Fetterman drops a large truth bomb in the Dem toilet

[/IMG][/CENTER] Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

You missed one. How about paying taxes after you’re dead. Yeah only a small minority of Americans get stuck giving away 40% of what they had through the estate tax. But only a small minority of Nazi Germany were Jewish too.

Let's dive a little into what Fetterman is concerned about with the Socialist-schtick, by looking at "wages" in a Socialist Utopia vs a Capitalist Reality.

Capitalism
Back in the early 1990's, I was doing a gig in Rochester, Minnesota. <Yah sure, you betcha> On my lunch break, I went to local Wendy's for a quick burger, fries and a frosty. I noticed their billboard had a sign: Help wanted, Starting at $12.50 per hour. That was almost double the starting rate I had seeing anywhere else in the country.

Back at the worksite I asked about it with the locals. Bottom line was: Rochester had two major employers that paid really good money, IBM and Mayo Clinic, along with all their supporting third parties. So the competition for labor necessitated a substantially higher wage to attract lower skilled workers. Obviously, this was before flooding the market with illegals.

Socialism
Fast forward to 2023 in California, where a new minimum wage law was to raise fast-food worker minimum wage to $20 p/hour, effective April 1, 2024. If you read the Commifornia website, it reads like a Socialist drip-fest, i.e. the phraseology. I'll under line a few:

California Increases Minimum Wage, Protections for Fast-Food Workers

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: Beginning in April next year, California’s minimum wage for the state’s 500,000 fast-food workers will increase to $20 per hour – the average hourly wage for fast-food workers in 2022 was $16.21. Through the Fast Food Council, workers will have a stronger say in setting minimum wages and working conditions, including health and safety standards.

LOS ANGELES – Alongside fast-food workers, labor leaders, and legislators, Governor Gavin Newsom today signed legislation increasing the minimum wage for fast-food employees to $20 per hour, beginning April 1, 2024. The legislation, AB 1228 by Assemblymember Chris R. Holden (D-Pasadena), authorizes the Fast Food Council to set fast-food restaurant standards for minimum wage, and develop proposals for other working conditions, including health and safety standards and training.

WHAT GOVERNOR NEWSOM SAID: “California is home to more than 500,000 fast-food workers who – for decades – have been fighting for higher wages and better working conditions. Today, we take one step closer to fairer wages, safer and healthier working conditions, and better training by giving hardworking fast-food workers a stronger voice and seat at the table.”...

So... How has it been going since?

We Were Right: Newsom's $20 Min. Wage Has Now Nuked 20,000 Fast Food Jobs, Cost Remaining Workers Thousands in Lost Hours

By Johnathan Jones October 2, 2025

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom promised just short of utopia when he signed California’s FAST Recovery Act.

Two years later, the only thing raising the state’s minimum wage for fast-food workers has accomplished is to kill jobs.

The Washington Examiner reported, the Employment Policies Institute found California has lost nearly 20,000 fast-food jobs since Newsom’s law took effect.

That’s one-quarter of all fast-food job losses nationwide.

This is what happens when politicians prioritize virtue signaling over economic reality.

Pizza Hut franchises laid off 1,200 delivery drivers to cut costs. Other chains like Mod Pizza and Foster’s Freeze closed their doors.

Newsom’s mandate didn’t protect workers; it priced people out of jobs...

...Now, every lost job represents a family harmed by his state’s economic illiteracy.

And even the “lucky” employees who kept their jobs are losing.

EPI said restaurant workers lost 250 hours annually, or $4,000 under the old wage...

...This wasn’t about helping workers.

This law was about central planning, photo ops, and Newsom’s ambition.

Conservatives warned that this would happen, and we were right...

I can see why Fetterman doesn't want to be leading with Socialism.

Big surprise. Eh Comrades?

Perhaps next on the docket we might take a gander at Newsome's current proposal regarding Uber and Lyft collective bargaining in the age of automation??

