Tax Policy Collapse: Front Page Headline from April 8, 2013

Chris Long12 said:I don't even know what you're trying to get at with that.
Let’s actually take a moment to think about this. The entire purpose—the actual goal—of tax policy isn't just to create a deficit or leave holes in the budget. It really isn't.
So, what does that actually mean? It means your tax policy—your precious little plan—is fundamentally broken, and you’re going to run straight into a wall when it comes to covering costs. You’ll be forced to go out and borrow money on the international markets at some massive interest rate because your credit rating is basically junk. Then, you end up looking completely incompetent, and I guess you can just watch as the opposition and the American people use that failure to tear you apart in the next election. This deficit isn't some random accident; it’s the direct, unintended consequence of your own tax policy. Though, I suppose it certainly wasn't the goal, was it?

So, I guess we’re finally admitting that politics actually operates with a specific goal and a deliberate plan now? Does that mean it isn't some massive conspiracy after all? Maybe. I don't know. It just seems like we're suddenly changing the narrative.

What kind of management is this—aimless, drifting, without a single shred of a goal or a coherent plan? It’s absolutely absurd. You have a client who was specifically elected to lead during their term, yet here we are. If you want to see what the current administration's actual goals and plans look like, you can clearly see them right there... I don't know, maybe I’m just being cynical, but looking at this whole plan... it’s a mess. It really is. I mean, if you actually sit down and read through what they’re proposing, it feels like they aren't even trying to be coherent. It’s all just noise. I guess some people might see this as a roadmap, but to me? It looks more like a collection of half-baked ideas thrown against a wall to see what sticks. Maybe they think the people won't notice the inconsistencies, but I disagree. I strongly disagree. It’s frankly insulting to anyone actually paying attention to the state of our economy and our institutions. You look at these projections and you just have to wonder where the logic went. It’s fragmented, it’s messy, and quite honestly, it’s infuriating. We deserve better than this level of incompetence. .
I honestly have no idea where you're seeing some kind of conspiracy in this plan. I mean, does the mere fact that someone is actually in charge bother you that much? Or is that just how it is?

Here is a little explanation regarding the word "urota":
A conspiracy is just a small group of people acting specifically to undermine the interests of the majority. I guess that’s just how it works. Maybe. But it's true! It's always a tiny clique working against everyone else!

Your interpretation. I mean, you’re really reaching with that one.
A broad definition:
Conspiracy or collusion... I guess that’s just a fancy way of describing a coordinated effort to bury the truth. It's about hiding what actually happened when someone decides to act outside the law, ignore regulations, or completely disregard the values held by the people. It's all about cover-ups. Maybe it's more than that, but that's how it looks to me!
I suppose there isn't much more to say on this... it’s just an even tighter way of putting things, I guess. Maybe that's the point? It feels a bit too constrained for my liking, though. Honestly, it's all just a different way of framing the same old mess.
A secret plot by a group to carry out something illegal or harmful.

Look, just because there’s a plan in place doesn't necessarily mean we're looking at some massive conspiracy. I guess maybe it's just... a plan? It doesn't always have to be a plot.

I’m on my phone right now, but I assume you're trying to feed me some nonsense about reptiles or whatever? No, I don't buy into that. I believe in the actual malice of politicians who work solely to destroy everything just to line their own pockets for a little extra profit. That's what's real.

Not even close. This is about describing how government overreach has managed to crawl its way into every single corner of our lives.
What you’re talking about here is plain and simple corruption. And look, you aren't wrong—it exists. There are definitely people involved. But I guess we shouldn't just paint everyone with the same brush.
Actually, it’s quite the opposite. There are definitely politicians out there who genuinely want to do something positive for others—I guess you could say they have good intentions. The real issue, though, is that they seem convinced the only way to achieve anything meaningful is through heavy-handed government policy.

And what exactly is the end goal here? Until someone actually gives me a straight answer, my take remains the same: it’s all just a massive power grab. It's clearly designed to seize control over real estate, territory, and our most vital resources.

Look, we are talking about taxes that just keep climbing higher and higher.
Companies simply cannot shoulder this massive tax burden—not to mention all the extra fees. It’s a direct consequence of these ever-increasing taxes..
And why are taxes rising? Because the government spends and spends (on subsidies, Amtrak, shipyards, Social Security, healthcare... you name it), they rack up debt, and then they have to pay it back.
I mean, I guess it isn't exactly their intention to drive companies into the ground, because that would be shooting themselves in the foot.
But let’s face it, those big multinationals just use offshore accounts anyway and keep most of their profits there.

You can see for yourself that I'm right; the American government is doing everything possible to make people flee and watch this country crumble, and with that point, you've basically answered your own first point.

