European Commission moves to designate Amazon and Microsoft as cloud gatekeepers

[Bluescreendeath]

What planet are you posting this from? Did you miss the fact that Democrats in Congress proudly and incessantly proclaim their refusal to work with or even agree with Trump on anything and everything?

Were you born yesterday or are you completely new to American politics? Did you miss the fact that this type of conflict happens during every administration?

When Obama was first elected, in 2010, the Republicans literally said "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Then they took the no compromise pledge and said this about Obama's policies: “We’re going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Are you seriously complaining that the opposition was "mean" to Trump when the same thing happened to Obama and this happens to every single president?

Did you skip high school civics? A "majority" in the Senate means little -- it takes a supermajority to pass funding bills, in order to overcome the filibuster.

You must be the one who skipped high school civics when you don't realize it is the role of the president and majority leaders to NEGOTIATE a deal and get those 60 votes. The only time there was a supermajority in the last ~60 years was for 2-3 months in 2008 - do you really think the government couldn't pass anything for the other ~59 years?

How did every other president manage it? How did Bill Clinton manage a balanced budget with not only not having a supermajority but also having an opposition party in charge of Congress?

It sounds like your "Great Negotiator" is actually terrible at negotiating.

It's particularly embarrassing for you when just last year Chuck Schumer led a filibuster to shut down the government for the longest period in history, as he demanded $1.7 trillion in new spending. That's "trillion" with a "T".

It's particularly embarrassing for you to not know the difference between spending vs "new" spending, and worse that you are mixing up different events and different years.

First, it was not all "new" spending, but included existing spending and half of it was for Republican supported spending for military defense. Schumer's 1.7 trillion spending bill was a BIPARTISAN bill that had Republican support too and included 860 billion dollars in military funding.

Second, Schumer's 1.7 trillion omnibus bill was 4 years ago in 2022, not last year (2025). The longest filibuster by Cory Booker in 2025 had nothing to do with any Schumer spending bills.

You're mixing up completely different years and events.

The only major spending increase Trump requested first term were those to restore military spending from the levels that Obama had cut from it -- over his two terms, Obama cut military spending from 4.9% to 3.4% of GDP.

Trump kept military spending in the 3ish% GDP range during his first term.

Stop with the nonsense. For fifty years, every budget battle has been the same: Democrats demand more spending, Republicans less.

Stop with the nonsense. Republicans love increasing spending too, just not as much as Democrats do. Democrats are WORSE, but Republicans are still BAD.

The GOP loves to increase spending on military spending, corporate subsidies, corn-ethanol subsidies to produce field corn that Americans don't even eats and gets exported as animal feed or inefficiently turned into ethanol, and pork bills to fund their own districts.

Remember that Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska funded by Republican senators? Or Republican legislators voting to keep tank factories open (in Ohio?) and forcing the US army to buy more tanks when the army told them they didn't need any more tanks?

And the fact that Democrat presidents like Obama and Clinton increased the deficits at lower rates than Trump should be proof enough (assuming you still think that RINO is Republican).

By the way, we actually had a balanced budget under Bill Clinton when he worked with Republicans in Congress to both RAISE TAXES and CUT SPENDING.

If anything, this might show that Congress should be controlled by Republicans and the Executive should be controlled by Democrats to get the lowest increases in deficits.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Must you misrepresent your own posts like this? Your exact words were "economists and much of the media were predicting a recession in 2013". One guy writing in Forbes isn't even one economist, nor is it "much" of the media.

Let me hold you by this same standard that you're holding me to. Prove your own statement: "most economists (and 100% of the media) agreed that a downturn in 2017 was imminent"

And if you can't prove to me that literally "100%" of every single media agreed on this and try to give me anything that is unsatisfactory, then I can claim you are misrepresenting your own post.

What I actually said was a "downturn" -- a slowing of growth -- was predicted, not a full recession, which you're well aware was true. And point of fact, some media outlets (including the NYT (here) did attempt to label it a "mini-recession".

Then you're using a meaningless word where even 0.001% lower GDP growth would be a downturn. By this logic, we had a downturn in 2025 too because 2025 GDP growth was lower than 2024 GDP growth.

