You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[Luckyone]

Easily the most misleading and murky statistic in American politics. That's why the Democrats spend so much time spinning "jobs jobs jobs!"

That statistic goes back 44 years. Overall, the statistic can be skewed here and there but the OVERALL statistic cannot be disputed. 96% of jobs came during Democratic presidencies. Even if skewed one year or another and the 96% becomes 90% of 80%, it is still better under Democrats than Republicans.

 

[Luckyone]

According to a letter Buffett sent to Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) that the Congressman posted here, the billionaire had adjusted gross income in 2010 of $62,855,038, taxable income of $39,814,784, and a federal income tax bill of$6,923,494. That makes his effective tax rate, as a percentage of AGI, just 11.06%, compared to an average effective rate in 2008 (the most recent year available) of 18.1% of AGI for the 400 taxpayers with the largest incomes, according to figures reported by the Internal Revenue Service.

People don't pay tax on their AGI, they pay it on their taxable income.
17.4%, not 11%.

The reality is that there are many loopholes for rich people that don't exist for anyone else and that is the key to all of this.

 

[Luckyone]

When most people who were infected showed no symptoms, and many others thought it was a cold? But you got an exact number.

Did you know, at the height of covid, an award winning mathematician calculated that if you gathered all the covid 19 viruses in the world into one place, they would have all fit into a single coke can?

Short of starving people during a complete total two week lockdown, you ain’t doing shit.

Where in your post are you addressing the accusation that Biden was more guilty than Trump for the deaths that did happen?

 

[ThisIsMe]

First of all, one rule of life is that there are always exceptions to anything. Overall, the Democrat Billionaires are more ready to give to charity than the Republican ones. That doesn't mean you cannot find some Republican Billionaires that give to charity or Democratic Billionaires that give to politics. It is the sum of all that is what it is all about.

Regarding, being rude. Of course I can discuss without being rude, in fact it is what I do 99% of the time. Having said that, in the 8 years I have been on message boards, I have not seen so much rudeness as is found here. I have been here for 5 days and I have gotten over 500 messages (incredible) and of those, 95% of them have been rude to me. As such and like with any fighter, if you are slapped, you slap back. If I was rude to you, I apologize.

If I was rude to you, I apologize.

I understand. This place is pretty rough. I try to discuss things, right or wrong, without the use of insult and attack. I may jab a little here and there but I don’t go on the attack.

As to charity:

Does partisanship influence charitable giving? | SurveyMonkey Apply

America is one of the most generous countries in the world. According to the 2017 CAF World Giving Index, the US ranks fifth globally in charitable participation and giving, and […]

apply.surveymonkey.com

How Political Ideology Influences Charitable Giving (Published 2018)

The authors of a new academic study explore the effect of political differences on how we give to charity.

www.nytimes.com

I think it’s a mixed bag. Depending on what report you read, some suggest republicans are more charitable, others will suggest it’s about equal on both sides.

 

[MarathonMike]

That statistic goes back 44 years. Overall, the statistic can be skewed here and there but the OVERALL statistic cannot be disputed. 96% of jobs came during Democratic presidencies. Even if skewed one year or another and the 96% becomes 90% of 80%, it is still better under Democrats than Republicans.

The Democrats crow about 14 million jobs created but the vast majority of those jobs were jobs that were lost during the insane Covid shutdown. And just today the jobs numbers were revised DOWN by a massive 818 thousand. Those are two examples of why you should always be suspicious when "jobs numbers" come out.

 

[Oddball]

The Democrats crow about 14 million jobs created but the vast majority of those jobs were jobs that were lost during the insane Covid shutdown. And just today the jobs numbers were revised DOWN by a massive 818 thousand. Those are two examples of why you should always be suspicious when "jobs numbers" come out.

When did The Banker ever not take blatantly deceptive numbers from The State -which always later "unexpectedly" get revised down- as gospel?