The fallout from the crisis has been felt everywhere. Until now, the US had seen growth in both the number of businesses and the overall economy.

Your summary of my answers is roughly this:
The consequence is blamed on politicians being corrupt, but that isn't a conspiracy. So what is it then?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying. Honestly, it doesn't even make sense on its own. 😕
As for what constitutes a conspiracy, you already wrote that above.

Summary of my answers:
A conspiracy is the result of actions by a tiny group of people who, at the expense of the majority, pass tax laws designed to increase insolvency and cause widespread failure, all with the ultimate goal of seizing property, territory, and resources.

And if you want proof, just look at the worst kind of debt being run up by the current administration, just like before them.

The reaction was right in the middle 🤣

1. If their goal was to turn a profit and avoid a budget deficit, they'd do it—it's actually pretty simple. They'd just cut the tax burden by 50%, and the US Treasury would be twice as full as it is today. But that's not in their interest because they hold all the leverage through debt via government bonds; I think you know that's the worst way to go into debt. And based on everything explained before, the whole point seems to be the downfall of businesses and the country itself, because global hostaplers have made that their mission. So, isn't it pretty obvious not to see how this works?

2. I never said they were operating without a goal or a plan; I said they are operating without a goal or plan *for success*. Instead, they're operating for failure. And which specific "Plan 21" are you talking about? Please, name it. And no, it doesn't bother me that someone is leading; it just bothers me that they are being led by neveleizdajnik.

3. My interpretation doesn't mean "anything"; it's actually quite reasonable, brief, and CLEAR. I'm glad you know what the term means too, but it's a shame you can't see it even with eyes wide open (hopefully).

4. Look, if you want to call it corruption, go ahead. It’s basically just politicians conspiring against their own people just to pad their own pockets—plain and simple corruption. See? Now we're finally on the same page.
I mean, sure, there are probably some honest politicians out there, but they're such a tiny fraction of the whole scene that they barely have any actual influence.

5. I already broke this down in my first point.

6. Around here, the only way you can claim this crisis is caused by the global economy is if you're intentionally turning a blind eye to the truth. I mean, the US doesn't even factor into the global economic equation by even a fraction of a percent; as far as the world economy is concerned, we don't even exist. This whole "global meltdown" excuse is just something used by bad actors—actually, really talented thieves in office—because they aren't running this country to make it succeed; they're running it to watch it fail. We see the results of their "success" every single day, and it just keeps getting worse.

7. What was your actual point with that one?

David Parker44 said:Yes, we are.
First off, if the people actually showed some teeth, this whole movie would be playing out differently. Just look at France... the second they tighten the screws, you've got riots in the streets. You can't mess with them. But here? Throw a tax hike at us—wrapped up in some "austerity" ideology or blaming the previous administration—and everyone just folds. Everyone just says, "Well, I guess we have to..." That's how it always goes. And don't even get me started on small business owners. Hit them with an extra 12% tax on profit distributions and not a single soul at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce even blinks.

Secondly, I’d implement penalties at the polls for anyone who doesn't show up... simple enough. $100 So don't bother voting then. You live in America, and that comes with a duty to the state and the people. If we did that, they wouldn't be playing games with pathetic 40% turnout numbers and letting a tiny minority decide the majority. The final result would look completely different.

The only thing I agree with you on is the fact that we're passive. The reason I don't trust any political party is because about 40, 50, or 60% of the population was against joining the European Union, yet every single political option in Congress representing the people is for the European Union.

Henry Hernandez7 said:1. If their goal was to turn a profit and avoid a budget deficit, they'd do it—it's actually pretty simple. They'd just cut the tax burden by 50%, and the US Treasury would be twice as full as it is today. But that's not in their interest because they hold all the leverage through debt via government bonds; I think you know that's the worst way to go into debt. And based on everything explained before, the whole point seems to be the downfall of businesses and the country itself, because global hostaplers have made that their mission. So, isn't it pretty obvious not to see how this works?

2. I never said they were operating without a goal or a plan; I said they are operating without a goal or plan *for success*. Instead, they're operating for failure. And which specific "Plan 21" are you talking about? Please, name it. And no, it doesn't bother me that someone is leading; it just bothers me that they are being led by neveleizdajnik.

3. My interpretation doesn't mean "anything"; it's actually quite reasonable, brief, and CLEAR. I'm glad you know what the term means too, but it's a shame you can't see it even with eyes wide open (hopefully).

4. Look, if you want to call it corruption, go ahead. It’s basically just politicians conspiring against their own people just to pad their own pockets—plain and simple corruption. See? Now we're finally on the same page.
I mean, sure, there are probably some honest politicians out there, but they're such a tiny fraction of the whole scene that they barely have any actual influence.