That said, the government's own prediction for the economy was still fine and the predicted growth was supposed to be close to the growth rates of post-2009 in the 2ish% range.
In the end, the fact remains combo of tax cuts and spending was not worth it and the debt increased faster than the economic growth.

Now you're outright twisting words.

So I'm twisting your words that were in turn just twisting my own words? Reread your comment that I replied to and look in the mirror before being outraged.

All taxation is a drag on the economy, and all else equal, a nation with low taxes will always outperform one with high taxes over the long term. That doesn't imply we can discount short-term effects, esp. when looking at intervals as short as 3-5 years.

"All else held equal" is a nonsensical disclaimer in this case when taxes literally pays for economic-growth generating activities like education, scientific research, infrastructure, and potentially beneficial initial subsidies to new industries.

Would 0% taxes that result in the collapse of our education and infrastructure system still be considered "all else held equal," or would you assume everything still magically gets funded without any taxes to meet the "all else held equal" standard?

There is always some type of tradeoff to both higher and lower taxes, whether in the short term or the long term.

Higher taxes decrease economic growth, just like spending increases economic growth - these are on on-paper guidelines that you might use for an economics chart and can be true in certain contexts. But this falls apart when you start turning it into a hard and fast rule or take it to the extreme.

 

[Endymio]

...where even 0.001% lower GDP growth would be a downturn. By this logic, we had a downturn in 2025 too because 2025 GDP growth was lower than 2024 GDP growth.

Really embarrassed yourself with that one, eh?

Bloomberg: "The U.S. did not officially experience a recession in 2025, but the year was characterized by an economic downturn, sluggish growth, and a cooling of the job market...."

Stop trying to twist my words. While no official standard exists for the media's usage of the term "downturn", no one would characterize "0.001% lower growth" as one.

So I'm twisting your words that were in turn just twisting my own words?

Sorry, no. My statement was crystal clear: all taxation is a drag on the economy. You blatantly transmogrified that into, "no other economic factors other than taxation affect the economy".

"All else held equal" is a nonsensical disclaimer in this case when taxes literally pays for economic-growth generating activities like education, scientific research, infrastructure, and potentially beneficial initial subsidies to new industries.

It's absurd that you believe any more than an infinitesimal fraction of the federal budget goes towards these activities. Nor does most of our funding for "education" actually lead to better outcomes: nations like Finland, Estonia, Singapore, South Korea and many others spend far less per student than we do, yet outscore us by any metric.

Would 0% taxes that result in the collapse of our education and infrastructure system

This is the logical fallacy known as "assuming the conclusion". The US did a far better job at educating students long before the federal government began pouring trillions of dollars into the system.

 

[Endymio]

Did you miss the fact that this type of conflict happens during every administration?

Come back to reality. The relationship between Congress and this administration is the most contentious in modern US history. This is beyond dispute, as you yourself are well aware of.

When Obama was first elected, in 2010, the Republicans literally said "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Did Republicans tear up Obama's speech on live TV during his SOTU address? Did they publicly wish him dead? Did they call him a fascist and Nazi on a daily basis? Did they impeach him twice? Did they shut down the federal government for the longest period in history?

Again: return to reality. You're wandering afar in the astral plane with this nonsense.

You must be the one who skipped high school civics when you don't realize it is the role of the president and majority leaders to NEGOTIATE a deal and get those 60 votes.

Please name just one "high school civics" textbook that incorrectly states the President has ANY role in "negotiating budget deals in Congress". And stop the inane idiocy of blaming Trump for how Democrats vote.

It sounds like your "Great Negotiator" is actually terrible at negotiating.

Funny: he's passed the largest tax overhaul in modern US history, gotten more SCOTUS justices approved than any other recent administration, managed to do what Obama failed to do and renegotiate not only NAFTA, but more favorable trade deals with Japan and the UK, and -- according to both Israel and the rest of the participating nations in the region -- negotiated more deals to bring about Middle East peace than any President in US history.

 

[Endymio]

First, it was not all "new" spending, but included existing spending and half of it was for Republican supported spending for military defense. Schumer's 1.7 trillion spending bill was a BIPARTISAN bill

Come back to reality. The bill that passed was a Republican measure -- and Schumer and other Democrat Senators filibustered it for 43 days while they demanded $1.7T in new spending to support expanded ACA benefits.