 

[Faun]

The Democrats crow about 14 million jobs created but the vast majority of those jobs were jobs that were lost during the insane Covid shutdown. And just today the jobs numbers were revised DOWN by a massive 818 thousand. Those are two examples of why you should always be suspicious when "jobs numbers" come out.

Of course you're suspicious. You're on the right, facing a daunting statistic that you don't want to accept...

Last 3 Republican presidents ... 1½ million jobs
Last 3 Democratic presidents ... 50 million jobs

 

[HeyNorm]

Where in your post are you addressing the accusation that Biden was more guilty than Trump for the deaths that did happen?

Nobody was dufus. Did you know folks are still dying from covid? Is Biden or Harris responsible?

 

[HeyNorm]

The Democrats crow about 14 million jobs created but the vast majority of those jobs were jobs that were lost during the insane Covid shutdown. And just today the jobs numbers were revised DOWN by a massive 818 thousand. Those are two examples of why you should always be suspicious when "jobs numbers" come out.

After what the Dems did to Joe and 14,000,000 of their own voters, they have no credibility, no honor, and should never be believed

 

[Luckyone]

Nobody was dufus. Did you know folks are still dying from covid? Is Biden or Harris responsible?

I take full responsibility for the deaths...............hahahahaha

 

[HeyNorm]

I take full responsibility for the deaths...............hahahahaha

View attachment 1000698

Interesting, dumb asses like you probably did cause most of em.

 

[Luckyone]

Interesting, dumb asses like you probably did cause most of em.

Thanks for the insult. It is appreciated. I always enjoy when assholes insult me. A dumb ass is always better than an asshole. The asshole smells worse.

 

[HeyNorm]

Thanks for the insult. It is appreciated. I always enjoy when assholes insult me. A dumb ass is always better than an asshole. The asshole smells worse.

I guess you would know seeing sniffing em if part of your lifestyle. Right?

 

[Faun]

Let's take a look at those numbers in the chart at the link you and 'Faun' provided.
We'll do the number shown in December of year elected to December of last year in office. Though there are some years of declines in jobs, usually a year or few later we see the uptrend again.

Bush 41...... +2 1/2 million Jan. 1989: 107,161 - Dec. 1992: 109,500 = 2,339 (close)
Clinton....... +23 million Dec. 1992: 109,500 - Dec. 2000: 132,718 = 23,218 (close)
Bush 43...... +1 1/2 million Dec. 2000: 132,718 - Dec. 2008: 134,848 = 2,130 (a bit off )
Obama....... +11 1/2 million Dec. 2008: 134,848 - Dec. 2016: 145,410 = 10,865 (a bit off, again)
Trump ........ -2 1/2 million Dec. 2016: 145,410 - Dec. 2020: 142,518 = 2,892 (a bit off)
Biden .......... +15 1/2 million Dec. 2020: 142,518 - June 2024: 158,609 = 16,518 (close, and better)

Nope, not off. I counted 48 months for Bush41 and Trump. You counted only 47. And for 2 term presidents, I counted 96 months. You counted only 95.

 

[Luckyone]

I guess you would know seeing sniffing em if part of your lifestyle. Right?

Yes, it is one of the unfortunate things that I have to live with when doing my job.

 

[HeyNorm]

Yes, it is one of the unfortunate things that I have to live with when doing my job.

View attachment 1000728

You sniff ass as part of your job?

It was only a guess, but since you admitted it.

Typical Dem male

 

[Luckyone]

You sniff ass as part of your job?

It was only a guess, but since you admitted it.

Typical Dem male

No, sniffing ass is NOT part of my job but kicking assholes out is, and that means that in doing so, the smell is always there. Much like you, you never go away and the smell remains constantly.

