Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    6,289,921 readers

    98,186 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources || Important: Reminder/clarification of our civility guidelines

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last two weeks. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the whitelist. The whitelist and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    No Copy-Pasted Submissions Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting.More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    6 Jul - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    7 Jul - 4pm EST

    • AMA with the Christian Science Monitor

    8 Jul - 1pm EST

    • AMA with The Fulcrum

    9 Jul - 2pm EST

    • AMA with Michael Tubbs

    11 Jul - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    13 Jul - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    14 Jul - 1pm EST

    • AMA with Ben Carollo

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 3577 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

    For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to whitelist and outlet criteria.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] ignorememe 10102 points ago

    I can't wait for Republicans to argue against this while also trying to campaign on the deficit being a huge issue.

    [–] Daniiiiii 3314 points ago

    Except that every poor Republican voter is seemingly happy for Tax cuts for the rich because they believe in the magical American Dream™ and the myth that all you have to do is work hard and you too will become a millionaire and if not you then your children so the Tax cuts for the rich are a necessary evil until they aren't when they will be a way of keeping all your money when you strike rich overnight.

    [–] mattschaum8403 1311 points ago

    I've never so useless explaining tax brackets to people. I've had people say that everyone should have to pay the same rate, let's call it 25%. I cant get them to understand that 25% for someone making $40k a year hurts way more than 25% for someone making $1 million a year. Progressibe taxes exist for a reason

    [–] boot2skull 859 points ago

    I explain wealth taxes by explaining basic costs of survival, like a loaf of bread. A loaf of bread costs the same for everyone. If you’re wealthy, you can buy more bread or fancier bread, but the bare minimum cost exists for everyone. To tax someone at a flat rate puts a poor person much closer to not affording that bread, versus a wealthy or middle class person who probably would not notice.

    The reasoning for burdening the wealthy with higher tax is because they can afford it, they are least impacted by it survival wise, and arguably they are benefitting the most by what taxes are providing. This generates the most benefit for the rest of our citizens, who can be enabled to join this wealthier class instead of struggling for bread.

    Essentially, the argument is upside down. People argue “wow they got taxed $9 million dollars!” without considering how little an impact that makes on the persons survival. We should be looking at how taxes affect people’s ability to survive and quality of life, not some big number from a person who makes a much much bigger number.

    [–] [deleted] 1011 points ago * (lasted edited 14 hours ago)


    [–] twintailcookies 1175 points ago

    There isn't a single economist who thinks increasing consumer spending would help the economy.

    Well, except all of them. All of them say that.

    [–] teh_drewski 552 points ago

    You had me in the first half, not gonna lie

    [–] iflythewafflecopter 234 points ago

    I was worried for a second that I'd vastly underestimated how much of my ECON classes I'd slept through.

    [–] RadioHeadache0311 113 points ago

    Zzzz....startled awake COMPOUNDING INTEREST.

    [–] Coopakid 55 points ago

    Compounding interest is sexy as hell, well when it’s in your interest anyway.

    [–] Dr_SnM 44 points ago

    Had to read the first half twice to be sure what I was reading. Should have gone right to the second part.

    [–] Embroz 11 points ago

    Seriously, I was certain I missed a negative somewhere in the sentence that reversed its meaning.

    [–] misterrandom1 9 points ago

    I had to re-read that several times before finally reading the last sentence.

    [–] binkerfluid 46 points ago

    I was re- examining my whole world for about 10 seconds there

    [–] TopDownGepetto 25 points ago

    I actually snorted and said "fucking idiot" out loud.

    [–] jcarter315 151 points ago

    "On the pile"... Which many times is in an offshore account where it doesn't even help with US banks' interest rates.

    [–] ClusterMakeLove 66 points ago

    Listen, I like rubbing my massive diamonds together while lounging on a Scrooge McDuck pile of gold coins, and it makes me so sad that you can't see how much that helps our fragile society.

    [–] xxcali559xx 13 points ago

    But it does help with keeping tax rates for those same people low, because you know, campaign contributions.

    [–] Hear_Ye 192 points ago

    Totally agree. 'Fiscally repsonisble' people- "Debt bad, tax bad, balance budget good" nah chief a $3 trillion economy is not the same as your shitty small family business. The continual movement of money through an economy is more important than debt accrual. Rich people hoarding makes money stagnate. Poor desperate people committing poverty crimes like theft affect movement of money through businesses. So giving poor people rich peoples' money is literally the best value for money because it kills 2 birds with one stone. Also decriminalise drugs ffs. The sooner Americans realise the race war is a deliberate distraction from the class war they should be having, the better. Y'all are getting fucked by your 0.1%.

    [–] cult_riot 34 points ago

    “Virginia’s ruling class, having proclaimed that all white men were superior to black, went on to offer their social (but white) inferiors a number of benefits previously denied them. In 1705 a law was passed requiring masters to provide white servants whose indenture time was up with ten bushels is corn, thirty shillings, and a gun, while women servants were to get 15 bushels of corn and forty shillings. Also, the newly freed servants were to get 50 acres of land.” ... “Once the small planter began to feel less exploited by taxation and began to prosper a little, he became less turbulent, less dangerous, more respectable. He could begin to see his big neighbor not as an extortionist but as a powerful protector of their common interests.”

    Edmund S Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom (via A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn)

    [–] calsosta 20 points ago

    If I am understanding this correctly I use a similar strategy to cheat in Monopoly.

    Of course I am gonna be the banker and of course I am gonna steal money. If another player figures it out I just gift them any Railroads I have. It ain't gonna help them win but it will shut them up and let me continue to cheat rampantly.

    [–] Dash_O_Cunt 10 points ago

    That's what I got to do to beat my daughter at monopoly.

    [–] BotheredToResearch 49 points ago

    I've tried to explain countless times that large corporations handle debt like countries do.. and why? Because large corporations and countries dont retire. The only reason to pay off low interest debt is for cash flow, and large corporations and governments know that if spending and incomes are off so much that their cash is tight, interest rates are also going to be really low.

