Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[danielpalos]

2/3s of the United States defense budget goes to paying the troops and training them. Where is the duplication and the waste in paying the troops and training them?

Horse shit...You can't say that because the Pentagon has defied any attempts to be audited.

The Pentagon is to you what food stamps are to lolberals.

Its not a secret where defense spending goes. What the men and women make when serving in the armed forces plus the cost of their training when added up equals 2/3s of defense spending. Its not a secret regardless of whether you think the Pentagon has been successfully audited or not.

sure there is a lot of waste in the pentagon, and it should be audited every year and anyone found wasting or cheating should be fired. That same principle should be applied to every government agency, including congress.

we don't have a general warfare or common offense clause.

 

[Desperado]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

There is no credible correlation between the good economy of that time and the tax rate. The problem wasn't that the Percent of GDP was 121% because the taxes were too low. The problem is that the spending was far too high.

In 1945, the national debt was 121% of annual GDP. The top federal tax rate was high in 1945, over 90%, but spending was even higher. It was a necessity at the time given World War II. After World War II, the tax rate remained high between 70% and 94% for the top federal tax rate. Economic growth was good despite those heavier tax rates from 1945 to 1980. By 1980, the national debt was only 33% of annual GDP, a huge drop from where it had been in 1945.

The tax rate did not hurt the economy in the years from 1945 to 1980 despite being above 70% every year.

How many times must you be told? No one ever paid anywhere near 70% in those days. The tax code protected the very rich just as it does today. Warren Buffet says he paid 14% and he files in total compliance with the tax code. Trump's 2005 return showed that he paid around 25%, more than the Clintons or obamas or bidens. and all of them filed in compliance with the code.

The problem is not the top rate, the problems are that the government spends too much, the bottom 50% pay nothing, and the congress has helped their rich donors for years with exemptions and deductions in the code.

Think about it...
You really think that NFL and NBA players will pay a 70% tax rate? You think liberal actors like George Clooney or Barbra Streisand will pay the full amount? If you do you need to have your head examined.

 

[Lesh]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

There is no credible correlation between the good economy of that time and the tax rate. The problem wasn't that the Percent of GDP was 121% because the taxes were too low. The problem is that the spending was far too high.

In 1945, the national debt was 121% of annual GDP. The top federal tax rate was high in 1945, over 90%, but spending was even higher. It was a necessity at the time given World War II. After World War II, the tax rate remained high between 70% and 94% for the top federal tax rate. Economic growth was good despite those heavier tax rates from 1945 to 1980. By 1980, the national debt was only 33% of annual GDP, a huge drop from where it had been in 1945.

The tax rate did not hurt the economy in the years from 1945 to 1980 despite being above 70% every year.

How many times must you be told? No one ever paid anywhere near 70% in those days. The tax code protected the very rich just as it does today. Warren Buffet says he paid 14% and he files in total compliance with the tax code. Trump's 2005 return showed that he paid around 25%, more than the Clintons or obamas or bidens. and all of them filed in compliance with the code.

The problem is not the top rate, the problems are that the government spends too much, the bottom 50% pay nothing, and the congress has helped their rich donors for years with exemptions and deductions in the code.

Think about it...
You really think that NFL and NBA players will pay a 70% tax rate? You think liberal actors like George Clooney or Barbra Streisand will pay the full amount? If you do you need to have your head examined.

Apply a little logic here.

If the rich won't pay the 70%...why the hell do they fight it so hard??

 

[Redfish]

Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

I think the United States should increase the top federal tax rate from where it is now at 39% back to 70% where it was in 1980. The top tax rate in the United States from 1945 to 1980 was NEVER lower than 70%. The time period of 1945 to 1980 saw the strongest average annual GDP growth in United States history. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was at 121% in 1945. But by 1980, the national debt was only 33% of GDP. During this time period, the United States fought the cold war which involved fighting in Korea and Vietnam as well as deterring the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

How was the United States able to fight these wars, have large annual defense spending, pay for new social programs like Social Security, Medicare etc, while reducing the national debt relative to the country's wealth? It was able to do this by having a top tax rate on the richest Americans that was between 70% and 94% during the time period of 1945-1980. These tax rates on wealthy Americans DID NOT hurt the economy, ruin business etc. The country thrived with these tax rates.

Consumer spending is 80% of economic growth. Most consumers are not wealthy. They are lower class or middle class. Making sure their taxes are lower or balanced is important because they spend money when they get a raise, new job, tax break, etc. The rich though do not change their level of consumer spending when they get a tax cut or obtain more wealth. Their wealth is such that their level of consumer spending is not impacted by tax cuts or tax increases.

