But the fact is, as of this year, Trump Is the first I one to do something this century
Stock Market Update (Where's Eduardo?)
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
No, he’s doing nothing about the deficit except widening it, like last time.
He’s all talk. The big beautiful bill he’s pushing opens the floodgates further.
This is what happens when a Trumpette feels compelled to defend their orange dictator, but doesn't have any bullets in the chamber.
"uh, well, he ... he .. he .. did ... uh ... SOMETHING! I'm sure of it. Right, guys? Help me out here! There must be something that he's done! I just knows it!"
- In 1993 taxable income > $19k was taxed at 28% or MFJ.
- $19k in 1993 is equivalent to $42k today.
- In 2025 taxable income > $23k is taxed at 12%. Taxable income > $94k is taxed at 22%
- Median family income is currently $82k which is in the marginal 12% tax bracket.
Federal - 1994 Married Filing Separately Tax Brackets
| Tax Bracket | Tax Rate |
|---|---|
| $0.00+ | 15% |
| $19,000.00+ | 28% |
Federal - 2025 Married Filing Jointly Tax Brackets
| Tax Bracket | Tax Rate |
|---|---|
| $0.00+ | 10% |
| $23,200.00+ | 12% |
| $94,300.00+ | 22% |
Federal Income Tax Brackets for Tax Year 2024 (Filed April 2025)
My school district wanted to spend 9% more this year than last year but they're only going to get a 5% increase. In their mind they took a 4% cut. Is that your thinking?
He's trying to cut $160 billion but dems are going to court to stop him. Do you disagree with that?
His big beautiful bill would probably widen the deficit by not taxing tips, OT, and some SS but all of this is for the middle class and below. Do you disagree with that?
What's your plan to reduce the deficit? All you've come up with so far is that Trump is screwing up everything.
I'm not sure how much Trump is getting done because the reporting is confusing. DOGE identified 280k federal jobs to be eliminated but I've read that only 80k have actually been eliminated due to court cases. You might not agree with the approach that has been taken but keep in mind that Clinton cut 400k federal jobs. I don't think today's congress would allow anything like that.
Even things like foreign aid are a problem. Bill Gates and dems say we'd be killing millions around the world.
Republicans are trying to reduce Medicaid costs by requiring able bodied people to work at least 20 hours per week starting in 2029 and that's facing strong opposition.
We haven't even been able to claw back unspent Covid money.
Biden proposed a billionaire's tax that would raise $50 billion per year. That's something but a pretty small dent in a $1.9 trillion deficit.
No tax on tips seems pretty dumb to me but both candidates supported it. Trump also wants no tax on OT and a tax break on SS income. Those things make the hole deeper.
Can you imagine if anybody proposed a solution for entitlements? Nobody has the courage.
So you admit he’s widening the deficit. That means your love for him is not about fiscal responsibility at all. It’s simply a man-crush.
You're incredibly predictable Roar. You criticize Trump, dodge every question, then accuse people of being MAGA lovers.
Perhaps it’s your reading comprehension, or your adhd preventing you from paying attention to the thread, or your own version of TDS (trump d*ck s*cking)—I’ve provided solutions and ideas on every page. I can’t help you with your smooth-brained inability to read and understand.
How’s your breath smell? A little penile, I assume?TDS is rampant here. Crazy libs just keep on being nuts!
- In 1993 taxable income > $19k was taxed at 28% or MFJ.
- $19k in 1993 is equivalent to $42k today.
- In 2025 taxable income > $23k is taxed at 12%. Taxable income > $94k is taxed at 22%
- Median family income is currently $82k which is in the marginal 12% tax bracket.
Federal - 1994 Married Filing Separately Tax Brackets
Tax Bracket Tax Rate $0.00+ 15% $19,000.00+ 28%
Federal - 2025 Married Filing Jointly Tax Brackets
Tax Bracket Tax Rate $0.00+ 10% $23,200.00+ 12% $94,300.00+ 22%
Federal Income Tax Brackets for Tax Year 2024 (Filed April 2025)
www.tax-brackets.org
Hey, dummy ... you just showed 1994's MARRIED FILING SEPARATELY.
