socialism

Started by mille125
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Not true. I am America first and can care less who runs the government. My life and the wealth gap got better under Biden, got better under DJT. My life and most docs will continue to get better being the elite 5%. You are fooling yourself if a dem run government is going to do anything more than virtual signal.

But if this helps your mental state, good for you. But don't fool yourself that it will be any different.
You are fooling yourself if your think that a democratic run government will do nothing. If they win both houses, they will have a "mandate" to reverse much of what this administration has done.

You can expect:

1) A return of the Affordable Care Act tax breaks
2) Impeachment of Hegseth (some of which is already being discussed)
3) Reversing Republican Medicaid cuts
4) Holding votes against the Iran war
5) Undoing President Donald Trump's tariff scheme

There is nothing on this list that isn't good for America and hence good for all of us. If you are an American first as you say above then you have no choice but to agree with this.
 
You are fooling yourself if your think that a democratic run government will do nothing. If they win both houses, they will have a "mandate" to reverse much of what this administration has done.

You can expect:

1) A return of the Affordable Care Act tax breaks
2) Impeachment of Hegseth (some of which is already being discussed)
3) Reversing Republican Medicaid cuts
4) Holding votes against the Iran war
5) Undoing President Donald Trump's tariff scheme

There is nothing on this list that isn't good for America and hence good for all of us. If you are an American first as you say above then you have no choice but to agree with this.
Wealth gap during Biden vs DJT 1st term. 4 years each, apple to apple. Your dem president hand waved a lot and threw out crumbs but nothing changes. Actually DJT helped the bottom 50% more with a 70% increase in bottom 50% wealth vs 14%. DJT saw a decrease in 1% wealth but Biden increased it.

But hey, lets not worry about facts.

Wealth​

MetricTrump 2016–2020Biden 2020–2024
Top 1% wealth share, start30.7%30.5%
Top 1% wealth share, end30.5%31.0%
Change in top 1% share−0.1 percentage points+0.5 percentage points
Bottom 50% share, start1.3%2.2%
Bottom 50% share, end2.2%2.5%
Change in bottom 50% share+0.9 points+0.3 points

Now lets do the godfather of the dem party and add Obama 1st term. The rich does better and poor worse under Biden/Obama. The rich does worse and poor better under DJT. If you want to narrow the wealth gap, best to keep DJT in office 🙂

Wealth​

PresidentTop 1% share changeBottom 50% share changeWealth gap change
Obama, 1st term (2008–2012)+1.7 pts−0.3 ptsWidened 2.0 pts
Trump, 1st term (2016–2020)−0.1 pts+0.9 ptsNarrowed 1.0 pt
Biden (2020–2024)+0.5 pts+0.2 ptsWidened 0.3 pts
 
Now Lets do taxes paid by the 1% vs bottom 50%. Same 4 yrs, 1st term. DJT vs Godfather vs JB.

Obama didn't do much, didn't help the rich or poor. He was just blah.....
DJF raised the top 1% share by 5% and dropped the bottom 50% by .7%. Seems like he is the president of the poor.
JB dropped 1% by 5% and raised the bottom 50% by .7%. JB essentially revered all of the good work DJT did to help the bottom 50% and narrow the wealth gap.

But hey, it sounds really good to elect another dem b/c they will throw breadcrumbs and have grand vision. Dems are great at promises and little action. Dems who want increased taxes on the wealthy and decrease wealth gap should vote to DJT/Reps. I am 1% and guess my bank accounts will be happier under a dem president.

Federal​

PresidentTax yearTop 1% paidBottom 50% paid
Obama, before 1st term200838.0%2.7%
Obama, end of 1st term201238.1%2.8%
Trump, before 1st term201637.3%3.0%
Trump, end of 1st term202042.3%2.3%
Biden, before term202042.3%2.3%
Biden, latest verified year202338.4%3.0%
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
But under less than two years of Trump, the deficit went from 36 trillion to 40 trillion.

