squatz1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1285
Flying Hellfish is a Commie
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 31, 2020, 01:18:21 AM |
|
I think some sort of regulations are inevitable. I'm not sure what it will look like, but I think it would have to be a long process and include some sort of agreement with many other countries. This EO is a political stunt, but say Trump gets re elected and finds a way to navigate or circumvent the courts and gain the power to actually control social media sites on his own without any actual legislation, why wouldn't they just relocate to another country? If that happened, then what? I guess they could sanction them? The great MAGA firewall? Actual Conservatives^^ Totally a political event, he's trying to convince his supporters that the media is against him again and they're trying to censor him. I know this will go well with his base - most things do - but I'm unsure on how moderates are going to feel about this. I highly doubt that the coal miners in WV, the former factory workers in the rust belt, or the people that are suffering from the Coronavirus really care about his spat on Twitter. They'd much rather that Trump focus his resources and time on things that will help them. Hoping for no new regulations. Last thing gov needs is more regulations.
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 31, 2020, 01:44:03 AM |
|
As I said I barely use Twitter and most of that use is reading Trump's rants so I'm still suspecting that you don't know what "literally" means.
And assuming that what you're saying is true, shouldn't Trump stop using the platform run by criminals. That's not a good look. He could pick a smaller platform that doesn't discriminate against conservatives, his loyal base would surely follow, media would surely follow, sounds like a win for everybody. And he can still prosecute the criminals without letting them monetize his presence on their platform. It doesn't matter what you use, you advocate for this one sided policy, thus you are literally part of the problem. Yeah, why doesn't he just mute his voice and use a smaller platform! That will show those people trying to mute his voice! Honestly I couldn't agree more with ya here SuchMoon. I'd still consider myself someone who agrees with the ideals of a Republican and a Conservative, but watching supporters of the party and the party itself attempt to bend over backwards to find some logic to support this EO is insane.
This is an attack on the rights of companies here, and in the past Republicans would've been appalled to hear the government is getting involved in capitalism and business. But no -- they're all just sitting around and complaining.
I'm against Twitter / Facebook / Instagram (etc) censoring, but they do have a right to do as it is their platform. If you don't like it - MAKE A NEW PLATFORM - DON'T GET BIG GOVERNMENT INVOLVED. You are such a poser. You don't agree with conservative/republican ideas at all. You are constantly agreeing with all the most extremist leftist opinions here. No one needs to bend over backward to justify the logic of this executive order, it makes perfect sense and it is something the people have been screaming for him to do since 2016, the first time they tried and failed to silence his constituency. I see, so companies have human rights, and humans, well fuck their rights, letting them speak and treating these companies like all other publishers when they function as publishers hurts their feelings and violates the rights of that incorporation! You are such a tool and a poser. Conservatives have tried to make their own platforms. You know what happens? They start attacking their hosting servers until they get dropped, they get demonized in the media as "supporting hate speech", they get their Cloudflare account shut down, they get their bank accounts closed, they get their emails shut down, and so on. This is nothing but fascism, but you keep telling me about your brilliant solutions Mr. "conservative" who is little more than a mouthpiece for liberal ideals with a red tie on. I never suggested any regulation, I would be opposed to any, and I fear that specifically conservative notion could be the end of conservatives in this nation. Conservatives are more likely to support the very freedoms that are currently being used and abused to paint them as evil racists. That's a risk I'm willing to accept, however.
Trump is now demanding that FCC and other agencies come up with regulations. It's not a done deal that they will (FCC is supposed to be independent) but do you support what he's trying to do here? I am more likely to support an effort by our government to educate the public, but that begs the question of where and how? Schools? Colleges? Can we really expect some of the most liberal organizations in this country to support such a conservative notion as freedom of speech? Many of these organizations are directly responsible for political correctness, which is a form of suppression of speech.
The government can surely support certain education standards but conservatives tend to be against education spending. Imagine if Jack Dorsey was a bible thumping homophobe, shadow banning Planned Parenthood, and transgender-rights groups. We'd have riots in the streets.
