GOP Trumpers: Would You Support The Following Scenario?

@RemovedUsername1005333 Thank you for responding. I doubt I'll get many true Trumpers responding, because even they know that many of the things Trump is doing are abominable. I would not support the scenario I laid out because so many things are wrong with it,
the same things wrong with the current administration. I wouldn't support it under any administration.

I suspect that after this national nightmare is over, there will be legislation to fix at least some of the loopholes that Trump exploited to get his way.

@RemovedUsername1005333 That's pretty much the way I see it, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the D's and the R's in Washington. The main reason I started supporting Trump in his campaign was because the DNC and the RNC both hated him. I would vote for just about anyone hated by both parties.

@Roadsterrider I take it now that you've seen Trump ripping the nation to shreds, you regret your choice?

@windinhishair No, I think he is doing a fine job, unemployment is lower, I have less taken out in taxes, he is negotiating things that needed fixed like NAFTA, he is building a border wall. My only problem with the government is the dems and Rhino's who are obstructing everything he tries to do. Talking peace with a divided Korea, no president has been able to get anywhere in over 70 years. They have went through the Russian corruption to find nothing, Stormy Daniels to find nothing and when they finish up with the impeachment BS about the Ukraine to find nothing, they will have wasted 4 years trying to get rid of Trump, I think Al Green the senator from Texas summed it up most accurately. We have to impeach Trump now because we can't beat him in 2020. I have no regrets except that is isn't being supported by the house and senate in a professional manner. I will be more choosey with my vote for congressmen and senators in 2020.

@Roadsterrider So in other words, you support Trump's deliberate division of the nation into those who adore and support him (the ones he will help) and those who do not.

You are woefully uninformed. The wall is not being built (parts are being replaced, and even those are easily breached), his trade wars are hurting the economy and will for many years, taxes actually went up in blue states when people own a home, Korea and Iran are rebuilding their nuclear programs with Trump's support, the Mueller Report found ten instances of obstruction of justice, Trump committed a crime with his bimbo porn star payments (and his fixer Cohen is currently in jail serving time for it), and Trump committed obstruction of justice and abuse of power in Ukraine, as can clearly be seen from witness depositions and testimony. He is the worst president we've had in history--uninformed, malevolent, mercurial, mentally unstable. He lies continuously about anything and everything, and stooges like you buy it hook, line, and sinker.

@windinhishair That is not what I said at all, that is your way to deflect something that you can't argue.

Would it be safe for me to assume that you are unhappy with low unemployment especially among minorities because you dislike Trump and his policy so much? Maybe a racist? Probably not and it isn't how I argue a point. You can't help or benefit everyone every time. You may not like Trump but you can't argue with the economic indicators. And so far he has been truer to what he demonstrated during his campaign than any president I can remember.

He is doing a better than average job in spite of the dedicated group of democrats in the house and senate that try to obstruct everything he does. Yet, progress is being made on everything he campaigned for.

And I feel that the country is less divided now than it was under the former president. At this point we are divided by a basic ideology, conservative or liberal. We have been leaning to the left since the 60s, it has cost us as a nation, financially and morally and it has weakened us as a nation. It is time for the pendulum to swing the other way, balance the books, fix what needs to be fixed and strengthen our nation. In 20 or 30 years, a conservative government will become oppressive and it will swing back to the left. The left is the path to socialism, to the right is the path to tyranny, to stay moving between the two is the key to keeping our rights and freedoms.

Under Obama there was a much greater tension between races. More so than I had ever seen in my 53 years anyway. Rioting in the streets, people being pulled from their cars and beaten because they had a bumper sticker someone disagreed with.

We as a nation are in a better place than we were before he was elected.

@Roadsterrider You couldn't be more wrong. We are far worse off than we were under Obama, or any other president going back at least to WWII. You suggest that Trump will balance the books--exactly how is that happening since he has doubled the deficit in his first two years? And if you were honest about the economy, you would know that job creation is lower in Trump's first 32 months in office than it was in Obama's last 32. But that doesn't fit your narrative, does it? I like the fact that Trump has continued Obama's recovery, but I don't like the underlying deficit and like almost all economists, see a recession looming. One that will be exacerbated if Trump is still in office.

