New Data Shows Mental Illness CORRELATES With Being A Democrat

[Ihaveswag29]

The lefty libs dems always cry about the wealthy not paying their 'fair share' yet the can never define what that is. I believe wealthy people are wealthy mostly because they make good decisions and take risk accordingly. Is there some luck, sure. But if it weren't mostly hard work, everyone would be wealthy. They also invest, spend, and feed the economy. Disincentivizing them to do so is neither fair nor smart.

As to your question about what I'm decreasing funding to? That's was DOGE did a great job of figuring out. Waste and abuse meant billions of dollars being wasted. Now that money can go towards things like schools, military and roads.
The problem with Dems is they never are willing to cut, they only want to spend. Which means, dems rarely are willing to cut taxes.

I kind of agree with you about wealthy people, there are plenty of generational wealthy people. Regardless, can the right define what the wealthy should be paying either? If you are going to attack the left for not being able to define it, I assume that you have a number in mind?

Eh, Doge didn't really do very much. Even assuming their inflated numbers are accurate (which we know they are not), Doge only cut about 2.5% of the budget. And that is by taking a wrecking ball to the government without really caring about the ramifications or what they were doing. To make any real difference, you would have to cut into social security and medicaid to pay for those things. I am personally not in favor of that, no.

 

[bonefish1]

I kind of agree with you about wealthy people, there are plenty of generational wealthy people. Regardless, can the right define what the wealthy should be paying either? If you are going to attack the left for not being able to define it, I assume that you have a number in mind?

Eh, Doge didn't really do very much. Even assuming their inflated numbers are accurate (which we know they are not), Doge only cut about 2.5% of the budget. And that is by taking a wrecking ball to the government without really caring about the ramifications or what they were doing. To make any real difference, you would have to cut into social security and medicaid to pay for those things. I am personally not in favor of that, no.

I don't know what the right number is either; I just know the lower the better. What are the lowest federal income tax brackets in history? Take those and reduce by another 5% and I might align with that.

Do you know how much 2.5% of the budget means in dollars? It's a very significant amount.

 

[DG Boiler]

The lefty libs dems always cry about the wealthy not paying their 'fair share' yet the can never define what that is. I believe wealthy people are wealthy mostly because they make good decisions and take risk accordingly. Is there some luck, sure. But if it weren't mostly hard work, everyone would be wealthy. They also invest, spend, and feed the economy. Disincentivizing them to do so is neither fair nor smart.

As to your question about what I'm decreasing funding to? That's was DOGE did a great job of figuring out. Waste and abuse meant billions of dollars being wasted. Now that money can go towards things like schools, military and roads.
The problem with Dems is they never are willing to cut, they only want to spend. Which means, dems rarely are willing to cut taxes.

So you're arguing that nobody has to pay taxes?

DOGE didn't do a great job of anything. They spent zero time analyzing anything, they just recommended firing people with no regard for the consequences. It's like a new CEO eliminating half the company's workforce on day 1 to save money. They didn't find waste or fraud, but you nutters lap up the propaganda like it was chocolate ice cream.

 

[DG Boiler]

I kind of agree with you about wealthy people, there are plenty of generational wealthy people. Regardless, can the right define what the wealthy should be paying either? If you are going to attack the left for not being able to define it, I assume that you have a number in mind?

Eh, Doge didn't really do very much. Even assuming their inflated numbers are accurate (which we know they are not), Doge only cut about 2.5% of the budget. And that is by taking a wrecking ball to the government without really caring about the ramifications or what they were doing. To make any real difference, you would have to cut into social security and medicaid to pay for those things. I am personally not in favor of that, no.

Bonefish isn't capable of critical thinking or rational thought, so if the Republicans told him DOGE was cutting waste, he parrots it without hesitation.

 

[bonefish1]

So you're arguing that nobody has to pay taxes?

DOGE didn't do a great job of anything. They spent zero time analyzing anything, they just recommended firing people with no regard for the consequences. It's like a new CEO eliminating half the company's workforce on day 1 to save money. They didn't find waste or fraud, but you nutters lap up the propaganda like it was chocolate ice cream.

Where did I say that nobody has to pay taxes?
What I said, is that wealthy people already pay a disproportionate amount, so this whole lefty lib whining about 'fair share' is just stupid.

And I also didn't realize you were privy to all the information DOGE had at it's disposal when they were looking at opportunities for efficiencies. Do tell.
But, since you asked, I would consider giving money to a trans opera in Peru as being a serious waste of tax payer money. (that's just one example. Want more?)

 

[bonefish1]

Bonefish isn't capable of critical thinking or rational thought, so if the Republicans told him DOGE was cutting waste, he parrots it without hesitation.

As you've already stated, Trump hasn't done a single thing that you agree with, so it doesn't surprise me that you support tax payer money for trans comic books in the Middle East.

I suppose you'll find fault in the peace deal that Trump has helped broker between Iran and Israel? Come on...let's hear your complaints.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Yeah, I don't exploit the system to claim I actually lost money while collecting 8 figures. How did I determine fair share? I mean, you could argue about tax brackets and the percentages associated, but I pay taxes and believe we all should to fund things like schools and roads. What do you believe, that taxes shouldn't exist at all?