I doubt that. Most social media users (trigger warning - blatant stereotyping follows) don't really give a shit. Might explain why there's no right-wing social media (assuming the existing social media is leftist). Conservatives tend to be against CENTRALIZED education spending, you know the kind used as a tool to indoctrinate children into leftist ideals, huge costs with increasingly poor results, one size fits all, centrally managed, from the top down, federal dictate level using the Soviet model of education kind of policies. This is of course opposed to the more efficient, more culturally and ideologically diverse, less costly and better results that come from state managed systems. No, but because we oppose you milking the nation dry with a failing system designed to indoctrinate children to your ideals, we are "against education." Give me a break, you "wouldn't give a shit" my ass. You people form fucking mobs to swarm anyone who strays from your strict leftist indoctrination, and do everything in your power to not only silence them, but destroy their lives using any means necessary if they dare violate the ethos of the hive mind in any way whatsoever. You do it using classic media. You do it using social media. You do it using every level of the educational system. You do it by using people's livelihoods against them. In every case the ends justify the means, all the while shrieking "NAZI!" as you spread your totalitarian ideals by any means available. You keep pretending like you don't care though. I think some sort of regulations are inevitable. I'm not sure what it will look like, but I think it would have to be a long process and include some sort of agreement with many other countries. This EO is a political stunt, but say Trump gets re elected and finds a way to navigate or circumvent the courts and gain the power to actually control social media sites on his own without any actual legislation, why wouldn't they just relocate to another country? If that happened, then what? I guess they could sanction them? The great MAGA firewall? Actual Conservatives^^ Either the US regulates social media, or through the lack of regulation, foreign countries will regulate it anyway. This is something that needed to happen a LONG time ago, even if it is regulation to preempt foreign regulation. We shouldn't let American institutions, and systems created and funded by Americans be hijacked by foreign entities and be used to violate American freedoms and ideals. They can relocate all they like, this is still their primary market, that means they play by American rules. Actual conservatives my ass. You want to define what facts are, now you want to define what conservatives are too eh? Why not just get it over with and define yourself as the richest king in the world and retire to enjoy your vast wealth? Totally a political event, he's trying to convince his supporters that the media is against him again and they're trying to censor him. I know this will go well with his base - most things do - but I'm unsure on how moderates are going to feel about this.
I highly doubt that the coal miners in WV, the former factory workers in the rust belt, or the people that are suffering from the Coronavirus really care about his spat on Twitter. They'd much rather that Trump focus his resources and time on things that will help them.
Hoping for no new regulations. Last thing gov needs is more regulations.
He doesn't need to convince his supporters, his ACTUAL supporters have been screaming for him to take action against social media bias since 2016, and he has done virtually nothing. They also experience the censorship, they don't need convincing, he is lagging behind what they want. Of course as an "actual conservative" you have experienced this yourself right? I doubt a West Virginian coal miner much enjoys being stripped of having the ability to have their own voice while anyone to the left of Mao gets to. As a "real" fake conservative, you underestimate how much actual conservatives value free speech.
|
|
|
|
suchmoon (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 9007
https://bpip.org
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 31, 2020, 03:04:22 AM |
|
Actual conservatives my ass
Are you the only real conservative on Bitcointalk?
|
|
|
|
TwitchySeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2052
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
You want to define what facts are, now you want to define what conservatives are too eh? Sure. People who believe in a smaller government, fewer regulations, lower taxes, looser gun laws, stricter immigration laws, pro-life and eliminating federal debt. From what I've experienced personally, compared to Liberals (I mean the American definition of Liberals) Conservatives have a lower tolerance for risk, are more pragmatic, more likely to have a traditional family, better at managing their finances and holding a steady job long term, more likely to be religious, less likely to have a high level of education. less likely to empathize with people from different cultures, and less open to new ideas and change. I consider myself a Democrat but there are plenty of Republicans that I would vote for over plenty of Democrats. Honestly I feel like general Republican characteristics make for a better president. For example I disagree with many of Ben Sasse's votes - but the guy is so sharp, articulate and pragmatic that if he ran there's a decent chance I'd vote for him over any Democrat. Would never vote for him to be my Senator though.
