12 minutes ago, Banzai said:

Your assertions about how relatively progressive our tax system is is not backed up by the data.

https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality-before-and-after-taxes

 

You lost me at “income inequality”…it’s called life, and some people are just better at it than others.  Sorry, but if you’re a progressive who believe in more social programs than less, then you’re right, we’re definitely not going to agree on much.  

2 minutes ago, Banzai said:

I am for high earners paying a proportionally higher amount of their income or net worth in taxes, yes. It’s called progressive taxation, and it is highly popular. And I’m bothered that rich people and corporations don’t pay enough in taxes, just like 60-80% of Americans:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/07/top-tax-frustrations-for-americans-the-feeling-that-some-corporations-wealthy-people-dont-pay-fair-share/

This forum will be biased, but it is not reflective of broader American views.

I think we’re at a stopping point here. I acknowledge your views. But I think they are over simplistic and I disagree with them.

The problem with socialism is the eventually you run out do other people’s money.  We already have a very progressive tax system and yet we’re extremely in debt…but sure, let’s just do more of it.  And have you seen the average American today?—yeah, not what I would call a model example of thriving society.

14 minutes ago, Banzai said:

When it comes to funding society, everything is about giving/taking from people based on their income/wealth. You just believe it should be done differently (in a way that I would argue would have negative second and third order effects).

For example, if we went to a tariff based tax system, the poor would have to pay significantly more of a percentage of their net worth or income to taxes than the rich. 

Again, we have too much welfare and federal spending as it is…and the poorest don’t pay federal income taxes, and if they work, they actually get paid by the IRS, so don’t give me the “poor pay too much in federal income taxes” BS.  Compare apples to apples and tell me what percentage of revenue received from federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of earners vs the bottom half of earners.  You’re just for more social programs, paid by higher earners, and I am for less.  

1 minute ago, Banzai said:

Then do you think we as citizens of the USA don’t have a duty to the debt we have accumulated? Who does?

You didn’t say anything abut debt, you originally were taking a hit giving/taking from people based on their income/wealth.

As for the debt, yep, I’m all for reducing it as much as possible by reducing spending.  We have a spending problem, not a tax problem.

12 minutes ago, Banzai said:

How is giving more money to the owning class and taking away resources from the working class going to get us back to the affordability you claim existed in the 1940s?

Reducing taxes on people who make more money is not “giving” them anything…it was their money to begin with.  And “taking away” from the poor is not taking anything from them as was never their resources to begin with.

With regards to progressives complaining about the cuts, this is nothing new.  In 2013 Pelosi said there wasn’t room to cut anything…and now we’re paying for DEI stuff overseas, promoting trans nonsense in other countries, paying hotels for illegals here in the US, on and on.  It’s almost hard to fathom how the left is defending this crap, but that’s just who they are/how they think.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2013/09/pelosi-says-the-cupboard-is-bare-173214

Progressives are upset that Trump is doing a lot of what he said he would do, and yet, non-progressives are supposed to be upset as well?  And I love the “unconstitutional” part of what Trump is doing…this is their new catchphrase since the Musk Nazi-salute nonsense didn’t work.

^^^Too funny coming from the guy who said Biden was doing a good job as president

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

No, it was the irony of the party that prides itself on being fiscal responsible is slashing the government then proposing to increase the budget and spend more. You just randomly came in with a false equivalency for whatever reason assuming I’d defend whatever progressives allegedly do.

Perhaps we’re talking past each other.  I’m for cutting waste, cutting overall spending, and cutting taxes.  I’m probably one of the few on here who is for cutting welfare and the defense budget.  As for social security and Medicare, that Ponzi scheme was never going to work and was doomed to failed, just like any other Ponzi scheme.  

18 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

You know both can be wrong, right? Of course you did. Does the government need to be cutdown? Sure. Does it need an autistic technicrat who’s a defense contractor of all things data mining American’s data to run through his Grok 2.0 AI with this band of college aged broccoli haired retards named “Big Balls” shutting down agencies without authority to do so? No. Conduct auditing with qualified people who can conduct auditing. 

But hey, at least Elon’s government contracts are doing great!

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/FY25-Procurement-Forecast.xlsx (NAISC Code 311999)

SpaceX also was awarded a $38M contract yesterday. 

So, a CEO of multiple government contractors will be “auditing” competing government contractors? But don’t worry, he said he’ll recuse himself of any conflict, all is good.

Your original post was about “tax cuts for billionaires”, was it not?  So if those progressives who are against tax cuts, my question is why don’t these same progressives give back their tax cuts to the government?  Your response above literally had nothing to do with the tax cuts.

19 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Elon and Trump have to find that $4T in tax cuts that are set to expire this year for their billionaire friends. Here’s the House’s proposed budget with…a $3.3T increase!

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/BU/BU00/20250213/117894/BILLS-119NAih.pdf

Funny how progressives never give back their savings from tax cuts back to the government…

Tulsi is in.  Curious as to what she’ll do in the next several weeks now that she’s in charge of the intel community.  The intel community/progressives were fervently against her so there must be a reason they were so worried.

28 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Well thank god we got all the big problems at the FAA all ironed out and  now have time to focus on these administrative details!