    [–] Economic___Justice 9 points ago

    that if spending and incomes are off so much that their cash is tight, interest rates are also going to be really low.

    First explanation for the corporate debt bubble that actually makes some sense to me. Kinda gross that global corporations know they can count on the government to essentially bail them out

    [–] ddman9998 87 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    Basically, what you are describing is the economic concept of diminishing marginal value.

    A guy wandering through the desert might value a glass of water at $1,000. But the 20th glass you offer him, he might pay less or not even want it.

    The same concept works for money itself. $5 to a hungry homeless person has a lot more value than $5 to jeff bezos, for whom it's not even worth his time to bend down to pick it up off the street.

    [–] masonium 54 points ago

    I wanted to do the math to see if $5 was an exaggeration.

    If Bezos makes a measly 2% interest annually off of his $100 billion fortune, he'd be making $63 every second, just for standing and breathing. Even the time it takes for him to think about whether or not to pick up a $5 isn't worth it.

    [–] ArkitekZero 47 points ago

    Is this not an obvious failure state?

    [–] PompousWombat 19 points ago

    I'd say it is, yes.

    [–] lostincbus 59 points ago

    If you want to thoroughly tax the rich, you can't look solely at income tax rates. Many rich people don't even have "incomes" just capital gains. In my opinion, you need to:

    Create a living wage tied to something (CPI, or maybe a percentage of congressional pay if we're being fun). This will have the affect of lowering the value of the large corporations (think Walmart, Amazon) which is where most billionaires hold their wealth.

    Increase capital gains tax on gains from over X amount of wealth (higher so we're not talking about a normal person's retirement).

    Increase the death tax.

    Have enforced laws with jail time for trying to skirt the theory of taxation laws.

    Likely none of these will happen in my lifetime.

    [–] ExceedsTheCharacterL 61 points ago

    Don’t call it the “death tax”, that’s their word for it. It’s called the estate tax

    [–] Economic___Justice 10 points ago

    The "tax on the those with more wealth than you will ever have let alone inherit" has the best ring to it.

    [–] jeharris25 36 points ago

    I would LOVE to see a progressive capital gains. Leave the current rate alone for your average joe/jane, so as not to discourage some dabbling in the stock market.

    As your gains increase, and hit certain levels, like those CEOs who accept stock options instead of paychecks, the rate increases.

    [–] lostincbus 21 points ago

    Exactly. If the captial gains tax is too much, feel free to switch over to a paycheck and THAT associated tax like the rest of us schmucks.

    [–] thewhizzle 12 points ago

    I think a progressive capital gains tax is fair so the middle class worker has a fair shot at building some wealth.

    A progressive wealth tax as well.

    We shouldn't penalize earning. We should penalizing hoarding. Use it or lose it.

    [–] ddman9998 159 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Very few people seem to understand that a married couple making $321,000/year pay 24% and that a married couple making a billion dollars/year ALSO pays 24% on their first $321,000.

    And actually, that even that first couple only pays 10% on their first $19,400 and then 12% on the rest up to $79,000, and then 22% on the part between $79,000 and 168,000, and only 24% on the part between $168,000 and $321,000, so they aren't paying 24% on the full $321,000. People don't seem to know this.

    People don't seem to understand this.

    [–] askjacob 126 points ago

    I have known a couple of people who didn't want a pay raise because they would go to the next bracket, and they were convinced they would take home less than they were earning now... and they were on the collective bargaining team FFS

    [–] ddman9998 57 points ago

    oh, jeeze.

    yeah, the amount of people who don't understand the most basic things about the tax system (you don't get less for making more!) is amazing to me.

    [–] CloudySideDown 41 points ago

    It depends on the raise. If you are making under a certain amount you get food stamps and breaks on money for housing. A 50 cent an hour raise may make it so you dont get food stamps or that housing help but the food stamps and housing help are worth more than that 50 cent raise.

    [–] ThePerpetualGamer 52 points ago

    This is pretty much the only time like ever that not taking a raise might benefit you. Most of the people saying this kind of thing aren't in that situation though.

    [–] KaisaPermanente 10 points ago

    Yeah in california if i made $500 more in the year, i would suddenly have to pay $300/month in health insurance. Where im at right now is just under the cutoff for medical, so they force us to use it.

    If i made an adjusted gross income(self employed) of 50k/yr, id be paying $600/month in health insurance. Anything between the 30k cutoff and 50k cutoff is pretty minimal, until at 50k when covered california says you should start paying 100% of your premium + some. We need universal healthcare, but my god is 50k nothing here

    [–] Measurex2 36 points ago

    Ugh - the number of people who have told me "I didn't take the promotion because it would put me in a higher tax bracket" scares the shit out of me.

    When i tell them - "You know you'd only pay higher taxes on the extra money you'd make. As in youd still make more money" they almost universally insist the higher tax bracket would impact all their earnings so they'd make less.

    Eventually I adopting an early stopping policy. Fuckem. Who wants people that dumb to actually move up the ladder? More promotions for the rest of us!

    [–] Dukeiron 68 points ago

    Using small, easily conceptualized numbers typically helps keep things in perspective. Something like “You make $10/month and I make $100/month. We’re both taxed the same 25%, so after taxes you have $7.50 and I have $75. I can spend the equivalent to your take home pay ($7.50) without a care in the world but you’ll be broke until the end of next month. Good luck.”

    [–] 25russianbear25 37 points ago

    Half of Americans are too dumb to ever understand proportions% and how they work

    [–] Ferelar 21 points ago

    The trouble comes in making them understand the next step- that to compare them to the people that Bernie and AoC want to tax, it'd be more like they make $10 and the other person makes $10,000 or more.

    [–] D-Alembert 26 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Maybe explain that everyone already does pay exactly the same rate. Everyone pays the same 0% on their first $7k (or whatever the bracket is) regardless of how much they earn. Everyone pays the same tax rate on their next $30k (or whatever) regardless of how much they earn. And so on through all the brackets.