So going back to a 70% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans will provide more important revenue for the government without hurting the economy. This extra revenue can be used to balance the budget, pay down debt, increase defense spending, provide more money for education and health care.

The national debt has sky rocketed since 1980 and it has been difficult finding enough money for defense and domestic programs. The solution is a higher tax rate, 70% or more on the wealthiest Americans. It won't hurt the economy as shown by the superior economic growth from 1945 to 1980.

There is no credible correlation between the good economy of that time and the tax rate. The problem wasn't that the Percent of GDP was 121% because the taxes were too low. The problem is that the spending was far too high.

In 1945, the national debt was 121% of annual GDP. The top federal tax rate was high in 1945, over 90%, but spending was even higher. It was a necessity at the time given World War II. After World War II, the tax rate remained high between 70% and 94% for the top federal tax rate. Economic growth was good despite those heavier tax rates from 1945 to 1980. By 1980, the national debt was only 33% of annual GDP, a huge drop from where it had been in 1945.

The tax rate did not hurt the economy in the years from 1945 to 1980 despite being above 70% every year.

How many times must you be told? No one ever paid anywhere near 70% in those days. The tax code protected the very rich just as it does today. Warren Buffet says he paid 14% and he files in total compliance with the tax code. Trump's 2005 return showed that he paid around 25%, more than the Clintons or obamas or bidens. and all of them filed in compliance with the code.

The problem is not the top rate, the problems are that the government spends too much, the bottom 50% pay nothing, and the congress has helped their rich donors for years with exemptions and deductions in the code.

Think about it...
You really think that NFL and NBA players will pay a 70% tax rate? You think liberal actors like George Clooney or Barbra Streisand will pay the full amount? If you do you need to have your head examined.

Apply a little logic here.

If the rich won't pay the 70%...why the hell do they fight it so hard??

why do the bottom 50% pay nothing? The top 5% already pay most of the federal income tax collected, Why do you think the government should punish success and reward failure?

I just do not understand the liberal mind. Is it jealousy, envy?

 

[RealDave]

Great. That only applies to the discussion if you believed the same to be true here.

PS:
Nobody gives a shit about Venezuela.

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

WTF does that have to do with Venezuela failing due to socialism? the only connection is that they tried to fix the mess by taxing the shit out of the rich and the oil companies.

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

 

[Redfish]

you and everyone else should give a shit about Venezuela, because it shows exactly what happens when socialists take control of a country.

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

WTF does that have to do with Venezuela failing due to socialism? the only connection is that they tried to fix the mess by taxing the shit out of the rich and the oil companies.

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

and when you call me a stupid shit it just proves that you cannot come up with credible arguments and like all liberals resort to insults and violence.

 

[RealDave]

Harry Truman increased the top federal tax rate to 92%. Why? To pay for the Korean War. The Korean war was paid for up front without borrowing ANY money. Its the only war in United States history where all the direct cost of the war were paid for immediately through tax increases. Sure, there were some rich people who complained, but most felt it their patriotic duty to pay that rate with the country at war. After all, few if any of the rich were fighting on the front lines in Korea risking possible death and dismemberment. Sure, paying 92% in taxes may be tough, but its certainly not as much of a sacrifice as being killed in combat or being severely injured in combat.

Huge difference. Taking 92% of someones income, to blow it on political games, bad green energy programs, and paying people who simply don't want to pay their bills forever..... is entirely different than a short term expenditure to doing a military offensive.

71% of the federal budget goes to pay for the following five things:

National Defense
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Veterans Benefits

Unless you plan on cutting those things, you need to increase the top federal tax rate. Its not a good idea to cut national defense. What justification would you have for cutting a veteran's benefits or preventing a citizen from collecting their social security pay check for the month?

what is the other 29%? Sounds like the important stuff is covered by 71%, so lets cut the other 29% to 10%. a net saving of 19%, much more than the annual deficit.

Nearly a quarter of the other 29% is paying interest on the national debt. You have to pay that or the debt will grow even larger. Other things in that 29% include, international affairs/diplomacy, General Science, Space, Technology, Agriculture, Administration of Justice, General Government, Energy, Natural Resources, Environment, Housing, Transportation, Community and regional development, Education, Training, Employment, Social Services, income security.

everything on your list could be eliminated or drastically cut and no one would know the difference. We are 20 trillion in debt, we cannot afford those unnecessary things any longer.