 

[protectionist]

1. Trump's Tax Cuts:​

• Claim: Trump reduced taxes on the middle and lower classes more than for the wealthy.
• Reality: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 did provide tax cuts across the board, but the benefits were heavily skewed toward the wealthy and corporations. According to analyses by the Tax Policy Center, the top 1% of earners received a significant portion of the benefits, with their after-tax incomes increasing far more than those of middle- and lower-income earners. Additionally, many of the tax cuts for individuals are set to expire in 2025, while corporate tax cuts are permanent.

even though workers received a small tax cut under the Trump administration, many had to contend with increased expenses that effectively negated the benefits of those cuts. Here are some of the ways workers ended up paying more:

A. Healthcare Costs:​

• Rising Premiums and Out-of-Pocket Expenses: Despite the tax cuts, healthcare costs continued to rise. Premiums for health insurance increased, as did out-of-pocket expenses such as deductibles and co-pays. The uncertainty created by the Trump administration's attempts to repeal and undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA) also contributed to market instability, leading to higher costs for consumers.
• Elimination of the ACA Individual Mandate: While the removal of the ACA individual mandate penalty might have saved some workers money upfront, it led to higher premiums for those who remained insured, as healthier individuals opted out, leaving a sicker, more expensive pool of insured individuals.

B. Housing Costs:​

• Increased Rents and Home Prices: Housing costs, including rent and home prices, have been rising steadily, outpacing wage growth. The tax cuts did little to address the affordability crisis, and the increased federal deficit limited the government's ability to invest in affordable housing initiatives. Many workers found that their slight tax savings were more than offset by higher housing costs.

C. Education Costs:​

• Soaring Tuition and Student Loan Debt: The Trump administration's rollback of protections for student borrowers and cuts to education funding contributed to the rising cost of education. College tuition and fees continued to increase, as did student loan debt, placing a significant financial burden on working families.
• Reduced State and Local Education Funding: The reduction in federal revenue from the tax cuts put pressure on state and local governments, leading to cuts in education funding. This often resulted in higher tuition at public colleges and universities and reduced services for students.

D. State and Local Taxes:​

• SALT Deduction Cap: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) capped the state and local tax (SALT) deduction at $10,000, which disproportionately affected middle-class taxpayers in states with higher taxes. This cap effectively raised the tax burden on many workers, particularly those in states like California, New York, and New Jersey, where property and state taxes are higher.

E. Public Services and Infrastructure:​

• Cuts to Public Services: The tax cuts contributed to a ballooning federal deficit, leading to budget cuts at the state and local levels. As a result, public services such as education, transportation, and infrastructure faced funding shortfalls. Workers often had to bear the additional costs of deteriorating infrastructure, such as increased commuting times and vehicle maintenance costs.
• Increased Fees for Public Services: As local governments sought to compensate for reduced federal funding, many turned to raising fees for public services, such as public transportation, utilities, and recreational facilities, further straining household budgets.

F. Childcare and Family Services:​

• Inadequate Support for Childcare: The tax cuts did little to address the rising costs of childcare, which continued to outpace inflation. Working families often found that their tax savings were not enough to cover the increased expenses related to childcare and early childhood education.

G. Inflationary Pressures:​

• Increased Cost of Living: The combination of a higher federal deficit, reduced government spending, and rising healthcare, education, and housing costs contributed to inflationary pressures. The overall cost of living continued to rise, eroding the purchasing power of the tax cuts.

H. Retirement Savings and Social Security:​

• Potential Cuts to Social Security: The increased federal deficit raised concerns about potential future cuts to Social Security and Medicare, which would disproportionately affect working-class retirees. This uncertainty added to the financial strain on workers planning for retirement.

These increased costs and the potential long-term effects on public services and social safety nets mean that the small tax cuts many workers received were often offset, if not entirely negated, by other financial pressures.

2. Rent Control and Housing Costs:​

• Claim: The housing affordability crisis began in 2021 under Biden.
• Reality: Housing affordability issues have been a long-standing problem, exacerbated by decades of policy decisions at both the federal and state levels, including during the Trump administration. While it's true that rents and housing prices have risen sharply during Biden's term, this is partly due to the ongoing effects of the pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and increased demand for housing. The claim that the crisis "began" in 2021 is an oversimplification and ignores the broader economic context.