5. I already broke this down in my first point.

6. Around here, the only way you can claim this crisis is caused by the global economy is if you're intentionally turning a blind eye to the truth. I mean, the US doesn't even factor into the global economic equation by even a fraction of a percent; as far as the world economy is concerned, we don't even exist. This whole "global meltdown" excuse is just something used by bad actors—actually, really talented thieves in office—because they aren't running this country to make it succeed; they're running it to watch it fail. We see the results of their "success" every single day, and it just keeps getting worse.

7. What was your actual point with that one?

That's not quite right. Looking at the long term, sure, reducing the tax burden is definitely better for growth—any kind of government meddling in the economy is generally a bad move.

But, we aren't talking about some grand "goal" to destroy the nation here; it's really just a matter of simple stupidity, greed, and total irresponsibility.

Harold Martin10 said:That's not quite right. Looking at the long term, sure, reducing the tax burden is definitely better for growth—any kind of government meddling in the economy is generally a bad move.

But, we aren't talking about some grand "goal" to destroy the nation here; it's really just a matter of simple stupidity, greed, and total irresponsibility.

Explain what’s in bold.

Some people see things exactly like you do—which, unfortunately, is most people—while others see them the way I do, which, sadly, makes me part of a tiny minority.

David Parker44 said:Yes, we are.
First off, if the people actually showed some teeth, this whole movie would be playing out differently. Just look at France... the second they tighten the screws, you've got riots in the streets. You can't mess with them. But here? Throw a tax hike at us—wrapped up in some "austerity" ideology or blaming the previous administration—and everyone just folds. Everyone just says, "Well, I guess we have to..." That's how it always goes. And don't even get me started on small business owners. Hit them with an extra 12% tax on profit distributions and not a single soul at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce even blinks.

Secondly, I’d implement penalties at the polls for anyone who doesn't show up... simple enough. $100 So don't bother voting then. You live in America, and that comes with a duty to the state and the people. If we did that, they wouldn't be playing games with pathetic 40% turnout numbers and letting a tiny minority decide the majority. The final result would look completely different.

Oh, come on—you actually participated in the election, which makes you directly responsible for the result. Now that you aren't happy with how things turned out, suddenly it’s the fault of everyone who didn't even bother to leave their house that day? 😁
I pay my $100, and I tip well for $233, so do you want to pay a hundred bucks if you (once again) pick the wrong guy? 😛

Henry Hernandez7 said:1. If their goal was to turn a profit and avoid a budget deficit, they'd do it—it's actually pretty simple. They'd just cut the tax burden by 50%, and the US Treasury would be twice as full as it is today. But that's not in their interest because they hold all the leverage through debt via government bonds; I think you know that's the worst way to go into debt. And based on everything explained before, the whole point seems to be the downfall of businesses and the country itself, because global hostaplers have made that their mission. So, isn't it pretty obvious not to see how this works?

2. I never said they were operating without a goal or a plan; I said they are operating without a goal or plan *for success*. Instead, they're operating for failure. And which specific "Plan 21" are you talking about? Please, name it. And no, it doesn't bother me that someone is leading; it just bothers me that they are being led by neveleizdajnik.

3. My interpretation doesn't mean "anything"; it's actually quite reasonable, brief, and CLEAR. I'm glad you know what the term means too, but it's a shame you can't see it even with eyes wide open (hopefully).

4. Look, if you want to call it corruption, go ahead. It’s basically just politicians conspiring against their own people just to pad their own pockets—plain and simple corruption. See? Now we're finally on the same page.
I mean, sure, there are probably some honest politicians out there, but they're such a tiny fraction of the whole scene that they barely have any actual influence.

5. I already broke this down in my first point.

6. Around here, the only way you can claim this crisis is caused by the global economy is if you're intentionally turning a blind eye to the truth. I mean, the US doesn't even factor into the global economic equation by even a fraction of a percent; as far as the world economy is concerned, we don't even exist. This whole "global meltdown" excuse is just something used by bad actors—actually, really talented thieves in office—because they aren't running this country to make it succeed; they're running it to watch it fail. We see the results of their "success" every single day, and it just keeps getting worse.

7. What was your actual point with that one?

I guess I should apologize, but... 😂
I guess that invisible target always seems to slip right through my fingers, mostly because I get too caught up in what the actual circumstances are forcing me to face.

I mean, I suppose I agree that taxes ought to be kept as low as humanly possible.

Look, I never said there isn't any direction or planning happening here. What I actually meant was that there’s absolutely no plan for success—it’s more like a coordinated strategy for total failure. And honestly, which part of this supposed "Plan 21" is anyone actually executing? Please, go ahead and name it. I'll wait. And for the record, it doesn't bother me at all that someone is in charge. I don't mind being led; I just mind being led straight into a ditch. Those neveleizdajnici... I mean, honestly, what are we even doing anymore? It’s just endless. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I don't know, it feels like everything is falling apart because of them. It's exhausting..