But but but the economy is on fire.

Yet we can't afford these things anymore?

I know one thing, cutting revenues while increasing deficits is not the answer.

 

[Redfish]

Huge difference. Taking 92% of someones income, to blow it on political games, bad green energy programs, and paying people who simply don't want to pay their bills forever..... is entirely different than a short term expenditure to doing a military offensive.

71% of the federal budget goes to pay for the following five things:

National Defense
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Veterans Benefits

Unless you plan on cutting those things, you need to increase the top federal tax rate. Its not a good idea to cut national defense. What justification would you have for cutting a veteran's benefits or preventing a citizen from collecting their social security pay check for the month?

what is the other 29%? Sounds like the important stuff is covered by 71%, so lets cut the other 29% to 10%. a net saving of 19%, much more than the annual deficit.

Nearly a quarter of the other 29% is paying interest on the national debt. You have to pay that or the debt will grow even larger. Other things in that 29% include, international affairs/diplomacy, General Science, Space, Technology, Agriculture, Administration of Justice, General Government, Energy, Natural Resources, Environment, Housing, Transportation, Community and regional development, Education, Training, Employment, Social Services, income security.

everything on your list could be eliminated or drastically cut and no one would know the difference. We are 20 trillion in debt, we cannot afford those unnecessary things any longer.

But but but the economy is on fire.

Yet we can't afford these things anymore?

I know one thing, cutting revenues while increasing deficits is not the answer.

yes, the economy is doing quite well and federal revenue is up. the deficit needs to be reduced and congress needs to do its job in that regard, do you think the Pelosi house is going to reduce spending?

 

[RealDave]

The highest marginal tax rate was no lower than 70% from WWII to Reagan. The US was not socialist. Your analogy is dumb.

WTF does that have to do with Venezuela failing due to socialism? the only connection is that they tried to fix the mess by taxing the shit out of the rich and the oil companies.

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

**** you. Quit being such a ******* asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

 

[Thinker101]

WTF does that have to do with Venezuela failing due to socialism? the only connection is that they tried to fix the mess by taxing the shit out of the rich and the oil companies.

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

**** you. Quit being such a ******* asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

Great, then you should have no problem integrating into a nice Swedish town...dumbass.

 

[Redfish]

WTF does that have to do with Venezuela failing due to socialism? the only connection is that they tried to fix the mess by taxing the shit out of the rich and the oil companies.

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

**** you. Quit being such a ******* asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

when are you moving? you dumb ass cock sucking asshole eating piece of dried up dog shit.

you want to trade insults? bring it.

 

[RealDave]

71% of the federal budget goes to pay for the following five things:

National Defense
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Veterans Benefits

Unless you plan on cutting those things, you need to increase the top federal tax rate. Its not a good idea to cut national defense. What justification would you have for cutting a veteran's benefits or preventing a citizen from collecting their social security pay check for the month?

what is the other 29%? Sounds like the important stuff is covered by 71%, so lets cut the other 29% to 10%. a net saving of 19%, much more than the annual deficit.

Nearly a quarter of the other 29% is paying interest on the national debt. You have to pay that or the debt will grow even larger. Other things in that 29% include, international affairs/diplomacy, General Science, Space, Technology, Agriculture, Administration of Justice, General Government, Energy, Natural Resources, Environment, Housing, Transportation, Community and regional development, Education, Training, Employment, Social Services, income security.

everything on your list could be eliminated or drastically cut and no one would know the difference. We are 20 trillion in debt, we cannot afford those unnecessary things any longer.

But but but the economy is on fire.

Yet we can't afford these things anymore?

I know one thing, cutting revenues while increasing deficits is not the answer.

yes, the economy is doing quite well and federal revenue is up. the deficit needs to be reduced and congress needs to do its job in that regard, do you think the Pelosi house is going to reduce spending?

But Trump is the one spending money without funding it, In fa=ct, the asshole is cutting revenues.

If you were really against deficits, you'd vote Democrat. It was Clinton that balanced the budget & it was the Republicans that took us from there to massive debt. Obama brought us a long way back & now your orange buddy has deficits over a trillion. In good economic times. And you= are still too stupid to get it.

 

[RealDave]

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

**** you. Quit being such a ******* asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

Great, then you should have no problem integrating into a nice Swedish town...dumbass.

Sorry, dickbreath, but this is my country & I won't let a bunch of Russia lovin' assfucks destroy it.

