Accountability and personal responsibility are kyptonite concepts for the left.

#35 | Posted by BellRinger

"Accountability and personal responsibility are lawfare! Waaaah!"
- Jeff Bellringer Epstein-Worshipper

Are you always an ankle biter?

#3 | Posted by BellRinger

You always use this line when getting called out for being a liar.

Funny part:

Fuentes essentially admits they all know Trump lost but said he was pissed Trump admitted it.

Show ID please or no registrado. It's not asking too much.

#6 | Posted by organ_bank

Do you know how long it takes to get a license in Texas? We are talking months, sometimes 4-6 months in some areas.

Kenny will just end up with republicans in that county being outraged.

#4 | Posted by Tor

Republicans will fall for the "stopping voter fraud" stuff like usual.

I've given old cars away, but I didn't do it impress the electorate with how generous I am. Everyone look at me I'm Tim Walz, see how generous and humble I am!

#22 | Posted by visitor_

Pushing your rusted out, broken down Geo Metro into the ditch across the road is not giving away your old car.

People were glad to see him go. He was making a fool of himself daily.

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Says the Trump supporter

Braver?
She is a rich kid who made up her mind about climate change at eight years old.
There is nothing brave about having your wealthy parents ferry you across the world to provide commentary on your favorite causes. It just happens to be that her favorite causes and your own align.

#24 | Posted by madbomber

You're right.

She should be out partying, getting arrested with drugs or for driving 120 mph, posting stupid stuff on social media about clubs, etc. like most rich kids instead of trying to make the world a slightly better place.

That's your take, right?

Are subway shootings a fact of life as well?
How about Chicago (the crowd goes wild!), is Chicago also a fact of life ?

#10 | Posted by organ_bank

Chicago that has lower shootings per capita than many red states?

No. It was really a change towards skilled labor who could do more with less, and a globally integrated economy where a country could produce goods at far lower costs than the US could. Which is why a 19" TV cost $2,500 in 1979 (2024$), and now you would have a tough time finding a TV that costs that much. I bought a 70" for my daughter's dorm a few weeks ago. $498.

#99 | Posted by madbomber

Holy ----.

You really don't understand even basic economics... Like...this is breathtakingly bad...

Buddy, even most skilled labor is paid less now than unskilled labor did in the 1970's!

And the cost of your TV has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. It's the outcome of automation, scale of size, and technology updates boosting productivity.

But taxes on any of them didn't translate to the purchasing powers held by the workers at the time. In fact for a while, the government imposed income ceilings on workers. So employers started providing them with other benefits, like healthcare.

#99 | Posted by madbomber

Did you skip all of US History and Economics classes? Just curious.

"1. This might be the dumbest argument ever made on the Drudge. As if the top 1% aren't already seeking to maximize their incomes."
As are all other income earners. What you need to realize is that, in order to you accomplish your progressive goals. You need them to keep doing exactly what they are doing, but give the money away. That's not likely to happen, and there isn't any real policy that could compel them to.

#98 | Posted by madbomber

I'm convinced you aren't following any of the argument.

You argue that tax cuts meant top wages earners would try to maximize their income.
I say they were already doing that.
You then say, well everyone is already doing that.

Are you not even able to keep up with the things you are saying?

Start charging those parents and see if that helps.
#126 | POSTED BY JPW
agree 100 percent.
#129 | Posted by Alexandrite

I agree but it won't change anything.

Every parent says "Not my child!"

And the ones who this happens to rarely think that far ahead or care that much to get their kid help.

Building the circumvallation and siege ramp alone wouldn't take years, but that's a 2-3 month process.

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Sunomata Castle in Japan was almost built overnight by Hideyoshi Kinoshita and crew.

I don't think it would take 2-3 months with a large crew.

I'm not casting shade on Harris for dyeing her hair, tummy flattening panty hose, or wearing makeup and high heels. I'm pointing out that she was faking her Kamala from the hood speech style.

#37 | Posted by visitor_

The first rule of what to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging.

Put down the shovel.

Maybe if we were not so soft on crime the parent (mother) would already be in jail. Her past includes domestic violence, drug possession, property damage and traffic violations. Most recently November for possession of methamphetamine, fentanyl and muscle relaxants, and investigators said she also concealed the identity of her vehicle with a tag belonging to another vehicle. But yeah, jail her NOW.
#131 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2024-09-05 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag
Very valid points. Seems like most parent's would have already lost their child(ren) after that list of misdurins.
#134 | Posted by lfthndthrds

He had a dad. Dad wasn't as messed up it seems. He lived with dad.