Trump kept military spending in the 3ish% GDP range during his first term.

Again the distortion of facts. Obama cut defense spending from 4.9% to 3.3% of GDP. Trump raised that to 3.6% his first term -- and would have raised it far more, had Democrats not blocked all attempts for additional funding. In fact, they only agreed to ANY increase on the basis that it was matched 2:1 by additional spending on social services.

The GOP loves to increase spending on military spending, corporate subsidies, corn-ethanol subsidies to produce field corn that Americans don't even eats [sic]

Military spending is one of the few areas of spending actually constitutionally approved -- it certainly beats spending billions on free condoms for Africa and holding transgender operas in Guatemala. And corn-ethanol demand is driven by the Renewal Fuel Standard, which is NOT a subsidy.

Remember that Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska funded by Republican senators?

You mean the bridge that was never built because it was never fully funded? We spent a total of $0.025B on that project -- ZERO federal dollars -- and was cancelled by a Republican administration.

Now compare that to that darling of the Democrats: California's bullet train line. It was originally sold to voters as costing $30B -- now estimates are nearly $150B, and we've already spent $14B without even one single mile of rail or actual rail station being built.

 

[Puiu]

LOL, corporations don't pay taxes. Learn economics.


Ouch! Even for you, this is eye-poppingly wrong. Trump's tax cuts didn't "eliminate" those deductions, they REPLACED them with an even larger one:

" The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) replaced personal and dependent exemptions (which were previously $4,050 per person) with a significantly larger standard deduction and an expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC). [1, 2, 3, 4]"

The US federal tax code is a wee bit more complex than farming beets in Romania. Stick with what you know.

"an expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC)" - so much BS >> I already explained to you 100 times what happened to the CTC and why trump f-ed it up, but here you are, once again, pretending not to know and simply copy-pasting some crap you found and didn't research.

"The US federal tax code is a wee bit more complex than farming beets in Romania" - maybe that's why you proved time and time again that you cannot understand it. it's too complicated for you.

Or maybe you are too busy finding excuses for why raping women and children is normal for the US president.

 

[Endymio]

"an expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC)" - so much BS >> I already explained to you 100 times what happened to the CTC

No, you're merely repeating the same absurd lies. Here are facts:

"The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) nearly doubled the standard deduction for all filers. For the 2018 tax year, the deduction increased from $6,500 to $12,000 for single filers and from $13,000 to $24,000 for married couples filing jointly.

..the TCJA expanded the CTC (child tax credit) in several ways. It doubled the maximum per child credit amount from $1,000 to $2,000 starting in 2018. It also increased the refundable portion of the credit..."

https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-change-personal-taxes

The average middle-class family in the US saw their tax bill drop substantially due to the Trump tax cuts.

IRS Data: Middle Class Americans Saw Significant Tax Reduction from Trump Tax Cuts - Americans for Tax Reform

The Internal Revenue Service’s released 2019 Statistics of Income (SOI) data, the agency's most recent available data, shows that middle income American

atr.org

Or maybe you are too busy finding excuses for why raping women and children is normal for the US president.

Once again you pollute every thread with your pedophilia fantasies. Seek help.

 

[Puiu]

Come back to reality. The bill that passed was a Republican measure -- and Schumer and other Democrat Senators filibustered it for 43 days while they demanded $1.7T in new spending to support expanded ACA benefits.


Again the distortion of facts. Obama cut defense spending from 4.9% to 3.3% of GDP. Trump raised that to 3.6% his first term -- and would have raised it far more, had Democrats not blocked all attempts for additional funding. In fact, they only agreed to ANY increase on the basis that it was matched 2:1 by additional spending on social services.

Military spending is one of the few areas of spending actually constitutionally approved -- it certainly beats spending billions on free condoms for Africa and holding transgender operas in Guatemala. And corn-ethanol demand is driven by the Renewal Fuel Standard, which is NOT a subsidy.


You mean the bridge that was never built because it was never fully funded? We spent a total of $0.025B on that project -- ZERO federal dollars -- and was cancelled by a Republican administration.

Now compare that to that darling of the Democrats: California's bullet train line. It was originally sold to voters as costing $30B -- now estimates are nearly $150B, and we've already spent $14B without even one single mile of rail or actual rail station being built.

