Trump suggests 25 cent increase in gas tax to pay for his infrastructure plan

[Lenonis]

I'm saying as of February 17th, 2018, we are still looking for a DNC platform that can win nationally. Sure, it could be coming any day now. Any day now.....any.....day...

Sadly needs to be pointed out that the DNC platform in 2016 won the popular vote. That indicates that the platform "won" nationally -- it's just that because of the functionality of the electoral college it didn't win the office.

I really just don't get where you guys come up with this whole "the democratic party is so unpopular" nonsense.

[Tijuana]

You're accusing someone of engaging in massive hyperbole...while engaging in massive hyperbole.

The long term effect of this bill on the poor is demonstrably bad. But, apparently you're cool with it because you get to say Democrats want to raise taxes on the poor.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ealth-cut-poor

I mean, it's hard to tell. Your argument is devoid of detail and an actual fact, and is pretty much you declaring "basic math". Oh, I'ms orry i meant "really, really basic math".

It's rare, but I love it when hardcore Leftists get my jokes. =D

I'm obviously not reading your freaking VOX story, as any evidence I should be thinking anything differently. ROFL

It doesn't help poor people to tax them more. That is a fact. And it's also a fact that every Democrat tax plan, going back really far, does exactly that. You can look at Bernies, Hillary's, whoever that other guy was in 2016, Obama's, John Kerry's, pretty much all of them going back to Bill Clinton. The Bill Clinton tax plan was classic Clinton. He ran on cutting taxes, then famously said that Bush didn't tell him how bad things really were, and he couldn't do that now that he was oh so informed. Hilarious.

[Zan15]

I love how the left views letting people keep their own money, is somehow giving them the countries money. Bizarre.

- - - Updated - - -

.

When you let them keep their own money......but do not cut spending....then you have to borrow 1.50 for each dollar you let them keep......Ya......


i mean that is simple math. really simple math.

and don't act all simpleton you know what people mean by "countries money"

[Garnier Fructis]

I'm saying as of February 17th, 2018, we are still looking for a DNC platform that can win nationally. Sure, it could be coming any day now. Any day now.....any.....day...

Are you really going to blurt out "any day now" when elections don't happen every day?

See you at the next election, more like.

[Tijuana]

Sadly needs to be pointed out that the DNC platform in 2016 won the popular vote. That indicates that the platform "won" nationally -- it's just that because of the functionality of the electoral college it didn't win the office.

I really just don't get where you guys come up with this whole "the democratic party is so unpopular" nonsense.

Look, getting a land slide in California, versus barely winning, does not make you a national party. Something like 25% of all Democrats in Washington come from 3 states. You lost 1,000 seats nationwide under Obama, and you have won back like 20. Your party has a long way to go, before they can be truthfully called a national party.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you really going to blurt out "any day now" when elections don't happen every day?

See you at the next election, more like.

A platform could be released at any time. Look, you don't have to agree with me, for what I am saying to be true. Political Science is real, whether you believe in it or not. Democrat ideas are unpopular, and they will need to change some of them to regain power. Period. Even they know it, which is why they are running around stealing slogans from Papa John's. They think they have messaging problems, but it's the message, not the messenger, that is the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

When you let them keep their own money......but do not cut spending....then you have to borrow 1.50 for each dollar you let them keep......Ya......


i mean that is simple math. really simple math.

and don't act all simpleton you know what people mean by "countries money"

I agree that spending needs to be cut, as that is obvious source of all our deficit and debt issues. Our government takes in more taxes than any other. That ought to be enough for them to get by on.

The reality is, tax cuts are popular and spending cuts are not. It doesn't really need to be any more complicated, or partisan, than that.

[Lenonis]

Look, getting a land slide in California, versus barely winning, does not make you a national party.

Last I checked voters in California were still US citizens. As are Florida and Texas, which by the way winning apparently doesn't make you a national party either. GOP votes from those 2 states were more than California. So I guess 2 states make a national party but 1 doesn't?

Democrat ideas are unpopular, and they will need to change some of them to regain power.