You friggin idiot.
To sum ... you originally screwed up earlier in the thread, not understanding inflation, nor the 1994 tax brackets. I corrected you. You tried to fight back and failed miserably, and then ran away.
Then you came back with the same mistaken idiocy, except this time you were referencing 1993, so I explained your mistake based on 1993.
Now you try to save yourself and you not only show 1994, instead of 1993, but you compare 1994 Married Filing SEPARATELY to 2025 married filing JOINTLY.
TDS is rampant here. Crazy libs just keep on being nuts!
There is no cure for TDS
Pretty accurate but some nuance is in order: Clinton was a big tax-and-spend Democrat his first two years. The economy slowed to recession and, for the first time in 45 years, Rs won both the House and the Senate.
Newt Gingrich became Speaker and pushed through massive reforms and massive tax cuts. Things like welfare-to-work requirements and no cap gains when selling your home. That jump started a huge economic boom.
And a huge thing that helped Clinton balance the budget that no one ever talks about is the Rs passed a law giving POTUS a pocket veto…….meaning when Congress passes a spending bill the President can go through line by line and veto specific line items. It was surprising that a political party passed that law when the President was a member of the other party.
So Clinton cut tons of line items helping to balance the budget. Alas, the law was challenged and the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional and is no longer in affect.
(In one of those strange twists of history, it was the R mayor of NYC…..Rudy Giuliano that took it to court because of so many cuts of grants to his city)
If the tax cuts get passed the economy will grow and tax revenue will increase….. just like every time tax cuts were implemented.
Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, Clinton/Gingrich, W, Trump I.
You got me! I did make a mistake by linking MFS instead of MFJ. Of course that doesn't change the point I was trying to make. A couple with taxable income > $39k (not $19k) in 1994 was in the 28% marginal tax bracket. $39k in 1994 is roughly $84k in today's dollars which is close the current median family income. Today a couple with taxable income of $84k of taxable income would be in the 12% tax bracket. Credits and standard deduction are also higher today.
The FACT is that couples with median family incomes are paying much less today than they did when Clinton was president and no politician has the guts to propose higher taxes for those people. It's just like no politician has the guts to propose even the slightest reduction in SS or Medicare benefits. Republicans are proposing a 20/hr (but not until 2029) per week work requirement for able bodied people in order to claim Medicaid benefits and that's receiving lots of opposition. It's amazing how many democrats long for a president like Clinton but would oppose his policies of higher taxes, border control, and ending welfare as we know it.
I won't stoop to your level by calling you an idiot. You're just a narcissistic blowhard who constantly tries to show his superiority by mocking someone who makes a punctuation error (or accidentally linking MFS) while typing on their cell phone.
Why let facts stand in your way?
RECESSION ... July 1990-March 1991
CLINTON PRESIDENCY ... January 1993-January 2001
RECESSION ... March 2001-November 2001
So explain to us how the "economy slowed to recession [his first two years]" when it was never in recession during his Presidency.
GDP Growth Rate Around Clinton's Presidency (actual Clinton years in bold ... Congressional control indicated in parenthetical):
1991: -0.11% (D)
1992: 3.52% (D)
1993: 2.75% (D)
1994: 4.03% (D)
1995: 2.68% (D)
1996: 3.77% (R)
1997: 4.45% (R)
1998: 4.48% (R)
1999: 4.79% (R)
2000: 4.08% (R)
2001: 0.96% (R)
2002: 1.70% (Split)
The Taxpayer Relief Act was passed in the latter half of 1997, with most effects felt in subsequent years.
Do you guys intentionally lie about everything? Or do your media handlers just feed you this junk, and you're too stupid and/or lazy to verify it for yourselves?
Last edited:
Just FYI, there’s an optimal tax rate where the government maximizes its income while not stifling economic growth. Raising taxes past that point can absolutely cause the government to take in less money because the economy shrinks. However, there’s a point where the rate can be too low as well—where economic growth is already about as strong as it can be and the government is just taking in less money.