You missed one. How about paying taxes after you’re dead. Yeah only a small minority of Americans get stuck giving away 40% of what they had through the estate tax. But only a small minority of Nazi Germany were Jewish too. Originally Posted by Tiny

Americans don’t even realize or seem to care how badly they’re getting soaked, the revolutionary war was fought for way less. If you get $1000 gross paycheck on Friday, stop for gas and groceries on the way home, half has gone to the government before you’re in the front door, yet people still lose their shit at the suggestion of allowing them to keep a small fraction more for themselves. At least half the country has Stockholm Syndrome.

Americans don’t even realize or seem to care how badly they’re getting soaked, the revolutionary war was fought for way less. If you get $1000 gross paycheck on Friday, stop for gas and groceries on the way home, half has gone to the government before you’re in the front door, yet people still lose their shit at the suggestion of allowing them to keep a small fraction more for themselves. At least half the country has Stockholm Syndrome. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Absolutely. Remember one of the biggest catalysts, the Boston Tea Party.

Fetterman's observations should be a wakeup call for a number of rhetorically amped-up House and Senate progressives these days; such as AOC, Bernie, E-War, and Dallas's own Jasmine Crockett.

In a similar vein, former congresswoman Abigail Spanberger (now a Virginia gubernatorial candidate) unloaded a few years ago on fellow Democrats who indicated that they were perfectly okay with being referred to as "democratic socialists", saying that if they let themselves get tagged with the "democratic socialist" label, Democrats were likely to get "fucking torn apart" in the 2022 midterms.

Yes, the term "socialism" is bandied about quite promiscuously these days, and often in contexts where "social democracy," or some measure of it, is a more apt term. Still, "social democracy" can be quite expensive, to say the least. The pertinent question is: Who is going to pay for it? Particularly, how much "social democracy" is America's working class and middle class willing to pay for?

(Because you can't get remotely close to paying for this stuff by raising taxes to the stratosphere only on high income-earners and wealthy taxpayers.)

Here's a thread from a decade ago titled "Who Pays for Big Government?"

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1325605

I posted at the time that this was likely to be a real eye-opener for progressives.

They can’t, unless they’re rich or poor. It’s why the middle class has been fleeing the state for decades. They lost a million middle class citizens in the 2010s and are on track to double or triple that in the 2020s. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Indeed. A friend of one of my nieces recently decided to move from Dallas back to the LA area where she grew up. She was apparently delighted to find out that U-Haul was eager to let her rent a moving truck or trailer for a fraction of the usual rate, as they needed to get as many of them as possible back to CA to accommodate the next wave of migrants to lower-tax, lower-cost states.

In 1989-1990, when Democratic majorities in the House and Senate were pushing for tax increases, GHW "Poppy" Bush advised that when liberals started talking about raising taxes on the "rich," it might be a good idea for middle-class Americans to be sure to keep a tight grip on their wallets. (Anyone remember what a fiasco the so-called "luxury tax" of 1990 was?)

It's the top marginal rate - all-in including state, local and federal taxes. It means you only get to keep 46 cents out of every marginal dollar you earn.

When Government starts confiscating 54 cents of every dollar - why work? At that point, the most productive and hard-working wealth creators in our society start saying - fuck it, I'm quitting! I didn’t sign up for forking over more than half of every dollar I earn to these shiftless greedy guvmint fucks who waste every dollar they seize! Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes, the top marginal tax rate matters -- big time!

By and large, big, economy-transforming decisions are made "at the margin," so to speak.

If Mamdani is able to push through most of his tax-and-spend fantasies in NY, a lot of people there are likely to learn a painful lesson about what fully torqued-up progressivism is and what it does. Especially if this encourages even larger swaths of the financial services industry to decamp to states like Texas and Florida, which have no state income tax. (Note that Mamdani wants to push through even more tax increases on high income earners, even though New York City imposes its own city income tax, making the combined city-state income tax even higher than on most high-income Californians.)

One of the premier office locations for wealth management firms these days is Old Parkland near downtown Dallas. I understand that leasing there is going spectacularly well. And for good reason!

