General Has there ever been a bigger clownshow than this Trump presidency?

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

IschKabibble

zero
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
16,617
22,555
To answer, no, 25% is not nearly enough.
Trump gave 25%, or $38 million of the $150 million he made in 2005, leaving him with $112 million for the year. Nice chunk of change for the goverment, and Trump gets more than his fair share to reinvest wherever he sees fit. If he were taxed at 70% per your suggestion, he'd have gone home with $45 million and Uncle Sam with $105. How is that fair? What incentive would a business even have to make such profits if they knew the goverment was going to take and waste the vast majority of it? Nixon collected all that money, but where did it go? Our debt has been growing exponentially since.



Didn't you say you voted for Bernie comrade?
If you can make social policies work with a modest amount of taxation, I'm all for it. But the goal of our goverment should always be to operate at peak efficiency to prevent debt and keep the need for taxation low. Bernie shifting the higher tax brackets by 15% to help fund Medicare for All and subsidize state college education isn't quite as extreme as taxation at 70% and above.
 

tang

top korean roofer
Oct 21, 2015
9,398
12,389
Uh.. still haven't been 10 years since Bush left office.

Lol, It's not that bad... imo
 

KWingJitsu

ยาเม็ดสีแดงหรือสีฟ้ายา?
Nov 15, 2015
10,311
12,689
Still operating under Obamas final fiscal year and budget I beleive
Yep.

Funny how that works.

It's like the job numbers when they dropped to 5% under Obama he said "fake news".
He came in & said oh its under 5%? Therefore not fake now.

Clown.
 

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,587
Why Donald Trump's tweet about national debt decrease in his first month is highly misleading
But, experts say, people shouldn’t read much into the numbers. Nor should Trump be popping champagne.

"Considering that Trump hasn’t enacted any fiscal legislation, it’s a bit of a stretch for him to take credit for any changes in debt levels," Dan Mitchell, a libertarian economist and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told us.

"Debt levels go up and down in the short run based on independent factors such as quarterly tax payments and predetermined expenditure patterns," he said.

"I wonder what he thinks he did to bring this about," said Harvard University government professor Jeffrey Frankel.

"This one-month number is trivial in the long-run trend. The national debt will rise this year, and in future years. It will rise at a sharply accelerated rate if Trump carries out even half of his campaign promises for specific tax cuts (and specific spending increases). Will he be willing to be judged by the debt numbers in the future?"

Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the temporary dip in the debt is triggered by the timing of tax payments and government spending, "both matters that he has not affected one iota."

Added Neil Buchanan, a George Washington University law professor and author of The Debt Ceiling Disasters: "No one who knows anything about budgeting would take a 30-day change to have any meaning at all. There is no credit to take, because it's like noticing that rainfall numbers from one month to the next are not exactly the same or that attendance at baseball games is not a constant number."

Donald Marron, Director of Economic Policy Initiatives at the Urban Institute, speculated that the drop in debt may be because President Barack Obama’s administration left Trump with cash on hand to run the government. So the government's need to borrow hasn't been high recently.

On Jan. 20, the day Trump took office, the federal government had a cash operating balance of $382 billion, according to the Treasury Department.

By Feb. 22, the cash balance had dropped to $228 billion.

This factoid is a gross misrepresentation of the state of the debt and the role the new president had in shaping the figure.

We rate this claim Mostly False.
 

jason73

Auslander Raus
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
74,052
136,006
At this point in Obama's presidency people were still questioning his birth certificate
 

Tuc Ouiner

Posting Machine
May 19, 2016
1,911
1,522
apologies to jason 73, but trump is the tank abbott of politics. except he can't do alternate dumbell curls with 150 lb dumbells. he does seem to attract a wide variety of dumbells, however. just kidding.
 

Yossarian

TMMAC Addict
Oct 25, 2015
13,489
19,116
i think it is great .trump cant do anything without the left flipping the fuck out over every perceived unfiar action that hurts their little snowflake feelings.it makes for great entertainment.the guy can literally do no right in the eyes of the left or the media
He did expose the left for being exactly like the right. And he did expose the right, for being exactly like the left. And he exposed the amount of power the supreme court has, and how weak/lazy congress really is. And we've seen through all this what a joke the FBI, or at least its leadership is, but maybe we can thank Hillary for that. All in all, like you said, entertainment, and very educational.
 

Qat

QoQ
Nov 3, 2015
16,385
22,482
libtard heart
The tard here is you, I'd never vote for Hillary.

Step up your military spending before you criticize
We already did a lot in and since 2016, neat how that data only goes to 2015. But even if, what does that have to do with anything?

Trump gives orders to be more loose on choosing targets, so more civilians die. More people hate you and the West, more terror will come from it. So fuck you, cause you suck.
 

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
46,767
58,803
LMAO at a note from the IRS that says "I win."

To answer, no, 25% is not nearly enough. Didn't you say you voted for Bernie comrade?
I'm less concerned with who we tax and the percentage attached to each group than I am with what the government actually does with the money collected.

But does the "take from the rich and give to the poor" philosophy really benefit the less fortunate or does this practice just promote behaviour that keeps them rooted where they are?