Musk says trump will crash the economy for our own good.

[Hector12]

I have you pegged as a college freshman just getting indoctrinated.

Good luck.

I wish I looked like a college freshman. I am glad that college students are learning how unjust American capitalism is.

 

[Hector12]

There is little moral significance to the distribution of wealth and income. That is why the rich deserve very substantial tax increases, and why most Americans want them to get those tax increases.

 

[g5000]

He says High prices and economic collapse are the price of the trump agenda.

Are you guys really gonna vote for this just to "own the libs"?

It would be the biggest self-own in history to crash your own country's economy on purpose just to be able to say you won.

Elon Musk agrees: Trump’s economic plans will lead to ‘hardship’

The former president’s wealthy allies are promoting the idea of economic collapse and high prices as a necessary side effect of Trump’s economic agenda

www.the-independent.com

World's richest man says if billionaire man-child is elected, everyone else will have to suffer hardship.

Just not him. Or Trump.

What a piece of shit.

 

[candycorn]

He says High prices and economic collapse are the price of the trump agenda.

Are you guys really gonna vote for this just to "own the libs"?

It would be the biggest self-own in history to crash your own country's economy on purpose just to be able to say you won.

Elon Musk agrees: Trump’s economic plans will lead to ‘hardship’

The former president’s wealthy allies are promoting the idea of economic collapse and high prices as a necessary side effect of Trump’s economic agenda

www.the-independent.com

The only other alternative to high prices is that billionaires and business owners accept a smaller profit margin.

You'll note that Musk is not recommending that he and other business owners accept a smaller profit margin. And apparently this clear middle-finger to the electorate plays well with Trump supporters.

 

[candycorn]

World's richest man says if billionaire man-child is elected, everyone else will have to suffer hardship.

Just not him. Or Trump.

What a piece of shit.

And to think that blob supporters cheer this. Its bizarre.

 

[my2¢]

It's far too early to be calling for a crash of the economy for our own good. Jimmy Carter went that route only after Nixon, Ford, and the first half of his own administration weren't able to get inflation under control.

 

[Hector12]

And to think that blob supporters cheer this. Its bizarre.

Poorly educated, low income whites believe Trump's lies.

 

[hadit]

I am not seeing you doing any mathematics either. You are just blowing hot air.

You made the assertion that we could fund all sorts of new spending if we taxed the rich more, back it up with the numbers.

 

[Hector12]

You made the assertion that we could fund all sorts of new spending if we taxed the rich more, back it up with the numbers.

The rich have all kinds of money. All we need to do is to direct the government to take most of it away from them. First we need to pay off the national debt with their money. Then we need more services, such as socialized medicine.

Tax cuts for the rich led to the national debt problem. Tax increases for the rich can solve the national debt problem.

 

[hadit]

The rich have all kinds of money. All we need to do is to direct the government to take most of it away from them. First we need to pay off the national debt with their money. Then we need more services, such as socialized medicine.

Pipe dream, you'll never get enough to do all that. Show the numbers. First of all, you're talking about a wealth tax, not an income tax. You just want to punish someone who has something by taking it away from them. We don't do that here.

Tax cuts for the rich led to the national debt problem. Tax increases for the rich can solve the national debt problem.

Congress saw the tax cuts were kicking the economy into high gear and started spending like never before seen in the history of the world. There's your debt problem.

Back it up with real life numbers. Pick your favorite tax rate and income level (naturally, it will be higher than what you make right now), then go to the IRS and find out how much money you can get out of taxing the income of the rich. I'll toss this in here, the breakpoint for the top 1% is about half a million annual income. All you need to do is get the total income reported by those making over your income level (make sure it's high enough that it won't apply to you), apply your rate to it and that's how much you're likely to get, minus what disappears when the wealthy put it out of your reach. Then subtract that from the current deficit to see if you can start paying off the federal debt. If you still have a deficit you can't pay off any debt, but if you have surplus you can. Then figure out how long it will take to pay off the debt and realize that Congress will just spend any surplus without allowing any to reduce the debt. Result, you'll never pay off the debt and get your lavish new services by taxing the rich. You'll have to tax the middle class.

The bottom line is, you're arguing from emotion and feelz, not facts and reality.

 

[Zincwarrior]

World's richest man says if billionaire man-child is elected, everyone else will have to suffer hardship.

Just not him. Or Trump.

What a piece of shit.

I for one welcome the return to Dickensian times.