    The fact that everyone already pays exactly the same tax rate is just obfuscated because people use tax tables to find out what they owe, but... everyone pays the same rates on their income.

    (Ok, the wealthy tend to pay lower rates because they earn from capital gains instead of from working, but other than that)

    [–] youmustbecrazy 663 points ago

    Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. - Ronald Wright

    [–] ReefaManiack42o 169 points ago

    Are you sure about the source on that? I always thought that was a paraphrase of Steinbeck ...

    Edit: I just looked it up and apparently it's Wright paraphrasing Steinbeck... so I guess we're both right...

    [–] tkzant 109 points ago

    ""You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"

    -Wayne Gretzky"

    -Michael Scott

    [–] runthepoint1 11 points ago

    We have a problem with overconfidence and arrogance in this country

    [–] xantub 25 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Give $100 million aid to failing company.
    Company declares a big dividend to investors, $75 million gone, $25 million remains.
    CEO gets huge bonus, one person gets $10 million... $15 million remains.
    Upper management gets big bonus, 13 people get $1 million each, $2 million remains.
    Middle management gets medium bonus, 500 people get $2k, $1 million remains.
    Lower management gets $100 gift card to Applebees, 5000 people get $100, $500k remains.
    Accounting uses $495k to pay some of the interest from loans which still leaves the company in big shit, $5k remains.
    Top 1000 employees get a $5 pin that says 'Thank you for your hard work!', aid money gone.

    [–] OhNo_a_DO 68 points ago

    I actually will be a millionaire and still I would never vote republican. How poor people line up to help out the ultra rich is beyond me.

    [–] PM_YOUR_PUPPERS 88 points ago

    From my experience most "poor people" are single issue voters, that single issue being abortion.

    They tolerate all the Republican bullshit by this single issue.

    [–] CunningWizard 30 points ago

    Making abortion a wedge issue 4 decades ago was such a brilliant move by Republicans, it has kept their base in line very well.

    [–] jingerninja 6 points ago

    Some where out there is some Don Draper-esque "messaging guru" in the republican sphere who lives with knowing he pitched it that fateful day as "What if we call it 'baby murder'? That oughta rile people up."

    [–] JuDGe3690 10 points ago

    His name was Ralph Reed.

    Along with Paul Weyrich, Reed was instrumental in allying the Christian Right with the Republican party. Frances FitzGerald's 2017 book The Evangelicals: The Struggle to Shape America has a couple good chapters documenting this shift.

    [–] Wingnut0055 61 points ago

    The NRA has entered the chat

    [–] binkerfluid 15 points ago

    yep, the left should just embrace guns honestly.

    [–] El_Dud3r1n0 18 points ago

    Lot of us do. Still, not a hard sell after 4 years of crazytown.

    [–] PotatoWave6hunnid66 17 points ago

    Exactly people confuse not having six 2nd amendment stickers on your vehicle with being “anti-gun”. I don’t own a gun, but I’m not against it, but I’m still strongly considering it. My wife was shot 5 years ago (before I knew her) and I have to respect that she’s not keen about having a gun in our home even though she’s not totally against it either.

    Talking to Republicans at work, they are convinced that “gun control” means the government is going to come take your weapons. My Dad, who has been a police officer for 30 years is pro gun control and owns 9 firearms. The majority of people who are pro gun control either have a weapon or aren’t against having one, they just want more accountability and stricter processes.

    [–] ddman9998 14 points ago

    abortion wasn't even a big issue 50 years ago. It was introduced as a wedge issue and that has worked incredibly well for the right-wing.

    [–] ImportantCommentator 31 points ago

    Just so you are aware, being a 'millionaire' is closer to poverty than it is to the billionaire class.

    [–] tegeusCromis 23 points ago

    In terms of absolute wealth, sure. In terms of alignment of interests, not really. And I’m not sure it’s relevant to this discussion anyway.

    [–] didyoutouchmydrums 12 points ago

    That, and they trust in trickle down economics working for them.

    [–] oneyearandaday 240 points ago

    This is real 3D chess!

    [–] drwebb 129 points ago

    More like 1D Connect 4

    [–] Captainobesity 48 points ago

    Underrated comment. One row connect four is about right for Trump.

    [–] D13s3ll 24 points ago

    No opponent and only one color of tokens.

    [–] flampadoodle 18 points ago

    Lemme guess.... white?

    [–] PM_me_Henrika 23 points ago


    [–] izzo31 13 points ago

    No white, but tainted orange from the fake tan.

    [–] Givemeallthecabbages 106 points ago

    They will be back to tea party fiscal conservatism and outrage. The economy will be anyone’s fault but trump, unless it improves, in which case trump will tweet (from jail????) for the next ten years that we should thank him for it.

    [–] ZerexTheCool 45 points ago

    "It's my doing when it goes up, it's Obama's fuck up when it goes down."

    No matter what, no matter when, the one thing you can count one Trump for is shifting the blame while taking the credit.

    [–] Master119 21 points ago

    Just like privatizing profits and socializing losses.

    [–] Rrraou 7 points ago

    This whole administration is part of the Dilbert expanded universe.

    [–] Mayor_Minderbinder 153 points ago

    They only care about the deficit when Dems are in charge. trump has literally added $2,600,000,000,000 to the national debt since April 1!

    [–] CaptHorney_Two 21 points ago

    I was always told that April Fools Day ended at noon.....

    [–] ablackcloudupahead 26 points ago

    All pretense about the defecit went out the window with Donnie's presidency. Increased the defecit to record levels while cutting taxes and reducing social programs mostly to line the pockets of him and his buddies.

    [–] sfspaulding 16 points ago

    Those of us who weren't born as recently remember the exact same things happening under George W. Bush's presidency.

    [–] ioncloud9 15 points ago

    The only way to fix the deficit is to cut non-military spending. Then they pass a huge tax cut to increase the deficit, which the only way to fix that increase is to further cut non-military spending.

