Archeologists or historians ( or Democrats) may have an interest in President Trumps taxes, I don't. I (honestly) believe that if he cheated the I R S would be all over him. Do what you do best. What ever that is...
Back on Page 1, towards the end, someone brought up the National Debt, and how it "skyrocketed" during Obama's eight years in office.
A fair statement. But maybe there's more to the story.
quote
Depending on who you ask, President Obama added anywhere from $983 billion to $9 trillion to the national debt. Who's lying? None of them. There are three ways to look at the debt added by any president.
Republicans pride themselves on fiscal responsibility. Or at least they used to. Since President Trump found his way into the party’s bloodstream, conservative lawmakers have only been able to pay lip service to the crisis, which is growing worse despite a robust economy. On Tuesday, the Treasury Department reported that the national debt has for the first time eclipsed $22 trillion, up from $19.9 trillion when Trump took office.
[President Trump] doesn’t seem as concerned as he was [as Candidate Trump] when President Obama was in office.
National debt for the first time passed $22 trillion this week — a big, scary number that really doesn’t pose much of a danger now but threatens to in the future.
quote
The most recent projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicate that debt held by the public will rise to 93 percent of GDP in the next 10 years, or the highest since just after the end of World War II. From there, the level is expected to hit 150 percent by 2049, which is well above what economists consider a sustainable level.
Moreover, should current tax policies stay in place, rather than sunset as they are designed to do, the debt burden will get even worse.
The largest number comes from calculating how much the debt increased during Obama's two terms. On January 20, 2009, when he was sworn in, the debt was $10.626 trillion. On January 20, 2017, when he left, it was $19.947 trillion. It explains why most people say Obama added $9 trillion to the debt, more than any other president.
Math.
I particularily enjoy the lame stream media calling it a $3 Trillion gain. The allusion of these headlines "denotes an incredibly weak & primitive mind, in my opinion."
Interesting article from The Balance. I would like to see the same calculations applied to other administration's, just for a basis of comparison. Sometimes Presidents are blamed for budget increases that they really can't control, as happened to our current President when the opposition party added billions to the budget in exchange for increased military spending. It seems to me that Presidents of both parties take the heat for decisions made for political posturing by politicians in the Congress.
Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Figures Show Over $1 Billion in Business Losses
Rinse... sigh...
Trump was most successful during this time. This was his rise to fame. Trump Tower, and the growth of his real estate business. He was also on dozens of TV shows as an extra. Do you really think this represents him as a failure? Or...
...more likely, Trump knows how to work the tax code and got maximum tax breaks by showing a loss on everything, which is what you're supposed to do. I have a rental property that I make a killing on, and you know what? It comes up as a loss every single year.
Why do we have to explain this stuff?
Obviously, he hasn't failed. He owns golf courses all over the world, owns many, many, many businesses. A simple drive from West Palm to Miami down US-1, and you'll pass at least 10 different properties with the name TRUMP. He's had a very successful blockbuster TV show, and now he's President of the United States of America. I mean, come on... the man is wildly successful.
Success, just by its existence, is proof positive to a leftist that it must have been attained by nefarious means.
But Randy, don't get me wrong... I like the fact that Rinse sticks around and has discussion. But I expect more from him than this. Surely he had to know posting about this was silly? Maybe I just have a misunderstanding of how the liberal mind works, but do they think people care about this stuff? Is there maybe a thought that by showing there was a loss on these taxes, that perhaps it may make people think... "Oh man, Trump must not be as great as I think, I should vote for a liberal..." Is this what they really think? Or are Democrats so blinded by rage that they will do anything they think will anger the president?
I've been alive for 4 decades now, and reasonably politically aware for 3 of them. In all my time, from remembering Reagan, George Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump... I've never seen anything like this before in my life. I really took notice with Bush... they HATED Bush. I remember Jeneane Giraffelo on Air America the night Trump won re-election... I tuned in just because I wanted to hear what she had to say. She was in tears... so obviously, Democrats seem to get emotionally distraught every time a Republican wins. There's more to this, obviously... but more than I care to write about in a single Fiero Forum post.
But even the frustrations that Obama had with Republicans, and the frustrations that Bush had with Democrats... nothing like that compares to what Trump experiences on a daily basis.