Really? Like what? The 64% of people who favor gay marriage? The 53% of people who want to tax the rich more? 60% of people who want to see increased gun control? 79% of people who want to see abortion remain legal to some degree?

I could keep going.

[MoanaLisa]

A gas tax will be regressive and is likely to negate the meager gains that middle-class taxpayers received in the tax bill. I trust that the nice secretary that Paul Ryan was briefly so entranced with and her $1.50 a week increase in her salary won't need to pay for six gallons of gas a week since the proposed tax will need to use her "raise". Anything more than six gallons a week and she ends up losing money. Not to mention if any part of Trump's infrastructure plan, which relies largely on local, county and state revenues (read more taxes or in the case of roads and bridges, tolls) is enacted there will be a further hit on those who are less able to afford it.

So, another "Infrastructure Week" has come and gone. The proposal is dead in the water, much like the rest of the infrastructure plan. It won't be passed this year and is even less likely to be passed next year unless you believe that the Congress will go even more Republican after the mid-terms. I don't believe that but I do understand the power of faith, even though faith, much like 'thoughts and prayers' is often insufficient to real world problems.

[Tijuana]

Last I checked voters in California were still US citizens. As are Florida and Texas, which by the way winning apparently doesn't make you a national party either. GOP votes from those 2 states were more than California. So I guess 2 states make a national party but 1 doesn't?

Really? Like what? The 64% of people who favor gay marriage? The 53% of people who want to tax the rich more? 60% of people who want to see increased gun control? 79% of people who want to see abortion remain legal to some degree?

I could keep going.

Yes, Californians are US citizens. But getting every last one of their votes, factually does no further help to win a national election, versus just getting enough to win the state. Trying to get every last Californian on board with the party platform, is politically stupid, considering how many other Americans disagree with Californians, and who live in states that are actually in contention. It's political malpractice, to have a platform that is just a check list of what Hollywood thinks. If you disagree, I present to you exhibit C for Current Day.

To break down your points:

1. Gay marriage is already legal in every state. Maybe not run on that, since some people are against it, and you already won. Science.

2. Taxing the rich at 100% won't balance the budget, and reasonable people understand that. In addition, all three Democrat presidential candidates, presented tax plans that raise taxes IN EVERY BRACKET. The only spending plan that can be paid for only by the rich, would be a Libertarian spending plan. There simply are not enough rich people, to fund Democrat spending. They have to tax everyone for it to work.

3. The people who are against gun control, live in the states you are losing. Democrats could adopt the entire GOP platform, and not lose in California. It's just common sense for them to move to the middle, as a reaction to the Trump win, yet here we are.

4. Abortion is already legal in every state. Maybe not run on that, since some people are against it, and you already won. Political Science is real, whether you believe in it or not.

By all means, please do keep going. At least now we are discussing things, instead of just hurling insults.

[NYC17]

It's rare, but I love it when hardcore Leftists get my jokes. =D

I'm obviously not reading your freaking VOX story, as any evidence I should be thinking anything differently. ROFL

It doesn't help poor people to tax them more. That is a fact. And it's also a fact that every Democrat tax plan, going back really far, does exactly that. You can look at Bernies, Hillary's, whoever that other guy was in 2016, Obama's, John Kerry's, pretty much all of them going back to Bill Clinton. The Bill Clinton tax plan was classic Clinton. He ran on cutting taxes, then famously said that Bush didn't tell him how bad things really were, and he couldn't do that now that he was oh so informed. Hilarious.

It provides factual information int he form of numbers.

It;s weird you being so mathy mathish would have a problem with that. It's almost like you allow your politics to usurp your thought process.

But, apparently you're calling me a hardcore leftist, which would be absolutely hilarious to my leftist friends, so it's not like you can demonstrate a rational and independent minded thought process on anything remotely having to do with politics.

[Lenonis]

I'm at my limit so I'm just going to respond like thus:

2. Taxing the rich at 100% won't balance the budget

You are engaging in massive hyperbole and straw manning.

[Felaris Stormrage]

We don't really need a boost to infrastructure.

If anything, the gas tax should be used as another way to give big businesses tax breaks that will result in more companies coming to the United States. And, less jobs being sent elsewhere.