Is this what you are asking people to vote for in November?
I’m not happy about that either but if it’s that or a DSA candidate (AOC), I’m taking the lesser of two evils. That’s how most all conservatives on this board feel so you can save yourself some time and energy and stop with your incessant TDS rants.
 
clubdeac was referring to socialism. There has never been a successful socialism state in world history.

Trump being egotistical and impulsive makes him a mediocre president. But that fact doesn't make socialism any less idiotic.
there has never been a true socialist state in world history
Wealth gap during Biden vs DJT 1st term. 4 years each, apple to apple. Your dem president hand waved a lot and threw out crumbs but nothing changes. Actually DJT helped the bottom 50% more with a 70% increase in bottom 50% wealth vs 14%. DJT saw a decrease in 1% wealth but Biden increased it.

But hey, lets not worry about facts.

Wealth​

MetricTrump 2016–2020Biden 2020–2024
Top 1% wealth share, start30.7%30.5%
Top 1% wealth share, end30.5%31.0%
Change in top 1% share−0.1 percentage points+0.5 percentage points
Bottom 50% share, start1.3%2.2%
Bottom 50% share, end2.2%2.5%
Change in bottom 50% share+0.9 points+0.3 points

Now lets do the godfather of the dem party and add Obama 1st term. The rich does better and poor worse under Biden/Obama. The rich does worse and poor better under DJT. If you want to narrow the wealth gap, best to keep DJT in office 🙂

Wealth​

PresidentTop 1% share changeBottom 50% share changeWealth gap change
Obama, 1st term (2008–2012)+1.7 pts−0.3 ptsWidened 2.0 pts
Trump, 1st term (2016–2020)−0.1 pts+0.9 ptsNarrowed 1.0 pt
Biden (2020–2024)+0.5 pts+0.2 ptsWidened 0.3 pts
lets look at those statistics more closely.

in particular, instead of focusing on the top 1%, lets look at the top 0.1% in terms of share of total wealth.

at the start of trump presidency, in 2017, the top 0.1% owned 12.5% of all wealth.

at the start of biden presidency, in 2021, the top 0.1% owned 13.2%.

when trump took office again, it was 14%.

since he has been in office, it has gone up another 1% to 15%. in a year and a half.




the top 0.1% did get a boost during biden, but a much faster rate before his signing of Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 to start of trump presidency in 2025. - 13.2 to 14% total, up 0.4% from 2021 to 2022 and an equal 0.4% from 2022 to 2025.




most likely you are in the 99-99.9% bracket. (to be in the top 1%, your wealth is >16.4 million) or maybe 90-99%.

both groups lost % wealth since the start of trumps first presidency to today


- the 99-99.9% bracket started at 18% in 2017, went to 17.3% in 2021 and 16.8% in 2025 but back up to17.5% since trump started.


- in the meantime, the 90-99% went from 39.3% to 37.9% in 2021 and to 36.4% in 2025 and has stayed the same. so the group you are in has stagnated since he took office.



so the top 10% did get a slight wealth boost during biden.


if anyone wants to check my stats, go here:



TL;DR:

the top 0.1% has gotten a significant boost over the years, much more so during trumps terms in office.
 
Last edited:
the shrinking middle class since 1990:

1792499285356.png
 
I’m not happy about that either but if it’s that or a DSA candidate (AOC), I’m taking the lesser of two evils. That’s how most all conservatives on this board feel so you can save yourself some time and energy and stop with your incessant TDS rants.
I am sorry that the truth gets under your skin but the deficit is up 10 percent in two years and it will get worse as we stay in Iran.

Inflation and cost of living are way up. Our standing in the world is way down. White, black, and brown people are all equally ppassed. That is hard to do.

AOC may be bad as a president but she would not be worse than the present one.
 
British-American historian Niall Ferguson explains why Europe is burning. (No, it's not just France.) The Free Press has started letting subscribers share three articles a month, so I hope this is non-paywalled for you. Read the whole thing.

❝ Despite the echoes of 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871, and 1968, when youthful revolutionaries challenged Europe’s established order, the generational politics of 2026 is very different. Today, by historical standards, the young are an endangered species. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗺𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗱, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗼’𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴.