92% of news media on Trump is negative... and yet, we have the best economy that this country has ever had... EVER had, since I've been alive. And this is really saying something. I remember back in the 1980s... people were doing well... in the late 1980s. I remember everyone was getting new cars, the economy was doing well. I remember again, as an adult in the late 1990s, the economy was on fire under Clinton. But this economy tops even that. Trump couldn't possibly improve the economy any more than he already has, if he even tried... and yet he still does. We've blown away almost every single record for economic success... unemployment in every category has shattered record lows. The median income has actually gone up, wage growth has actually started occurring, inflation is down, tech jobs are increasing at a rate faster than we can fill them, and jobs in every other category have come back in record numbers.
... and, we're doing all of this WHILE fighting numerous economic and cultural battles that everyone said was a forgone conclusion as the future of our country. We're actually working to repair immigration laws, we're actually fighting China on trade... there's so many other things that we've already succeeded at, that Democrats and even most Republicans just accepted as ultimate failure. Trump has taken them, solved these issues, and moved on.
This is EXACTLY what I expected from the man... these are things that are good for America. I just don't understand why Democrats are so radical.
Rinse, seriously... I'm interested, without your colloquialisms and weird speak, why you have such a problem with Trump. Is it because he says mean things? He's a New Yorker, that's just how they roll. Look at his actions, not the way he talks.
I have seen data plots of some of the commonly referenced macroeconomic numbers or statistics that any Trump supporter would be enthusiastic about.
These macroeconomic indicators were trending upwards during Obama's presidency. There was a time during Obama's two terms in office when these numbers started trending upwards in a steady, uninterrupted way and have continued that same upwards trajectory during Trump's administration. The numbers have reached even higher levels under Trump--"Higher Is Better"--but if you look at the years of positive macroeconomic growth, there are more years of that during Obama than for Trump, at this moment. Reflecting the eight years during which Obama was in office, while Trump is still in his first term.
We have "theogre", a forum member that I respect for his integrity in these discussions, back on Page 1, arguing that it is not exceptional for some business entities to report a billion or more dollars in losses on their IRS tax filings. He cites some examples. But the examples that he cites are considerably more recent than the years from 1985 to 1994, which is how I started this Topic. From 1985 to 1994. About 30 years ago. I would say that a billion dollars was more like a billion dollars 30 years ago, than it is today. A billion dollars in 1990 was more like "real money" than a billion dollars is today.
I am not here to present the New York Times as infallible, but I would be surprised if anyone can really shoot down the conclusions of the NYT tax reporters, that these 1985-1994 tax filings by Donald J. Trump stand out in a very remarkable way for that time period, even for a New York City born and bred real estate developer of Trump's flamboyant temperament and character.
It ties in with a narrative that has already emerged from previous NYT reports in recent months and years, that is in sharp contrast to the narrative that Trump has worked to create about his rise in the real estate and business worlds. According to Trump (Donald J. Trump), he was staked to one million dollars of "seed" money from his father, Fred Trump, and that one million dollars was the "seed" that Donald planted and cultivated into all of his current weath.
The New York Times has reported that over the years, Donald Trump received not one million dollars, but 400 million dollars in cash or liquidable assets from his father. It was just said by someone the other day that if Donald Trump had invested $400 million in an indexed stock fund in 1967, when he was age 21, and had not pursued any of his speculative real estate and other business enterprises, he would be far wealthier today than he actually is.
I have more faith in the New York Times than I have in Donald Trump.
I shouldn't continue with this right now, as I need to move on to some other "stuff."
Keep watching this space.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-18-2019).]
We have "theogre", a forum member that I respect for his integrity in these discussions....
As do I. He seems to be able to discuss a subject without the inclusion of personal insults or attacks. It shows intellect.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I have more faith in the New York Times than I have in Donald Trump.
Trust no one, especially in today’s world of pliable “facts” & statistics. I’ve said it before; there is no truth, only versions of “the truth”. Been like that forever.
I have seen data plots of some of the commonly referenced macroeconomic numbers or statistics that any Trump supporter would be enthusiastic about.
These macroeconomic indicators were trending upwards during Obama's presidency. There was a time during Obama's two terms in office when these numbers started trending upwards in a steady, uninterrupted way and have continued that same upwards trajectory during Trump's administration. The numbers have reached even higher levels under Trump--"Higher Is Better"--but if you look at the years of positive macroeconomic growth, there are more years of that during Obama than for Trump, at this moment. Reflecting the eight years during which Obama was in office, while Trump is still in his first term.