Bottom line: Attempts to turn the US into something resembling California writ large are not likely to turn out well for the politicians pursuing such adventures; let alone for the American public.

Seems he's got the hot-n-trots these days.
Barely even made it to the lu before he disgorged...

Fetterman: I Know and Love People Who Voted For Trump, They're Not Fascists or Trying to Destroy Constitution
By Randy DeSoto October 16, 2025

Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman called for liberals to dial back the rhetoric that likens President Donald Trump and his supporters to fascists, arguing it will only lead to more political violence like that seen in the assassination of Charlie Kirk...

Here's an assignment for you - using the CA income tax brackets you listed, calculate the effective rate owed by a California resident with a) $1 million and b) $10 million in taxable income.

Then come back and let us know by how much these effective rates vary from the top marginal rate of 12.3%.

Thanks in advance. Originally Posted by lustylad

Oh dear! It seems that txdot never handed in his homework assignment. Well, to be fair to those of you who went ahead and actually crunched the numbers, I'll provide the answers:

1. If you earn $1 million dollars in taxable income in the state of California, your effective state income tax rate will be 10.44%.

2. If you earn $10 million, your effective rate will be 12.11%.

Both rates differ (slightly) from the top statutory rate of 12.3% because of the way a progressive or graduated tax system works. As txdot explained in post #37:


"The core of a graduated income tax system involves “tax brackets” and “marginal tax rates.” Income is divided into specific ranges, or tax brackets, with each bracket assigned its own marginal tax rate.

A key aspect is that only the portion of income falling within a specific bracket is taxed at that bracket’s rate. For example, if a taxpayer’s income crosses into a higher bracket, only the amount exceeding the previous bracket’s limit is taxed at the new, higher marginal rate."


For those of you who completed the homework assignment, it should be obvious that this doesn't really save you much in California. Even the effective rate of 10.44% owed on your first $1 million of income exceeds the top marginal rate imposed in all but 3 of the other 49 US states!

Bottom line - the graduated nature of CA's state income tax provides only negligible "relief" from its sky-high confiscatory top rates. When txdot says awww shucks, it's not that bad, he's being entirely disingenuous.

Btw - I just noticed the top rate in CA is even higher than 12.3%. There's an additional 1% surtax imposed on income over $1 million for "mental health services". Which makes the top marginal rate 13.3% and changes the effective rate for someone earning $10 million to 13.0%.

But hey, I'm sure most California residents are enormously grateful to see that surtax collected and spent so efficiently in getting all the crazies off the streets. (Sarcasm alert.)

Btw - Pennsylvania, which is John Fetterman's home state and mine too, imposes a flat state income tax of 3.07%.

One who’d be a California resident by choice is definitely in need of mental health services. That 1% feels on the low side of what’s necessary.

One who’d be a California resident by choice is definitely in need of mental health services. That 1% feels on the low side of what’s necessary. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

The people remaining in Commifornia these days are actually already in a mental institution/state?!?

Hmmmm, <scratches goatee...> makes sense.

Oh dear! It seems that txdot never handed in his homework assignment. Well, to be fair to those of you who went ahead and actually crunched the numbers, I'll provide the answers: Originally Posted by lustylad

lustylad, The reason I never responded to your post is that it is rarely productive to engage with someone who is being so smug and arrogant.

You’re not my teacher and I don’t care to do your homework assignment.

I also have the ability to read the room. This forum is full of Grover Norquist worshipping anti-tax nutters. Hell even Tiny compared people who pay the estate tax to victims of the holocaust which makes the IRS the Nazi’s in this comparison.

You missed one. How about paying taxes after you’re dead. Yeah only a small minority of Americans get stuck giving away 40% of what they had through the estate tax. But only a small minority of Nazi Germany were Jewish too. Originally Posted by Tiny

Let me bring some facts to the debate that have nothing to do with the highest tax rate.