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3892
Merit: 1373
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 31, 2020, 12:32:11 PM |
|
I guess he didn't realize that he had rights other than Constitutional rights... rights that were there before the Constitution came into being. Ninth Amendment: Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
|
|
|
|
DireWolfM14
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 4329
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 31, 2020, 04:29:49 PM |
|
I never suggested any regulation, I would be opposed to any, and I fear that specifically conservative notion could be the end of conservatives in this nation. Conservatives are more likely to support the very freedoms that are currently being used and abused to paint them as evil racists. That's a risk I'm willing to accept, however.
Trump is now demanding that FCC and other agencies come up with regulations. It's not a done deal that they will (FCC is supposed to be independent) but do you support what he's trying to do here? No, I would not support regulations. But Trumps rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, his actions don't always resemble his tweets. Nonetheless, assuming this isn't merely rhetoric, and he plans to act on his words, it wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with him. However, I'm not the president. The EO suggest a method for citizens to complain to the FCC, and for the FCC to start tracking these allegations. True, that may eventually result in regulations or changes to section 230, or it may fizzle out into nothing. Surely you're not opposed to accumulating data. Imagine if Jack Dorsey was a bible thumping homophobe, shadow banning Planned Parenthood, and transgender-rights groups. We'd have riots in the streets.
I doubt that. Most social media users (trigger warning - blatant stereotyping follows) don't really give a shit. Might explain why there's no right-wing social media (assuming the existing social media is leftist). I don't doubt it. Okay, maybe "riots in the streets" is an exaggeration I used for effect, but look at all the mayhem that ensued when some political operative named Christine Blasey Ford said she may remember something that that may have happened maybe 40 years ago. There are many such situations where the left will make mountains out of molehills because it's a useful tool to villainize the right. This EO is a political stunt, but say Trump gets re elected and finds a way to navigate or circumvent the courts and gain the power to actually control social media sites on his own without any actual legislation... Do you really have such little faith in the system? POTUS has no authority to create laws, and certainly none to circumvent the courts.
|
|
|
|
squatz1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1285
Flying Hellfish is a Commie
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 31, 2020, 06:28:22 PM |
|
You want to define what facts are, now you want to define what conservatives are too eh? Sure. People who believe in a smaller government, fewer regulations, lower taxes, looser gun laws, stricter immigration laws, pro-life and eliminating federal debt. From what I've experienced personally, compared to Liberals (I mean the American definition of Liberals) Conservatives have a lower tolerance for risk, are more pragmatic, more likely to have a traditional family, better at managing their finances and holding a steady job long term, more likely to be religious, less likely to have a high level of education. less likely to empathize with people from different cultures, and less open to new ideas and change. I consider myself a Democrat but there are plenty of Republicans that I would vote for over plenty of Democrats. Honestly I feel like general Republican characteristics make for a better president. For example I disagree with many of Ben Sasse's votes - but the guy is so sharp, articulate and pragmatic that if he ran there's a decent chance I'd vote for him over any Democrat. Would never vote for him to be my Senator though. Typically they believe in all of those things, though recently (last 10-15 years) people who have been elected on those ideals have jumped ship and abandoned those ideas in favor of far reaching government surveillance, a complete lack of privacy for the citizens, and so on. It's horrid to see the people that you elected to bring small government to Washington, disregard that and continue to expand the power of big government. Both parties have been doing this for a long time, we really need change.
|
|
|
|
suchmoon (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 9007
https://bpip.org
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
May 31, 2020, 08:20:34 PM |
|
eliminating federal debt
That's probably not the case anymore. I don't recall any significant conservative backlash against the tax cut a couple of years ago that is ballooning the deficit. The EO suggest a method for citizens to complain to the FCC, and for the FCC to start tracking these allegations. True, that may eventually result in regulations or changes to section 230, or it may fizzle out into nothing. Surely you're not opposed to accumulating data.