Interesting... why would you bring up former President Obama? It's kind of odd to me.
But since you did, we'll discuss some other numbers... the "macroeconomic indicators" you're referring to are the "unemployment rate," specifically. Certainly you're not referencing GDP.
But here are some "other" macro-economic indicators that we can reference:
As you can see... although unemployment did improve, the labor force participation rate dramatically decreased under President Obama. This is BECAUSE:
1 - Obama went on a Federal highing spree, increasing the Federal civilian workforce by more than 10% 2 - Number of people on Disability Increased Substantially 3 - Number of people who stopped looking for work and went on full-time welfare increased dramatically. ... let me make this clear, President Obama *MORE THAN DOUBLED* the number of people on welfare. HE MORE THAN DOUBLED the number of people on welfare, increasing the number more than twice the previously high record.
Under President Trump: - The number of people on disability has decreased. - The number of people on welfare has decreased by almost 10 million people. - and more importantly...
... the number of people participating in the work force has finally started to improve.
So... again, I guess without you saying it... you're upset that Trump's economy has been so spectacular, and you don't like that he's getting credit for it... ok, that's not what we were talking about, but... I guess I had to figure this was coming, it's part for the course.
... here's a full-scope measurement from Trading Economics... shows from beginning of when this statistic started being recorded:
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
We have "theogre", a forum member that I respect for his integrity in these discussions, back on Page 1, arguing that it is not exceptional for some business entities to report a billion or more dollars in losses on their IRS tax filings. He cites some examples. But the examples that he cites are considerably more recent than the years from 1985 to 1994, which is how I started this Topic. From 1985 to 1994. About 30 years ago. I would say that a billion dollars was more like a billion dollars 30 years ago, than it is today. A billion dollars in 1990 was more like "real money" than a billion dollars is today.
So you're saying that even though "theogre" is right that people claim losses on taxes, that somehow that's not what they did back in the mid 1980s? I'm not really sure I understand your thought process.
The goal of a corporation is to make money. Can we agree on that? ... the second goal is to pay the LEAST amount of taxes possible. The more loss you can claim on your taxes, the more successful you are in filing your taxes that year.
... regardless of what you want to believe, Trump was VERY successful during that time period. Many people would say that was his most successful time in his career. He literally helped rebuild parts of NYC, was in multiple movies, had 100s of corporations, many of which were *supposed* to fail so he could transfer losses to them for tax pursposes.
... I, I really don't understand your logic here? Are you basically saying that... even though you see facts, you don't want to believe them? That's what I'm getting from here?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I am not here to present the New York Times as infallible, but I would be surprised if anyone can really shoot down the conclusions of the NYT tax reporters, that these 1985-1994 tax filings by Donald J. Trump stand out in a very remarkable way for that time period, even for a New York City born and bred real estate developer of Trump's flamboyant temperament and character.
It ties in with a narrative that has already emerged from previous NYT reports in recent months and years, that is in sharp contrast to the narrative that Trump has worked to create about his rise in the real estate and business worlds. According to Trump (Donald J. Trump), he was staked to one million dollars of "seed" money from his father, Fred Trump, and that one million dollars was the "seed" that Donald planted and cultivated into all of his current weath.
The New York Times has reported that over the years, Donald Trump received not one million dollars, but 400 million dollars in cash or liquidable assets from his father. It was just said by someone the other day that if Donald Trump had invested $400 million in an indexed stock fund in 1967, when he was age 21, and had not pursued any of his speculative real estate and other business enterprises, he would be far wealthier today than he actually is.
I have more faith in the New York Times than I have in Donald Trump.
I shouldn't continue with this right now, as I need to move on to some other "stuff."
Keep watching this space.
Ok, so this whole section basically says... "I don't like Trump because he's mean?" ...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-18-2019).]
I have not directly accused President Trump of any legally punishable crimes in this Topic (thread) that I started here. I have my suspicions.
I give credence to the New York Times reporting on him, over any narratives or statements that he has put out on record about himself and his present and past.
I think the Democrat-led House Ways and Means Committee and all the other House committees that want access to (more of) his tax filings, bank records and other like information do not need Robert Shapiro (from LegalZoom) to "put the law on their side." I think they already have the law on their side.
How long will it take, to push it through the courts and get the judicial rulings that the House committee chairs want, that would grant them this access? Oh, I dunno. That could still be going on after Trump's last day in office. On the remote chance (take that however you want) that he is not reelected. But the judge for the case that's just been filed, where Trump's lawyers are trying to prevent the Trump organization's accounting firm of Mazars USA from providing any of their Trump-related records to the House committee (whichever one that is) is being expedited. That judge should be ruling on it soon. Like within a week.
I wonder if that will have any effect on how quickly or how slowly the other cases are processed.
I will likely be reporting here as I get the news about how the cases are proceeding and about any rulings from the judges.
Because it is my pleasure. "Fantasy World" journalist and investigative reporter, all the way.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-18-2019).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: These macroeconomic indicators were trending upwards during Obama's presidency. There was a time during Obama's two terms in office when these numbers started trending upwards in a steady, uninterrupted way and have continued that same upwards trajectory during Trump's administration. The numbers have reached even higher levels under Trump--"Higher Is Better"--but if you look at the years of positive macroeconomic growth, there are more years of that during Obama than for Trump, at this moment. Reflecting the eight years during which Obama was in office, while Trump is still in his first term.
Of course you got that from the New York Times, . While true, it does not tell the whole story. It doesn't report the complete news. Shame on you for believing media. Any media. Believe your eyes ! Use your critical thinking skills !
True, the economy improved under Nabama. Marginally. On a graph, it looks like a flat line, very slightly going up. For eight years. Trump in two years ? It shot up like a rocket.
Your precious media stated this would be the new normal (under Nobama). Nobama said himself on video that mfg jobs were not going to come back. Why are they doing that now ?
Nobama asked Trump, again on video, "what magic wand do you have ?" I guess your President Trump found one. Guess where ? My guess would be under the desk in the Oval Office.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think the Democrat-led House Ways and Means Committee and all the other House committees that want access to (more of) his tax filings, bank records and other like information do not need Robert Shapiro (from LegalZoom) to "put the law on their side." I think they already have the law on their side.
What law would that be, ? What law allows Congress to request records for the sole reason to go on a fishing expedition ? What laws are they exercising oversight over ?
On MSNBC, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) said he is concerned is the Democrats do not begin impeachment proceedings in the House President Donald Trump will win the election in 2020. Green said, “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.
I don't think ant President can be impeached legally for anything that happened before the election. The Dumbs surely could not subpeona ant tax filings before the election.
HeHeHeh ... to think, your precious media was complicit in allowing Trump to WIN the Republican Primary.
Mr. Trump's tax information is between him and the IRS. If the IRS were to find any improprieties with his return, I'm sure we would have heard about them. The Democrats in the House are searching for any reason to come after the duly and legally elected President. They have stated that they want to examine his returns to 'see if any changes need to be made to tax laws in the real estate and construction trades'. I would ask how many tax returns they have examined from others in those businesses who also lost money in the NYC property value crash in the 80/90's. What a crock of horse hockey!
I give credence to the New York Times reporting on him
You do that because:
1. You are profoundly mentally ill.
2. Your mental illness has caused you to obsess and to create a fantasy narrative about President Trump in your diseased mind.
3. Your mental illness also causes you not to be able to rationally evaluate objective facts and data. You are only able to regurgitate propaganda that you are fed and that reassures your diseased mental state.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
Because it is my pleasure. "Fantasy World" journalist and investigative reporter, all the way.
4. Your mental illness also causes you to fantasize that you are a "journalist" or a "reporter" and even an "intellectual" when the sad and obvious fact is that you routinely just cut & paste disjointed, miscellaneous crap here.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-19-2019).]
I have not directly accused President Trump of any legally punishable crimes in this Topic (thread) that I started here. I have my suspicions.
I give credence to the New York Times reporting on him, over any narratives or statements that he has put out on record about himself and his present and past.
I think the Democrat-led House Ways and Means Committee and all the other House committees that want access to (more of) his tax filings, bank records and other like information do not need Robert Shapiro (from LegalZoom) to "put the law on their side." I think they already have the law on their side.
How long will it take, to push it through the courts and get the judicial rulings that the House committee chairs want, that would grant them this access? Oh, I dunno. That could still be going on after Trump's last day in office. On the remote chance (take that however you want) that he is not reelected. But the judge for the case that's just been filed, where Trump's lawyers are trying to prevent the Trump organization's accounting firm of Mazars USA from providing any of their Trump-related records to the House committee (whichever one that is) is being expedited. That judge should be ruling on it soon. Like within a week.