According to this site https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/f...-tax-data-2024 in 2024 the bottom 50% of tax filers only earned 10.4% of all adjusted gross income filed. So even if we had a 10% flat tax the bottom half of the country would still only pay 10% of all income taxes.

So Texas Contrarian is correct that the middle classes are paying most of the taxes that support the government but maybe a bigger problem is the fact that too many people make too little income in the US.

Also the people who file returns for over a million dollars are only doing so because if they want to spend that money they have to file a return. If they wanted to live a little leaner they would keep that money in some kind of tax deferred account or asset.

The truth is that most tax filers with million-dollar incomes have high income levels for years at a time which puts them in the very top of the wealthy class. https://massbudget.org/2022/10/25/on...lionaire-myth/

So when people complain about their taxes my first thought is stop your whining and be glad you have had the opportunity and drive to make the money you do have.

Maybe the reason so many people are talking about socialism is because they feel like the opportunities to get ahead are simply not the same as those that were around decades ago.

I also have the ability to read the room. This forum is full of Grover Norquist worshipping anti-tax nutters. Hell even Tiny compared people who pay the estate tax to victims of the holocaust which makes the IRS the Nazi’s in this comparison. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Hi TxDot, Norquist has two degrees (one's an MBA) from Harvard. He's not a nutter. He perhaps should focus more on restraining deficits and the national debt than he does.

No, the IRS isn't the SS. That honor will fall to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party if it ever takes complete power. Bernie Sanders would jack up the maximum marginal rate to 66% (79.3% in California) and apply it to capital gains and dividends along with ordinary income. He would impose an 8% marginal wealth tax EVERY YEAR on the wealthiest Americans. And the maximum estate tax, imposed after the person dies, would be 77%.

So maybe you could say Bernie & Co. are 90% Nazis. They'd just take maybe 90%, not 100%, of what certain people would have without federal tax. I don't imagine they'd then proceed to kill the wealthy, like German Nazis did the Jews. But with slogans like "Eat the Rich" who knows.

Let me bring some facts to the debate that have nothing to do with the highest tax rate.

According to this site https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/f...-tax-data-2024 in 2024 the bottom 50% of tax filers only earned 10.4% of all adjusted gross income filed. So even if we had a 10% flat tax the bottom half of the country would still only pay 10% of all income taxes. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

From your link:

The average income tax rate in 2021 was 14.9 percent. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.9 percent average rate, nearly eight times higher than the 3.3 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers. (Tiny's note: Most taxpayers also pay property tax, sales tax, state income tax, etc. So the total effective rate is higher than stated.)

The top 1 percent’s income share rose from 22.2 percent in 2020 to 26.3 percent in 2021 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 42.3 percent to 45.8 percent.

The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.

So the top 1% pay 45.8% of the income tax. And they don't pay their fair share. Caca de toro. Or, more correctly, mierda.

So Texas Contrarian is correct that the middle classes are paying most of the taxes that support the government but maybe a bigger problem is the fact that too many people make too little income in the US. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

No, what TC has correctly said, many times, is that if you want a welfare state, the middle class will have to pay for it, because the top 1% or top 10% don't have enough money to do that. He's posted a classic chart from this blog several times, which illustrates the point, comparing the progressivity of taxation in a European welfare state (France) to the USA.

https://archive.nytimes.com/economix...ig-government/

Also the people who file returns for over a million dollars are only doing so because if they want to spend that money they have to file a return. If they wanted to live a little leaner they would keep that money in some kind of tax deferred account or asset. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

That's absolutely not true TxDot. If it were, why would the top 1% be paying 45.8% of the income tax, from your Tax Foundation link?

So when people complain about their taxes my first thought is stop your whining and be glad you have had the opportunity and drive to make the money you do have. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

That motivation and drive's going to disappear if Bernie and Liz and likeminded progressives take power. Or move to other countries.