The Schumer's 1.7 trillion spending bill was a BIPARTISAN bill. this is a fact. it was co-othered by Patrick Leahy and Richard Shelby. The delay was because the GOP refused to back down on increasing the defence spending by a sum that outpaced the inflation. There was also a pause in negotiations to see who won the Senate/House.

"it certainly beats spending billions on free condoms for Africa" - it objectively doesn't and it's egregious to even consider this. the funding provided life saving medicine and services to 25 million sick people who would have died without it. condoms were just 10-15 million $, paid by the US over to course of two decades, with the local governments contributing to this "condoms fund" several times more than that the US paid.

These kind of lies are sick and dangerous. Incredibly sick.

"holding transgender operas in Guatemala" - this is why people call maga brainwashed. this never happened, it was just another lie you people bought. and another lie you told here. why do you lie so much dude? it's insane.

"USAID policy does not permit those funds to be used for gender-affirming surgeries (operations) or hormone replacement therapies."

"and was cancelled by a Republican administration" - it was cancelled because public outrage and the republicans were humiliated at that time because of this project which they tried to do multiple times.

 

[Puiu]

No, you're merely repeating the same absurd lies. Here are facts:

"The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) nearly doubled the standard deduction for all filers. For the 2018 tax year, the deduction increased from $6,500 to $12,000 for single filers and from $13,000 to $24,000 for married couples filing jointly.

..the TCJA expanded the CTC (child tax credit) in several ways. It doubled the maximum per child credit amount from $1,000 to $2,000 starting in 2018. It also increased the refundable portion of the credit..."

https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-change-personal-taxes

The average middle-class family in the US saw their tax bill drop substantially due to the Trump tax cuts.

IRS Data: Middle Class Americans Saw Significant Tax Reduction from Trump Tax Cuts - Americans for Tax Reform

The Internal Revenue Service’s released 2019 Statistics of Income (SOI) data, the agency's most recent available data, shows that middle income American

atr.org

Once again you pollute every thread with your pedophilia fantasies. Seek help.

You are the one polluting here with lies and disinformation. Seek help dude, you've posted numbers out of context time and time again. It's pathetic to see you repeat these lies so much and me having to destroy them every single time.

Maybe if you didn't support a pedophile rapist and fascist you would be more reasonable. But as it stands I'll just keep destroying all of your arguments with facts.

When TCJA doubled the credit to $2,000, it did not double the refundable portion. The law capped the cash refund at $1,400 per child.

If a single mother working part-time earned $10,000 in a year, she would not get the $2,000 credit. She wouldn't even get the $1,400 capped refund.

Subtract the $2,500 threshold from her $10,000 income = $7,500.

15% of $7,500 = $1,125. In fact, only rich households could actually get the full 2000$.

To pay for the broader tax cuts, the TCJA eliminated the "Personal and Dependent Exemption." Before 2018, a family could deduct roughly $4,050 from their taxable income for every person in the household.

You are also completely ignoring what the GOP did to the CTC later on. Is it inconvenient for you that the GOP blocked it and that's why you are ignoring it again? Obviously that's what you are doing.

"The average middle-class family in the US saw their tax bill drop substantially due to the Trump tax cuts." - in reality it was complete BS. the "tax bill" dropped only if you look at some things without adding the full context and statements like this are used to fool low IQ individuals who do not know how to research the numbers.

And it still doesn't change the fact that corporations and the wealthy associated with these corporations benefited the most.

 

[Endymio]

The Schumer's 1.7 trillion spending bill was a BIPARTISAN bill. this is a fact. it was co-othered by Patrick Leahy and Richard Shelby.

You're even more confused than normal. The Leahy/Shelby bill was 2022's Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was signed by Biden -- it has exactly zero to do with the 2025 Schumer Shutdown, over his demands for trillions in new spending.

"it certainly beats spending billions on free condoms for Africa" - it objectively doesn't

Anyone who believes the proper function of government isn't to defend its own people, but to instead borrow money from China to send free contraceptives halfway around the world is a person who should never be allowed outside without professional supervision.

And of course Romania spends more on its military than does the US on a GDP-share basis, while paying exactly $0.00 to send free condoms to Africa. But then, you're never short on hypocrisy, are you?