That's one small part of it. I'm not necessarily opposed to tracking complaints but people can already file complaints with the FCC, and the FTC, etc. To ask the FTC to give him a report he doesn't need an EO. However he's also directly asking to come up with regulations: within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify [some section 230 stuff]
As well as telling state Attorneys General (which he has zero jurisdiction over) to do something, and asking for federal legislation, etc. Just a bizarre wish list. Do you really have such little faith in the system? POTUS has no authority to create laws, and certainly none to circumvent the courts.
Then... why? I mean one of the right-wing complaints I'm hearing against Twitter is that they're putting their thumb on the scales ahead of the election. Trump is throwing a bag of cement on the scales, given that he's a candidate and is trying to create a more favorable media landscape for himself (or an illusion thereof) with an ill-conceived EO.
|
|
|
|
TwitchySeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2052
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 01, 2020, 12:26:25 AM |
|
This EO is a political stunt, but say Trump gets re elected and finds a way to navigate or circumvent the courts and gain the power to actually control social media sites on his own without any actual legislation... Do you really have such little faith in the system? POTUS has no authority to create laws, and certainly none to circumvent the courts. I still have faith. Just not as much as I used to.
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 01, 2020, 01:07:08 AM |
|
eliminating federal debt
That's probably not the case anymore. I don't recall any significant conservative backlash against the tax cut a couple of years ago that is ballooning the deficit. The EO suggest a method for citizens to complain to the FCC, and for the FCC to start tracking these allegations. True, that may eventually result in regulations or changes to section 230, or it may fizzle out into nothing. Surely you're not opposed to accumulating data.
That's one small part of it. I'm not necessarily opposed to tracking complaints but people can already file complaints with the FCC, and the FTC, etc. To ask the FTC to give him a report he doesn't need an EO. However he's also directly asking to come up with regulations: within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify [some section 230 stuff]
As well as telling state Attorneys General (which he has zero jurisdiction over) to do something, and asking for federal legislation, etc. Just a bizarre wish list. Do you really have such little faith in the system? POTUS has no authority to create laws, and certainly none to circumvent the courts.
Then... why? I mean one of the right-wing complaints I'm hearing against Twitter is that they're putting their thumb on the scales ahead of the election. Trump is throwing a bag of cement on the scales, given that he's a candidate and is trying to create a more favorable media landscape for himself (or an illusion thereof) with an ill-conceived EO. Reducing taxation has almost nothing to do with eliminating the debt. If you think taxes are what fuels spending you have a childlike understanding of economics. Letting people keep more of their money is not the same thing. If you are going to make an argument, at least make a valid one like his spending is excessive. Attorney Generals are under the rule of The Department of Justice which is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government, making them EXPLICITLY within the president's jurisdiction regardless of it being a state office. Furthermore he is not crafting a new law, but asking for revision of enforcement of an existing law, which is exactly the authority the executive branch has.
|
|
|
|
sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3472
Merit: 3568
born once atheist
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 01, 2020, 01:53:31 AM |
|
... Imagine if Jack Dorsey was a bible thumping homophobe, shadow banning Planned Parenthood, and transgender-rights groups. We'd have riots in the streets.
.....
Not sure about rioting in streets (actually, that's already happening, but I digress) but if Jack Dorsey was and doing those things you mention, our dear impotus would definitely not be trying to censure the twitter platform... more likely he'd be be kissing his (Jack Dorsey's) feet.
|
Bitcoin...the future of all monetary transactions...and always will be
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 01, 2020, 06:54:26 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
DireWolfM14
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2268
Merit: 4329
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 01, 2020, 07:29:06 PM Last edit: June 01, 2020, 08:02:46 PM by DireWolfM14 |
|
The EO suggest a method for citizens to complain to the FCC, and for the FCC to start tracking these allegations. True, that may eventually result in regulations or changes to section 230, or it may fizzle out into nothing. Surely you're not opposed to accumulating data.