3. Healthcare Costs Under Trump:​

• Claim: Trump reduced healthcare costs by eliminating the ACA individual mandate and other actions.
• Reality: While Trump did eliminate the ACA individual mandate penalty, which reduced the number of insured Americans, his administration's overall impact on healthcare costs is more complex. Healthcare premiums continued to rise during Trump's presidency, and his attempts to undermine the ACA created uncertainty in the markets, which contributed to cost increases. Moreover, the elimination of the individual mandate led to fewer healthy people enrolling in insurance plans, which put upward pressure on premiums.

4. Inflation and Energy Policies:​

• Claim: Biden's energy policies are responsible for inflation, particularly through oil drilling cancellations.
• Reality: Inflation is a multifaceted issue driven by several factors, including supply chain disruptions, increased demand post-pandemic, and global market trends. While Biden's energy policies, such as canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, have been criticized, they are not the sole or even primary cause of inflation. Rising energy prices have contributed to inflation, but this is also influenced by global oil market dynamics and the actions of OPEC, not solely U.S. domestic policy.

5. Public Services and Infrastructure:​

• Claim: There has been no diminishment of public services and infrastructure post-Trump tax cuts.
• Reality: The reduction in federal revenue due to Trump's tax cuts has put pressure on state and local governments, which rely on federal funding for many public services. While some areas may not have seen immediate cuts, the long-term impact is likely to include reduced investment in infrastructure and public services. The ballooning deficit due to these tax cuts has constrained the government's ability to fund new projects and maintain existing services.

6. General Misrepresentation:​

• Claim: "Mindless propaganda" and parroting left-wing media.
• Reality: The points you raised are grounded in widely recognized data and analyses. Claims of "mindless propaganda" are a common tactic used to dismiss valid arguments without engaging with the substance. It's important to focus on the facts and avoid being swayed by rhetoric that seeks to delegitimize your perspective without evidence.

This silly pile of leftwing media balderdash was thoroughly refuted in Post # 342. In case anybody missed it, here it s again >>

• Trump cut taxes more for the lower income groups than for the rich - 3 & 4 % than the rich top bracket > 2.6%
• after 3.5 years of Biden's presidency, we have seen no change in taxation on the rich. Still a relatively low 37%.
• Previous Republican presidents had MUCH higher tax rates on the rich.
• Federal income tax rates and brackets | Internal Revenue Service
• Blue states with bans on rent control, include these states that Biden won in 2020 >> Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
• Blue states without a ban, but they also DON'T HAVE rent control >> Nevada, Nebraska, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Hawaii.
• So out of 27 blue states, 22 either don't have rent control statewide, or have a ban on it (13 of them).
• In 2016, Hillary Clinton got more $$$ from Wall St fat cats than Trump & Sanders.

And the responses didnt carry any weight either. Oh, so the top 1% of earners after-tax incomes increased more than those of middle- and lower-income earners. Well, that's because the MAKE more money, Duh!

And the fact still remains that the tac cuts for
the lower income groups were larger than than those for the rich.

I have dismissed your INvalid arguments WITH substance, and have focused on facts, which you choose to ignore, Like these >>
Since Eisenhower, Republicans have had tax rates on the rich of 70-92%. In 20 years of Clinton, Obama , and Biden, the tax on the rich never went higher than 39.6%.
Whether you ignore it or not, it remains reality.

There is a big difference among the rich. For example, billionaires like Buffett, Gates, and Bloomberg (all leftists), donate HUGE amounts of money to charities. Billionaires like Musk and most of the Republican billionaires have donated to the Republican party political machine

American billionaires’ political spending overwhelmingly leans Republican​

A record-breaking $881 million were donated by the country’s 465 richest people​

Do you have the ABILITY to debate without your foot in your mouth to begin with?