A clue for the European young: It’s not Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu or whoever else you want to burn in effigy. Mais, non: It’s your grandparents....

As is well known, Europe has relatively generous welfare systems, which do more taxing and redistributing than their U.S. equivalents. It’s just that these systems were designed for 2.5 children per family and an average life expectancy of 62, not 1.25 and 79. 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗳𝗲𝘄 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆.❞

 
he seems to make sense.

the situation in the US is different. we do not give anywhere as much to retirees.



instead, we take from the middle and lower class to give it to the ultra-rich in the form of tax breaks and avoidance. the US is also nosediving to insolvency - $40 trillion in federal debt as a starting point.
 
British-American historian Niall Ferguson explains why Europe is burning. (No, it's not just France.) The Free Press has started letting subscribers share three articles a month, so I hope this is non-paywalled for you. Read the whole thing.

❝ Despite the echoes of 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871, and 1968, when youthful revolutionaries challenged Europe’s established order, the generational politics of 2026 is very different. Today, by historical standards, the young are an endangered species. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗺𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗱, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗼’𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴.

A clue for the European young: It’s not Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu or whoever else you want to burn in effigy. Mais, non: It’s your grandparents....

As is well known, Europe has relatively generous welfare systems, which do more taxing and redistributing than their U.S. equivalents. It’s just that these systems were designed for 2.5 children per family and an average life expectancy of 62, not 1.25 and 79. 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗳𝗲𝘄 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆.❞

agree. good reference.

itll be interesting to see if france goes hard right. national front is not ideal IMHO
 
he seems to make sense.

the situation in the US is different. we do not give anywhere as much to retirees.



instead, we take from the middle and lower class to give it to the ultra-rich in the form of tax breaks and avoidance. the US is also nosediving to insolvency - $40 trillion in federal debt as a starting point.
Yet you seem to espouse all the same European entitlement programs and massive safety nets that has led to their insolvency. Have you learned nothing?
 
no they arent the same as european entitlement programs - those are geared for the people. unfortunately, the elderly, per the article. we do not benefit the elderly to the same extent.

did you read the article you posted after the first paragraph?

what was the take home message that you got from it?
 
no they arent the same as european entitlement programs - those are geared for the people. unfortunately, the elderly, per the article. we do not benefit the elderly to the same extent.

did you read the article you posted after the first paragraph?

what was the take home message that you got from it?
Europe is insolvent due to its massive welfare program which disproportionately benefits the elderly partly bc it relied on higher birth rates

Any solution you’ve shared over the last 5 yrs would only push us further over the cliff due to ever increasing entitlements and government expansion
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Europe is insolvent due to its massive welfare program which disproportionately benefits the elderly partly bc it relied on higher birth rates

Any solution you’ve shared over the last 5 yrs would only push us further over the cliff due to ever increasing entitlements and government expansion
But its better to take the debt from 36 trillion to 40 trillion in two years on a war that nobody wants, correct?
 
thats your opinion.

i prefer solutions that are balanced.

in order to fund social programs (at the very least, not cut them further), increased funding would be generated from multiple aspects.

making sure that the ultra-rich pay their fair share of taxes and not to use tax loopholes or devious tactics to avoid taxes altogether. that does not mean making them pay more, though they should.

making sure the defense budget is appropriately used.

changes to social security by getting rid of the social security cap or at least move it upwards quite a bit.

forcing regulations on insurance companies for example by getting rid of PBMs, capping Big Insurer profits.

getting rid of private equity takeover of various industries.

stop propping up Big Business with loan after loan even as they make record profits and stopping the white house denizens from stealing money through playing the stock market.


improve green energy so we are less reliant on gas and diesel (like China is doing) and improve infrastructure, though that would increase debt short term.
 
there has never been a true socialist state in world history

lets look at those statistics more closely.

in particular, instead of focusing on the top 1%, lets look at the top 0.1% in terms of share of total wealth.

at the start of trump presidency, in 2017, the top 0.1% owned 12.5% of all wealth.