[Tijuana]

I'm at my limit so I'm just going to respond like thus:

No, it's factually true. If you tax the top 1% in the US, at 100%, you will still have a deficit. And if you seize all of their existing assets, you will still have a debt. There are not like millions of millionaires. Obviously.

There is no way to take this much tax from the public. It's a spending problem. It's always been a spending problem, and it always will be. If Libertarians got their way on spending, the rich would be the ONLY people who needed to pay taxes.

[Zan15]

Look, getting a land slide in California, versus barely winning, does not make you a national party. Something like 25% of all Democrats in Washington come from 3 states. You lost 1,000 seats nationwide under Obama, and you have won back like 20. Your party has a long way to go, before they can be truthfully called a national party.

.

and yet that party might not have the "area" coverage republicans do but somehow they got more national votes.

Crazy how fair representation somehow gives more power to rural area's then a big cities and states.

For some reason people living together now have less power then people living alone in bumfuck nowhere.

When those 3 states make up 25-35% of the countries GDP you have to question really whom should have more representation in the say of the govt.

[Tijuana]

It provides factual information int he form of numbers.

It;s weird you being so mathy mathish would have a problem with that. It's almost like you allow your politics to usurp your thought process.

But, apparently you're calling me a hardcore leftist, which would be absolutely hilarious to my leftist friends, so it's not like you can demonstrate a rational and independent minded thought process on anything remotely having to do with politics.

I just know anything being explained at Vox is usually completely false and not worth the time. They don't exactly have a good reputation for their fake videos. I'm ok with living my life not knowing what is in a Vox video.

Your insults don't make you right, or your argument better. Why lash out at everyone who disagrees? It doesn't hurt you that others might hold different ideas. /shrug

[Zan15]

No, it's factually true. If you tax the top 1% in the US, at 100%, you will still have a deficit. And if you seize all of their existing assets, you will still have a debt. There are not like millions of millionaires. Obviously.

There is no way to take this much tax from the public. It's a spending problem. It's always been a spending problem, and it always will be. If Libertarians got their way on spending, the rich would be the ONLY people who needed to pay taxes.

As of the end of 2016, there were a record 10.8 million millionaires nationwide, according to a new study from Spectrem Group's Market Insights Report 2017. That's more than ever before and marks a 400,000 person increase from the previous year.

_______ If you go by houshold #'s

https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionai...aires-america/

We estimate that there are 14,814,453 millionaires in the United States. Our estimate puts the millionaire net worth goal at the 88.24% wealth bracket in the US in 2016, or 11.76% of all households.

A brief aside: for this stat and for all of the subsequent ones, we are only discussing household data. Remember, net worth isn’t generally divisible between household members (short of court-assisted situations).

Additionally, all data includes the value of any primary home. We’ll build a tool later if you prefer to leave it out – and for the record, we don’t. All data, as in the net worth bracket article, comes from the Federal Reserve’s 2016 Survey of Consumer Finances.
_____________

How Many $4 or $5 Millionaires are There in the US?
There are somewhere around 3,527,878 American Households eclipsing $4,000,000 in wealth, or 2.80% of all households. Close on $4mm’s heels, there are around 2,888,408 households with $5,000,000 or more, 2.29%.

That’s the 97.20% and 97.71% percentiles, respectively.

________

How Many Decamillionaires are There in America?
The nice thing about $10,000,000 is it has an associated name, decamillion.

There are roughly 1,347,336 decamillionaire households in America. This isn’t quite the one percent for 2016 in the US; our estimate pegs it as 1.07% of households, or the 98.93% wealth percentile. (See our breakdown on the one percent in America, after).

[Tijuana]

As of the end of 2016, there were a record 10.8 million millionaires nationwide, according to a new study from Spectrem Group's Market Insights Report 2017. That's more than ever before and marks a 400,000 person increase from the previous year.

_______ If you go by houshold #'s

https://dqydj.com/how-many-millionai...aires-america/

We estimate that there are 14,814,453 millionaires in the United States. Our estimate puts the millionaire net worth goal at the 88.24% wealth bracket in the US in 2016, or 11.76% of all households.