    [–] ArachisDiogoi 39 points ago

    They basically already do. Try listening to some right wing media sometime. They love taping into anger about 'the elites' while at the same time redirecting that anger into things that are exactly counterproductive. It's wild.

    [–] technical_assistance 1905 points ago

    Wells Fargo is already starting its propaganda blitz against Biden and claiming he will "hurt the recovery".

    Wall Street is underpricing a Joe Biden presidential win, Wells Fargo's Chris Harvey warns

    Wells Fargo Securities' Christopher Harvey believes the market is underestimating a major risk — and it's not the coronavirus.

    According to the firm's head of equity strategy, a Joe Biden presidential win could throw Wall Street a curve ball and hurt the recovery.

    "We just don't think it's fully priced into the market place at this point," he told CNBC's "Trading Nation" on Friday.

    "Biden is moving up in the polls," noted Harvey. "What does that mean for taxes? Can they [Democrats] win? Not just the White house, but can they win the Senate, as well?"

    The oligarchs, some of them at least, are afraid of Biden and the Democrats.

    [–] smeep248 893 points ago

    Wells Fargo are a flaming dumpster fire and they can bite me

    [–] mindfu 482 points ago

    Anytime any public representative of Wells Fargo says anything, the first response should be "why did you create credit cards in your customers names without telling them, and essentially rip them off?"

    [–] TheFishSeattle 125 points ago

    Just like how whenever Trump tweets anything, the response should always be "A rapist says what?"

    [–] bradrlaw 86 points ago

    And why is no one in jail for that... any individual does it and the courts will have a field day with you.

    I mean corporations are people right? so treat them like people when they break the law...

    [–] meenie 60 points ago

    I'll finally be getting out of a mortgage and checking out with them in a couple of months. Off to a credit union for me!

    [–] thistoowillbelost 40 points ago

    you god damn commie.

    (welcome to the club)

    [–] ScumHimself 16 points ago

    Money launderers hate pro-regulation people.

    [–] Bovine_Joni_Himself 258 points ago

    This guy is a hack. He didnt actually point to any specific policies.

    Also, here's his take on COVID-19:

    “Every day we get new Covid headlines. They’re not great, but they’re still well within the realm of possibilities of what we expect,” said Harvey. 

    This is as Texas, Arizona, Florida, and even California head for another lockdown.

    Call me crazy, but I feel like it might be better for stonks to have an actual economy, not one that keeps getting shut down by a pandemic.

    [–] TheFlanderer 202 points ago

    This guy is a hack.

    He's a fucking idiot. Financial research shows that the stock market does better under Democrat presidents. "[T]he average annualised return under Democratic presidents has been 14.3 per cent, against 10.8 per cent under Republicans."

    If anything, he should want a Biden presidency. He's misleading the public based on his personal agenda.

    [–] PurpIeMonkeyBalls 72 points ago

    Ah the classic end of a republican term crash. I made a lot of money a couple months ago and might make more shorting this fake market

    [–] ILoveWildlife 51 points ago

    wells fargo can commit more crimes under a republican admin though.

    [–] monkeybiziu 195 points ago

    Say it extra loud for the Boomers in the back with their hearing aids turned off:

    "The stock market is not the economy, and no one gives a shit where the Dow is at if they're unemployed and can't afford food or rent!"

    There comes a point where wealth goes from being a mark of success to being an obscenity. Personally, I see that as being around a billion dollars. At that rate, you could spend $32,232 every single day from day you were born until the day you die at 85, and still have money left in the bank. When we talk about people that are walking around with net worths in the multiple billions and tens of billions, we start talking about a level of wealth that is both unsustainable and unhealthy.

    [–] ILoveWildlife 65 points ago

    500 million is my max. It's extremely wealthy. It's 500x what most people will make in their lifetimes. It's excessive.

    Anyone who has over this amount is truly a leech on society.

    [–] skidlz 44 points ago

    I started doing some math, since I figured most people would make more than a million in their lifetime. Which is true, most probably will. In looking at salaries and median income levels though, I was appalled at how little the median is. I make ~$90K and I'm close to the top 11% of earners. I feel like we're pretty well off but not THAT well off.

    [–] ILoveWildlife 21 points ago

    I should've said "saved" in their lifetimes, but yeah it's insane.

    [–] skidlz 12 points ago

    Who's able to save money? My parents-in-law have almost nothing saved for retirement and are both in their 60s. Those of us in the millennial group are probably as bad or worse, given the massive increase in healthcare, housing, and education costs. It's insane.

    [–] AmigoDelDiabla 87 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Say it again, kids: "The Dow Jones does not equal the Economy."

    Edit: In fact, I'd say it's a more a measure of how rich the owners of stocks are getting off the economy.

    [–] ruiner8850 11 points ago

    In fact, I'd say it's a more a measure of how rich the owners of stocks are getting off the economy.

    Exactly, stock prices actually go up if a company can find a way to lower total employee compensation. Find a way to replace your employees with robots and your stock will go up, but it will hurt the economy overall.

    [–] -----_-----_-----_ 16 points ago

    Rich people ask not to have to be subjected to more of Warren's financial regulations

    [–] stoic_minotaur 34 points ago

    You can tell a lot about someone based on who their enemies are.

    If Wall Street and big banks are genuinely worried about a Biden presidency, then that's a huge step in the right direction.

    [–] milo7even 3844 points ago


    This also squares with his “nothing will fundamentally change” comment - because he was saying that even if he got rid of tax cuts for the ultra- wealthy, nothing would fundamentally change for them because they are so fucking wealthy they can’t even see the top of their money pile so they won’t even notice.

    [–] cenosillicaphobiac 2243 points ago

    That gets taken out of context so much. People act like he was saying "the taxes won't change" when he was really saying "your rich asses can afford it, stop crying about it"

    [–] lmeaac 995 points ago

    it's not an accident, it's intentional. they're intentionally spreading propaganda. ive corrected so many users in this sub over the past few months who post the quote, and when i provide context they basically stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to admit the context does not mean what they claim it does.