So, let me get this straight: if a certain part of a plan fails, that somehow serves as absolute proof that the entire thing was designed to fail from the start? I guess that’s just how some people think. Maybe. It's honestly ridiculous. 🤣

Henry Hernandez7 The user said:Look, my interpretation isn't some definitive gospel truth or anything; I mean, it’s just a bit of a conversational take, pretty short and to the point, really. CLEARLY.I’m glad to see you actually grasp what that term means, but honestly, it’s a shame you can't seem to see it for what it is—even with perfectly good eyesight (hopefully).

Henry Hernandez7 said:Here is a brief explanation regarding the term Urotaaa !!!:
A conspiracy is really just a small circle of people who... The entire goal of this action is to undermine the interests of the majority. It’s clear as day.."

Those damn bakeries... charging the American people for basic bread! Urotaaa!!!

He’s out there insisting that we call it what it actually is: corruption. I mean, seriously...It seems to me—though I could be wrong, I guess—that these politicians have basically formed a conspiracy against their own people. It’s all just a massive scheme to line their own pockets. They're driven by nothing but pure, unadulterated greed and corruption. Urotaaa !!!See? Now you finally get it.
I suppose there might be some decent politicians out there, sure, but honestly? They’re just measured in tiny percentages—they don't have any real power at all.

Are you seriously suggesting that an entire group of politicians is intentionally plotting to be corrupt? Look, there are always going to be people like that—that’s just what you call a scandal. If we're talking about specific individuals acting alone, then it isn't some grand conspiracy. It's just plain old corruption.
Opportunity makes a thief—I guess if someone gives in to temptation, it doesn't necessarily mean they set out with bad intentions from the very start. Maybe. Or maybe not. It’s just how things work.

6. In this country, only someone intentionally turning a blind eye to reality could claim our crisis is being driven by the global economy. I mean, we don't participate in the global market by even a single fraction; as far as the world economy is concerned, we barely exist. This is just a convenient excuse used by corrupt politicians—and let’s be honest, they are actually quite talented thieves. They aren't running this nation with any interest in success; instead, they manage it with a vested interest in seeing us fail. We see the results of their "success" every single day, and it just keeps getting worse.

Uh uh, no, it didn't hit us instantly like it did those other countries that are "more connected," where the impact was felt directly. But claiming something like this? It just shows a fundamental ignorance of how economics works. That isn't necessarily a crime in itself, since a person should be learning as long as they live. However, some people just fill in the gaps with whatever theories happen to fit their own narrative.

I wasn't aware we had transitioned into discussing religion. I admit, I haven't achieved enlightenment or seen the truth yet. 🤣

7. What exactly were you trying to get at with that?

Henry Hernandez7 said:Why? What kind of resources are you talking about?

Chris Long12 said:Pure mockery, an automatic reflex against conspiracy theories.

Benjamin King2 said:Oh, come on—you actually participated in the election, which makes you directly responsible for the result. Now that you aren't happy with how things turned out, suddenly it’s the fault of everyone who didn't even bother to leave their house that day? 😁
I pay my $100, and I tip well for $233, so do you want to pay a hundred bucks if you (once again) pick the wrong guy? 😛

that's easy money 😍

Benjamin King2 said:Oh, come on—you actually participated in the election, which makes you directly responsible for the result. Now that you aren't happy with how things turned out, suddenly it’s the fault of everyone who didn't even bother to leave their house that day? 😁
I pay my $100, and I tip well for $233, so do you want to pay a hundred bucks if you (once again) pick the wrong guy? 😛

That’s exactly the point... those people who didn't bother to vote? They act like they’re some kind of "neutral" observers. Like they don't carry any responsibility for the outcome, right? As if you can just skip out on your civic duty and then turn around later and play the moralist. You want to blow the whistle on how things are going now? Fine. But don't expect anyone to care when you didn't show up when it actually mattered.

David Parker44 said:That’s exactly the point... those people who didn't bother to vote? They act like they’re some kind of "neutral" observers. Like they don't carry any responsibility for the outcome, right? As if you can just skip out on your civic duty and then turn around later and play the moralist. You want to blow the whistle on how things are going now? Fine. But don't expect anyone to care when you didn't show up when it actually mattered.

And what exactly would make voting an "obligation" for me? Care to explain? 🤣

David Parker44 said:That’s exactly the point... those people who didn't bother to vote? They act like they’re some kind of "neutral" observers. Like they don't carry any responsibility for the outcome, right? As if you can just skip out on your civic duty and then turn around later and play the moralist. You want to blow the whistle on how things are going now? Fine. But don't expect anyone to care when you didn't show up when it actually mattered.