 

[Hector12]

Pipe dream, you'll never get enough to do all that. Show the numbers. First of all, you're talking about a wealth tax, not an income tax. You just want to punish someone who has something by taking it away from them. We don't do that here.

Congress saw the tax cuts were kicking the economy into high gear and started spending like never before seen in the history of the world. There's your debt problem.

Back it up with real life numbers. Pick your favorite tax rate and income level (naturally, it will be higher than what you make right now), then go to the IRS and find out how much money you can get out of taxing the income of the rich. I'll toss this in here, the breakpoint for the top 1% is about half a million annual income. All you need to do is get the total income reported by those making over your income level (make sure it's high enough that it won't apply to you), apply your rate to it and that's how much you're likely to get, minus what disappears when the wealthy put it out of your reach. Then subtract that from the current deficit to see if you can start paying off the federal debt. If you still have a deficit you can't pay off any debt, but if you have surplus you can. Then figure out how long it will take to pay off the debt and realize that Congress will just spend any surplus without allowing any to reduce the debt. Result, you'll never pay off the debt and get your lavish new services by taxing the rich. You'll have to tax the middle class.

The bottom line is, you're arguing from emotion and feelz, not facts and reality.

Reagan cut taxes for the rich from 70% to 28%, and raised military spending. That nearly tripled the national debt.
When Jimmy Carter left office in 1980 the national debt was $908 billion. Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, and he raised the military budget. When he left office in 1988 the national debt had grown to $2,602 billion.

U.S. National Debt by Year

Anyone with an accurate memory of the Reagan administration knows that it was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. Indeed a number of programs were scaled back.

 

[hadit]

Reagan cut taxes for the rich from 70% to 28%, and raised military spending. That nearly tripled the national debt.

And eliminated a lot of tax deductions, let's not forget that either.

When Jimmy Carter left office in 1980 the national debt was $908 billion. Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70% to 28%, and he raised the military budget. When he left office in 1988 the national debt had grown to $2,602 billion.

U.S. National Debt by Year

Anyone with an accurate memory of the Reagan administration knows that it was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending. Indeed a number of programs were scaled back.

Military spending, however, hastened the end of the Soviet Union. Look, the bottom line is, you're still complaining from emotion, not fact. You want to punish the rich and pretend we can pay down the debt AND spend lavishly on massive new entitlements without even considering whether you would get enough from the new taxes to actually do it or not.

 

[Hector12]

And eliminated a lot of tax deductions, let's not forget that either.

Military spending, however, hastened the end of the Soviet Union. Look, the bottom line is, you're still complaining from emotion, not fact. You want to punish the rich and pretend we can pay down the debt AND spend lavishly on massive new entitlements without even considering whether you would get enough from the new taxes to actually do it or not.

If there was a need for more military spending, Reagan should have raised taxes to pay for it.

The United States was at peace, so there was no need for more military spending at all. Threatening Soviet leaders with a nuclear buildup when they felt their power draining away from them was catastrophically dangerous.

Also, the Soviet Government had the institutions for a representative democracy. All it needed to do was to allow parties of a loyal opposition and freedom of political dissent. That is what could have happened if there had been a less confrontational policy by Reagan.

I think Mikhail Gorbachev was a much better leader than Vladimir Putin.

 

[Crepitus]

The only other alternative to high prices is that billionaires and business owners accept a smaller profit margin.

You'll note that Musk is not recommending that he and other business owners accept a smaller profit margin. And apparently this clear middle-finger to the electorate plays well with Trump supporters.

Bingo

 

[hadit]

If there was a need for more military spending, Reagan should have raised taxes to pay for it.

The United States was at peace, so there was no need for more military spending at all. Threatening Soviet leaders with a nuclear buildup when they felt their power draining away from them was catastrophically dangerous.

Also, the Soviet Government had the institutions for a representative democracy. All it needed to do was to allow parties of a loyal opposition and freedom of political dissent. That is what could have happened if there had been a less confrontational policy by Reagan.

I think Mikhail Gorbachev was a much better leader than Vladimir Putin.

Interesting. You seem to think that the US prevented the USSR from becoming a democracy. No need of further discussion.

 

[Hector12]

Interesting. You seem to think that the US prevented the USSR from becoming a democracy. No need of further discussion.

No one can say what would have happened if Reagan has not been a war mongering anti Communist. What did happen is that Russia exchanged one tyranny for another, which in some ways is more dangerous. Gorbachev did not threaten the use of nuclear bombs. Putin does.