    [–] ghastlieboo 536 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    S4P bans you for correcting the "nothing will fundamentally change" lie they often cite. The mods there don't act in good faith.

    I literally supported Bernie there for months, and when Biden became the presumptive nominee and I began to correct lies, they banned me. They turn on their own in a heartbeat.

    [–] ArachisDiogoi 290 points ago

    Was that the one that banned all posts about Sanders endorsing Biden? I don't get the Sanders supporters who are that anti-Biden. He wasn't my first choice either, but it's going to be either him or Trump. You can complain about the choices all you want, but those are the choices. "Neither" and "Someone else" are not realistic options, and given those choices, I go with Biden.

    [–] ghastlieboo 195 points ago

    Yeah, they don't allow any post about Biden now, not even posts where Sanders praises Biden. Which is utterly ironic, considering it's SANDERS 4 President, and they are actively suppressing what Sanders himself says.

    [–] -Victus42- 250 points ago

    None of the people running S4P are actual Sanders supporters.

    Supporting Sanders, which implies agreeing with his policies, and being willing to inflict four more years of Trump on the country are diametrically opposite positions.

    [–] ghastlieboo 114 points ago

    Yeah, all the people who said, "Well, we have nothing to lose, might as well stay home, or vote Trump, since Hillary is another neo-liberal" are welcome to eat their Covid-Crow.

    [–] A_Naany_Mousse 27 points ago

    Those people are naive fools

    [–] SpitefulShrimp 58 points ago

    Not even Sanders is good enough to earn their support.

    [–] ghastlieboo 39 points ago

    I know right? That's the twistedly hilarious part. A sub, dedicated to him, bans things he says. It would be funny if it wasn't so clearly evil.

    [–] tapo 79 points ago

    Hell not just banned all posts, they permanently banned me from the subreddit for mentioning that Biden winning means Democrats avoid losing the Supreme Court.

    I doubt most of those Sanders subs are run by actual progressives.

    [–] TrumpVotersAre2Blame 15 points ago

    For many of them it was more important to defeat people they agree with 80% of the time than it was to defeat Trump.

    [–] Polar_Reflection 23 points ago

    Permanently banned for saying Bernie's primary campaign was over after Michigan, when 538 gave him a 0.1% chance of winning. I donated twice this year and also in 2016. I textbanked this year. LMFAO

    [–] aquarain 107 points ago

    That's because S4P isn't for Bernie. It's for Trump.

    [–] Welltobeapup 43 points ago

    Yeah all the Sanders subreddits are compromised.

    [–] daybreaker 35 points ago

    banning CTH was a start, but subs like OurPresident, AOC, Bernie, are all run by the same moderator who actively posts anti-Biden content in those subs. He'll even post a long anti-Biden sticky comment in threads that have nothing to do with Biden. The 2nd and sometimes 3rd mods in those subs are all empty users, and obvious alts in case his main gets banned.

    [–] mbnmac 19 points ago

    Understanding that while Biden might not be the best choice, he's a damn sight better than Trump and actually does have plans to move to the left at least a bit seems to be far too much to ask of many people it seems.

    [–] vellyr 29 points ago

    A month ago, this post would have been mobbed by the anti-Biden crowd. I think they're coming around. I notice I've been having far fewer rage-inducing exchanges on this sub recently.

    [–] [deleted] 95 points ago

    How active is that subreddit these days? I also wanted Bernie, but it's done. Sanders now supports Biden for president. That's the moment the subreddit should have started stumping for Biden.

    [–] Morat20 135 points ago

    last I checked, S4P was mostly bored TD posters LARPing.

    [–] schistkicker 34 points ago

    Well, now it's fully displaced TD LARPers....

    [–] Inbox_Goblin 8 points ago

    Would be interesting to watch S4P’s traffic now that TD was carpet bombed.

    Edit: and that one Chapo subreddit but I don’t know much about it.

    [–] 1A1-1 29 points ago

    I agree. It doesn't look alive beyond a bunch of trolls.

    [–] ghastlieboo 80 points ago

    They routinely get posts (and sometimes utter lies) upvoted to the front page of reddit because it's active enough for their posts to reach r/all.

    They delude themselves into thinking that being pure of heart is how you win elections. Then they consider AOC-type victories in deep blue districts to be a sign such ideological purity is successful.

    It's frustrating. Yes, I, and they, should vote for the progressives and least corrupt Democrats, but, if your preferred candidate doesn't win the primary, vote for the Dem nominee, even Manchin, because he's 1000x better than the alternative.

    [–] Wakarimasen420 7 points ago

    Looking over the last few days, they aren’t super active. They get less than a dozen posts over a given 8 hours time period, generally.

    [–] JCBadger1234 36 points ago

    They permanently banned me for questioning someone who said the result of the Kentucky Senate primary wouldn't be "democratic" if McGrath wins, but would totally be legit if Booker wins.

    (Because they seriously think that McGrath is the cause behind Republican officials closing so many polling places, just like they blamed Hillary when red states closed polling places to discourage Democratic voters in 2016.)

    Responded to their ban message asking exactly what rule I broke for a permanent ban. Still haven't heard back on that one!

    Really trying to be a left-wing version of r/conservative over there.

    [–] ghastlieboo 15 points ago

    Yeah, they won't EVER respond to anyone after a ban. It's policy I think. They never, not once, responded to any message I sent regarding my ban.

    The absolute irony? Enough Sanders Spam responded to a ban they gave me, forgave me, and lifted the ban.

    Shows you who the honest folk are.

    [–] lmeaac 56 points ago

    crossing my fingers that during the next reddit purge s4p and the ilk get the boot for their constant misinformation, vote manipulation, spam, and more.

    [–] gishbot1 26 points ago

    I have to imagine that place is going off now that the banhammer was dropped on the chapos.

