davidw said: The DMA was written and enacted, to have the 5 largest US tech companies solve the age-old problem with Socialism eventually running out of other peoples money.
Are you calling Reagan, Nixon, Bush, and Trump socialists? Look at the list: https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225. Of modern presidents the big spenders are all from one party. Bush (1) did worse in 4 years than Obama in 8. Trump 1 did worse than Biden (that had to clean-up after Covid). Trump is known to run out of other peoples money. Doesn't make him a socialist.
davidw said: The DMA was written and enacted, to have the 5 largest US tech companies solve the age-old problem with Socialism eventually running out of other peoples money.
Are you calling Reagan, Nixon, Bush, and Trump socialists? Look at the list: https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225. Of modern presidents the big spenders are all from one party. Bush (1) did worse in 4 years than Obama in 8. Trump 1 did worse than Biden (that had to clean-up after Covid). Trump is known to run out of other peoples money. Doesn't make him a socialist.
Once again, you went off on one of your fallacy of logic bad analogy rant and completely misunderstood M. Thatcher quote.
Neither Reagan, Nixon, Bush, Trump, Obama, Biden, JFK, Carter or any other POTUS in the last 75 years (except for maybe Clinton, who did manage to balance the budget, at least on paper) ...... ran out of other people's money. They all ran out of the revenue that the government collected from taxing its citizens and then went ahead and borrowed the money they needed. Thus increasing the US deficit. There were still plenty of wealthy people in the US that they could had more heavily taxed, in order to collect more money for the government ...... before running out of other people's money.
When M.Thatcher made that quote, she was referencing the UK Labour Party. A party that has historically favored using more taxation of the wealthy, as a means of redistributing wealth. And by "wealth", it doesn't necessarily means handing over money to the less wealthy. Paying for more free government services in the name of socialism could be considered ..... distribution of "wealth".
The common sense notion is that if a government were to tax the Hell out of the wealthy, in order to pay for the cost of running a government that caters to Socialism, the government would eventually run out of wealthy people to tax. Here in the US, the top 10% income earners pays 72% of the collected income tax (Federal) with the top 1% of that 10% paying 40% of it. But for now, the wealthy still choose to stay in the US and pay the taxes. If any US politician can be labeled as a socialist, it's Sen. Bernie Sanders. And there are more than a dozen US politicians that are closet Socialist, but hide under the label of "Progressive".
CA is a microscopic look on the effect of levying more and more taxes on the wealthy. The end game being that CA will run out of other people's money. "Other people" here being the wealthy that accounts for 50% of CA income tax revenue.
There are no Socialist States in the EU. The last being maybe Poland, Hungary and of course East Germany from last century. All EU countries base their social network on Socialism and depend on an economy based on capitalism to fund it. It's actually the same way here in the US, only our social network isn't as close to Socialism as many say it aught to be. The last thing the EU want to do is have an economy based on Socialism. Otherwise they will run out of other people's money.
The last thing the EU would want is to have the 5 largest US tech companies leave the EU or to even slow down doing business in the EU because of the fear of possibly losing 10% of their global revenue in fines, due to made up anti-competitive numbers that the DMA is composed of. Some say that the 10% of global revenue fine (for violating the DMA) , is to deter the 5 largest US tech company from violating the DMA in the first place. But what the possible 10% of global revenue fine (for violating the DMA) is actually doing is attracting EU countries into finding creative ways in which the 5 largest US tech companies are bring anti-competitive under the DMA, by taking advantage of the vagueness that was purposely built into the DMA.
Comments