at the start of biden presidency, in 2021, the top 0.1% owned 13.2%.

when trump took office again, it was 14%.

since he has been in office, it has gone up another 1% to 15%. in a year and a half.




the top 0.1% did get a boost during biden, but a much faster rate before his signing of Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 to start of trump presidency in 2025. - 13.2 to 14% total, up 0.4% from 2021 to 2022 and an equal 0.4% from 2022 to 2025.




most likely you are in the 99-99.9% bracket. (to be in the top 1%, your wealth is >16.4 million) or maybe 90-99%.

both groups lost % wealth since the start of trumps first presidency to today


- the 99-99.9% bracket started at 18% in 2017, went to 17.3% in 2021 and 16.8% in 2025 but back up to17.5% since trump started.


- in the meantime, the 90-99% went from 39.3% to 37.9% in 2021 and to 36.4% in 2025 and has stayed the same. so the group you are in has stagnated since he took office.



so the top 10% did get a slight wealth boost during biden.


if anyone wants to check my stats, go here:



TL;DR:

the top 0.1% has gotten a significant boost over the years, much more so during trumps terms in office.
Most use top 1% as the "rich" with over 10+M NW. You are moving the goal post. I am just pointing out facts that DJT increase taxes on the 1% and decreased for the bottom 50% while BO/JB did not. You are moving the goalpost by cherry picking 0.1%.

Facts are the wealth gap being better with DJT, but you decided to use whatever metric to prove your point. Lefties always say Rep lowers tax on the rich/increase on the poors but facts is the opposite. It is OK to say DJT did great with taxes and wealth gap.k

Also, you do realize that no matter what you do short of a huge "Rich" tax, the gap will always increase. Let me help you with the math. Top 1% own 60 Tril (32%) and bottom 50% own 4.2T (2.3%). Next 10 yrs, Top 1% did poorly and only increased their NW by 50%. Bottom 50% did great due to legislation and increased their NW by 500%. Guess what, the gap now would be 90T vs 21T. The gap now has increased to 69T vs 46T.

Libs just like the feels better than discussing facts/math. This is why it is so hard to discuss/debate when libs just meld facts/math to suit their point because the uneducated will never bother to look
 
Most use top 1% as the "rich" with over 10+M NW. You are moving the goal post. I am just pointing out facts that DJT increase taxes on the 1% and decreased for the bottom 50% while BO/JB did not. You are moving the goalpost by cherry picking 0.1%.

Facts are the wealth gap being better with DJT, but you decided to use whatever metric to prove your point. Lefties always say Rep lowers tax on the rich/increase on the poors but facts is the opposite. It is OK to say DJT did great with taxes and wealth gap.k

Also, you do realize that no matter what you do short of a huge "Rich" tax, the gap will always increase. Let me help you with the math. Top 1% own Tril (32%) and bottom 50% own 4.2T (2.3%). Next 10 yrs, Top 1% did poorly and only increased their NW by 50%. Bottom 50% did great due to legislation and increased their NW by 500%. Guess what, the gap now would be 90T vs 21T. The gap now has increased to 69T vs 46T.

Libs just like the feels better than discussing facts/math. This is why it is so hard to discuss/debate when libs just meld facts/math to suit their point because the uneducated will never bother to look
Come on man

With respect, you are making no sense.

Trump lowered the top individual income tax rate from 39.6% down to 37%.

Trump also cut corporate tax from 35% to 21 % which obviously benefits high income business owners and shareholders.

He also created a new pass through deduction benefitting high earners.

I just don't know how you can say otherwise with a straight face.


This term....

A typical American consumer, someone in the middle 20% by income, will pay about $1,700 more in taxes and other costs in 2026 because of Trump’s policies. The poorest 20% will pay about $750 more.

The top 1% of earners will pay less: $12,560 less
 
But its better to take the debt from 36 trillion to 40 trillion in two years on a war that nobody wants, correct?