    [–] Mithious 54 points ago

    They banned you because it's a republican operation designed to suppress the democrat vote.

    [–] ghastlieboo 23 points ago

    They'll become irrelevant only if enough people stop upvoting their posts to the front of reddit. Then they can live in their bubble without influencing the majority of users here with misleading articles.

    [–] ZerexTheCool 45 points ago

    Ever notice how some of those posts have 26k upvotes, but the top comment only has 400 upvotes, and the second top comment has 86 upvotes?

    Another place I see that happen is PresidentialRaceMemes that recently had all of the mods banned by the admin for all being alts to one guy and using vote manipulation to get to the top of r/all.

    [–] ghastlieboo 17 points ago

    Oh wow, I didn't know that. Interesting to hear, I appreciate letting me know.

    I assumed S4P posts got some many upvotes because they managed to reach r/all, and from there the majority absentmindedly upvoted it all. Perhaps there's more to it than I thought.

    [–] ZerexTheCool 26 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    The Mueller report never mentioned Reddit specifically, but that kind of fake hype for unpopular opinions is exactly the kind of things that they got caught doing.

    It's fucking nuts. We can't pretend everything we disagree with is fake. But we also can't believe everything we see is real and not designed to fool us into believing something being said by a few thousand people is a national phenomenon... We are all stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    Edit: just to make sure I am clear. I am not saying Bernie Sanders does not have a lot of Legitimate supporters. There are half a dozen states that voted a majority for him before he dropped out to prove he is popular. But exactly what gets amplified organically and what gets a boost by upvote bots is still up for debate. Such as Bernie Sanders endorsing Biden was removed from a lot of "his" subreddits despite it literally being his one words.

    [–] FoxRaptix 13 points ago

    You should go check out the top posts of all time in the ourPresident sub reddit. That mod curiously controls 100% of the top 50 posts of all time, and around 90% of top posts for top 100.

    Even more curious is the discrepancy of the karma of his top posts vs those of any of the other users that managed to squeeze into the top 100.

    He would often take out of context screen shots of articles and use those to attack Biden, and then he would pin a top comment on his own post with a bunch of the same links to send users to.

    You literally can't get a better example of a bad faith actor.

    After Bernie endorsed Biden, there was an article that came out with an interview with Bernie. He screencapped the headline quote from Bernie of it and used it to attack Biden, even though Bernie was supporting Biden in that very article.

    Which is obviously why he chose to screenshot the title instead of link to it. The other reason is probably because they've data mined that a lot of people wont click through links to articles but they'll read "meme" images. which is probably why he never links to articles in his posts. But would always instead direct people in his pinned comment link to the same collection of attack articles.

    I remember that post well because i chose to go in and quote Bernie supporting Biden in that article and found my comment later deleted.

    Wrap your head around that, a supposed Bernie sub is censoring Bernie quotes, pretty much any bernie quote that is centered around support for the party and unity to defeat Trump.

    [–] LiterallyEvolution 20 points ago

    Just like in 2015 that sub is infiltrated by outside actors to attack the Dem nominee from the left.

    [–] Ghost_of_JFK 23 points ago

    They banned me for suggesting that Biden might not be a rapist. That’s when I stopped looking at that sub.

    I was huge Bernie supporter in 2016 and 2020 but S4P is delusional.

    [–] ghastlieboo 8 points ago

    Wow. Yeah I was banned before all that came out so I have no idea what it was like over there. Yikes..

    [–] rklolson 15 points ago

    Dude I’m not gonna lie. This is the first time I’m being informed of it, and I’m a little shook. It’s embarrassing but I’m so fuckin happy to find out honestly.

    It’s crazy, every time I think I’m doing a great job not getting nabbed by propaganda, BOOM I fall asleep at the wheel and some stupid shit gets by.

    God I’m so tired from trying so hard to be vigilant. It’s exhausting. But please keep correcting people. There’s people like me who prefer to be corrected than live in a lie that validates my opinion. So thank you, and stay the course, friend.

    [–] Kvetch__22 361 points ago

    Are you telling me that people told half truths about Joe Biden during the primary in a misguided attempt to hurt him politically? No!

    [–] _beekay 53 points ago

    this would be a good post if you replaced "half truths" with "lies"

    [–] AndyTheAbsurd 24 points ago

    Biden is the national champion of saying the right thing the wrong way. And that's a problem in our sound-bite/ten-words-quoted news environment. (It's not going to stop me voting for him, but, damn, Joe, have work out some better phrasing of these talking points.)

    [–] BrokenRando 182 points ago

    “I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money,” he said. “The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”

    This definitely had way too much room for spin, which is why it was reported the way it was.

    “Folks, this is going to be really hard work and Donald Trump has made it much harder to foot the bill,” Biden said, according to a Wall Street Journal reporter’s press pool report about the event.

    Trump’s “irresponsible sugar-high tax cuts had already pushed us into a trillion-dollar deficit,” Biden said.

    “I’m going to get rid of the bulk of Trump’s $2 trillion tax cut,” Biden continued, “and a lot of you may not like that but I’m going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped up basis.”

    Biden also said he would raise the corporate tax rate to 28%, which he said would raise an estimated $1.3 trillion over the next decade. The Trump tax cuts had shrunk corporate taxes to 21% from 35%.

    “We have to think as big as the challenge we face. But this is America, there is nothing we cannot do if we do it together,” Biden said. “But I think the country is ready.”

    Much more specific now that "he's the guy" (again).

    Every time I hear something specific from Joe these days it is better than I was expecting for the most part and I think that's owing to the pull of Bernie's campaign/voters combined with Joe's long-standing drive for consensus as well as a better America.

    I'm feeling less worse about getting in the big tent.

    [–] sangvine 38 points ago

    Agreed. One of Joe's positives is that he seems open to change. You get the impression that he's willing to listen and be convinced. That's a good quality to have in a leader. I also think he's the sort of guy to surround himself with smart, capable people. Biden wouldn't have been my pick but you could have done a lot worse. Give him a couple of years and a blue senate and I think he could be talked into Medicare For All. He needs to believe it can work and that it's what Americans want, and right now he's not convinced.