I wonder if that will have any effect on how quickly or how slowly the other cases are processed.
I will likely be reporting here as I get the news about how the cases are proceeding and about any rulings from the judges.
Because it is my pleasure. "Fantasy World" journalist and investigative reporter, all the way.
Look, Rinse... I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you're not actually saying anything in this entire block of text above you. It almost feels like you're talking out loud your own thoughts, without actually responding to anything.
I assume you read my response, and I loosely assume your non-directed response was more or less to me. I can't really tell.
... but, I basically shot down entirely everything you just said. If you're going to make claims, you have to be willing to uphold them, unless you can admit to just trolling us. And if that's the case, I'll let you do your thing and I won't waste my time anymore. I assumed we were having a discussion or debate.
Please let me know if I'm wasting both mine and your time.
Look, Rinse... I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you're not actually saying anything in this entire block of text above you. It almost feels like you're talking out loud your own thoughts, without actually responding to anything.
I assume you read my response, and I loosely assume your non-directed response was more or less to me. I can't really tell.
... but, I basically shot down entirely everything you just said. If you're going to make claims, you have to be willing to uphold them, unless you can admit to just trolling us. And if that's the case, I'll let you do your thing and I won't waste my time anymore. I assumed we were having a discussion or debate.
Please let me know if I'm wasting both mine and your time.
Yes, I was responding to your thoughts, Mr "82", and I appreciate this message.
I will not comment on the specifics of what you said about the economy and President Trump, compared to the economy as it was during the eight years of President Obama UNTIL I have had a chance to review that previous and longer message from you. Now that you have stuck a pin in it (so to speak) I will make it a point for myself, to return to your original or earlier message and read it as you wanted it to be read.
Regarding the message that preceded you here--from a forum member whose screen name is so distasteful to me that I won't even "say" it--what kind of Total F*cking Moron comes to the Off Topic section of an Auto Enthusiasts or "Fiero" forum and acts like it has to be taken 100 percent seriously 100 percent of the time?
I'll answer my own (rhetorical) question
A Total F*cking Moron who resides in the state of Florida who needs to GFY himself from now until Infinity.
"Jesus."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-19-2019).]
A Total F*cking Moron who resides in the state of Florida who needs to GFY himself from now until Infinity.
"Jesus."
Ooooh! Watch out! Boondawg will be after you for the whole sticks and stones thingie.
Enjoy your day kiddos! No matter what your mentality is, 3rd grade or not, you should take in the sunshine, help out a neighbor, and just be a better person. Or don't, I am not you problem.
Look, Rinse... I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you're not actually saying anything in this entire block of text above you. It almost feels like you're talking out loud your own thoughts, without actually responding to anything.
Yeah, rinselberg never does that. He's usually so relevant and succinct.
But it is not as it is being described or "diagnosed" from about 3000 miles away.
I am not about to make an appointment with a psychiatrist or a psychologist for the purpose of talking about political or Trump-related ideas, or about why I give a certain credence to many of the reports in the New York Times.
Someone (I think you know who) needs to Fall Back and stop his Remote or Online Psychiatrist ACT. It's disgusting. It's vile. I see it as a clear cut violation of the Posting Guidelines. It's actually more foul-mouthed than my own "F*cking Moron" talk. It's a manifestation of Moronism (as distinct from Mormonism.) It's a pathetic and futile (but as yet ceaseless) attempt to restrict the range of discussion on this forum by someone who has not ever been designated by Cliff Pennock to have that role.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-19-2019).]
Please don't do that. It would severely depreciate the entertainment value of your posts.
I want no one here to change. My words are mine, and I own them. Ronald has his words, and while they are not "the best words", I in no way shape or form wish him or others to stop posting.
I found a $10 bill on the ground yesterday. It was covered in what appeared to be feces, but tasted more like dark chocolate. Hmm?
Yes, I was responding to your thoughts, Mr "82", and I appreciate this message.