The GOP made it a point to try to make Obama fail, because they couldn't stomach a black man being president. That's just historical fact. They obstructed everything Obama tried to do, and were proud of it. Trump has capitalized on the divisiveness and exploited it for his own use.

The left has made possible most of the gains since the 1960s. Without the left, rivers would still be open sewers, air pollution would kill tens of thousands every year, there would be no minimum wage, no medicare or medicaid. People would literally be dying because of the lack of medical care and pollution. Food safety, worker protections, anti-discrimination laws would never have been promulgated. I suppose you'd support such a world, where people work in low paid jobs and die early, to be replaced by more workers who live short, impoverished lives. But I'm sure we would have more guns to be able to settle our differences of opinion.

Trump has been pretty much as he promised. He promised to run the country as a business, and as a crooked businessman, he learned how to lie, cheat and steal, which he has continued to do in the White House. That is why so many people oppose him, and will continue to oppose him. And [b]should[/b] continue to oppose him.

@windinhishair I guess unemployment and 3.5 to 4% growth are just made up numbers? Must be because Obama said 3% was unattainable any longer and we would have to be content with 2 or 2.5%. We are not experiencing rioting in the streets. What criminal activity is attributed to Trump other than the scandals made up by Schiff and Pelosi? Al Green, a democrat senator from Texas stated if best, "We have to impeach Trump now because we can't beat him in 2020." The left has spent the gain on social programs since the 60s, that is why social security and medicare are going to be broke.

@Roadsterrider The unemployment numbers aren't made up, at least as far as we know. The 3.5 to 4.0% growth you cite is made up. Check your data. It isn't anywhere near that for the past few quarters as we slide toward recession. And as incredible as it may seem, a temporarily strong economy doesn't negate criminal activity on the part of the Executive.

I already gave you some of Trump's criminal activity a few posts back. You can read it if you wish, or just ignore it like other Trumpers do. And this morning, you can add witness tampering to the list.

We haven't had rioting in the streets in some many years, except for occasional outbursts of white supremacists like in Charlottesville, and a couple antifa outbursts. Domestic terrorism is largely due to white supremacists at the moment, though little is done because they support Trump.

Al Green doesn't speak for all Democrats, any more than Louie Gohmert and Mike Lee speak for all Republicans. You do know that, right?

SS and medicare are heading toward bankruptcy in about 20 years because Congress borrows from it, and because it was never intended to be an entitlement program. We need to go back to its original concept of a safety net. The wealthy should draw zero from it as their retirement is set. There needs to be a means test.

Actually, our "gains" have been almost entirely in the top 1% of income earners, which has been further entrenched by the tax cuts for the wealthy. That will require reversal before we can make progress as a nation.

@windinhishair Yes I do understand Al Green doesn't speak for all democrats, but, what he said is pretty much inline with what Pelosi, Schiff, and the rest of the "elected" democrats say. So, I think he put the idea across better and more truthfully than the rest of the democrat politicians.

Take from those who have and give to those who don't is a tenet of communism. Legally earned income shouldn't be taken from someone just because they have been successful. Criminals are a different story. One guy makes a million dollars a year by being a successful surgeon, he provides a service people need, they would die if he quit doing what he does. One guy makes a million a year playing football, one makes his buy operating 5 Mcdonalds franchises employing 100 employees. The general surgeon is going to go into private practice so he can charge whatever he wants without the government getting into his way, the people that could use his services is left either having to come out of pocket if they can afford it or dying if they can't. The football player will negotiate a better contract to make up for the loss due to taxes and ticket prices will go up costing patrons more, the guy with the 100 employees will reduce the number of employees to offset the loss due to taxes. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Lets look at %74,500. If you make less than that number, you pay about 10% in taxes. If you make $75,000 you pay 28%. How is that fair? I worked in my field for 35 years to get where I am, nights on the road working late, missed birthdays, months away from home at times. Now I make a comfortable living, why should I pay 28% instead of 10%? I took the risks, I paid the price to get where I am. Why should the government take what I have earned and spread it out among those with no ambition or not enough smarts to do it themselves. The Bernie Madoffs who get rich by stealing and cheating, drain them dry. But if work and risk only gives you what the government will allow, the rest is taken in taxes, why take the risk, why put the effort into something that someone else is going to get.

I would like to see a flat tax, or a national sales tax, what you make and spend gets taxed. Everyone would pay 10% on everything they buy, whether they were billionaires of welfare babies. Completely equal. When a young man buys his first car and it is a Dodge dart, he pays 10% of $20K, when the rich guy buys a new Corvette, he pays 10% of $100K. Honestly, if I could wave a magic wand and make one political thing happen, it would be to end payroll deduction. I think if everyone had to write a check at the end of the month for everything the government gets, it would cause a tidal wave of fiscal conservatives in the next election. I am a conservative mainly fiscally, I don't care if a woman has an abortion or if we increase or decrease immigration. But I hate to see money wasted, especially when I am strong-armed into paying into the corrupt system.

Concerning taxes, are you talking about income or wealth? If I save half a million dollars in a 401K, do you want to tax that every year? A 401 with half a million isn't out of reach for most people who contribute, especially if they start when they are young.

I have a question in a different vein though. As a child we had 3 big evergreens in the back yard, maybe 60 feet tall and 20-25 feet across at the bottom, perfect giant Christmas trees. I think they were blue spruce. I figure I will live another 20 or 25 years, I plan on planting some evergreens this spring, will a blue spruce grow fast enough for me to see a big tree before I kick the bucket? I am in West Virginia, the soil is a rocky clay with a pond less than 100 yards from where I want my trees. Plenty of natural water. I have plenty of old growth oak and hickory, some beech, a few locust trees and a boat load of sycamore and some water willow. I would appreciate your opinion.

@Roadsterrider Yours is an interesting post. Let's unpack it.

Democratic politicians don't all agree with Al Green, nor do most of them. Impeaching the president is important because of what he has done, not because he can't be beat in 2020. With 56% of the population opposing him, he's not going to win next year.

You are basically arguing that if we tax the wealthy, all of that gets passed down to the less well off so the wealthy can remain just as wealthy. Do you really believe that? Many of the most wealthy pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than people earning much less. I suppose you see that as fair? And remember, the US has done the best economically when we had the highest marginal tax rates in the 1950s and 1960s. When real people in the middle class had money to spend. 10,000 middle class people with disposable income will make a stronger economy than one extremely wealthy person.

Taxes do not work the way you think they do. That person earning $75,000 in your example doesn't pay 28% on his entire income. He/she pays the same 10% on the first $74,500 in income, and then 28% on the next $500. Their total tax rate is 10.12%, not 28%. That's why the 28% is called the marginal tax rate.

You were fortunate to make a good living, but that doesn't mean you have worked any harder in life than those making less. You blaming them for not being as smart as you are or working as hard as you did is wrong. Some might fall in that category, but the vast majority of the poor are working poor.

I agree with you that a flat tax, or something approaching a flat tax, would be the most equitable system for taxation. My only difference from yours is that I might exempt the first $10,000 or so of income so the system wouldn't be so difficult on working poor. But in concept, I agree with a flat tax, with exemptions eliminated so the wealthy pay that same rate. And taxes would be paid on income, not wealth. To the extent your income is proceeds from a 401K or other retirement plan that income was not paid on previously, that would be taxed as well.

I would be fine with no payroll deduction in principle, but in practice I don't think it would work, because there would be too many people who would "forget" about it and never write that check. I'm sure that is why there is payroll deduction in the first place.

Your question is interesting because I planted a blue spruce in a similar climate 28 years ago. It is now about 25-30 feet tall and nicely proportioned. But even if I hadn't, the answer to planting trees is always yes. Trees should be planted to bring joy to others as well as yourself. When I lived in Texas, I planted a couple of peach trees in my back yard. I knew I would never see them in their glory, and indeed, I was able to harvest only a single peach before I moved. But the trees grew, and prospered, and even extended over the fence and into the neighbors yard, where it gave beautiful peaches to two families before it died a natural death. I've planted probably a hundred trees where I live now--oak, elm, chestnut, spruce, balsam fir, white pine, redbud, walnut, ash, catalpa, pecan, maple, hophornbeam, hackberry, hickory, butternut, bitternut, black cherry, sassafrass, etc. I plant more every year, and will until I cannot do it any more. I will not live to see them all reach maturity, but that isn't the point. Someone will. You always reap what you sow.

@windinhishair I will take the advice on trees.

I don't know where your numbers come from but the reality for me is that I make a little over $100K, my wife makes a litte over $50K, we file jointly, and after a standard deduction, we pay a little less than 25% of our total income. I have been to tax professionals, accountants, and tried every program out there. The end result is I pay 28% on what I make and we pay 28% on what my wife makes even though she is below $74.5K.

Concerning a flat tax, while it would be the most fair, it would really hurt the lowest wage earners, especially those with children. Someone paying $2000 and getting a portion of that back and then getting an additional $5000 or $6000 in EIC, effectively paying no income tax because they get back more than they pay in as a refund.

I disagree with income tax as a whole. Prior to WW1, almost all of the governments revenue was from Import and Export Tariffs. The income tax was presented as a way to pay off the debt of the first war. Once the politicians got their hands into our wallets, they just never took them out. We do take a beating on trade because we can't compete with workers that will work for pennies an hour while we are paying artificially inflated wages.

I do not think I am any smarter than the average guy doing what I do, but I have worked harder to be where I am than the guy who doesn't want the added responsibility of taking a promotion or a new position. Anyone could do what I did to get better. I started out poor, looked at what was available and picked a direction.

Because of EIC, a great many of the lower wage earners pay no taxes, and those who do pay very little compared to more wealthy tax payers. So the guy making a million dollars a year, even if he hides some of that money, is contributing a larger portion to the kitty than numerous low wage earners combined. History has proven that cutting taxes works, it worked for Reagan, it has worked for Trump, and it worked for Kennedy after his death, Johnson actually put Kennedys plan into effect in 1964. The economy improved until the 70s and then Reagan cut rates and the 80s and 90s were booming until Obama, the tail end of Bush if you prefer, Trumps minor cut has had the same effect.

Kennedy cut the top rate from 91% to 65%. In what world is someone getting taxed 90% of their earnings the right thing to do?

@Roadsterrider If you are in the 28% tax bracket, you are not paying 28% on your total income. You are paying a marginal rate of 28% on earnings over $74,500. Check the tax tables--they explain this pretty clearly. So during Kennedy's presidency, no one was paying 90% of their entire income. It just doesn't work that way and never has. That's why we have tax brackets.

Tax cuts are a sugar high, but don't work in the long run if revenues don't keep up with expenditures. Trump is a great example. We were finally getting the deficit down, to around $500 billion, but the current deficit under Trump is $982. Essentially his tax cut was borrowed from our children and grandchildren. That isn't a fiscally sound way to run a government. The same thing happened under Reagan. Most people don't realize that Reagan's smallest deficit was larger than Carter's largest. And yet people think of Reagan as a fiscal conservative. His actions were directly counter to that.

You could eliminate the income tax if you had a huge value added tax, but that would create a huge black market and underground economy. I think we are stuck with income tax in our current economic system, though it could be vastly improved by going to a flat tax or increasing marginal tax rates on the wealthy. I suspect the latter is where we will end up. The key to a strong economy that is sustainable is a strong middle class. We've gone in the opposite direction the past 50 years to create a super-wealthy class and a huge subclass, with very little in the middle. This is a big reason why we end up with politicians like Trump, who promise improvement but can't deliver. The whole system is flawed.

@windinhishair I agree the system is flawed, again, the flat while being the most fair would also hit the lower wage earners and those getting EIC the hardest. I guess in my dream world we would cut spending to a reasonable level and go back to collecting import and export tariffs to fund the government as was the practice before WW1.