And we don't have the resources to take all the kids with parents like this.

Details just aren't your thing, are they?

Speak,
Everyone sold out.
Not just Republicans.

#94 | Posted by BillJohnson

Republicans: Wealth people sitting on their yachts need tax cuts.
Democrats: Working people who can't afford to even pay rent need tax cuts.
BillJohnson: These parties are the same!

This is really summed up here on the DR well.

"Meaning more income and wealth became concentrated at the top in 1988. That's proof money funnels upward."

1. No, it means more income earners will willing to trade their talents and resources for more income.

2 Had the tax cuts not been implemented, the economic position of the lower income earners would have been unchanged. No, I take that back. It would have been worse for the lower income earners, as they would have continued to carry that larger percentage of the overall tax burden.

#84 | Posted by madbomber

1. This might be the dumbest argument ever made on the Drudge. As if the top 1% aren't already seeking to maximize their incomes.

2. When did the middle class grow? When the top was paying a fair share of their huge incomes.
When did it stop growing? When idiots changed that.

"The TOP 1% GOT ALMOST 3 TIMES AS MUCH TAX SAVINGS AS THE ENTIRE MIDDLE 20% COMBINED."
How does that not make sense to you. In order to get a tax cut, you have to be paying taxes. 10% of that middle 20% falls into the bottom 50% of income earners, who pay 2.3% of the total federal income tax burden. Do you propose they pay zero taxes?

#87 | Posted by madbomber

You said bottom, not bottom half. Way to move those goalposts and then complete ignore the huge issue.

How does skyrocketing top 1% incomes and stagnating middle class incomes not making sense to you?

This isn't rocket science. It's basic fourth grade math that you can't seem to wrap your head around.

"CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings."
Which makes sense, given that bottom income earners pay so little in taxes to start with. That's a logical outcome. That's why you would cut taxes.

#75 | Posted by madbomber

We weren't talking about the bottom. We were talking about the middle 20%.

The TOP 1% GOT ALMOST 3 TIMES AS MUCH TAX SAVINGS AS THE ENTIRE MIDDLE 20% COMBINED.

(Hence why you didn't copy the entire sentence)

"Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase."
"The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent."
www.jec.senate.gov

#72 | Posted by madbomber

Cute way to measure it.

If I make $1 million in 1981 with an 25% effective tax rate, I paid $250,000 in taxes.

But then I make $10 million in 1987 with an 10% effective tax rate, I paid $1 million in taxes.

Mad says my taxes went up and is pissed about it!

I say it's a problem I would love to have.

Dude, do you understand what happened to incomes since 1981? The highest earners are earning way more year after year while middle class wages adjusted for inflation stagnated.

THAT'S WHY THE HIGHEST EARNERS ARE PAYING A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME TAX BASE AS A WHOLE BUT PAYING LOWER TAXES THAN EVER BEFORE.

But he doesn't change his hair and skin tone to pretend he's black, now does he?

#33 | Posted by visitor_

Spotting the lying racist is sometimes so easy on this site.

Oh, and what about when GWB cut tax rates in the lowest bracket from 15% to 10%? That was a far greater giveaway that he gave to those in the highest bracket.

#73 | Posted by madbomber

CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.

In each of the nine years from 2004 through 2012, the GWB tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the highest-income taxpayers by a far larger percentage than they did for middle- and low-income taxpayers. For example, in 2010, the year in which all of the Bush income and estate tax cuts were fully phased in, they increased the after-tax income of people making over $1 million by more than 7.3 percent, but increased the after-tax income of the middle 20 percent of households by just 2.8 percent

Try again.

Maybe if we were not so soft on crime the parent (mother) would already be in jail. Her past includes domestic violence, drug possession, property damage and traffic violations. Most recently November for possession of methamphetamine, fentanyl and muscle relaxants, and investigators said she also concealed the identity of her vehicle with a tag belonging to another vehicle. But yeah, jail her NOW.

#131 | Posted by gracieamazed

Did he get the gun from his mom?

And how long did you want her locked up for? Forever? She likely served some jail time.

Finally, are you Republican Georgia is soft on crime? Odd.