Our country has become the joke of the world. Elect a clown, get a circus.
World Leaders laughing at Trump.
- Thread starter firm_bizzle
- Start date
Yeah, but everyone knows it's impossible to have the same average GDP growth that we have been seeing over the last decade without a laughing stock and racist president.
Laugh while our 401ks and retirement accounts explode and jobs coming to the US.
It's a scared laugh.
It's a scared laugh.
Yeah, no.
People can't afford to retire, and are one medical emergency from going bankrupt in this country. We protect the wealthy and demonize the poor.
They're definitely laughing at us.
Trump is the ultimate snowflake, surpassed only by his bitch ass little whiny inbred fans.
If you have stocks you're more wealthy than ever before. Wages have been going up and inflation is essentially zero. Add the tax cuts and everyone has been winning.
If you can't afford to retire, that is because the person wasn't disciplined in savings. Doesn't matter how little or how much you make you have to live below your means.
This economy is the best in modern times. Enjoy it
I think the economy was more stable in the 90's. I kinda feel like we are living on borrowed time with this economy, quantitative easing, low interest rates, private equity gobbling up everything. Gas prices have been a positive sign, they should stay low now that we are a net exporter.
Clinton actually had a budget surplus some years of his administration, along with an outstanding economy. It's something these inbred slack jawed hillbillies never seem to remember when they are trying to brag about Trump's economy and his 1 TRILLION dollar annual deficit.
I'm glad you know my personal finances...lol
I haven't made any claims to massive wealth. Still only 43 with zero debt. Own 3 cars all paid off. No mortgage, etc. All takes a will to savings. Everyone wants the lazy way out.
In reality there was a fake internet bubble that created a lot of that expansion. I do think that Bill balanced business needs for a lefty pretty well though. Wasn't he involved in welfare reform? That would be right wing whacko stuff today.. lol.
The video looks like a bunch of cowards talking behind a man's back' like little girls gossiping. Typical fake news.
I know that you aren't wealthy. You don't understand real wealth. You and Lebron James are more financially similar than Lebron James and the ultra elite in this country and its not even close. The GOP has done a good job convincing everyone that democrats are after the small business owner who makes 650k per year.
they may talk behind his back, thats fine, we do it to all the other countries as well. the bottom line is trump got several countries to increase their nato defense spending and get closer to the 2% they are all supposed to be at. supposedly they raised an additional $130 billion. that is a lot of money.
Its too soon to see the details and where that money is coming from. they can talk behind his back all they like, but that is a big win, not just for him, but for nato overall. that is actual respect.
Its too soon to see the details and where that money is coming from. they can talk behind his back all they like, but that is a big win, not just for him, but for nato overall. that is actual respect.
He doesn't need their respect. He is commander and chief of most powerful military in the world. They need his respect, and talking behind his back is no way to earn it. I am sure they are not happy this video got released.
The only people Trump 'respects' are ass-kissers. And then, only as long as they continue to pucker up.
honestly, all countries should kiss our ass. we keep most of our allies safe. except russia and china.
lol look at the bedwetters bitching over a non story yet again.
They commented on his long Q&A session! OMG! LAUGHING STOCK!
Christ you people are pathetic.
They commented on his long Q&A session! OMG! LAUGHING STOCK!
Christ you people are pathetic.
Military doesn't respect him either.
Using 650k is an odd number to make your point. Mean household income in the us is just a tad over 60,000. Households making less than that represent less than 25% of the population and only the bottom 10% are significantly lower than what would be considered their "share", earning 1.6% of total earnings. Almost half of the households in the US make over 100K per year, outpacing the mean by no less than 40k per year, so if we are talking about paying someone's "fair share", 100k is the delineation point.
This is a guy who pisses on his own grandmother for having $2M in savings for retirement, demands we take that money from her, while also claiming that $2M in the bank is basically what all middle class people have. He's delusional.
2 million is about 20 times the median and 3 times the mean average, so he's got a point. That being said, income and net worth are totally different topics. Income in the US is relatively fair, net worth is where we begin to really see a problem.
Wrong.
Nowhere in the country does minimum wage equal a living wage. 80s Reganomics screwed the middle class. The tax cuts only help the wealthy. They are doing phuk-all for the majority of Americans.
Trickle down is a proven scam, yet poor conservatives keep buying into it, thinking they'll one day be elite.
Not even remotely what he said, but congrats on responding with tired, cliched whiny talking points from every liberal since 1990. It must be hard being so oppressed and victimized all the time!
Tax cuts for the wealthy are not affecting the lives of the bottom 10% who live off of minimum wage and government welfare. If you can show me how there is a dollar for dollar reconciliation on how higher taxes benefit other citizens, I'm willing to consider your position. In reality, higher taxes only enrich government employees who are already making more than minimum wage.
Trickle down economics isn't effective but its better than just drawing more money into metropolitan DC.
There were tax cuts for all. Corporations needed a tax cut to be competitive globally too. I would like to see the corporate rate down to 5%
Why? Virtually none of that money corporations gained was reinvested, our tax revenue is down, and we are running a massive federal deficit.
Amazon/Fedex/etc are paying zero tax this year. How is that “good” to you?
Taxes are paid by the shareholders. It all equals out in the end. If you can make the case that amazon or FedEx are making significant profits which aren't paid to investors or reinvested then you have an argument. I own a corporation that pays 0 dollars in tax but all of the profits get paid out which are taxed, and those that aren't are reinvested and depreciated.
Hypothetically. What would happen if a majority of Americans wanted the U.S. to pull out of NATO and Congress/ president complied? Would these guys still be laughing?
The alternative is to penalize the corporations and push them offshore, then bitch and moan about how no one has jobs. Which a lot of progressives welcome because it allows them to make government the “solution” to the problem it created.
You're assuming I'm more of a socialist than I am. I just don't think its a functional requirement of capitalism that people be incentivised by tens of billions of dollars when being just a plain old filthy rich millionaire is motivation enough for most people to start their business.
I literally did.
Why do you guys try to appear so stupid? Is it a weird debate tactic? Or just want to keep up the stereotype of inbred Trump loving hillbilly?
Why should Amazon get to deduct money they invest into themselves? Think about the expense of automation, its an investment that will make them more profitable, suppress wages, and possibly cost someone their job. Why is automation a tax deduction but wages are a tax burden?
You're too focused on retained earnings and you're ignoring the fact that companies like amazon get to grow in a tax free environment as long as they reinvest, while individuals get taxed before they make the money, when they make money and when they spend the money. Imagine what your tax burden would look like if you only had to report the retained earnings of how much your savings account grew.
I'm not assuming anything, my post was basically objective and posed a question. I completely agree with your first sentence that capitalism shouldnt be incentivized by making 10s of billions of dollars. That being said, no economic system is free from natural human nature and greed, so no matter what you are going to have people in poverty and people that are ultra-wealthy. At the end of the day, income at any level isn't a problem, it's a matter of how much of that income is squirelled away. Do you have a problem with a person making 100 million bucks a year if he spends 99 million of it on food, charitable donations, etc? How about if that person made 100 million and spent 99 million helping new startups? What if its 50 million? What is the point that a person becomes greedy?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
How did you enjoy the Shareholder Meet & Greet with Frost?- Latest: James Jenson
-