What I really want to know is what happens if everyone actually shows up and there are more spoiled ballots than votes for a specific party. Like, say the Republican Party gets 28%, the kukuriku coalition gets 32%, and spoiled ballots hit 40%.

And personally, I think it's criminal that anything over 30% of the total vote is considered a valid decision regarding joining the European Union (or whatever else).

Chris Long12 said:I guess I should apologize, but... 😂
I guess that invisible target always seems to slip right through my fingers, mostly because I get too caught up in what the actual circumstances are forcing me to face.

I mean, I suppose I agree that taxes ought to be kept as low as humanly possible.

Look, I never said there isn't any direction or planning happening here. What I actually meant was that there’s absolutely no plan for success—it’s more like a coordinated strategy for total failure. And honestly, which part of this supposed "Plan 21" is anyone actually executing? Please, go ahead and name it. I'll wait. And for the record, it doesn't bother me at all that someone is in charge. I don't mind being led; I just mind being led straight into a ditch. Those neveleizdajnici... I mean, honestly, what are we even doing anymore? It’s just endless. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I don't know, it feels like everything is falling apart because of them. It's exhausting..

So, let me get this straight: if a certain part of a plan fails, that somehow serves as absolute proof that the entire thing was designed to fail from the start? I guess that’s just how some people think. Maybe. It's honestly ridiculous. 🤣

Those damn bakeries... charging the American people for basic bread! Urotaaa!!!

He’s out there insisting that we call it what it actually is: corruption. I mean, seriously...It seems to me—though I could be wrong, I guess—that these politicians have basically formed a conspiracy against their own people. It’s all just a massive scheme to line their own pockets. They're driven by nothing but pure, unadulterated greed and corruption. Urotaaa !!!See? Now you finally get it.
I suppose there might be some decent politicians out there, sure, but honestly? They’re just measured in tiny percentages—they don't have any real power at all.

Are you seriously suggesting that an entire group of politicians is intentionally plotting to be corrupt? Look, there are always going to be people like that—that’s just what you call a scandal. If we're talking about specific individuals acting alone, then it isn't some grand conspiracy. It's just plain old corruption.
Opportunity makes a thief—I guess if someone gives in to temptation, it doesn't necessarily mean they set out with bad intentions from the very start. Maybe. Or maybe not. It’s just how things work.

6. In this country, only someone intentionally turning a blind eye to reality could claim our crisis is being driven by the global economy. I mean, we don't participate in the global market by even a single fraction; as far as the world economy is concerned, we barely exist. This is just a convenient excuse used by corrupt politicians—and let’s be honest, they are actually quite talented thieves. They aren't running this nation with any interest in success; instead, they manage it with a vested interest in seeing us fail. We see the results of their "success" every single day, and it just keeps getting worse.

Uh uh, no, it didn't hit us instantly like it did those other countries that are "more connected," where the impact was felt directly. But claiming something like this? It just shows a fundamental ignorance of how economics works. That isn't necessarily a crime in itself, since a person should be learning as long as they live. However, some people just fill in the gaps with whatever theories happen to fit their own narrative.

I wasn't aware we had transitioned into discussing religion. I admit, I haven't achieved enlightenment or seen the truth yet. 🤣

7. What exactly were you trying to get at with that?

1. And why exactly aren't taxes lower?

2. So you're telling me two decades of crappy governance in this country was just a coincidence? No comment.

For someone pretending to criticize the administration, you're being way too easy on them by blaming everything on "incompetent politicians."

3. Is this the kind of argument everyone on this forum loves?

4. We aren't talking about individuals here, so you actually gave yourself a perfectly clear answer.

5. Look, don't try to lecture me on my economic knowledge. The facts are right there: during the global recession, our tourism industry grew by 20%, while out of 100 exporters, 70 remained—which is a hit to the economy, sure, but is that what you're actually thinking? Or should we talk about how bank savings increased by an extra $15 billion during that same recession?

We're looking at a crisis that was essentially manufactured to weaken domestic production, turning the American public into mere consumers who are totally dependent on foreign imports and handouts.

6. I have no idea what religion you're bringing up, but honestly, you don't need religion to see clearly; you just need to use what's already in your head.🙂

Henry Hernandez7 said:Explain what’s in bold.

Some people see things exactly like you do—which, unfortunately, is most people—while others see them the way I do, which, sadly, makes me part of a tiny minority.

It’s just not accurate to say the Democratic Party would end up with more funds by cutting taxes. Sure, maybe eventually—but when? In ten years, once the economy finally grows without being weighed down by taxes? In those first few years, though, there would be significantly less available for government spending.