 

[RealDave]

It doesn't . That's the point.
You broughy venezula into the discussion.

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

**** you. Quit being such a ******* asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

when are you moving? you dumb ass cock sucking asshole eating piece of dried up dog shit.

you want to trade insults? bring it.

Anyone who backs Trump is a fool.

 

[Redfish]

what is the other 29%? Sounds like the important stuff is covered by 71%, so lets cut the other 29% to 10%. a net saving of 19%, much more than the annual deficit.

Nearly a quarter of the other 29% is paying interest on the national debt. You have to pay that or the debt will grow even larger. Other things in that 29% include, international affairs/diplomacy, General Science, Space, Technology, Agriculture, Administration of Justice, General Government, Energy, Natural Resources, Environment, Housing, Transportation, Community and regional development, Education, Training, Employment, Social Services, income security.

everything on your list could be eliminated or drastically cut and no one would know the difference. We are 20 trillion in debt, we cannot afford those unnecessary things any longer.

But but but the economy is on fire.

Yet we can't afford these things anymore?

I know one thing, cutting revenues while increasing deficits is not the answer.

yes, the economy is doing quite well and federal revenue is up. the deficit needs to be reduced and congress needs to do its job in that regard, do you think the Pelosi house is going to reduce spending?

But Trump is the one spending money without funding it, In fa=ct, the asshole is cutting revenues.

If you were really against deficits, you'd vote Democrat. It was Clinton that balanced the budget & it was the Republicans that took us from there to massive debt. Obama brought us a long way back & now your orange buddy has deficits over a trillion. In good economic times. And you= are still too stupid to get it.

NO, it was Newt forcing Clinton to balance the budget. At least those two were able to work together. Pelosi refuses to even try to find common ground.

 

[Redfish]

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

**** you. Quit being such a ******* asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

Great, then you should have no problem integrating into a nice Swedish town...dumbass.

Sorry, dickbreath, but this is my country & I won't let a bunch of Russia lovin' assfucks destroy it.

I agree, that's why I voted against the Clintons and Obama. Uranium one, Benghazi, 145 M of Russian money to the Clinton foundation, 500K to bubba for a 20 minute speech in Moscow, "I'll have more flexibility after the election, tell Vladimir". At least we agree on keeping politicians owned by Russia out of power.

 

[Redfish]

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

**** you. Quit being such a ******* asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

when are you moving? you dumb ass cock sucking asshole eating piece of dried up dog shit.

you want to trade insults? bring it.

Anyone who backs Trump is a fool.

yeah, putting the USA first is really stupid.

 

[Thinker101]

I gave you an example of what happens to a country when taxes are raised to support socialist bullshit.

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

**** you. Quit being such a ******* asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

Great, then you should have no problem integrating into a nice Swedish town...dumbass.

Sorry, dickbreath, but this is my country & I won't let a bunch of Russia lovin' assfucks destroy it.

Destroy "your" country? The one you want to turn into a social experiment? Dumbass.

 

[RealDave]

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

**** you. Quit being such a ******* asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

when are you moving? you dumb ass cock sucking asshole eating piece of dried up dog shit.

you want to trade insults? bring it.

Anyone who backs Trump is a fool.

Running up the deficit in good economic times is putting America First?

Alienated our allies id putting America First?

Starting a trade war hurting US farmers & mfrs is putting America First?

Shutting down government to build a expensive, ineffective wall is putting America first?

Stealing children is putting America first.

The only thing Trump wants to put first is himself.


yeah, putting the USA first is really stupid.

 

[RealDave]

And those evl ******* socialists of Canada & Sweden you stupid shit.

If you think those countries are a better place to live, why don't you move to one of them? You libs praise Sweden and Canada but none of you have ever lived in either or know anyone who has or does. I have a cousin who married a swede, they tried living and raising their kids in Stockholm, but after a few years got fed up with paying huge taxes and trying to deal with an oppressive government and moved back to the US.

I get it. You bring up Venezuela while ignoring the successes is OK.

**** you. Quit being such a ******* asshole.

I know a lot of people that live in Sweden. I have done business with Swedish companies.

Both countries are preferable to a Trump America where he lies & assfucks like you believe him.

Great, then you should have no problem integrating into a nice Swedish town...dumbass.

Sorry, dickbreath, but this is my country & I won't let a bunch of Russia lovin' assfucks destroy it.

Destroy "your" country? The one you want to turn into a social experiment? Dumbass.

What social experiment is that?