Hillary got more Wall St donation$$$$$$ than Trump. Ho hum.

 

[protectionist]

1. Trump's Tax Cuts:​

• Claim: Trump reduced taxes on the middle and lower classes more than for the wealthy.
• Reality: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 did provide tax cuts across the board, but the benefits were heavily skewed toward the wealthy and corporations. According to analyses by the Tax Policy Center, the top 1% of earners received a significant portion of the benefits, with their after-tax incomes increasing far more than those of middle- and lower-income earners. Additionally, many of the tax cuts for individuals are set to expire in 2025, while corporate tax cuts are permanent.

even though workers received a small tax cut under the Trump administration, many had to contend with increased expenses that effectively negated the benefits of those cuts. Here are some of the ways workers ended up paying more:

A. Healthcare Costs:​

• Rising Premiums and Out-of-Pocket Expenses: Despite the tax cuts, healthcare costs continued to rise. Premiums for health insurance increased, as did out-of-pocket expenses such as deductibles and co-pays. The uncertainty created by the Trump administration's attempts to repeal and undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA) also contributed to market instability, leading to higher costs for consumers.
• Elimination of the ACA Individual Mandate: While the removal of the ACA individual mandate penalty might have saved some workers money upfront, it led to higher premiums for those who remained insured, as healthier individuals opted out, leaving a sicker, more expensive pool of insured individuals.

B. Housing Costs:​

• Increased Rents and Home Prices: Housing costs, including rent and home prices, have been rising steadily, outpacing wage growth. The tax cuts did little to address the affordability crisis, and the increased federal deficit limited the government's ability to invest in affordable housing initiatives. Many workers found that their slight tax savings were more than offset by higher housing costs.

C. Education Costs:​

• Soaring Tuition and Student Loan Debt: The Trump administration's rollback of protections for student borrowers and cuts to education funding contributed to the rising cost of education. College tuition and fees continued to increase, as did student loan debt, placing a significant financial burden on working families.
• Reduced State and Local Education Funding: The reduction in federal revenue from the tax cuts put pressure on state and local governments, leading to cuts in education funding. This often resulted in higher tuition at public colleges and universities and reduced services for students.

D. State and Local Taxes:​

• SALT Deduction Cap: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) capped the state and local tax (SALT) deduction at $10,000, which disproportionately affected middle-class taxpayers in states with higher taxes. This cap effectively raised the tax burden on many workers, particularly those in states like California, New York, and New Jersey, where property and state taxes are higher.

E. Public Services and Infrastructure:​

• Cuts to Public Services: The tax cuts contributed to a ballooning federal deficit, leading to budget cuts at the state and local levels. As a result, public services such as education, transportation, and infrastructure faced funding shortfalls. Workers often had to bear the additional costs of deteriorating infrastructure, such as increased commuting times and vehicle maintenance costs.
• Increased Fees for Public Services: As local governments sought to compensate for reduced federal funding, many turned to raising fees for public services, such as public transportation, utilities, and recreational facilities, further straining household budgets.

F. Childcare and Family Services:​

• Inadequate Support for Childcare: The tax cuts did little to address the rising costs of childcare, which continued to outpace inflation. Working families often found that their tax savings were not enough to cover the increased expenses related to childcare and early childhood education.

G. Inflationary Pressures:​

• Increased Cost of Living: The combination of a higher federal deficit, reduced government spending, and rising healthcare, education, and housing costs contributed to inflationary pressures. The overall cost of living continued to rise, eroding the purchasing power of the tax cuts.

H. Retirement Savings and Social Security:​

• Potential Cuts to Social Security: The increased federal deficit raised concerns about potential future cuts to Social Security and Medicare, which would disproportionately affect working-class retirees. This uncertainty added to the financial strain on workers planning for retirement.

These increased costs and the potential long-term effects on public services and social safety nets mean that the small tax cuts many workers received were often offset, if not entirely negated, by other financial pressures.