I need no such formality. 82 references a 1982 TransAm I purchased back in 1998 for $250 from the "Pink Flamingo" Auto Sales on 441/SR7 and Broward Blvd in Plantation, FL. I was working at Scotty's Hardware at the time while going to college. Someone had backed into my Fiero and with the money I received, I fixed my Fiero with panels from Ed Parks, and used the rest of the money to buy the TransAm. It had 140k+ miles on it, but I ended up blowing the motor in a spectacular burn-out I did in the parking lot of my apartment complex. It caught fire at exactly 150,000 miles. I had it hauled away for $250 scrap at the junkyard. It was an LU5 CrossFire injected 305 V8 that someone had converted to a non-computer controlled Rochester QuadraJet without any spark advance.
"Todd," will suffice.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I will not comment on the specifics of what you said about the economy and President Trump, compared to the economy as it was during the eight years of President Obama UNTIL I have had a chance to review that previous and longer message from you. Now that you have stuck a pin in it (so to speak) I will make it a point for myself, to return to your original or earlier message and read it as you wanted it to be read.
I really wish you would, because I was responding to your assumed response to my comments. The economy was improving slightly under President Obama, but then, the economy always does approve under this system of government. But that said, we were... and have been, going down a path of irrelevance for many years. I'd probably say NAFTA played a big part in our slide. The unwillingness to take action in favor of US interests... primarily, is what has continued this slide of the United States.
Being president is not difficult... and President Donald J. Trump has made that obvious. This is not a crack towards him, but a simple acceptance of the fact... and it was part of his goal as president. We've always been told that it takes an incredible team of vast "elite" experts to properly navigate the decisions a president faces ever day. While it does take a team, the decisions are not so complicated. The question must be asked... are we benefiting, or are these decisions going against the "best interests" of the United States.
Democrats have run on the precipice that the United States was wrong, and that we must do what's right. This "wrong" has been interpreted by the left that we are somehow inherently evil. What they don't realize is that the very foundation of this country... and the values it stands for, have brought the longest sense of world peace among the modern world than any other society in world history. They are trying to undo the very thing that has allowed these other countries to flourish, and evil to be subsided.
The "right" predominantly believes America is good and just, and that leading by example is how we succeed.
Never the less, economically, there's a clear concept on taxation. The Laffer-Curve pretty much makes the most sense. People will pay taxes up to a point, beyond which they will do anything in their power to avoid paying them. Whether this means navigating tax law to skirt taxes by showing a loss, or outright leaving the country and taking your wealth elsewhere. This is what was happening under the Obama administration. Millionaires were leaving in droves. The only positive under the Obama administration was the mass influx of wealth from Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuelans who were themselves fleeing an even more radical socialist government. This was wonderful for my property values in South Florida... but it helped mask what was an otherwise horrific decline of wealth in the United States.
Here are some important facts, and by facts... I mean this truly.
"Corporate Taxes" under the 35-37% corporate tax rate, only made up 11% of the total revenue generated by the IRS (the rest is almost entirely from personal income tax). Only 11%. When we cut that 35-37% down to 21%... it allowed corporations to come back to the United States, and it allowed them to bring money back from overseas. It also allowed for corporations to hire more people, creating more jobs.
Not only did this happen, but the money earned from personal income tax VASTLY outweighed any losses from the corporate tax. It simply made sense... and we have had RECORD tax revenues as a result. This should not go unnoticed, because the Democrats continue to state that we need to raise corporate taxes again... why? Most of the wealth generated came from wealthier individuals, middle class and lower income now pay less taxes or none at all, but the middle class has grown, and substantially more wealth has been created with more wealthy paying taxes.
Personally, we need to cut spending... but neither side seems to want to do that.
Look, Rinse... I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you're not actually saying anything in this entire block of text above you. It almost feels like you're talking out loud your own thoughts, without actually responding to anything.
The vast majority of Ronald's posts read like mental patients talk.
Ronald's forum postings are strikingly similar to the first patient interview in this video:
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-19-2019).]
The vast majority of Ronald's posts read like mental patients talk.
Ronald's forum postings are strikingly similar to the first patient interview in this video:
That video is so very sad. The last interview, the woman reminded me of someone I once knew. The last time I saw her, she was in the "behavioral health" wing of the hospital.
. While true, it does not tell the whole story. It doesn't report the complete news. Shame on you for believing media. Any media.
?
No matter what your mentality is, 3rd grade or not, you should take in the sunshine, help out a neighbor, and just be a better person. Or don't, I am not you problem. 