Maybe the reason so many people are talking about socialism is because they feel like the opportunities to get ahead are simply not the same as those that were around decades ago. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

The reason 66% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism is because they're too uneducated or too young to realize what the effect of socialist policies have been on various countries around the world. The opportunities to get ahead are far better in a country like the USA, Switzerland, Ireland, and Singapore where free markets and capitalism predominate.

Fetterman's observations should be a wakeup call for a number of rhetorically amped-up House and Senate progressives these days; such as AOC, Bernie, E-War, and Dallas's own Jasmine Crockett... Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

They think a quickie fix will work wonders and create Utopia. The numbers use to be (keep in mind these are in their tiny minds) that If you confiscated all the wealth of Billionaires, it would rune the government for 8 months.
"The 550 U.S. billionaires together are worth $2.5 trillion. If we confiscated 100% of their wealth, we'd raise enough to run the federal government for less than eight months."

However I posted this question to AI:
if you took all the wealth from the top 10% of Americans how long would it fund the us government?

The top 10% of Americans hold approximately two-thirds of the nation's wealth, which amounts to about $106.8 trillion based on total U.S. wealth of $160.35 trillion. The U.S. federal government spent $6.82 trillion in fiscal year 2021, and more recent estimates place annual spending around $6.75 trillion to $7.25 trillion.

If all the wealth held by the top 10% were confiscated and used to fund the federal government, it would cover approximately 15 to 16 years of government spending, based on current annual expenditure levels. This is a hypothetical calculation, as such wealth is largely illiquid and cannot be fully converted to cash without severely disrupting financial markets. Additionally, no serious policy proposals call for a 100% confiscatory tax on wealth.

Clearly AI has not met AOC, Bernie, E-War, and Dallas's own Jasmine Crockett. As such, it cannot comprehend their voracious appetite for more of Other People's Money.

...If Mamdani is able to push through most of his tax-and-spend fantasies in NY, a lot of people there are likely to learn a painful lesson about what fully torqued-up progressivism is and what it does. Especially if this encourages even larger swaths of the financial services industry to decamp to states like Texas and Florida, which have no state income tax... Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

On the upside, it will lower rents and create ample commercial real estate space for housing the surfs in communes in NYC and would server them right and make them example to the rest of the country.

But the darker side of it is that states like Texas and Florida get inundated with "marginally" intelligent folks fleeing NYC. Counter balance that with the immense wealth the higher net worth folks would bring. Unfortunately, it would likely raise rents and housing in the short term.

Hi TxDot, Norquist has two degrees (one's an MBA) from Harvard. He's not a nutter. He perhaps should focus more on restraining deficits and the national debt than he does. Originally Posted by Tiny

By making Politicians sign anti tax pledges rather than anti spending pledges I would argue differently. Politicians were on the right track until they started to ignore the CBO and were using funny math to justify tax cuts.

From your link: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/f...tax-data-2024/

The average income tax rate in 2021 was 14.9 percent. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.9 percent average rate, nearly eight times higher than the 3.3 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers. (Tiny's note: Most taxpayers also pay property tax, sales tax, state income tax, etc. So the total effective rate is higher than stated.)

The top 1 percent’s income share rose from 22.2 percent in 2020 to 26.3 percent in 2021 and its share of federal income taxes paid rose from 42.3 percent to 45.8 percent.

The top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.3 percent.

So the top 1% pay 45.8% of the income tax. And they don't pay their fair share. Caca de toro. Or, more correctly, mierda. Originally Posted by Tiny

Who said that the top 1% weren’t getting soaked. Of course they are because they have all the money. If the average tax rate on the 1% is 26% and the average taxes paid are $625,000 that means the average income is about 2.5 million dollars a year. That’s at least 50 times as much as people in the bottom 50%.

No, what TC has correctly said, many times, is that if you want a welfare state, the middle class will have to pay for it, because the top 1% or top 10% don't have enough money to do that. He's posted a classic chart from this blog several times, which illustrates the point, comparing the progressivity of taxation in a European welfare state (France) to the USA.

https://archive.nytimes.com/economix...ig-government/ Originally Posted by Tiny

Of course he’s right. When have I ever said differently. I’m all in on raising taxes across the board.