2. Rent Control and Housing Costs:​

• Claim: The housing affordability crisis began in 2021 under Biden.
• Reality: Housing affordability issues have been a long-standing problem, exacerbated by decades of policy decisions at both the federal and state levels, including during the Trump administration. While it's true that rents and housing prices have risen sharply during Biden's term, this is partly due to the ongoing effects of the pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and increased demand for housing. The claim that the crisis "began" in 2021 is an oversimplification and ignores the broader economic context.

3. Healthcare Costs Under Trump:​

• Claim: Trump reduced healthcare costs by eliminating the ACA individual mandate and other actions.
• Reality: While Trump did eliminate the ACA individual mandate penalty, which reduced the number of insured Americans, his administration's overall impact on healthcare costs is more complex. Healthcare premiums continued to rise during Trump's presidency, and his attempts to undermine the ACA created uncertainty in the markets, which contributed to cost increases. Moreover, the elimination of the individual mandate led to fewer healthy people enrolling in insurance plans, which put upward pressure on premiums.

4. Inflation and Energy Policies:​

• Claim: Biden's energy policies are responsible for inflation, particularly through oil drilling cancellations.
• Reality: Inflation is a multifaceted issue driven by several factors, including supply chain disruptions, increased demand post-pandemic, and global market trends. While Biden's energy policies, such as canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, have been criticized, they are not the sole or even primary cause of inflation. Rising energy prices have contributed to inflation, but this is also influenced by global oil market dynamics and the actions of OPEC, not solely U.S. domestic policy.

5. Public Services and Infrastructure:​

• Claim: There has been no diminishment of public services and infrastructure post-Trump tax cuts.
• Reality: The reduction in federal revenue due to Trump's tax cuts has put pressure on state and local governments, which rely on federal funding for many public services. While some areas may not have seen immediate cuts, the long-term impact is likely to include reduced investment in infrastructure and public services. The ballooning deficit due to these tax cuts has constrained the government's ability to fund new projects and maintain existing services.

6. General Misrepresentation:​

• Claim: "Mindless propaganda" and parroting left-wing media.
• Reality: The points you raised are grounded in widely recognized data and analyses. Claims of "mindless propaganda" are a common tactic used to dismiss valid arguments without engaging with the substance. It's important to focus on the facts and avoid being swayed by rhetoric that seeks to delegitimize your perspective without evidence.

This silly pile of leftwing media balderdash was thoroughly refuted in Post # 342. In case anybody missed it, here it s again >>

• Trump cut taxes more for the lower income groups than for the rich - 3 & 4 % than the rich top bracket > 2.6%
• after 3.5 years of Biden's presidency, we have seen no change in taxation on the rich. Still a relatively low 37%.
• Previous Republican presidents had MUCH higher tax rates on the rich.
• Federal income tax rates and brackets | Internal Revenue Service
• Blue states with bans on rent control, include these states that Biden won in 2020 >> Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Virginia, Georgia, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
• Blue states without a ban, but they also DON'T HAVE rent control >> Nevada, Nebraska, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, Hawaii.
• So out of 27 blue states, 22 either don't have rent control statewide, or have a ban on it (13 of them).
• In 2016, Hillary Clinton got more $$$ from Wall St fat cats than Trump & Sanders.

And the responses didnt carry any weight either. Oh, so the top 1% of earners after-tax incomes increased more than those of middle- and lower-income earners. Well, that's because the MAKE more money, Duh!

And the fact still remains that the tac cuts for
the lower income groups were larger than than those for the rich.

I have dismissed your INvalid arguments WITH substance, and have focused on facts, which you choose to ignore, Like these >>
Since Eisenhower, Republicans have had tax rates on the rich of 70-92%. In 20 years of Clinton, Obama , and Biden, the tax on the rich never went higher than 39.6%.
Whether you ignore it or not, it remains reality.

 

[Luckyone]

You sniff ass as part of your job?

It was only a guess, but since you admitted it.

Typical Dem male