 

Then why was the previous administration so focused on changing it?

6 minutes ago, KWings06j said:

Fairly certain they have VHF. Every Blackhawk variant I've been in had it. Not uncommon for busy airspace to have a dedicated helicopter frequency regardless. 

Yep…(checks own username)—I agree.

1 hour ago, HeyEng said:

From what I have heard they were on UHF and ATC were dual transmitting on UHF/VHF so you can hear ATC talking to the -60 but any civilian traffic could not hear the -60.

Also I still have not heard if this was an older -60 with legacy avionics or a more modern one with glass.

If it was legacy it probably had the small “fish finder” type of TCAS whereas glass typically overlays the TCAS on the HSI display. 
TCAS is probably moot anyhow since the TA/RA is disabled below 1000’

You said they need to have VHF…I am willing to bet they most definitely had VHF. As for what frequencies/radios they were using, that could be a procedural question/issue.  The H-60s flying around Iraq in 2008 (most likely Lima models as the Mike models were still pretty new then) had VHF radios, and from what I can tell, the one involved in this crash was a Lima model.

25 minutes ago, HeyEng said:

I hope that one outcome of this accident is that we start installing more VHF radios in military aviation. I don’t expect every helicopter or fighter to have a VHF radio but certainly this helicopter flying and training in a dense civilian airspace environment should be a priority!

Did they not have a VHF radio?

2 hours ago, Stoker said:

Anyone actually talk to real live Canadians in the last week or so? I have, on both sides of their political spectrum, and man, next time we ask for help, they aren't coming.

Wait, you mean they might not join us in invading the next country we decide to take over?…kind of like how they decided to not invade the last country we went into?

5 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

I use strong language because its required for fucktarded Trump when he steps on his dick.  Maybe you're OK with his antics.  Maybe you have a line, maybe you don't.  I would hope you have a tolerance level for stupid shit.  Maybe. 

Here's Rand Paul.  His trip wire was crossed on this, so I'm not the only one.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/rand-paul-slams-trumps-gaza-plan-after-opposing-tariffs-i-thought-we-voted-america-first/

I'll go back to sippin cervezas at the pool.  Good luck to us, looks like we'll need it.

You can’t even provide a prediction of when you’ll think this will happen…but yet you’re actually worried it will happen.  So yes, you’re just being emotional.  It’s easy for me, I’m not concerned at all that it will happen.  

4 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Bud, I don't want to bet that he does it.  I don't want him trying to make that happen at all.  We don't need more reason for the ME to put their hate upon us.  If he does, I imagine Marines in barracks in Beirut. And then we have to respond.  And down the rabbit hole we go.

Trump pledged America First.  Why can he just stick to that?  What happens in Gaza pretty much stays there, save the silly students that stage a protest at Berkeley.  Why does he need to stick our nose in their shit?  What's the goal, stop the flow of Gazan fentanyl?  Increase the flow of Gazan oil?  What is the US vital strategic importance of Gaza?

Thus, I want enough Americans, especially MAGAs, to say, WTF dude.

So you’re so worried that he’ll do it (because you must think he will), but yet you don’t want to bet on your prediction coming true?  When is this going to happen?…that way we can all call you out on your nonsense when it doesn’t happen.
 

Dude, you’re pretty emotional right now (again).  I recommend you sit a few plays out, seriously.

13 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Fify.

PS.  Since you don't seem to disagree with whatever your boy Trump says, tell me you agree to deploy to Gaza.  If retired, you want your F&F/buddies to deploy.  Because that's what it sounds like.

I’m retired bro lol.  As for people deploying to anywhere for any reason, yeah, that’s part of the job—whether we like it or not.  That all be said, when Trump deploys troops take control of Gaza, I’ll eat my words.  But since you’re so concerned, let’s make a bet if that will happen in the next 1-2 year.   What are your terms?

16 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Typical trope.  I call out your boy and you call it TDS.  Well, when you blindly follow his shit, I'm gonna call it TEW, for Trump Elephant Walkers.

My IRS example point is, nobody will be working in the IRS so there's nobody to go after billionaires that cheat on their taxes, let alone me.  Try to keep up here.

So your original post about not paying your taxes was lame, as I expected…got it.  And you’ve been upset with Trump for several years, so this is just another TDS rant.

Your post reminded me of this recent nonsense:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-jersey-governor-houses-migrant-house-tells-feds-good-luck-trying-get-her

 

 

15 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

I don't think I'll do my taxes this year and set my withholding to 0.  Who's gonna come after me?  All those IRSers sitting border guard? The govt is getting hollowed out.

People never tried cheating on their taxes before 2025?  Also, I’m willing to bet a sizable amount of money that you’ll pay your taxes (the IRS cares much more that you pay your taxes, not that you file them)…so your example is as weak as your threat.  Also your TDS is once again noted.

This is much more about reducing the size of government/federal employees than it is getting people back into the office.  But since it’s extremely difficult to fire/layoff a federal employee, getting them to leave on their own sounds like the next best thing.

Do we really need 2.4 million federal employees?…and that’s not even counting the military or those working for the post office.

For some reason I don’t seem to care what the progressives think about Trump or his team/what they’re doing for the country, when those same progressives over the last decade have told us how evil the US is…