donald trump

Look it up, check the facts. It's all true.

Trump IS the elite. He is one of the 1%. He got millions from his dad, which was put into a trust so he wouldn't have to pay any taxes on it. Then he stiffed contractors and swindled others out of property and work they did for him. He is a failed businessman, and not a leader. By the way, you are mistaken. The top 1% doesn't pay more taxes than the bottom 99%. If you believe that, they have got you fooled. Don't you understand what the recent "tax cuts" did for the 1%? What did you get from the tax cut. I got zero.

You do not make good conclusions or inferences. I have a good pension in addition to social security, which I have NOT claimed. I worked for 22 years in one industry and had a management job, not minimum wage. I have 2 college degrees and prefer not to get any more at this retirement stage of my life. I have paid into social security since I began working at part-time jobs at age 16.

You said nobody said "the top 1% pays fewer taxes than the rest of us, the 99%", but I said it. With all the loopholes the 1% gets, they pay fewer taxes than everyone else, the 99%.It was reported that Trump's son-in-law, Kushner, has paid very little if any income tax from the years 2009-2016. He lives a very lavish lifestyle and paid fewer taxes than you or I. I'm guessing he isn't the only one in the Trump family who does not pay income tax. Are you OK with that? Therefore, by not paying taxes and living off the work of others makes one "elite". Elite = a group of persons who by virtue of position, wealth, or education exercise much power or influence over others.

By the way, you said "the top 1% pays more than the bottom 90%" Pays more what? And what are the other 9% doing? 1% + 99% = 100% If we are talking about all of us, I think the 9% needs to be included, too.

Check the link: https://www.fox47news.com/news/nyt-jared-kushner-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-for-years.

No, Kushner is just an example of the 1%. That is how it works for them.

Sure, it is accurate. It is from FOX News.

Again, 1% + 90% = 91%. What about the other 9%? Who ever you are quoting either can't add or you forgot to include the part about the other 9%. Interesting, study by economist Edward N. Wolff "Though it's just a single study, it suggests that Trump's tax plan is disproportionately favoring the rich, which could worsen income inequality. And as a reminder, growing income inequality has made life tougher for low- and middle-income Americans by reducing post-secondary education opportunities and making access to medical care challenging."

My feelings have nothing to do with this. Your "facts" are incorect.

Also: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-reaped-millions-in-shady-tax-schemes-from-fathers-business-report-says-ny-tax-department-reviewing-allegations

My goodness, you don't get the point. I know what you said because you keep saying it over and over and over. It is incorrect because the figures don't add up.

Insulting me just shows you don't know how to communicate well with others.Sad. Very sad.

Social Security has had its funds already spent. And the top !% pay a big tax share. https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

Social security has not spent all its funds. "Every year since 1984, the Social Security system has had more income than it needs to pay current benefits and administrative costs, so it invests the surplus in interest-bearing government bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury.
Why put the surplus payroll funds in Treasury notes? If you had $2.8 trillion in extra cash, wouldn't you want the money to earn interest instead of stuffing it under your mattress?" The government can spend the bond money any way it wants, but has to pay it back to SS.

Nope, the payouts have exceeded the tax income for a coupler of years now, and the income from interest overtaken by the end of 2019 and the totality of funds will run out by 2034 because the government spends excess income on non-ss things.

You just keep believing that and keep voting for people who will screw you out of a decent living wage.

So a personal attack instead of facts.

No, just an observation. The GOP has been giving advantages and tax cuts to businesses and corporations over individuals. Many people have "jobs" but cannot make a living wage because businesses don't want to share. Those people seem to keep voting in GOP candidates, who don't support their constituents. For example, farmers supported Trump, who then put tariffs on goods, which hurt the farmers when other countries retaliated with tariffs of their own. Then Trump turned around, gave them a federal bailout and got praise for helping them, yet he caused their distress in the first place. Seems like a crazy way to run a country.

By the way, timber1972 inferred I am a leftist, gullible idiot, a statist, and need to improve myself. Are you going to reproach him, as well, for his personal attacks? Thanks for reading.

Nope, as that none of that was in the post I replied to stating that is was a personal attack devoid of facts.,

Really. You couldn't read it here? So others are allowed to be rude and make personal attacks as long as they are not directed at you? So you don't stand up for fairness to others as long as you are not the one attacked? Hmm...

Nice change of subject, why don't you correct everyone on the internet and then get back to me when you're done so we can continue the conversation. Then we can talk about how personal attacks do nor make an argument stronger and using them in place facts is a fallacy.

BTW SSI is paid for by SSI taxes, so unless the government loaned itself the money meant for SSI (bonds are a loan) then the general budget would be completely unaffected by SSI changes, so your very argument depends on the government spending the SSI while claiming that the government has not spent it.