1st term past 3 presidents. Apples to Apples. 7.8T DJT BAD. 8.4T Biden *Crickets*
PresidentDebt added in first 4 years
Obama (2009–2013)$5.8 trillion
Trump (2017–2021)$7.8 trillion
Biden (2021–2025)$8.4 trillion
 
nope. you just havent paid attention.

it has always been the top 0.1% that has been able to take advantage of the system and that has been able to get away with tactics like "buy borrow die". the 99-99% dont have the wealth to do that.

absolutely no one has thought the wealth gap has decreased. nada. nope. no way.

i like (not) how you mix % with total amount to justify your position. your assumptions are also questionable.

"id like to choose 'Situations That Would Never Happen' for $100, Alex"...

assuming 60 trillion is 32%, we are talking a total of 187.5 trillion, right?
4.2 trillion of that is 2.2% so almost correct.


if the top 1% increased net worth by 50%, they would then own 90 trillion per your example. the bottom 50% increased 500% to 21 trillion (which would be an incredulous amount that is pretty much impossible)

statistically speaking, however...

123.3 million would be the worth of the 50-99%. assuming they made no change whatsoever, the top 1% would actually own 38.4% of the total wealth up from 32%, admittedly while the bottom 50% would then increase to 8.9%. the middle class as usual gets shafted (though not as much as the bottom 50%).

assuming the middle made 50%, then yes, the top 1% would go down... from 32 to 30.5%. a small change. the 50-99 goes from 68 to 65.5%


but we are not talking the top 1%, we are talking about the top 0.1%. and you are pulling numbers out of your earhole that are frankly impossible.




 
1st term past 3 presidents. Apples to Apples. 7.8T DJT BAD. 8.4T Biden *Crickets*
PresidentDebt added in first 4 years
Obama (2009–2013)$5.8 trillion
Trump (2017–2021)$7.8 trillion
Biden (2021–2025)$8.4 trillion
kindly add $3.1 trillion to trumps numbers. (edit for the start of his second term. we wait to see how high it gets...)
 
Last edited:
Suicidal Empathy is Destroying Western Civilization

How empathy becomes suicidal to a society and why suicidal empathy is more often found in women. This post by Rodney Allebach was so good I felt it justified to post it in summarized form so more might read it. It goes straight to the problem of virtue signaling regarding illegal aliens:

“…. what you see on her face is not stupidity. It's a disease that has infected the entire West, and it has a name: suicidal empathy.

The term comes from Gad Saad, an evolutionary behavioral scientist at Concordia University in Montreal. A man who fled the Lebanese civil war as a child, and who knows what it looks like when a society falls apart. His new book, Suicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kind, is the follow-up to The Parasitic Mind. Here is the thesis, and why it concerns every one of us.

Empathy is one of the best things about us. It evolved for a reason: to care for our children, our kin, our tribe. It was calibrated for a world where the people you felt for were the people around you, and where empathy always came paired with its counterweight: the instinct to protect your own and to recognize a threat.

Suicidal empathy is what happens when that mechanism misfires. When it fires at the wrong targets, in the wrong amounts, with no brake. When we feel more for the criminal than for his victim. More for the stranger who breaks the rules than for the citizen who follows them. More for how compassionate we look than for what our compassion actually produces.

Where does it come from? Four layers.

First, biology. Empathy is a spotlight, as the psychologist Paul Bloom put it. It lights up the one face in front of you and leaves everything else in the dark. The crying migrant on the boat is visible. The thousands of future victims of a broken system are statistics. A spotlight is a terrible tool for running a country.

Second, our own civilization. The West is the civilization that put the victim at the center of its morality. Christianity taught us to care for the stranger, the poor, the weak. It was one of the greatest moral revolutions in history. But cut off from its other half, justice, responsibility, the duty to protect your own, it turns into something else.

Third, ideology. In The Parasitic Mind, Saad described idea pathogens, ideas that hijack our reasoning. Suicidal empathy is the emotional counterpart: an ideology that hijacks our compassion. It sorts the world into oppressors and victims, then demands unlimited empathy for whoever ranks as the victim, whatever they do.

