I'm not running from anything. You are. You're running from the fact your best case scenario math doesn't even get the deficit below $1 trillion. Even in your wildest fever dream fantasy of taxing the rich and corporations you can't even get the deficit below $1 trillion dollars let alone eliminate it or do anything concerning the debt. There is a finite amount of wealth you can extract from the wealthy and corporation to fund the government. So what do you do after you've done all that and you still have a $1 trillion deficit? We're waiting for the answer.
, moving the goal post again, first, you had claimed all, then most, to now on a per capita basis ROFLMAO ! you're publicizing that your willful ignorance again,
Back to the subject of the thread... I have a family member who is a hardcore MAGA. She said something in our family text thread about how stupid it was that the director of FEMA didn't know there was a hurricane season and she hopes his stupidity doesn't affect us in Texas. She didn't even know he was appointed by Trump. Another family member reminded her and......crickets. All that to say, this is your typical MAGA. They just don't care about facts. It's all about optics. Trump is the same way and that's why they love him.
You’re stuck on an arbitrary “below $1 trillion” line like it’s some magic threshold. Fiscal policy isn’t about one big fix — it’s about steady progress through tax reform, spending cuts, and economic growth over time. The idea that we hit a “finite” limit on taxing the wealthy and then just give up is false. The economy grows, tax bases expand, and governments adapt. So your “what then?” is just a trap to avoid discussing real solutions. Meanwhile, you’ve offered zero alternatives — just hand-waving and rhetorical games.
They aren't subsidizing anyone - they have greatly benefitted off those around them and accumulated an asymmetrical amount of wealth. The system is not remotely close to perfect or "fair". Again, your hypothetical is not really accurate. How did they accumulate their wealth? At a base level, yes - when I take out people that make less than half of what I make, I pay because I can afford to do so. Further - the idea of "free loaders" is incredibly insulting in a lot of instances. There are many people that work extremely hard and long and are not fairly compensated for their time and effort. They are not free loaders. I don't think your hypothetical is even close to the nuance of the real world and people either. Let's see how well the rest of the world does, and how wealthy the rest of the world is without the bottom half.
My position is that the welfare state is not sustainable. It's not incumbent upon me, like it is you, to drum up some fever dream fantasies about how to save it. The deficit was $1.3 trillion + every year of the last administration [Democratic]. In 2024 the deficit was $1.8 trillion. It projects to be $1.3 trillion + every year under the current administration [Republican]. 75% of the spending is on welfare programs or servicing the debt. You're arguing, as far as I can tell, this can all be fixed by taxing the wealthy combined with some modest spending cuts. I reject that. You can't even get the deficit below $1 trillion dollars in a best case tax the rich and corporations scenario. Your fantasies project massive tax increases, modest spending cuts and they don't even come within $1 trillion of balancing the budget let alone paying for any new programs leftists would advocate for. Delusional. This government will collapse under the weight of its debt and a lot people are going to suffer when it does.
Let’s get real. The U.S. spends about 25% of its GDP on social programs—far less than many other developed countries that manage far lower deficits and stronger economies. Claiming the welfare state is “unsustainable” ignores that reality. Wealth taxes and corporate reforms are projected to raise hundreds of billions annually—not a silver bullet, but a critical part of a balanced approach that also includes spending reforms and economic growth. The debt is serious, but the idea that taxing the wealthy or reforming programs will cause economic collapse is a scare tactic, not economics. We’ve handled higher debt-to-GDP ratios before without falling apart. If you think abandoning millions to austerity is the only answer, that’s not fiscal responsibility, you're just a billionaire boot licker. You are simply a cry baby who does not want to move forward.
I don't think any large developed countries welfare states are sustainable. The UK? France? Spain? Italy? Germany? Japan? They aren't doing well. Some small state exceptions in the Nordics might but they aren't a reasonable comparison. These wealth taxes aren't going to happen. That's just a fantasy. Even if they did become law, it's been shown conclusively they don't work. Every large European country has abandoned them or admitted they raise very little revenue. I never said taxing the wealthy would cause an economic collapse. You're just simply making stuff up and attributing it to me now because you have no argument. We have not had higher debt-to-gdp ratios for any sustained period of time. You're either lying or being disingenuous. Sure, in 2020 the debt-to-GDP ratio was higher, for one year, the problem isn't ONE year of higher debt-to-gdp. The Problem is the debt-to-GDP has been over 100% every year since 2012 and continues to gradually rise currently sitting at 120% with no end in sight. Debt has been a critical factor in the collapse of a number of empire/states. You're either wildly ignorant or choose to ignore this. I'm not a billionaire boot licker. I can just comprehend, unlike you, that even if we raised taxes on billionaires it wouldn't come anywhere close to solving our fiscal problems.
Got it. The USA, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany and Japan are going to collapse. What is the PRC deficit size by comparison to GDP BTW?
Things don't collapse until they do. Modern welfare states are not old. They have been propped up by debt and the idea that demographics will be stable or improve but that's not true. This notion you have that they cannot fail is nonsense. I'm not bullish on the PRC either.