A brief aside: for this stat and for all of the subsequent ones, we are only discussing household data. Remember, net worth isn’t generally divisible between household members (short of court-assisted situations).

Additionally, all data includes the value of any primary home. We’ll build a tool later if you prefer to leave it out – and for the record, we don’t. All data, as in the net worth bracket article, comes from the Federal Reserve’s 2016 Survey of Consumer Finances.
_____________

How Many $4 or $5 Millionaires are There in the US?
There are somewhere around 3,527,878 American Households eclipsing $4,000,000 in wealth, or 2.80% of all households. Close on $4mm’s heels, there are around 2,888,408 households with $5,000,000 or more, 2.29%.

That’s the 97.20% and 97.71% percentiles, respectively.

________

How Many Decamillionaires are There in America?
The nice thing about $10,000,000 is it has an associated name, decamillion.

There are roughly 1,347,336 decamillionaire households in America. This isn’t quite the one percent for 2016 in the US; our estimate pegs it as 1.07% of households, or the 98.93% wealth percentile. (See our breakdown on the one percent in America, after).

First rule of economics, if they are using household figures, rather than personal income figures, they are full of shit.

[Zan15]

First rule of economics, if they are using household figures, rather than personal income figures, they are full of shit.

that is why i included the first number.

Do you have some other citation to show that the # of millionaires does not exceed "millions"?

Last time i checked you could divide "households" by 2 or 3 and still come up with millions of millionaires.

[NYC17]

I just know anything being explained at Vox is usually completely false and not worth the time. They don't exactly have a good reputation for their fake videos. I'm ok with living my life not knowing what is in a Vox video.

Your insults don't make you right, or your argument better. Why lash out at everyone who disagrees? It doesn't hurt you that others might hold different ideas. /shrug

It's an article, not a video. You don't have to watch it, you can read.

Enumerate the "insult" you claim to be so overwhelming it distracted you from the actual content of the information in the Vox article.

[Dontrike]

The only reason the tax cuts only last 10 years, is because you need 60 votes to make them permanent. When your Democrats tried to use that same talking point, the GOP instantly offered to take an up or down vote, making just those cuts permanent.

The GOP let the Dems vote? Are you kidding with this? They didn't get the actual tax plan until hours just before the vote and it had fucking hand written notes in the margins. They didn't offer shit.

Guess what the Democrat response was? Crickets. So, it isn't a very good talking point, to bemoan that tax cuts expire, when you are the people who ensured that they expire.

So you admit that the GOP planned to let them expire on purpose? They control everything and yet they couldn't come up with a plan that not one person on the other side liked. Gee, I wonder why that is? Couldn't because it's one of the least popular pieces of legislation, naw, that can't be it. It must be coincidence.

There are two kinds of people: People who think this tax cut is a great idea, and people who don't understand the economy. The corporate response to the cut has been even better than all wild predictions.

Of course the corporate response was good, they fucking received $1.5 TRILLION. If I was given that much fucking money I'd be singing its praises naked from a god damned mountain. "Well they don't seem to mind after they got money, I don't understand what the people that are paying for it are complaining about." Really?

Also, the talking point that only the mega wealthy hold stocks is ridiculous. Every single responsible middle class person has some kind of retirement plan, that is invested in stocks, one way or another. Making money is good, not bad. The sooner the left figures that out, the sooner they can field a relevant, national party in the US. The Democrats will never get the White House back telling everyone up is down, the economy is bad, left is right, paying more taxes is good, and hey let's return to the Obama economy. Good luck with that.

You know that saving and investing are currently down right now, right? As in there are far less people in the middle class that will receive benefit from this. This isn't some cryptocurrency blowing up and some people made a killing.

Casually bringing up a gas tax, in a meeting, is hardly the same as it becoming law. You would still need to get a bill to pass through the swamp, which these days, is akin to a lunar landing.

So you admit that Trump's entire team is the swamp? Good to know, perhaps there's hope for you yet.

Fucking saving this; this shit is gold. Anyone that thinks they've won a lasting victory here are delusional.