That's one small part of it. I'm not necessarily opposed to tracking complaints but people can already file complaints with the FCC, and the FTC, etc. To ask the FTC to give him a report he doesn't need an EO. However he's also directly asking to come up with regulations: within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify [some section 230 stuff]
As well as telling state Attorneys General (which he has zero jurisdiction over) to do something, and asking for federal legislation, etc. Just a bizarre wish list. When that section was written the big social media platform was My Space, and it mostly occupied by tweens and teens. A lot has changed since then, and the applicable rules and regulations should be assessed far more frequently, in my opinion. The internet is a dynamic entity, and deserves dynamic responses when large corporations start abusing protections that were applied to a fledgling industry. Do you really have such little faith in the system? POTUS has no authority to create laws, and certainly none to circumvent the courts.
Then... why? I mean one of the right-wing complaints I'm hearing against Twitter is that they're putting their thumb on the scales ahead of the election. Trump is throwing a bag of cement on the scales, given that he's a candidate and is trying to create a more favorable media landscape for himself (or an illusion thereof) with an ill-conceived EO. The "why" is simple; to prevent abuse. The "how" is the more difficult question to answer, and I hope that accumulating more data will make answers easier to come by. Furthermore; it's not only the president that's being abused by some snot-nosed narcissistic chump who thinks he's more informed than the POTUS, it's half of the American people (assuming 50/50 distribution of conservatives and liberals.) I mean, really people! I know you don't like Trump, but look at from the perspective of the disrespect being shown to the office of the Presidency. Do you really think Jack Dorsey and his troupe of snotier-nosed "Fact Checkers" are more informed that our President? Don't answer that question with your emotions, answer with an honest thoughtful reflection of facts.
|
|
|
|
TwitchySeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2052
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 01, 2020, 07:36:45 PM Last edit: June 01, 2020, 08:22:43 PM by TwitchySeal |
|
Reducing taxation has almost nothing to do with eliminating the debt.
(total spending) - (revenue generated) = annual deficit/surplus. In 2019 there was a deficit of ~$980 billion. That means the federal debt increased by ~$980 billion in 2019. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gyazo.com%2F3c301e05646768796d1e6ab9a9fbf0d8.png&t=665&c=YA6g_9DZBHvgFA) Taxes are the primary source (over 90%) of revenue for the federal government. 2020 will be a lot worse. In April 2020 alone, the federal government had a ~$780 billion deficit.
~
That's 43 media links in 10 minutes. You gotta stop falling for click bait headlines.
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 02, 2020, 04:02:00 AM |
|
Reducing taxation has almost nothing to do with eliminating the debt.
(total spending) - (revenue generated) = annual deficit/surplus. In 2019 there was a deficit of ~$980 billion. That means the federal debt increased by ~$980 billion in 2019. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gyazo.com%2F3c301e05646768796d1e6ab9a9fbf0d8.png&t=665&c=YA6g_9DZBHvgFA) Taxes are the primary source (over 90%) of revenue for the federal government. 2020 will be a lot worse. In April 2020 alone, the federal government had a ~$780 billion deficit.
~
That's 43 media links in 10 minutes. You gotta stop falling for click bait headlines. Yeah, exactly. You see that red bar there, the deficit? What effect did the tax have on that? Less than 10% of the total? What percentage of the whole is that? A very tiny fraction. Like I said, spending is more of an issue. Everything you don't like or agree with is "cickbait" or from a "conspiracy site". You should see if Twatter is hiring, then you could be one of their "fact checkers" and be the arbiter of what is true or not. You seem to take to it naturally.
|
|
|
|
suchmoon (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 9007
https://bpip.org
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 02, 2020, 04:34:59 AM |
|
Yeah, exactly. You see that red bar there, the deficit? What effect did the tax have on that? Less than 10% of the total? What percentage of the whole is that? A very tiny fraction. Like I said, spending is more of an issue.
Given that they've done fuck all to address the spending part (e.g. still shoveling trillions into Pentagon despite claiming to be ending wars) and the only significant action affecting the debt was the tax cut, which grows the debt - it still looks that conservatives don't care about the debt anymore.
|
|
|
|
TwitchySeal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2052
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 02, 2020, 05:15:07 AM Last edit: June 02, 2020, 05:26:28 AM by TwitchySeal |
|
Reducing taxation has almost nothing to do with eliminating the debt.