The real question is: who's going to sit down and explain to retirees, social welfare recipients, bureaucrats, and everyone else whose income might need to be adjusted that this is actually a good thing in the long run? How would anyone ever pass an election doing that?

There isn't some grand conspiracy or a hidden plot to impoverish the nation—honestly, it wouldn't be possible to keep a secret like that for that long (too many people would have to be involved before someone talked).

A much more logical explanation is simply that democracy in America works exactly how it was designed—where the majority rules over the minority. And when the majority prefers a comfortable lifestyle over actually working—or working very little—well, we end up with exactly what we have now. One of the massive issues in this country is the crowd looking for handouts through fraudulent disability claims or veteran benefits—basically, people who maneuvered themselves into perks and pensions they didn't actually earn. And honestly, you can't even blame the politicians at the top for all of it; it was the corruption of local doctors combined with a willingness from these "claimants" to essentially rob their own fellow citizens. That's just one example of the character of our people, so why are we surprised when politicians follow that exact same playbook?

Politicians basically bribe the majority so they can:
1. Provide that majority with a mediocre standard of living.
2. Take from the working minority so that those in group 1 have roughly the same amount of resources (sort of like elements of socialism/communism).
3. Ensure they provide themselves with a high standard of living.

And hey, it works—groups 1 and 3 are satisfied. Group 1 only starts getting restless when the economy begins to stall because of the long-term parasitism from groups 1 and 3—which is precisely what is happening in America right now. The fact that Sanders and a few others from group 3 ended up behind bars is cold comfort.

Also, whether it's intentional or not isn't even the core issue; the real problem is that the majority continues to advocate for this exact model—high taxes and extreme social sensitivity.

Harold Martin10 said:One of the biggest issues in this country is the scammers pretending to be disabled veterans or similar—basically just a bunch of people who figured out how to rig the system to grab benefits and pensions they never actually earned.

And here I thought you were someone worth taking seriously.

vividgull10 said:And here I thought you were someone worth taking seriously.

So, what’s the actual issue here? The Social Security system ended up looking like this because everyone just did whatever they could to secure their own retirement whenever they had the chance. Only about 20% of male retirees actually met all the requirements at the moment they retired—and honestly, the whole pension system has become a massive black hole for the American economy.

Harold Martin10 said:So, what’s the actual issue here? The Social Security system ended up looking like this because everyone just did whatever they could to secure their own retirement whenever they had the chance. Only about 20% of male retirees actually met all the requirements at the moment they retired—and honestly, the whole pension system has become a massive black hole for the American economy.

I wasn't critiquing you, I was critiquing myself.
No big deal 😉

Harold Martin10 said:It’s just not accurate to say the Democratic Party would end up with more funds by cutting taxes. Sure, maybe eventually—but when? In ten years, once the economy finally grows without being weighed down by taxes? In those first few years, though, there would be significantly less available for government spending.

The real question is: who's going to sit down and explain to retirees, social welfare recipients, bureaucrats, and everyone else whose income might need to be adjusted that this is actually a good thing in the long run? How would anyone ever pass an election doing that?

There isn't some grand conspiracy or a hidden plot to impoverish the nation—honestly, it wouldn't be possible to keep a secret like that for that long (too many people would have to be involved before someone talked).

A much more logical explanation is simply that democracy in America works exactly how it was designed—where the majority rules over the minority. And when the majority prefers a comfortable lifestyle over actually working—or working very little—well, we end up with exactly what we have now. One of the massive issues in this country is the crowd looking for handouts through fraudulent disability claims or veteran benefits—basically, people who maneuvered themselves into perks and pensions they didn't actually earn. And honestly, you can't even blame the politicians at the top for all of it; it was the corruption of local doctors combined with a willingness from these "claimants" to essentially rob their own fellow citizens. That's just one example of the character of our people, so why are we surprised when politicians follow that exact same playbook?

Politicians basically bribe the majority so they can:
1. Provide that majority with a mediocre standard of living.
2. Take from the working minority so that those in group 1 have roughly the same amount of resources (sort of like elements of socialism/communism).
3. Ensure they provide themselves with a high standard of living.

And hey, it works—groups 1 and 3 are satisfied. Group 1 only starts getting restless when the economy begins to stall because of the long-term parasitism from groups 1 and 3—which is precisely what is happening in America right now. The fact that Sanders and a few others from group 3 ended up behind bars is cold comfort.

Also, whether it's intentional or not isn't even the core issue; the real problem is that the majority continues to advocate for this exact model—high taxes and extreme social sensitivity.