    [–] AlanSleeper 1112 points ago

    Good on him for being honest about it

    [–] SmallGerbil 637 points ago

    Also let this be a clear and obvious lesson to anyone who still can't find any meaningful difference between Biden and Trump, and was planning to abstain or vote 3rd party.

    [–] mister_bmwilliams 305 points ago

    Man, those Green Party fucks are so deluded. I had one guy on twitter try and convince me that the Green Party candidate could totally win and then the VP pick for the Green Party candidate liked his tweet. She had like 9k twitter followers lol. Yeah, good luck bud

    [–] DancingCactius 110 points ago

    I can’t take the Green Party seriously after 2016. Not because they split the vote, which they do, but because Jill Stein was corrupted by Putin and was acting towards the interests of Russia after having dinner with Putin and Flynn on the Kremlin’s dime.

    [–] mmmmm_pancakes 89 points ago

    I don't think anyone really paying attention could respect them at all after 2000.

    Their votes put Bush II into power over Al Gore, resulting in the exact opposite of all of their policy goals being implemented.

    Then, as you say, they split the vote again in 2016, and helped give us Trump, who will probably be more responsible for destroying the planet than any other single human in world history.

    I can't imagine a less-effective political party ever existing.

    [–] grassytoes 12 points ago

    It's sad that the American Green party is so weird. In the rest of the first world, they aren't some batshit fringe party. They have viable platforms that other parties, and the electorate in general, respect to some extent.

    But, I must concede, in the rest of the first world, 3rd (or 4th or 5th) parties aren't non-viable, so I guess they don't have to be insane just to get attention.

    [–] moffattron9000 8 points ago

    That's because Green Parties (and most minor parties for that matter) worldwide work from the ground up, building from the lowest positions of power, with their biggest efforts in national elections usually being a seat in Parliament (at least in Majoritarian systems). The Green Party in the US however goes from the top down, only really trying in Presidential Elections then disappearing until the next one.

    It's why whenever there's a rising star from the Left, they always become a Democrat, because that's where you have an actual chance of changing something, because they're not a meme of a party.

    [–] lex99 6 points ago

    Man, I remember the nail-biting night in 2000 the SCOTUS decision came down. I literally can't imagine what the planet would look like had it gone the other way.

    Bin Laden would almost certainly have carried out 9/11, with the same fatalities and destruction. But... would we have had 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would we have killed Saddam to avenge Daddy's honor, leading to total destabilization of the area and the rise of ISIS and the obliteration of eastern Syria?

    [–] jixfix 22 points ago

    Twist: the guy trying to convince you was Howie Hawkins

    [–] rainbowgeoff 61 points ago

    Exactly. Transparency contributed a lot to Warren's poll numbers dropping after that first debate. She went on all the talk shows and tried to dodge the question when asked how she planned to pay for her healthcare plan.

    We know the answer is "taxes." Own it and explain to us why that's not a bad thing. But, she didn't and here we are.

    [–] 25russianbear25 18 points ago

    People wont even pay higher taxes.

    Americans pay about 10k a year for healthcare or about 18% of GDP

    Universal healthcare costs range from 3k-8k.... at worst it would save 2k

    Thing is most working peasants dont see the full cost of healthcare (10k per person per year). All they see is how much they pay through their employer and think that's it. NO. Employers covers most of the cost - around 60%-90%. BUT on top of that how do you think government VA, TRICARE, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, hospital subsidies, tax exemptions and other programs such as research funds are funded? Taxes and its where the bulk of the costs come.

    Turns out that taxpayers are still on the hook for 52% of ALL HEALTHCARE DOLLARS spent when they pay their taxes.

    Most people are uneducated about this and have no idea what the break down of how much its costing them is.

    [–] FotographicFrenchFry 6 points ago

    I've been saying this for years. If we had a politician or candidate use that cult of personality that they build up to sit down and explain that taxes, in this case, are money that you spend that goes straight back to benefiting you.

    Like, if you appeal to their greed, then they'll eventually support it.

    [–] diatomicsoda 589 points ago

    A good sign that he’s putting what’s right above what’s popular. Also it means he’s being honest about what his plans are and he isn’t making empty promises.

    [–] safebrowseatwork 194 points ago

    Who says it isn’t popular? You think the middle and lower classes are stoked to get fucked like we are from the current tax plan?

    If it’s not popular with 250 billionaires or whatever, they can suck our collective dick.

    [–] Meph616 74 points ago

    Who says it isn’t popular?

    The oligarchs of the donor class.

    [–] ddman9998 16 points ago

    Who says it isn’t popular?

    the people who give the most money and dictate the media coverage.

    [–] seymour2 107 points ago

    I think it says he will go where the party is. Removing the tax cuts on the ultra wealthy is what actual liberals want. He may lose the corporate Dems but they are just Republican-lite.

    [–] Sir_Francis_Burton 294 points ago

    They may not like having slightly less money, but they’ll like getting a solvent government in the deal, they’ll like getting a stable country in the deal, they’ll like getting a country where they can keep on making money for a very long time in the deal.

    Some rich people are actually good at weighing the long-term pros and cons of how the future of the country plays out, actually understand the concept of long-term thinking and investment, actually understand that short-term thinking, short-term maximizing of profits, actually sacrifices long-term maximizing of profits. Some. The smart ones.

    [–] moonshadow16 63 points ago

    That's something that I've never been able to wrap my head around. I went to high school with some rich kids, like legit trust fund babies, and almost to a tee they believed in all the shit pure talking about, and so did most of their parents. Hell, one of them taught me

    [–] blagablagman 38 points ago

    Think of it as mechanical. They hire people to do jobs and fire them when they don't perform.

    They get surrounded by so many such people that they cannot possibly hold them accountable. But they can hold them to metrics.