Now, the level of that optimal rate is highly debatable, but it’s certainly not as simple as saying that lowering taxes leads to government revenue. In fact, it’s likely dynamic, in that even a small rate on poor people significantly reduces economic activity in that bracket because they can’t afford necessities. However, the top 1% can likely handle rates of 50% or higher and still buy their yachts and golf courses.
Also, tariffs are a tax that we pay, or the company eats it to the detriment of their employees and earnings. So keep in mind that the 2-4% in the Trump tax cuts are absolutely dwarfed by the 14% current average tariff—which is likely to rise in the next few weeks as Trump gave up on negotiating deals with most countries.
It’s the last part—they repeat something they heard a guy with a mullet say on some podcast. Or a random MAGA tweet (which is probably a Russian bot farm, btw). Or someone who screamed something on The Five.
Last edited:
I agree with your first paragraph.
I'm confused by your second paragraph. You claim that even a small rate on the poor reduced economic activity but in an earlier post you say everybody should contribute.
Your statement about the top 1% is silly. The question isn't if the top 1% can handle 50% or higher rates. The question is what it would do to investment. Let's go with your 50% number and forget the higher. Now add 10% state and 3% local. How excited would you be to invest or work harder knowing that you could only keep 37% of your earnings?
You've made this same lie, in different ways, multiple times now ... so stop being a total dink by trying to claim it was an innocent error from typing on a cell phone.
Again, we've had this conversation before. It's not 39K, it's 38K+. This was all discussed on page 16 of this very thread.
Stock Market Update (Where's Eduardo?)
The bunker-busters can be delivered only by US aircraft. The U.S. and Israel have damaged Iran's nuclear program in the past without using any kind of bomb. Israel is especially ingenious.
pennstate.forums.rivals.com
You're also focused on marginal tax rate, when that's not nearly as important as average tax rate, especially when you're focusing on folks in the bottom portion of a marginal tax bracket. It wouldn't matter much if someone made $38,005 in 1994 and was technically in the 28% bracket, because only $5 of their income would be taxed at that rate, and the rest ($38,000) at lower bracket rates. Putting aside your REPEATED attempts to sensationalize the differences by WRONGFULLY and REPEATEDLY claiming median income families were in the 28% tax bracket, the average tax rate would actually help you, if you were attempting to live in reality, because the rate, up to and including 38K, back in 1994, was 15%, whereas in 2024, the amount up to and including $23,200 would be taxed at 10%, and the remainder at 12%.
You should "stoop" to my level and start being accurate and truthful. And stop being at your level of lies and inaccuracies. And stop trying to deflect by crying about narcissism and name-calling, you lying, incompetent baby.
I agree that tariffs will be felt by consumers but you're only looking at one side of the equation.
- They will generate revenues that should help us reduce the deficit.
- More companies will be motivated to produce products in the USA.
- Companies might also move production away from our adversaries which improves our national security.
$38k vs $39k, 1994 vs 1993, spelling error,, punctuation error....... You're certainly a person of little substance.You've made this same lie, in different ways, multiple times now ... so stop being a total dink by trying to claim it was an innocent error from typing on a cell phone.
Again, we've had this conversation before. It's not 39K, it's 38K+. This was all discussed on page 16 of this very thread.
Stock Market Update (Where's Eduardo?)
The bunker-busters can be delivered only by US aircraft. The U.S. and Israel have damaged Iran's nuclear program in the past without using any kind of bomb. Israel is especially ingenious.
You're also focused on marginal tax rate, when that's not nearly as important as average tax rate, especially when you're focusing on folks in the bottom portion of a marginal tax bracket. It wouldn't matter much if someone made $38,005 in 1994 and was technically in the 28% bracket, because only $5 of their income would be taxed at that rate, and the rest ($38,000) at lower bracket rates. Putting aside your REPEATED attempts to sensationalize the differences by WRONGFULLY and REPEATEDLY claiming median income families were in the 28% tax bracket, the average tax rate would actually help you, if you were attempting to live in reality, because the rate, up to and including 38K, back in 1994, was 15%, whereas in 2024, the amount up to and including $23,200 would be taxed at 10%, and the remainder at 12%.