I guess people tend to overlook the fact that, for instance, sales tax is currently so high that it’s actually stifling the economy. This suggests that if we don't touch that rate, we're looking at a guaranteed decline in business, consumer spending, and—of course—budget revenue. It's basically a downward spiral.
Regarding sales tax, the stagnation threshold—where you aren't growing but aren't crashing either—is roughly 17%... though that depends on other factors. If things are worse elsewhere, that limit drops; if they're better, the economy might handle a slightly higher rate before failing. I suppose the further you drift from that line, the faster the impact on the economy, GDP, and the budget will be.

Other factors include the quality of legislation, how the administration is organized, and external variables. We can actually influence legal quality and administrative structure—so, besides just adjusting tax rates, there are other ways to try to foster economic growth, GDP, and revenue.

Where we seem to diverge significantly is the extremely high sales tax, poor legislative quality, and messy administration. Then there's the issue regarding about 60 percent of our lowest-income citizens—those high flat-rate contribution requirements that pretty much prevent most of them from starting their own small businesses with the limited funds they have. One could also add that our progressive tax rates are much higher compared to countries that attract the most foreign investment per capita, along with how sales tax is collected based on issued invoices amidst uncertain collections and slow legal settlements. Those are all areas where there is probably plenty of room for improvement.

Harold Martin10 says it’s just not true that cutting taxes would actually put more money in the Democratic Party's pockets.

Logic dictates that things would actually be fuller this way. With the current tax policies, small businesses and local shops are just folding left and right, dumping their workers onto the Democratic Party's plate. If we just cut the sales tax down to maybe 20% or 21% and cranked everything else up to the 30-40% range, we’d stop this downward spiral immediately. It would take the pressure off the Democratic Party by keeping people employed, while simultaneously flipping the economic script and giving the private sector a reason to actually start investing again. Do that, and you'll see the economy get back on the right track pretty damn fast.

If you wanted to see what this actually looks like in practice, it would go down like this:

Small businesses are folding left and right lately, and honestly, looking at the massive budget deficits we’re staring down, it’s starting to feel like a pretty grim cycle.

Small businesses are popping up everywhere lately, and we’re seeing that budget deficit steadily shrinking until, eventually, we actually hit a surplus.

Henry Hernandez7 said:1. And why exactly aren't taxes lower?

2. So you're telling me two decades of crappy governance in this country was just a coincidence? No comment.

For someone pretending to criticize the administration, you're being way too easy on them by blaming everything on "incompetent politicians."

3. Is this the kind of argument everyone on this forum loves?

4. We aren't talking about individuals here, so you actually gave yourself a perfectly clear answer.

5. Look, don't try to lecture me on my economic knowledge. The facts are right there: during the global recession, our tourism industry grew by 20%, while out of 100 exporters, 70 remained—which is a hit to the economy, sure, but is that what you're actually thinking? Or should we talk about how bank savings increased by an extra $15 billion during that same recession?

We're looking at a crisis that was essentially manufactured to weaken domestic production, turning the American public into mere consumers who are totally dependent on foreign imports and handouts.

6. I have no idea what religion you're bringing up, but honestly, you don't need religion to see clearly; you just need to use what's already in your head.🙂

Because obligations have to be paid right now, not in a year or two when the effects finally show up. I am by no means against lower taxes and levies or less regulation—I’d sign off on that immediately. But suddenly cutting everything off? That has consequences for those who rely on the Democratic Party, especially retirees. Personally, I'm all for a different Social Security or healthcare system, but you can't just flip a switch overnight.

2. So you're saying twenty years of continuous bad governance in this country was just a coincidence!? No comment.

It doesn't mean it was intentional. The economy did grow, after all, but politicians do what politicians do best: they spend other people's money. And eventually, the bill comes due.
To you, maybe it's a conspiracy, but to me, it's just the government meddling in the economy. And I am against that.

For someone who supposedly criticizes the ruling party, you seem way too tolerant toward what you call "just incompetent politicians."

It honestly surprises me that you aren't out there with fireworks instead of hanging around Markov Square.🤣

3. And is this probably an argument tailored specifically for this forum?

It's interesting how you failed to recognize your own clear definition of a conspiracy, where a minority (like bakers) acts against the interests of the majority (bread for the people) by charging them.

5. Just don't go judging my knowledge of economics. The facts are that during the global recession, we boosted our tourism by 20%, and out of 100 exporters, 70 remained—so that's some kind of loss for our economy? Is that really what you think? Or should we talk about how during the global recession, we increased savings in (foreign) banks by an additional 10 billion dollars?

Can I get a link? These numbers don't look accurate to me. There are many more exporters than that.
http://www.businesspulse.com/2011/09/...revenue-growth/

We have a deliberately induced crisis through which domestic production is weakened, essentially enslaving the people by making them dependent on foreign products and handouts.