That motivation and drive's going to disappear if Bernie and Liz and likeminded progressives take power. Or move to other countries. Originally Posted by Tiny

First of all Bernie, Liz, and AOC are a minority in Congress. I don’t expect any true socialist policies to roll out of an electorate that is so divided. Secondly why would people making so much money (an average of 2.5 million a year) move elsewhere if it reduces their income. The idea that we’re going to experience an exodus of wealthy people from the US is laughable in my opinion.

The reason 66% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism is because they're too uneducated or too young to realize what the effect of socialist policies have been on various countries around the world. The opportunities to get ahead are far better in a country like the USA, Switzerland, Ireland, and Singapore where free markets and capitalism predominate. Originally Posted by Tiny

Which just reinforces my point above. I am not advocating for socialism run amok and I agree that the middle classes should be footing the bill for a welfare state. I am just of this opinion that focusing on the highest tax rates completely misses the point, that focusing on the travails of the 1% are just plain stupid and painting the bottom 50% as welfare cheats and lazy or stupid is just another way to separate the extremely rich from the rest of us.

...First of all Bernie, Liz, and AOC are a minority in Congress... Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Hence the push for more supporting Socialist Commies, that Fetterman is warning against.

Do you think Bernie can really get by with just three houses? You may be aware that AOC wants to be the Queen Socialist. BTW: I suspect she's giving the occasional handy to Mamdani under the table these days.

But then comes a fellow countryman of their ranks making clear eyed pleadings to ixnay the Socialist BS-a-Thon chatter, which obviously puts a yuuuge target him, as evidenced by:

Scoop: Dems plot Fetterman ouster
Holly Otterbein

Top Democrats in Pennsylvania are maneuvering to run against Sen. John Fetterman in a 2028 primary contest, threatening to tear the party apart in the biggest battleground state in the nation.

Why it matters: Democrats haven't flipped a GOP Senate seat since Fetterman did it in 2022. He's still popular with Pennsylvania voters, even as Democrats turn on him over his softened approach to President Trump...

Imma think'n he needs to hire two observers to walk in front of him at all times. One to watch over head for grand pianos breaking free from their moorings and landing on him and the other to be on the look out for banana peels strewn about the side walks.

...by dropping a couple of large steaming floppers, aka O'Bamas, in the toilet by clarifying that he actually meant to say:
Petulant, temper tantrum throwing, Socialists.

Better call Roto-Router to clear that clog.

Fetterman Compares Fellow Dems to Con Artists, Sides with GOP Against Schumer Shutdown
By Anthony Iafrate October 26, 2025

Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman said during a Saturday interview on Fox News the U.S. “is losing” while his own party continues to follow a risky strategy prolonging the presently 25-day government shutdown.

Fetterman told “Saturday in America” host Kayleigh McEnany he wishes his Democratic colleagues would vote to open up the government before having a “conversation” to address expiring Obamacare premium subsidies.

The federal healthcare program’s subsidies are reportedly the main issue currently holding Democrats back from agreeing to a deal with the GOP.

In the days leading up to and throughout the government shutdown, the Pennsylvania Democrat has broken with the vast majority of Democrats in the Senate by repeatedly voting for a GOP-backed continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government, as well as supporting multiple bills to pay military service members.

“For me, I don’t check, ‘Are we winning?’, ‘Are we losing?’, and the thing because I guarantee America is losing in this place right now,” Fetterman told McEnany.

“I believe there’s a critical mass of my fellow Democrats that are dug in and now, until there’s an absolute ironclad kind of a deal. And I do fundamentally believe [Senate Majority] Leader [John] Thune is an honorable guy and I do believe we could have a sincere conversation after we can open it [the government] up,” the senator added.

“And then, we don’t have to do this three-card monte, about, you know, do this, do that, do the other thing,” he continued, referring to an illegal con game using playing cards...

I mean seriously:
Who doesn't feel good after a nice dump?