In any case, the point is this: if you want to reduce the debt, you must necessarily do one thing - stop overspending. The president is not in charge of that. His only job is to sign whatever Congress comes up with into law. The office of the President *does not have the power of the purse*. Blame Congress. For the record, both sides of the aisle are at fault here as both continue to raise the debt ceiling. Even Trump doesn’t seem to be too bothered by it, which is one of the few things I don’t like about his views on fiscal policy. “You have to spend money to make money” is all well and good, but not when you’re already extremely in debt. Congress needs to learn how to tighten the belt, otherwise no amount of economic growth is going to make up for the deficit. With that being said, I don’t know why you bring up living cost in this context. I could think of a number of things that led to it increasing - tax cuts are not on that list.
I bring cost of living in this context because your much touted "increased incomes" were, in fact, a pay cut which you de-contextualised and ignored the big issue: not only these tax cuts are temporary, they also hurt the working class the most:
In its finalized form, however, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate tax rate, benefiting shareholders—who tend to be higher earners. It only cuts individuals' taxes for a limited period of time. It scales back the alternative minimum tax and estate tax, as well as reducing the taxes levied on pass-through income (70% of which goes to the highest-earning 1%). It does not close the carried interest loophole, which benefits professional investors. It scraps the individual mandate, likely driving up premiums and making health insurance unaffordable for millions. These provisions taken together are likely to benefit high earners disproportionately and—particularly as a result of scrapping the individual mandate—hurt some working- and middle-class taxpayers. So, the only reason that the tax revenue was high was because, what your little libertarian lies tried to spin differently, Trump actually RAISED taxes for everyone bar high earners.
Oh, I’m aware, and I know what it means, I just don’t think you do. “In everything but the name” means a given “thing” has all the qualities of another “thing”, but it’s called something else, usually for some kind of formal reason.
And, considering the essential traits of compulsory swiss insurance, it has, as I already said, pretty much every aspect of how taxation-funded healthcare works, starting with the (very affordable) price. So once again, your attempt at being clever has failed spectacularly.
I don’t really have a response. This debacle is all yours.
If only both of these statements were true, but sadly no, the debacle is yours and you have plenty of ludicrous responses.
Let me help - to “spill spaghetti (out of one’s pockets)” is common internet slang that denotes finding yourself in an awkward situation and getting flustered/embarrassed after doing/saying something silly. The term originates from a genre of famous copypastas called “spaghetti stories”.
I'm sorry, I don't know your idiotic internet slang expressions - that's an advantage, not a fault, as clearly of us I'm the one who has a real life beyond the Internet. If you think that I'm flustered, you're nuts LOL
What is this weird math? Am I supposed to explain what an LLC is now? No. He didn’t “start 500 businesses 5 times” - is that what you’re calling hyperbole? Because it’s not hyperbole. There are around 500 *different businesses* under The Trump Organisation umbrella, and out of those 500 completely separate entities, 5 went bust. Trump himself was never personally bankrupt, not once - he’s a billionaire. Some of his businesses went bankrupt, but they all have entirely separate books. You don’t take money out of your own pocket and funnel it into an LLC - that’s not how it works. That’s the “limited liability” part of LLC. Tesla’s money doesn’t belong to Elon Musk either, or vice versa.
See, if I were a condescending and rude has-been like you, now I'd drop a definition of "hyperbole" from any dictionary, and then say something stupid to make you look bad for your (supposed) ignorance, because winning Internet arguments would be the only satisfaction of my life. Luckily for you, you're like, quite low in my priority list, so I'm gonna assume you know exactly what hyperbole means, and that you're just being your ridiculous self for no reason other than the mental satisfaction your petty illusions give you.
