GOP Proposes $4.5 Trillion Tax Giveaway to the Rich, CUT MEDICAID AND FOOD STAMPS

lol at filtering rules.

One ******* is a tragedy, but many assholes is ok.

 

I demand that all the people opposed to this proposal just cover the cuts with their own money.

 

I demand that all people opposed to it go French Revolution on people who have no skills to society and make billions of dollars through "investing".

I actually don't have to demand it because it is a human inevitability. Eventually people who work 50 hour weeks who still getting eviction letters at their front door are going to snap.

The edgelord mindset you have that is shared amongst the capital owning class is not to the benefit of the long term well being of the capital owning class. They aren't looking out for their own long term self interests. It simply isn't sustainable.

 

If the tax revenue is the same (because all the cuts are covered by payments from the opposition) but costs are reduced, how would it add to the deficit. Reducing spending without reducing revenue doesn't increase the deficit, in fact quite the opposite.

Yes, no one is confused about your communist ideals, tovarich.

 

What does this mean, why is the tax revenue the same with major tax cuts in place?

 

Seven bucks a day is a lot for food?

 

Rocket River

 

Because my proposal was that all the people opposed to it make up the cuts with their own money? I mean, it was written directly in the snippet you quoted.

It can be covered, all you and the others in opposition have to do is pay for the cuts out of your money. Trust me, I can tell you have no idea what my point is, as it is going right over your head. I'll say it again, "I demand that all the people opposed to this proposal just cover the cuts with their own money."

 

Ok wait, are we referencing the current Republican budget set to be proposed while you are referencing a personal ideal for a theoretical budget?

EDIT/@HP3 - I get it earlier you said if you don’t like this proposal just pay for the cut programs with your own moneys, so with that in place this isn’t adding to the deficit, and if it does it’s at the fault of the lefties who are refusing the donate, not the republicans who passed the bill. Excellent.

You like this in principle even if it does add to the deficit because it’s still a tax revenue reduction and an gov expenditure reduction, regardless of it being uneven and again, adding to the deficit.

Regular ****? No thanks. Horsecock? Sign me up for that. This website favors animal cursing, it’s dogshit.

 

You can demand that, but that’s not how government works. Government spending and taxes are collective policies, not individual choices. If you truly want a system based on individual choices, you’d have to go somewhere without a government.

Of course, this GOP proposal is not at all about fiscal responsibility.

 

I am referring to my own post and the responses to said post.

No. I am not calling for donations and I am not asking that the program cuts be paid for. I am saying the tax cuts should be replaced with taking an equal amount of money from the people opposed to the tax cuts (and thus there would be no addition to the deficit, and in conjunction with the program cuts would actually result in a reduction in the deficit).

I like tax cuts and reductions in government expenditures in general, as I am for a smaller government.

No, I get that. I am saying the people who are opposed to the tax cuts should be forced by the government to make up the lost revenue out of their own money. Collectively.

 

The problem is you would still be covered by the social programs without paying into them



You want a privatized opt-in/out option on the table regarding all current social programs. Okay. Just start with that bud.

 

Again, that’s not how government works. You’re essentially saying the wealthy should get tax breaks while everyone else who opposes this proposal picks up the tab. In the end, the lost revenue will have to be covered collectively - through increased debt (which this proposal also raises by $4 trillion), shared consequences, or both.

 

He knows, its just a furthering to how he wishes the Gov would work.

Government expenditure being around 5% or less than the GDP, mandatory taxes only covering military/law enforcement/prison systems, IIRC, with nearly everything else privatized. He can jump in an add or correct where needed.

Anything that gets us closer to that would be a win.

 

Of course that is how government works. If congress passes a law that says everyone who ever made a public statement in opposition to the tax cuts will have a tax increase of (total revenue lost to tax cuts)/(total number of such people), then that would be the new law. There is nothing in the law that says taxes have to be based on income. We tax behaviors all the time (see taxes on cigarettes, for example). I am also not saying what should happen. I am demanding that the people opposed to tax cuts replace the revenue from said tax cuts with their own money. Soon, somehow, this message will break through to all of you.

No, I don't want that at all. I want the programs eliminated, for me and everyone else. My demand was for people in group we can call OPPOSED TO TAX CUTS to have money taken away from them instead of people from the group we can call BENEFICIARIES OF THE TAX CUTS. The program cuts would be completely unaffected by said proposal.

 

I get it I get, see my posts above.

The only thing I can note at this point is that people were focused on the actual proposed budget and the reality around that and not per se your hypothetical ideals.

I personally love discussing hypothetical ideals and all, though.

Also that you’re giving little bits and suggestions on these topics that only make sense(makes sense to…some) once your full ideological masterpiece is revealed. And might as well put that all upfront instead of it needing to be slowly pieced together like this. You should make a digital pamphlet.