You should "stoop" to my level and start being accurate and truthful. And stop being at your level of lies and inaccuracies. And stop trying to deflect by crying about narcissism and name-calling, you lying, incompetent baby.
But it you want the effective rate for taxable income of $84,000 it's 7.3%. Keep trying to convince yourself that Clinton era tax rates were lower for middle income families.
I agree that tariffs will be felt by consumers but you're only looking at one side of the equation.
I don't know the right answer but your opinions seem to be one sided against anything Trump does. Are you OK with this:
- They will generate revenues that should help us reduce the deficit.
- More companies will be motivated to produce products in the USA.
- Companies might also move production away from our adversaries which improves our national security.
Am I OK with a faked up map? No.
But you are.
Yeah, I’m not advocating anything in particular with that, I’m just pointing out current economic research on how taxes (and tariffs) affect the economy and government revenue along the curve.
Separate from that, I absolutely believe everyone needs to contribute. It shouldn’t be 0% for the bottom 47%, but it doesn’t have to be high either. Every single person in this country should have a stake in what happens with their tax dollars and they don’t have a proper stake if they don’t pay. I also think the further up the income ladder, the higher percent needs to be paid—which is the current intention with the tax brackets, but it doesn’t play out that way as the wealthy can mostly wriggle out of paying taxes with credits, deductions and (legal) loopholes.
My dream scenario would be to get rid of all credits, deductions, and loopholes and everyone has to pay taxes on their income commensurate with their bracket, or even better, a curve. If it’s on a normed curve, that’s fantastic because it would always lead to a predictable amount of revenue regardless of income gaps. If the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, it self-corrects because it would start incentivizing growth on the low end of the curve and stifling it on the top end until it gets back in balance. That would lead to a very healthy, dependable middle class—poor people would have a very easy path to the middle class and the wealthiest people wouldn’t be able to hoard past a certain point. The end result is the government actually funds itself properly and you grow the middle class.
Now here’s another example where I’m providing a tangible solution. I don’t care if you don’t like it, you can’t say I’m not answering questions or providing solutions—that’s just weak and ignorant. MAGA only speak one language, so if you speak to me in that language, I’ll respond in that language so you can understand.
Last edited:
I never said they were lower, you lying tool.
Holy crap.
You claimed 28% when it was 15%. Big freaking difference.
You also tried to support your lie by presenting Married, Filing Separately. Another lie.
And that was after you "forgot" about inflation in your initial commentary.
And then there's all the other inaccuracies littered through your posts.
I'll tell ya what ... if the difference between 28% and 15% is trivial, give me 13% of your net worth. I mean, it's tomAto, tomahto, amirite?
You keep saying the rich pay less in taxes than those with low incomes because they have accountants and use loopholes but you can't explain what loopholes except to paste a list you looked up that had several inaccuracies and misleading statements.
I agree with you that those with high incomes should pay a higher percent. The fact is THEY DO PAY A HIGHER PERCENT. The top 1% makes 20% of the money and pays 40% of the income taxes. Do you deny that?
There are changes we might agree on but you have to pick one or two so we can discuss them. Refusing to back up your claims then calling me an ignorant MAGA is not a serious attempt to support your claims.
Also why won't you answer my simple question. You claim that tariffs are a tax on the American public and I agreed. But you ignored the revenue they generate, the possibility that it would bring more investment to the USA, and that it could improve our national security. Do you disagree with all of those things or are you more focused on everything Trump does being bad?
Last edited:
Clinton had the dot-com bubble economy. That is why we had money. There was a massive amount of money pouring into investments.
This plane was already in the works under the Biden administration. It's a backup for Air Force 1. You know, the same administration that sold weaponry to Saudi Arabia, even though they railed at Trump for doing so. Fact is, we need the Saudis, the UAE, and Qatar on our side for peace in the region, and to fight China.
Biden had planned to gift Trump a plane from Qatar for his personal use? That's your story and you're sticking to it?
Poor Hotturd.
Last edited:
Why you're such a joke. Nothing but lies. Get lost.
I'm glad you admit you're spewing nothing but Fox News lies. You chose to believe the habitual liar, and habitual criminal and recipient of this grift, Trump ... and one Congressional Republican with an unsubstantiated story.
