Homelander

Despite presenting as a “coalition of gay people,” Gays Against Groomers is orchestrated by Jaimee Michell, a far-right activist using conservative networks and extremist messaging to undermine trans rights and LGBTQ inclusion.

Never ends

That’s one way to do it - if you want to hit working people harder while letting the rich keep skating. The wealthy don’t live on income; they live on assets, investments, carried interest and tax-free growth. As long as we only tax wages and leave wealth untouched, they’ll keep slipping through the loopholes. Trump knew exactly what he was doing when he trashed Biden’s IRS funding - he made folks think the audits were coming for them, not the billionaires actually dodging taxes. Smart spin. Total scam.

Appreciate the link but let’s not pretend the Tax Foundation is the final word here. Yes, the federal income tax system is progressive on paper. But let’s not confuse who pays more in raw dollars with whether the system is actually fair. Wealthy individuals absolutely pay more in taxes - because they make exponentially more money. That doesn’t automatically mean the system is fair or that they’re overburdened. The ultra-wealthy also benefit from tax shelters, step-up basis, unrealized gains, and capital gains rates that are far below what regular W-2 earners pay. Some billionaires pay lower effective rates than middle-class workers. That’s not a glitch it’s by design. You said “pick one,” but fair share, tax rates, and wealth taxation are all part of the same conversation. Pretending they’re totally separate is convenient if you want to dodge the bigger issue because you're out of your league, but that’s not how this works. So sure, I’m happy to debate any angle you want but let’s not confuse motion for clarity. I’m not pivoting. I’m just not playing whack-a-mole with cherry-picked stats.

It’s not about picking a magic number like 70% of the total tax burden that stat just reflects how much income the top 10% already control. What actually matters is the effective rate they pay on their income and wealth. Right now, billionaires can pay 3% while a teacher pays 13%. So no I don’t want them paying 100% of the tax burden. I want them paying at least the same effective rate as the people who don’t own private jets. That’s called fairness, not fantasy.

It’s true the top earners pay a big slice of total taxes but that’s partly because they earn so much of the country’s income. But you're clearly not getting it. The real question is what percentage of their income they actually pay compared to everyone else. When billionaires pay a lower effective rate than middle-class workers, despite making hundreds of millions or billions, that’s where fairness breaks down. It’s about closing loopholes and ensuring the tax system isn’t rigged to favor the ultra-rich. That's why the rich spend so much money buying politicians, right? The line that “the rich already pay their fair share” gets pushed by millionaire class influencers and media because their billionaire owners benefit from a rigged system. It’s not about fairness; it’s about protecting a status quo that works for them, not for the rest of us.

In 2025, did Mamdani call for cutting the police budget or NYPD’s counterterrorism funding?

Then you should be directing that energy at Posobiec, not me.

The wealthiest Americans aren’t paying their fair share because the system is rigged in their favor. While working people pay taxes on every paycheck, billionaires use loopholes and special treatment for capital gains to pay a lower effective rate or nothing at all. In fact, the richest 25 billionaires have paid as little as 3.4% on hundreds of billions in income, far less than most middle-class workers. Paying a fair share means the tax system should be based on ability to contribute. That means closing loopholes, taxing wealth like work, and ensuring the ultra-rich can’t opt out of supporting the country that enabled their success.

If cutting spending is really the goal, maybe don’t raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion like you’re maxing out Daddy’s credit card to teach him fiscal responsibility.

Of course - able-bodied people should contribute if they can. But let’s be real: this conversation isn’t about encouraging work; it’s about punishing poverty and giving tax breaks to the rich who do not need it. If the goal was really to help people succeed, we’d invest in job training, childcare, and healthcare - not just slash benefits.

Right over your head. The US totally isn’t dictating policy except when JD Vance is lecturing Europe on their free speech laws, and Trump’s busy trying to strong-arm Israeli prosecutors to protect his buddy Bibi. But sure, tell me more about how we’re just minding our own business.

She’s of Indian descent and this still reeks of hypocrisy.

Another win for @BillsFanNC and @B-Man

We shouldn’t be slashing vital programs just to hand out more tax cuts to the wealthy. I’d much rather see the top 1% pay their fair share than gut support for the most vulnerable in our society.

So free speech is sacred but only when it flatters your flag. Criticize the US? Deport them. Say something uncomfortable? Ban them. Yet when your side storms the Capitol screaming '1776' cosplay slogans, it’s patriotism. And now the UK is your model for speech laws? Cool - should we start arresting half your Twitter feed too, or does censorship only apply to people you don’t like.

From the article - "actual information" you did not want to highlight The Senate version could add approximately $3.3–$4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade - $1 trillion more than the House plan. The House version alone is projected to increase deficits by $2.4 trillion. As much as $930 billion in Medicaid cuts over ten years; strict work requirements could slash eligibility for those with parents of older teens. SNAP (food stamp) changes: House version pushes high work mandates. CBO estimates: 11.8 million more uninsured by 2034 under the Senate plan. House bill alone could leave 10.9 million without health insurance. Extends 2017 Trump-era tax cuts, with special deductions for seniors, tips, and overtime but caps those benefits. SALT deduction remains capped at $10,000 (Senate) vs. $40,000 (House), favoring higher earners in wealthier states. Senate bill includes a staggering $5 trillion debt-limit hike, significantly more than the House’s $4 trillion proposal.