Yes, Congress introduced the TCJA. Trump endorsed it, and once Congress was done, he signed his name on the dotted line. It’s a good piece of legislation, but if you’re under the impression that he wrote it… well…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017
Nice try but no, the Act was introduced, as "any google search could tell you", by the Republican Party, passed by both the Republican-Dominated Congress and Senate. Unless you're implying Donald Trump wasn't involved at all with you know, a massive legislative project of his own party, in which case this is further evidence he's unfit to rule, because it would show a complete lack of judgement and understanding necessary for a position of responsibility, such as POTUS.
It's also very interesting how, despite your previous claim giving Trump the merit of the (supposed) fiscal successes, somehow now you say that he only signs them. Again, more doublespeak from you, together with your usual double standards.
You have been mentioning Biden through the 20+ pages this ridiculous thread is made of, and somehow you think it's his fault if the inflation has happened - despite CLEARLY SAYING BEFORE THAT TRUMP "doesn't control the purse". Again, the usual double standards (and doublethink) of libertarians.
Tax revenues hit a record high, and yet the debt increased - that means that *spending* has increased compared to previous years. Congress is *spending* in excess of revenue, that’s how you get debt. Trump didn’t set the budget, he didn’t write spending bills, that wasn’t his job. We had a whole government shutdown over spending, lest we forget. Useful graph from your own source:
My graph was really useful indeed. Are you blaming Biden for the pandemic as well? Not you know, the guy who suggested that Ivermectin and Hydroxyquil would work, who stubbornly refused to endorse vaccines just to ensure that his successor would be seen worse off handling the pandemic? Because you know, even if I believed that Trump was the economic genius you think he is (he's not), there is also the fact that he did precisely the above. Is this the sort of moral authority the POTUS can have? I suppose you found highly entertaining people dying because they listened to a colossal orange imbecilic manchild, so you're hoping for an encore?
I see a certain sharp incline at around 2020. The trajectory was exactly the same, give or take, as in previous years *until* 2020. Did Trump do that? I think not.
First of all, you somehow want us to think that the US President has no influence at all on public spending. That's disingenous and ludicrous even for you.
In any case, the point is this: if you want to reduce the debt, you must necessarily do one thing - stop overspending. The president is not in charge of that. His only job is to sign whatever Congress comes up with into law. The office of the President *does not have the power of the purse*. Blame Congress. For the record, both sides of the aisle are at fault here as both continue to raise the debt ceiling. Even Trump doesn’t seem to be too bothered by it, which is one of the few things I don’t like about his views on fiscal policy. “You have to spend money to make money” is all well and good, but not when you’re already extremely in debt. Congress needs to learn how to tighten the belt, otherwise no amount of economic growth is going to make up for the deficit. With that being said, I don’t know why you bring up living cost in this context. I could think of a number of things that led to it increasing - tax cuts are not on that list.
The 2020 poverty line for a family of four is $26,200: People with incomes between $10,000 and $30,000 — nearly one-quarter of Americans — are among those scheduled to pay a higher average tax rate in 2021 than in years before the tax “cut” was passed. The C.B.O. and Joint Committee estimated that those with an income of $20,000 to $30,000 would owe an extra $365 next year — these are people who are struggling just to pay rent and put food on the table.
Of course, the poor have never mattered much to the Republican Party or to Libertarians, but those on the edge of poverty have been particularly hard hit by the pandemic and the recession it has caused, so Trump’s planned tax increases seem especially heartless, and impractical, when you consider that their higher tax payments, while a huge burden for them, will add little to the budget.
By 2027, when the law’s provisions are set to be fully enacted, with the stealth tax increases complete, the country will be neatly divided into two groups: Those making over $100,000 will on average get a tax cut. Those earning under $100,000 — an income bracket encompassing three-quarters of taxpayers — will not.
At the same time, Trump has given his peers, people with annual incomes in excess of $1 million dollars, or the top 0.3 percent in the country, a huge gift: The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the average tax rate in 2019 for this group to be 2.3 percentage points lower than before the tax cut, saving the average taxpayer in this group over $64,000 — more than the average American family makes in a year.