Everyone else knows, post-Presidency, Trump plans to pocket this thing (via the trump library) ... at which point folks like you will say there's nothing wrong with that, and he deserves it.
Oh PeePee the multiple bans disbarred Whale shark of the small mind ... it's almost time for your real time breakdown on the board.
LdN
The paragraphs in italics below, excerpted from an analysis by a professor at a Maine college, speak to the point I've been making in this thread.
It's not the tariffs per se. It's a broken-down system that doesn't work anymore for "rural voters"...and for working- and middle-class Americans in general.
Tariffs may not be the answer. Or they may be an answer offered up much too late in the game. But that's not the point. The point is what the globalist elites have done to the country...and "free trade" has been one of their chief tools for doing it:
>>...it’s easier to just overlook the fact that 66% of all voters in households making less than $60,000 per year want to abandon the liberal consensus, hike tariffs on trade partners, and try something new.
You can disagree with these opinions, but to disregard them as “the dumbest idea yet” or that they’d “please voters and damage the economy at the same time,” is just reflexive emoting, passing for analysis in a media ecosystem more comfortable with sneering at discontent than confronting deep, structural inequality.
It’s the kind of armchair clarity that comes easy when you’re writing from the winning side of globalization. And in the name of opposing Trump, many progressives have done a full about-face — defending the very economic order they once claimed was rigged. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, only Trump could make “neoliberalism” great again.
American policymakers didn’t just fail to shield domestic workers from unfair practices like Chinese steel dumping or currency manipulation, they actively chose not to in the name of market integration. They embedded investor protections in agreements like NAFTA and the TPP, while stripping out any meaningful enforcement for labor standards in overseas territories, while subjecting American producers to a labyrinth of growing regulations. It created tax incentives that rewarded offshoring, kept the subsidies flowing as agribusiness consolidated, and told displaced workers to learn to code.
If that’s “free” trade, it was free only for the powerful. Everyone else paid full price. So maybe the story isn’t that rural voters want to blow up the system — but that it took them this long.<<
It's not the tariffs per se. It's a broken-down system that doesn't work anymore for "rural voters"...and for working- and middle-class Americans in general.
Tariffs may not be the answer. Or they may be an answer offered up much too late in the game. But that's not the point. The point is what the globalist elites have done to the country...and "free trade" has been one of their chief tools for doing it:
>>...it’s easier to just overlook the fact that 66% of all voters in households making less than $60,000 per year want to abandon the liberal consensus, hike tariffs on trade partners, and try something new.
You can disagree with these opinions, but to disregard them as “the dumbest idea yet” or that they’d “please voters and damage the economy at the same time,” is just reflexive emoting, passing for analysis in a media ecosystem more comfortable with sneering at discontent than confronting deep, structural inequality.
It’s the kind of armchair clarity that comes easy when you’re writing from the winning side of globalization. And in the name of opposing Trump, many progressives have done a full about-face — defending the very economic order they once claimed was rigged. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, only Trump could make “neoliberalism” great again.
American policymakers didn’t just fail to shield domestic workers from unfair practices like Chinese steel dumping or currency manipulation, they actively chose not to in the name of market integration. They embedded investor protections in agreements like NAFTA and the TPP, while stripping out any meaningful enforcement for labor standards in overseas territories, while subjecting American producers to a labyrinth of growing regulations. It created tax incentives that rewarded offshoring, kept the subsidies flowing as agribusiness consolidated, and told displaced workers to learn to code.
If that’s “free” trade, it was free only for the powerful. Everyone else paid full price. So maybe the story isn’t that rural voters want to blow up the system — but that it took them this long.<<
The claim that Biden started this is unclear. I'm still trying to understand what sweetheart deal Trump gave to Qater. Allowing them to purchase planes from Boeing works in our favor so I don't see any sweetheart deal.
IMO the bigger question is why Boeing can't deliver AF1 planes. They were originally scheduled to be delivered in 2024 and now they're saying 2028. I read that some parts that meet the old specs are no longer available. I understand that the manufacturer is no longer making the $10,000 hammer used in previous models but why does it take 4 years to revise the specs?