Sure. 😂

Chris Long12 said:Because obligations have to be paid right now, not in a year or two when the effects finally show up. I am by no means against lower taxes and levies or less regulation—I’d sign off on that immediately. But suddenly cutting everything off? That has consequences for those who rely on the Democratic Party, especially retirees. Personally, I'm all for a different Social Security or healthcare system, but you can't just flip a switch overnight.

2. So you're saying twenty years of continuous bad governance in this country was just a coincidence!? No comment.

It doesn't mean it was intentional. The economy did grow, after all, but politicians do what politicians do best: they spend other people's money. And eventually, the bill comes due.
To you, maybe it's a conspiracy, but to me, it's just the government meddling in the economy. And I am against that.

For someone who supposedly criticizes the ruling party, you seem way too tolerant toward what you call "just incompetent politicians."

It honestly surprises me that you aren't out there with fireworks instead of hanging around Markov Square.🤣

3. And is this probably an argument tailored specifically for this forum?

It's interesting how you failed to recognize your own clear definition of a conspiracy, where a minority (like bakers) acts against the interests of the majority (bread for the people) by charging them.

5. Just don't go judging my knowledge of economics. The facts are that during the global recession, we boosted our tourism by 20%, and out of 100 exporters, 70 remained—so that's some kind of loss for our economy? Is that really what you think? Or should we talk about how during the global recession, we increased savings in (foreign) banks by an additional 10 billion dollars?

Can I get a link? These numbers don't look accurate to me. There are many more exporters than that.
http://www.businesspulse.com/2011/09/...revenue-growth/

We have a deliberately induced crisis through which domestic production is weakened, essentially enslaving the people by making them dependent on foreign products and handouts.

Sure. 😂

1. You're talking like the Democratic Party isn't strapped for cash. If they stick to this tax load, the deficit is just going to keep widening. Cutting taxes won't fill the coffers immediately, but it would stop small businesses from folding and give the Democratic Party a fighting chance to function normally down the road.

2. So you're saying the country wasn't intentionally run into the ground, but it just happened by accident, and this has been the continuous trend for twenty years? Alright, you nailed it. Good thing I'm not buying those lines.

3. It's always easier to talk big on a forum.

4. I didn't quite follow that... are you suggesting bakers should work for free?

5. I wasn't saying there were only 100 exporters; I was using an example of how, before the recession, maybe 70% of them were active, while tourism kept climbing year after year, only for a global crisis affecting 4 million people to end up meaning nothing—except for making "incompetent" politicians look bad.

6. I really hope you aren't being sarcastic here.

Henry Hernandez7 said:1. You're talking like the Democratic Party isn't strapped for cash. If they stick to this tax load, the deficit is just going to keep widening. Cutting taxes won't fill the coffers immediately, but it would stop small businesses from folding and give the Democratic Party a fighting chance to function normally down the road.

2. So you're saying the country wasn't intentionally run into the ground, but it just happened by accident, and this has been the continuous trend for twenty years? Alright, you nailed it. Good thing I'm not buying those lines.

3. It's always easier to talk big on a forum.

4. I didn't quite follow that... are you suggesting bakers should work for free?

5. I wasn't saying there were only 100 exporters; I was using an example of how, before the recession, maybe 70% of them were active, while tourism kept climbing year after year, only for a global crisis affecting 4 million people to end up meaning nothing—except for making "incompetent" politicians look bad.

6. I really hope you aren't being sarcastic here.

It really comes down to timing. Suddenly, they need liquid capital in a very short window. So, what's it going to be? More debt or higher taxes? It’s a double-edged sword, I guess.

Quincy:

2. So you're saying the government wasn't intentionally driven into the ground, but rather it happened by accident—and this has been the status quo for twenty straight years. Fine, you've made your point; I guess I'm just lucky I don't buy into those excuses.

You clearly don't recognize a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Quincy:

4. I didn't quite catch that... are you suggesting bakers should work for free?

My personal opinion aside, by your own definition, this is clearly a conspiracy. 😉
Or maybe you think because it could apply to a whole bunch of different things, it doesn't really count.

Quincy:

5. I wasn't implying there were only 100 exporters; I was using an example where, say, before a global recession, exporters dropped from 100 to 70%, while tourism grew year after year. In the end, a global crisis for a population of 4 million means nothing, except perhaps to "incompetent" politicians.

Of course it matters, because not everyone is working in tourism. I mean, the rising unemployment numbers speak for themselves.

And until private enterprise is allowed to operate without constant federal interference, heavy-handed mandates, and red tape, nothing is going to change. Value is created first, and then it's distributed to others later.
The massive issue here is the healthcare and Social Security systems, which are basically bottomless pits that can't simply be transformed into something sustainable overnight.