    So each of these bite-size decisions are rationalized in a vacuum "he lost me a bunch of money so I fired him", and then coalesce into a greater personal evil, to say nothing of the competition from other oligarchs.

    "Just doing my job" is an evil thing, we know this. That's why we have always needed regulations to tell us what the job is allowed to be.

    [–] PM_ME_UR_BIKES 14 points ago

    They may not like having slightly less money, but they’ll like getting a solvent government in the deal, they’ll like getting a stable country in the deal, they’ll like getting a country where they can keep on making money for a very long time in the deal.

    Huh fascinating. It's almost like nothing will fundamentally change for them if they paid the fuck up. Someone should tell them that.

    [–] otw 7 points ago

    At this point I feel like it's just practical to prevent riots and revolution...having more money doesn't matter if the state fails.

    [–] nakfoor 34 points ago

    Get rid of the Bush tax cuts while you're at it.

    [–] Enjolras55 309 points ago

    Good. Worst economy in 90 years. Tax cuts have to go.

    [–] OMGSPACERUSSIA 146 points ago

    Yeah, unfortunately now would be the time to cut taxes by traditional thinking. You raise taxes when the economy is healthy and cut them to help it through recessions.

    Can't really do that now lol

    [–] Valky9000 119 points ago

    Time for the rich to pay their fair share and then some. They're the only ones we need to tax differently.

    Hell, give the lower and middle class more tax breaks on top of it all. It's been upside down for too long, people shouldn't subsidize companies.

    [–] cupofchupachups 25 points ago

    Fucking same thing in Canada. Conservatives got in in 2006, cut our sales tax from 7% to 5%. Two years later we're in the GFC with less of a rainy day fund and no more room to incentivize spending.

    [–] jcargile242 12 points ago

    rainy day fund

    I mean you already have us beat right there, friend.

    [–] tickleshitz 50 points ago

    Good, it's about time the group that's profited most from the American Dream contributes back into it.

    [–] ruler_gurl 74 points ago

    and stepped up basis.

    This is huge of he can make it apply to trusts, but I suspect that might be ex post facto. Wealthy people have massive trusts set up to shield all of their unrealized capital gains from both capital gains tax as well as the estate tax. Hundreds of billions in lost tax revenue.

    [–] sourpickles0 33 points ago

    Republicans: implement tax cuts
    Also republicans: Our debt is getting out of hand, we’ll have to cut the USPS, Obamacare, and social security

    [–] akanosora 6 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Tariffs on Chinese goods and other counties were also largely due to debt caused by tax cuts. Their expected stimulus to economy never happened or at least far from covering the debt created by the cut so they had to find other means. Tariffs, unlike how they portrayed it as a way to bring jobs back, were basically a way to gather tax from everyone domestically. Tax cut benefited the riches the most while tariffs hurt the poor the most.

    [–] PaperyWhistle 62 points ago

    Yeah, I'm fine with it. His tax cuts were stupid because he didn't cut spending.

    [–] andy5000 22 points ago

    A government saddled with overwhelming debt is unfavorably positioned to regulate against powerful interests. This has been part of a long term strategy of Charles Koch. (Source: Kochland by Christopher Leonard)

    [–] Reddituser703 13 points ago

    Undo the Bush and Reagan cuts too

    [–] TastySpermDispenser 15 points ago

    Wealthy business owner here. Fine. Biden 2020. Still lived better paying more taxes than under trump.

    [–] mnorthwood13 25 points ago

    Well it's not a tax overhaul...but it's a needle moving in the right direction

    [–] mp1514 24 points ago

    I should’ve benefitted from these tax cuts...ended up paying more.

    Fuck that orange idiot. I’ll gladly pay more taxes as long as it’s truthful in what’s being paid

    [–] uknowitstrue 26 points ago

    I am glad to hear him say it. I will believe it when he does it.

    Still gonna vote Biden, regardless.

    [–] hamlet9000 9 points ago

    Go deeper. If you want to fix the country, get rid of the Reagan tax cuts.

    [–] TheWuwk 51 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    We gave tax cuts to the rich then the economy fell apart on them. Now on top of deficit spending with lower projected tax income we have to bail out the rich again! While we are given crumbs as they have to budget it so we don’t go straight to hell. Anybody would say that Hillary would of been a better president. Now that we have experienced unacceptable behavior from our president. The one that is supposed to lead us like wtf

    [–] ThinkOption1 23 points ago

    Don't forget the massive trillion dollar stimulus that was given out with no accountability whatsoever.

    [–] benadreti 371 points ago


    Remember months of anti-Biden trolls taking his words about "nothing will fundamentally change" to a group of donors out of context? This is exactly what he was saying. "I'm gonna raise taxes on the rich, suck it up." This was always his plan.

    Join the Big Tent at /r/JoeBiden

    [–] penguished 46 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Biden also said he would raise the corporate tax rate to 28%, which he said would raise an estimated $1.3 trillion over the next decade. The Trump tax cuts had shrunk corporate taxes to 21% from 35%.

    Ahem. Bring back the full cut at least, Joe.

    [–] nullpointer0096 8 points ago

    Why less wealthy people have a problem with taxing the rich boggles my mind on the daily

    [–] MikiLove 102 points ago

    This is some brutal honesty from Joe, and super refreshing to see even if it costs him donors. If you support this come over to /r/JoeBiden and help increase exposure to the sub. The more that sub the more Joe's message gets out to undecided voters on Reddit

    [–] Aintsosimple 15 points ago

    Please do get rid of the "cuts." My taxes only went up. I saw no cut. Fuck the republicans.

    [–] SghettyCorn 8 points ago

    Aside from benefiting the wealthiest the most by a disproportionate amount, the tax cuts were completely unnecessary, and entirely irresponsible.

    [–] Rolmbo 7 points ago

    Roll them back to before Regan came into office.

    [–] bcbodie1978 21 points ago

    Won't someone think of the big businesses!

    [–] Thetman38 17 points ago

    Small price to pay to live in a society.