He says that the left can't say that taxes are good and yet here he is advocating for a higher tax. I mean, you can't make this shit up. I mean higher taxes are a good thing, that's how we pay for things like roads and schools, but @Tijuana is literally both saying they are bad and that they are necessary. Such a hypocrite.

Our government takes in more taxes than any other..

No. It actually doesn't. I didn't even need to look this up to know that, it's so easy, but because you are you I had to throw some evidence.

2. Taxing the rich at 100% won't balance the budget, and reasonable people understand that. In addition, all three Democrat presidential candidates, presented tax plans that raise taxes IN EVERY BRACKET. The only spending plan that can be paid for only by the rich, would be a Libertarian spending plan. There simply are not enough rich people, to fund Democrat spending. They have to tax everyone for it to work.

First of all, no one is saying that the rich should be taxed 100%. Not one damn person, so stop making things up.

Second each Democrat president the economy actually improved. I don't have time to look up 19 different graphs you won't pay attention to, but I'm sure someone else will prove you wrong far better than I can.

4. Abortion is already legal in every state. Maybe not run on that, since some people are against it, and you already won. Political Science is real, whether you believe in it or not.

It's not. Like, I don't know how you can not know that.

Gestational Limits: 43 states prohibit abortions, generally except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health, after a specified point in pregnancy.

We don't really need a boost to infrastructure.

If anything, the gas tax should be used as another way to give big businesses tax breaks that will result in more companies coming to the United States. And, less jobs being sent elsewhere.

You're kidding with this, right? Please tell me that. The countries infrastructure is rated at a D+ and many bridges, sewer lines, and roads can potentially be 40+ years old. The fact we still have issues like Flint, Michigan, and the need to fix Puerto Rico is astounding and those issues should have been fixed by now, but it took months upon months for Flint to be near okay. We have falling bridges, pot holes, sewers and roads that all need repaired.

[Felaris Stormrage]

The GOP let the Dems vote? Are you kidding with this? They didn't get the actual tax plan until hours just before the vote and it had fucking hand written notes in the margins. They didn't offer shit.



So you admit that the GOP planned to let them expire on purpose? They control everything and yet they couldn't come up with a plan that not one person on the other side liked. Gee, I wonder why that is? Couldn't because it's one of the least popular pieces of legislation, naw, that can't be it. It must be coincidence.



Of course the corporate response was good, they fucking received $1.5 TRILLION. If I was given that much fucking money I'd be singing its praises naked from a god damned mountain. "Well they don't seem to mind after they got money, I don't understand what the people that are paying for it are complaining about." Really?



You know that saving and investing are currently down right now, right? As in there are far less people in the middle class that will receive benefit from this. This isn't some cryptocurrency blowing up and some people made a killing.



So you admit that Trump's entire team is the swamp? Good to know, perhaps there's hope for you yet.



He says that the left can't say that taxes are good and yet here he is advocating for a higher tax. I mean, you can't make this shit up. I mean higher taxes are a good thing, that's how we pay for things like roads and schools, but @Tijuana is literally both saying they are bad and that they are necessary. Such a hypocrite.



No. It actually doesn't. I didn't even need to look this up to know that, it's so easy, but because you are you I had to throw some evidence.



First of all, no one is saying that the rich should be taxed 100%. Not one damn person, so stop making things up.

Second each Democrat president the economy actually improved. I don't have time to look up 19 different graphs you won't pay attention to, but I'm sure someone else will prove you wrong far better than I can.



It's not. Like, I don't know how you can not know that.







You're kidding with this, right? Please tell me that. The countries infrastructure is rated at a D+ and many bridges, sewer lines, and roads can potentially be 40+ years old. The fact we still have issues like Flint, Michigan, and the need to fix Puerto Rico is astounding and those issues should have been fixed by now, but it took months upon months for Flint to be near okay. We have falling bridges, pot holes, sewers and roads that all need repaired.

Maybe, but this should be a State level issue. It's not the fault of the Federal Government that States have misused their money and spent it on other things like, legalizing marijuana.

Also, if we were to give big businesses another break on taxes, then I could see them reinvesting into roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Especially, Big Oil. They're constantly needing to pave roads to get their large machinery across.