It's not exploiting the system when the system is designed to be able to do that... Don't hate the player hate the game. Democrats talk about the rich paying their fair share all the time, but do nothing to change the tax code. Why? Because they use it too. As well as their Billionaire donors.

 

[Boilermaker03]

The lefty libs dems always cry about the wealthy not paying their 'fair share' yet the can never define what that is. I believe wealthy people are wealthy mostly because they make good decisions and take risk accordingly. Is there some luck, sure. But if it weren't mostly hard work, everyone would be wealthy. They also invest, spend, and feed the economy. Disincentivizing them to do so is neither fair nor smart.

As to your question about what I'm decreasing funding to? That's was DOGE did a great job of figuring out. Waste and abuse meant billions of dollars being wasted. Now that money can go towards things like schools, military and roads.
The problem with Dems is they never are willing to cut, they only want to spend. Which means, dems rarely are willing to cut taxes.

Here is a great video explaining why Democrats were against the DOGE cuts.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I don't know what the right number is either; I just know the lower the better. What are the lowest federal income tax brackets in history? Take those and reduce by another 5% and I might align with that.

Do you know how much 2.5% of the budget means in dollars? It's a very significant amount.

How about significantly reducing the tax rates and then eliminating most deductions.

 

[DG Boiler]

It's not exploiting the system when the system is designed to be able to do that... Don't hate the player hate the game. Democrats talk about the rich paying their fair share all the time, but do nothing to change the tax code. Why? Because they use it too. As well as their Billionaire donors.

Yep, Republican thought process: don't fix the problem, make it easier to game.

 

[DG Boiler]

Here is a great video explaining why Democrats were against the DOGE cuts.

View embedded media

Oh man, I'll miss these totally unbiased, not propaganda at all videos.

 

[DG Boiler]

Where did I say that nobody has to pay taxes?
What I said, is that wealthy people already pay a disproportionate amount, so this whole lefty lib whining about 'fair share' is just stupid.

And I also didn't realize you were privy to all the information DOGE had at it's disposal when they were looking at opportunities for efficiencies. Do tell.
But, since you asked, I would consider giving money to a trans opera in Peru as being a serious waste of tax payer money. (that's just one example. Want more?)

They took almost no time whatsoever to review anything. The comment about a trans opera in a perfect example of rightwing propaganda. Find something that you can make sound ridiculous, and you make a case that everything you're doing is legitimate.

Sure, provide some actual, non-sensationalized examples and the waste that was found. You'll find very little.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Yep, Republican thought process: don't fix the problem, make it easier to game.

I didn't say anything in there about not fixing the process. How in the hell am I advocating for making it easier to game? You need reading comprehension.

In fact I'm VERY in favor of making the tax system much more simple.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Oh man, I'll miss these totally unbiased, not propaganda at all videos.

Yes, that video was propaganda.

 

[Boilermaker03]

They took almost no time whatsoever to review anything. The comment about a trans opera in a perfect example of rightwing propaganda. Find something that you can make sound ridiculous, and you make a case that everything you're doing is legitimate.

Sure, provide some actual, non-sensationalized examples and the waste that was found. You'll find very little.

You of course have proof that nothing they said they cut was actually cut right?

 

[bonefish1]

They took almost no time whatsoever to review anything. The comment about a trans opera in a perfect example of rightwing propaganda. Find something that you can make sound ridiculous, and you make a case that everything you're doing is legitimate.

Sure, provide some actual, non-sensationalized examples and the waste that was found. You'll find very little.

So, your claim is that because they did it quickly, they couldn't have done it correctly? You have no idea, zero, zilch in terms of what type of analysis DOGE did before cutting certain programs.

Ok, so you want and example of waste: See below. Is that was you think US taxpayer money should be going to?

• "Transgender Opera" and "Transgender Comic Book": The White House criticized payments for a "transgender opera" in Colombia ($47,000) and a "transgender comic book" in Peru ($32,000) as part of USAID's "waste" and "abuse" activities.
• "Sex Changes" and "Gender-affirming Healthcare" in Guatemala: While the claim of USAID funding "sex changes" in Guatemala was reported as inaccurate, the agency did make a $2 million payment to "strengthen trans-led organizations" and support "gender-affirming health care," a category encompassing more than just surgeries.

 

[SKYDOG]

So, your claim is that because they did it quickly, they couldn't have done it correctly? You have no idea, zero, zilch in terms of what type of analysis DOGE did before cutting certain programs.

Ok, so you want and example of waste: See below. Is that was you think US taxpayer money should be going to?

• "Transgender Opera" and "Transgender Comic Book": The White House criticized payments for a "transgender opera" in Colombia ($47,000) and a "transgender comic book" in Peru ($32,000) as part of USAID's "waste" and "abuse" activities.
• "Sex Changes" and "Gender-affirming Healthcare" in Guatemala: While the claim of USAID funding "sex changes" in Guatemala was reported as inaccurate, the agency did make a $2 million payment to "strengthen trans-led organizations" and support "gender-affirming health care," a category encompassing more than just surgeries.

Democrats to protest this as soon as they’re told to do so.