(total spending) - (revenue generated) = annual deficit/surplus. In 2019 there was a deficit of ~$980 billion. That means the federal debt increased by ~$980 billion in 2019. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gyazo.com%2F3c301e05646768796d1e6ab9a9fbf0d8.png&t=665&c=YA6g_9DZBHvgFA) Taxes are the primary source (over 90%) of revenue for the federal government. Yeah, exactly. You see that red bar there, the deficit? What effect did the tax have on that? The blue bar represents revenue. The main source of revenue for the federal government is taxes. (over 90%) If more revenue were generated, the red bar would be smaller. Think of it this way: Timmy has $4,300 of expenses per month, but only earns $3,400 per month. Each month Timmy pays his bills with a credit card, and then sends his entire pay check to the credit card company. As a result, Timmys debt increases $900 every month. What effect does the amount of Timmys pay check have on his debt? What would happen if Timmy got demoted and his monthly income dropped to $3,000? Would he still be adding $900 a month to his debt, would he be adding more, or would he be adding less? answer:If Timmy's monthly income dropped by $400, then his monthly deficit would increase by $400 and his $900 monthly deficit would become a $1,300 monthly deficit.
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 02, 2020, 02:34:10 PM |
|
Reducing taxation has almost nothing to do with eliminating the debt.
(total spending) - (revenue generated) = annual deficit/surplus. In 2019 there was a deficit of ~$980 billion. That means the federal debt increased by ~$980 billion in 2019. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gyazo.com%2F3c301e05646768796d1e6ab9a9fbf0d8.png&t=665&c=YA6g_9DZBHvgFA) Taxes are the primary source (over 90%) of revenue for the federal government. Yeah, exactly. You see that red bar there, the deficit? What effect did the tax have on that? The blue bar represents revenue. The main source of revenue for the federal government is taxes. (over 90%) If more revenue were generated, the red bar would be smaller. Think of it this way: Timmy has $4,300 of expenses per month, but only earns $3,400 per month. Each month Timmy pays his bills with a credit card, and then sends his entire pay check to the credit card company. As a result, Timmys debt increases $900 every month. What effect does the amount of Timmys pay check have on his debt? What would happen if Timmy got demoted and his monthly income dropped to $3,000? Would he still be adding $900 a month to his debt, would he be adding more, or would he be adding less? answer:If Timmy's monthly income dropped by $400, then his monthly deficit would increase by $400 and his $900 monthly deficit would become a $1,300 monthly deficit.If you notice you didn't actually address my response rather just repeated your premise. This is straying far off topic anyway.
|
|
|
|
suchmoon (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 9007
https://bpip.org
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 02, 2020, 09:45:50 PM |
|
snot-nosed narcissistic chump [...] troupe of snotier-nosed "Fact Checkers" [...] Don't answer that question with your emotions, answer with an honest thoughtful reflection of facts.
Come on ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) Here is the most thoughtful thing I can come up: being informed, or rather having information available to them, doesn't automatically mean that the person will say smart things or behave rationally so it's pretty much a straw man in this context. By that logic no one ever should question president's words and actions, or disrespect the office of the president as you put it. I don't think that's right.
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3892
Merit: 1373
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 03, 2020, 11:15:38 AM |
|
snot-nosed narcissistic chump [...] troupe of snotier-nosed "Fact Checkers" [...] Don't answer that question with your emotions, answer with an honest thoughtful reflection of facts.
Come on ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) Here is the most thoughtful thing I can come up: being informed, or rather having information available to them, doesn't automatically mean that the person will say smart things or behave rationally so it's pretty much a straw man in this context. By that logic no one ever should question president's words and actions, or disrespect the office of the president as you put it. I don't think that's right. Too many people think that the President is a king. They might be shocked if they heard somebody say that this is the way they were thinking. But their actions and words show they think this. Government isn't king. Not in the USA. ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
|
|
|
|
|