You keep declaring the welfare state “unsustainable” as if it’s settled fact, but the reality doesn’t back that up. Countries like France, Germany, and Japan face demographic and economic challenges — sure — but they’re not collapsing, and they still maintain stronger safety nets than the U.S. Their debt is high, yes — but they have higher life expectancy, lower poverty, and better health outcomes. That’s not failure. Wealth taxes have been implemented imperfectly in Europe — largely due to poor design, loopholes, and lack of enforcement — not because the concept is unworkable. The U.S. has a far larger, more centralized, and technologically advanced tax infrastructure. If you're going to cite failure, cite why it failed, not just that it did. And yes — the U.S. has sustained debt-to-GDP ratios above 100% since around 2012, as you pointed out, without collapse. Japan, for reference, has a debt-to-GDP ratio over 250% and still maintains functioning social programs and a strong currency. So the idea that a 120% ratio = collapse is just doomsday framing. No serious person thinks taxing billionaires solves the entire deficit — but it’s a piece of a multi-pronged strategy. You acknowledge the problem but dismiss every solution that isn’t “slash the safety net.” That’s not pragmatism — it’s just tunnel vision. So no — I’m not making things up. I’m just not playing along with the narrative that the only path forward is to abandon working people in favor of preserving tax cuts and throwing up our hands.
The modern welfare state is not old. It doesn't have a long track record of sustainability. Things don't collapse until they do. I can cite a dozen examples of wealth tax failure in developed economies. How many successful wealth taxes can you cite? But, yea, of course, THIS time it will work. Sustained high debt-to-gdp ratios are not sustainable. Just because a country like Japan hasn't collapsed yet doesn't mean it won't. We DO have examples of governments collapsing under their debt. Greece did it at 180%. They were bailed out by larger economies. Who is going to bail the U.S. out? I don't dismiss the solution. You haven't provided a solution. Your "solutions", which are never going to happen, don't even get our deficit below $1 trillion dollars. You're not meaningfully addressing the problem if you can't, even in your wildest dreams, get the deficit below $1 trillion, let alone tackle the debt all the while instituting no new government programs. Tax the rich as much as you want you're not solving the problem at all. All your proposed solutions do, in the best case scenario, which is completely unrealistic, is take the deficit from $1.8 trillion to a $1 trillion dollars. That doesn't solve the problem.
Your “welfare state is unsustainable” fear-mongering is tired. Many developed countries have had strong social programs for decades and managed their debt responsibly. Wealth tax failures happened because of poor design and enforcement, not because the idea is broken. The U.S. has the capacity to implement it effectively. Dismissing it outright shows ideological bias, not analysis. Comparing the U.S. to Greece is ignorant. Greece is a small country stuck in a shared currency, while the U.S. controls its own currency and is the world’s largest economy. Japan’s 250% debt-to-GDP and stability demolish your collapse narrative. You say I have no solutions, but all you offer is “cut everything and hope.” Real fiscal responsibility means balanced revenue increases, smart spending cuts, and economic growth. If you think doom is the only option without gutting programs, you’re not serious — just scared.
They have accumulated an asymmetrical amount of wealth through effort, skill, luck, etc. It wasn't assigned to them. They weren't selected to have the most money and therefor get assigned the biggest burden. They invested, built businesses, perhaps inherited (and it was their forebears that invested or built businesses). The government didn't come by and say hey Mark Zuckerburg, here is a hundred billion dollars, now you are responsible for paying everyone's way. See above. You are free to do so. It should not be required of you. I take issue with the force. I give plenty (on a percentage basis, way more than most). That is my choice. I don't like when it is taken from me by force. In terms of taxation and benefits, they certainly are. Roughly half the country pays net zero or less in taxes. I don't know how you would run that experiment, but I would say the opposite experiment has been tried and it failed spectacularly (see: Cambodia). Yes, clearly r****ded. You are not even quoting me talking about the same things. Yes, the wealthy pay all the taxes (half the country pays net zero or less). Yes, the top 1 percent pays the most of anyone. Yes, you calculate who pays the most on a per capita basis.
@HP3 will continue to make excuses as each European welfare state fails. 15 years ago these same idiots declared Europe as a successful model. Now Europe is terrified of Russia. They have a tiny military and limited technology. Europe has driven out all innovation. Their entire space program is obsolete. They are being overridden by 3rd world refugees. Europe has no future because its incredibly expensive to live there. Their birth rates are plummeting. Norway is riding high on a sovereign wealth fund that will dry up in the next decade. We are essentially back to the same place 100 years ago. The US thinks they can grow the economy faster than inflation. The welfare state was never designed to support lazy unproductive people who are capable of being productive.
when i was in junior high, some students were on the EMR track, Educationally Mentally Re tarded. One can infer that you were on that educational track
Further - the idea of "free loaders" is incredibly insulting in a lot of instances. There are many people that work extremely hard and long and are not fairly compensated for their time and effort. They are not free loaders.
Just arguing dumbf-ck simpleton analogies straight from a 1990's high school mock presidential debate about taxation - meanwhile the same regime is stealing money that's appropriated and *literally* handing it to private entities, pocketing it, taking actual honest-to-goodness bribes Folks, that's as good as it gets from the right these days. The right to steal all of our **** and impose an authoritarian regime. We shouldn't let these midwit bush league b****es get away with it - should we?
