems feel that isnt enough, then they need to change the laws, but first they need to decide how much more the rich need to pay.

Security, like the military, the police, they provide security. You, as CEO of a large company, are not going to get attacked by the mafia, assassinated etc etc, like happened in Russia in the 1990s.

Didn't we just have a CEO get shot in the head a couple weeks ago?

"There has to be. If you can't come up with a number, then how will we ever know what a fair share is?"

Well, you can either be an adult about this conversation, or you can be a pedant. If it's the latter, I'm not going to bother.

Why is asking "pedantic". Im bringing out the point that, for years we keep hearing "fair share" and for years, nobody has said what that is. It just seems like a fruitless topic if nobody has an idea of what that number looks like.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Stop defending the 1 percent that has more wealth than the other 99 percent combined.

Im not defending them, i just dont see how the wealthy use more services than others.