Fourth, status. In the age of social media, empathy has become a display. Posting "refugees welcome" costs nothing and earns applause. The bill goes to someone else: the working class, the suburbs, the women walking home at night.

The results are everywhere. Criminals treated as victims of society. Sexual assaults by migrants met with lenient sentences. Self-defense branded as aggression. Borders treated as cruelty. Saad's conclusion is simple: a society dies when it would rather display infinite tolerance than use its survival instinct.

Now the part I'll add myself, and that few people dare to say.

On average, women score higher than men on measures of empathy. It's one of the most consistent findings in psychology, across cultures, and it makes perfect evolutionary sense: for most of human history, the survival of children depended on it. It's a strength.

But it means an ideology that weaponizes empathy will hit women harder. And the data shows it: in country after country, young women have moved sharply to the left of young men, especially on immigration.”

Read the entire post here:

 
1st term past 3 presidents. Apples to Apples. 7.8T DJT BAD. 8.4T Biden *Crickets*
PresidentDebt added in first 4 years
Obama (2009–2013)$5.8 trillion
Trump (2017–2021)$7.8 trillion
Biden (2021–2025)$8.4 trillion

You can also say that Trump increased the national debt by 39% and Biden by 30%.

Conservatives love to bring up Biden even two years later.
 
nope. you just havent paid attention.

it has always been the top 0.1% that has been able to take advantage of the system and that has been able to get away with tactics like "buy borrow die". the 99-99% dont have the wealth to do that.

absolutely no one has thought the wealth gap has decreased. nada. nope. no way.

i like (not) how you mix % with total amount to justify your position. your assumptions are also questionable.

"id like to choose 'Situations That Would Never Happen' for $100, Alex"...

assuming 60 trillion is 32%, we are talking a total of 187.5 trillion, right?
4.2 trillion of that is 2.2% so almost correct.


if the top 1% increased net worth by 50%, they would then own 90 trillion per your example. the bottom 50% increased 500% to 21 trillion (which would be an incredulous amount that is pretty much impossible)

statistically speaking, however...

123.3 million would be the worth of the 50-99%. assuming they made no change whatsoever, the top 1% would actually own 38.4% of the total wealth up from 32%, admittedly while the bottom 50% would then increase to 8.9%. the middle class as usual gets shafted (though not as much as the bottom 50%).

assuming the middle made 50%, then yes, the top 1% would go down... from 32 to 30.5%. a small change. the 50-99 goes from 68 to 65.5%


but we are not talking the top 1%, we are talking about the top 0.1%. and you are pulling numbers out of your earhole that are frankly impossible.




This obsession with "inequality" and the failure of government to redistribute wealth is really the core motivation behind "socialism".

And the reason it inevitably leads to a failed state...
 
kindly add $3.1 trillion to trumps numbers. (edit for the start of his second term. we wait to see how high it gets...)
No point in discussion with lefties. You guys can't just see facts. I compared 1st 4 year of each president then you wave your hand and change the number of years for DJT?

You guys are clueless. DJT 1st term 7.8T, JB 1st term 8.4T. This is basically comparing apples to apples but somehow you turn 7.8T DJT bad, JB 8.4T good.

This is why you can not argue with lefties who can't comprehend math and economics. Like flat earthers. I am checking out, good luck with your socialist ideas.
 
No point in discussion with lefties. You guys can't just see facts. I compared 1st 4 year of each president then you wave your hand and change the number of years for DJT?

You guys are clueless. DJT 1st term 7.8T, JB 1st term 8.4T. This is basically comparing apples to apples but somehow you turn 7.8T DJT bad, JB 8.4T good.

This is why you can not argue with lefties who can't comprehend math and economics. Like flat earthers. I am checking out, good luck with your socialist ideas.
No one has said that adding 7.8 and 8.4 Trillion to the deficit is good. However, it is the conservatives that say that adding to the deficit is just done by democrats. In terms of percentage Trump added 39% and Biden added 30%. The deficit was a lot smaller when Trump began.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad