Pokebball
-
Posts
3,220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pokebball
-
-
2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:
SNAP benefits cut. Ron DeSanctimonius wants kids working in fields. In Texas, kids drowned in flood prone areas where MAGA cut the NWS and while Tex Cruz lounges. Now it’s protecting pedos. Where’s the Epstein list, MAGA? Why are pedos running free, MAGA? So sick. And so sad.
you dems are really trying too hard. I hope you keep this up, because the middle is smarter than you are giving them credit for.
-
13 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:
There is some kind of conspiracy going on but I doubt they are all pedos. I would say most likely this was the work of CIA or Mossad, or some other opposition group to entrap people and it makes our government look stupid for allowing it.
The more involved, the harder it is to keep it buried. I believe there is something. I'm surprised it remains buried.
-
On 7/6/2025 at 10:37 PM, daz28 said:
I'm not worried, surely this will be 'investigated'. Might take 4 years, until the Democrats flip flop to releasing the Epstein files, but I'm sure justice will be done, as it always is in Washington. Or maybe Elon's party will do it? LOL . I saw the line of snakes that came to me......(Volbeat Let it Burn)
You've got more faith in DC justice than I have.
-
6 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:
Josh Allen has a top five offensive line.. a top five running back group
A defense that is top five in turnovers every year
There's a salary cap there's always going to be a place that you're not filled with world beaters.. and I'm perfectly fine it's at the most diva position.. where we have enough talent
I would never trade our roster for the Bengals.. just because they have two stud wide receivers
You think Josh has had a defense that could get it done?
-
27 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Message received from the Social Security Administration (I can elect to receive benefits starting next year) says the new BBB "delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans. The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned.”
And guess what my wife I will save in taxes thanks to "no tax on social security?"
You got it: Nothing. Zero.
The increased deduction wouldn't apply till I'm 65, and that's a ways off. And even if I wait to get benefits, it won't apply because (1) it phases out, conveniently, in 2028 after Trump is gone; (2) there's an income phase-out that we'll exceed.
So ... nothing. Zero.
"Promises kept" indeed.
I get hit by the income phase out too. Seems fair though. I'm good with it.
-
7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
So either the NWS was unprepared or red state leaders allowed their people to get flooded out is your bottom line. Makes sense.
"allowed their people"?
vs what?
-
7 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:
Still haven't told us what you voted for.
He doesn't vote for anything. He votes against everything
-
10 hours ago, Homelander said:
Melting: @BillsFanNC and all of his bots.
So half (50%) of the country pays 2.3% of the total federal income tax we collect and pay an effective tax rate of 3.3%. You think that is too high?
-
25 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:
Who the ***** cares what you think. You cant handle reality. Cause you a maga Bltch
No, actually I'm not. I didn't vote for Trump.
A great politician once said that one party is stupid and the other party is evil. He was right
-
7 minutes ago, Homelander said:
My discussion is sincere. The issue is your lack of reading comprehension and dragging this topic into an entirely unrelated thread. So as cute as you might think you are, you're just another filthy piece of *****.
You asked me to name the subject. You can name it.
-
1 hour ago, Homelander said:
As little as possible just like you voted for.
I was wondering if your desire for discussion was sincere
-
20 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:
That is the typical lazy maga take. I dont agree. Dems historically do better with the budget. Not that any of you would consider that reality.
I'm not talking about who is the worst. I'm not interested in your diversionary argument. Both are bad
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Homelander said:
No one deserves to lose healthcare, but this outcome is the direct result of her own vote.
So how much more of our tax revenue should the top 10% of earners be paying, if 75% isn't enough?
-
On 6/19/2025 at 8:54 AM, nedboy7 said:
A proposed $5 trillion debt limit increase could make it hard for Republicans to maintain their fiscal hawk credibility.
neither party cares about our deficits and debt
on this issue, they're all the same
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Homelander said:
Appreciate the link but let’s not pretend the Tax Foundation is the final word here.
Yes, the federal income tax system is progressive on paper. But let’s not confuse who pays more in raw dollars with whether the system is actually fair. Wealthy individuals absolutely pay more in taxes - because they make exponentially more money. That doesn’t automatically mean the system is fair or that they’re overburdened.
The ultra-wealthy also benefit from tax shelters, step-up basis, unrealized gains, and capital gains rates that are far below what regular W-2 earners pay. Some billionaires pay lower effective rates than middle-class workers. That’s not a glitch it’s by design.
You said “pick one,” but fair share, tax rates, and wealth taxation are all part of the same conversation. Pretending they’re totally separate is convenient if you want to dodge the bigger issue because you're out of your league, but that’s not how this works.
So sure, I’m happy to debate any angle you want but let’s not confuse motion for clarity. I’m not pivoting. I’m just not playing whack-a-mole with cherry-picked stats.
So, we began with the point that the top 10% were paying 70 (it looks like it's 75%). Where do you think it should be?
-
13 minutes ago, Homelander said:
It’s not about picking a magic number like 70% of the total tax burden that stat just reflects how much income the top 10% already control.
What actually matters is the effective rate they pay on their income and wealth. Right now, billionaires can pay 3% while a teacher pays 13%.
So no I don’t want them paying 100% of the tax burden. I want them paying at least the same effective rate as the people who don’t own private jets. That’s called fairness, not fantasy.
We started talking about fair share. Now you are pivoting to increasing tax rates for the wealthy, along with taxing their wealth? Pick one, if you'd like, and I'm happy to discuss that with you. But when you're a fart in a frying pan, it's really difficult. Our tax system is a graduated one, where if you earn more, you pay a higher %. Additionally, as you earn more, most deductions are phased out so you don't even get those.
Following is a link to the Tax Foundations most recent analysis. It's got some interesting data for you to consider. It supports the fact that most of the taxes are paid by the wealthy AND at a higher effective rate.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Homelander said:
It’s true the top earners pay a big slice of total taxes but that’s partly because they earn so much of the country’s income. But you're clearly not getting it.
The real question is what percentage of their income they actually pay compared to everyone else. When billionaires pay a lower effective rate than middle-class workers, despite making hundreds of millions or billions, that’s where fairness breaks down.
It’s about closing loopholes and ensuring the tax system isn’t rigged to favor the ultra-rich. That's why the rich spend so much money buying politicians, right?
The line that “the rich already pay their fair share” gets pushed by millionaire class influencers and media because their billionaire owners benefit from a rigged system. It’s not about fairness; it’s about protecting a status quo that works for them, not for the rest of us.
Sure, so how much of our tax burden to you want the wealthiest earners to pay. Obviously higher than 70%. What do you think it should be?
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Homelander said:
If cutting spending is really the goal, maybe don’t raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion like you’re maxing out Daddy’s credit card to teach him fiscal responsibility.
agree
6 minutes ago, Homelander said:The wealthiest Americans aren’t paying their fair share because the system is rigged in their favor. While working people pay taxes on every paycheck, billionaires use loopholes and special treatment for capital gains to pay a lower effective rate or nothing at all. In fact, the richest 25 billionaires have paid as little as 3.4% on hundreds of billions in income, far less than most middle-class workers.
Paying a fair share means the tax system should be based on ability to contribute. That means closing loopholes, taxing wealth like work, and ensuring the ultra-rich can’t opt out of supporting the country that enabled their success.
Well, everyone is using the tax code that exists. The top 5% of earners pay 61% of the taxes. The top 10% pay 71%. Where do you want to take these?
-
1 hour ago, Homelander said:
Of course - able-bodied people should contribute if they can.
But let’s be real: this conversation isn’t about encouraging work; it’s about punishing poverty and giving tax breaks to the rich who do not need it. If the goal was really to help people succeed, we’d invest in job training, childcare, and healthcare - not just slash benefits.
So you don't think we're spending enough?
-
2 minutes ago, Homelander said:
From the article - "actual information" you did not want to highlight
The Senate version could add approximately $3.3–$4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade - $1 trillion more than the House plan.
The House version alone is projected to increase deficits by $2.4 trillion.
As much as $930 billion in Medicaid cuts over ten years; strict work requirements could slash eligibility for those with parents of older teens.
SNAP (food stamp) changes: House version pushes high work mandates.
CBO estimates: 11.8 million more uninsured by 2034 under the Senate plan.
House bill alone could leave 10.9 million without health insurance.
Extends 2017 Trump-era tax cuts, with special deductions for seniors, tips, and overtime but caps those benefits.
SALT deduction remains capped at $10,000 (Senate) vs. $40,000 (House), favoring higher earners in wealthier states.
Senate bill includes a staggering $5 trillion debt-limit hike, significantly more than the House’s $4 trillion proposal.
I'm curious what you and others here are most concerned with. Many highlight the growing deficits, and debt. And at the same time are being quite critical of the cuts in spending. Would you rather have greater debt and no cuts?
-
10 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
uh huh. Americans on medicaid. Not illegal immigrants as you stated....concede? how many tricks? I'll take the contract and game for 4 spades.
what makes you think the able bodies on medicaid vote for repubs?
-
3 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
try reading
The legislation would result in 11.8 million Americans losing insurance by 2034, CBO found: nearly 1 million more people without insurance than the House version. That amount includes an estimated 1.4 million people without “verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status” who would lose their state-funded coverage.
What's 10 mil =/- a couple hundred thou?
you said "killing off your voter base"
-
1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
Killing off your voter base doesn't seem a good idea
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5375991-gop-tax-bill-health-cuts/
illegals can't vote
-
2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
Sure hope there are no Republicans in nursing homes…
...wants the govt to control you, birth to grave!!!
20 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:Sure hope no GOPers use electricity since their bill is going to raise electricity costs across the board.
Bad news for red states:
”Annual household energy costs could rise $845 per year in Oklahoma by 2035, and $777 per year in Texas. That’s because these states would be set to deploy a massive amount of wind and solar if Biden-era energy tax credits were left in place. If that goes away, states will have to lean on natural gas to generate power.”
“Blue states that are deliberately putting more clean energy onto their grids would still see prices rise over the coming decade, albeit far less, Orvis said. They are more immune to price shocks because they won’t be as heavily reliant on gas and coal.”
If the bill is bad for seniors in nursing homes, and bad for anyone who uses electricity (especially in some GOP states), it makes you wonder why they are so intent on passing this turd…
...wants the govt to control you, birth to grave
-
1
-
1
-
Why does MAGA hate children?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Well, the dems did have the abortion mobile parked outside it's convention last fall