"holding transgender operas in Guatemala" - this is why people call maga brainwashed. this never happened,

It was actually in Columbia:

"...the opera [which] featured a transgender protagonist, had the support [of] the “Small Grants Program of the Embassy of the United States in Colombia.”

The Department of State committed $25,000 to fund the project, and the website USAspending.gov also noted that there was $22,020 of “non-federal funding” for the project..."

That of course is the tip of an iceberg, which also includes the US paying $1.5M for DEI education in Serbia, dropping LGBTQ pamphlets on the heads of Taliban in Afghanistan, funding studies on the "effects of leafblowers blowing lizards off trees", and many thousands of other absurdities.

 

[Endymio]

If a single mother working part-time earned $10,000 in a year, she would not get the $2,000 credit. She wouldn't even get the $1,400 capped refund. Subtract the $2,500 threshold from her $10,000 income = $7,500.

Best stick to making those cabbage rolls. A single mother earning just $10K/year isn't paying **any** income tax -- as part of the Trump tax cuts, the standard deduction alone is $23,000 for heads of households, and $31,500 for married couples. She'd also qualify for a $3,400 fully refundable earned-income tax credit (or even more if she has more than 1 child):

I haven't even counted the refundable portion of her child tax credit yet, (totally separate from the earned-income credit) nor the $20K-$50K she's receiving in other government benefits. In total, government aid would increase her $10K salary by several times that. Were she Romanian, though, she'd get an onion and a bag of beets every month.

I'd explain WHY the CTC is capped at a much higher income level than the EITC -- but we know you don't really care about facts.

 

[Puiu]

Best stick to making those cabbage rolls. A single mother earning just $10K/year isn't paying **any** income tax -- as part of the Trump tax cuts, the standard deduction alone is $23,000 for heads of households, and $31,500 for married couples. She'd also qualify for a $3,400 fully refundable earned-income tax credit (or even more if she has more than 1 child):

I haven't even counted the refundable portion of her child tax credit yet, (totally separate from the earned-income credit) nor the $20K-$50K she's receiving in other government benefits. In total, government aid would increase her $10K salary by several times that. Were she Romanian, though, she'd get an onion and a bag of beets every month.

I'd explain WHY the CTC is capped at a much higher income level than the EITC -- but we know you don't really care about facts.

Pfff hahaha, did you not find any real arguments against what I said? This is just sad. Again you love to throw in numbers out of context and this one is one of the most pathetic attempts I've seen yet.

"Look! They are getting some money! This means trump did something! Don't look at how much they would have gotten if democrats were in power and what he took from americans! Don't look at what he gave corporations and rich people (which means himself)! Please ignore ALL OF THAT!" -- maga 2026

How much did they lose from not adopting the democrat proposals? And tell me, how much did people lose from not expanding the CTC in 2022?

I've already shown just how bad it is compared to what it should have been, you are literally presenting a loss of income as a win for americans. You sure love to talk about the CTC which was gutted by trump.

I've seen plenty maga "love" the breadcrumbs trump has been giving them so that they shut up or turn a blind eye to the most corrupt pedo president in the world.

 

[Endymio]

Pfff hahaha, did you not find any real arguments against what I said? This is just sad. Again you love to throw in numbers out of context and this one is one of the most pathetic attempts I've seen yet.

Embarrassing. Instead of switching to an entirely different (and equally false) argument, why not just admit you were wrong? The Trump Tax Cuts saved low-income and middle-income families a significant amount. The credits and deductions you claim were removed were replaced with even larger ones. This is beyond debate. Stick to baking those Romanian cabbage rolls.

 

[Puiu]

Embarrassing. Instead of switching to an entirely different (and equally false) argument, why not just admit you were wrong? The Trump Tax Cuts saved low-income and middle-income families a significant amount. The credits and deductions you claim were removed were replaced with even larger ones. This is beyond debate. Stick to baking those Romanian cabbage rolls.

When I proved you wrong you just switched topics. I didn't switch any topic here, I already showed that the numbers you copy pasted were wrong and taken out of context many times.

I just added another layer to show that you are trying to gaslight people here taking something that "trump implemented" as if it was a gift from heaven instead of something he first gutted and then added back in a much lesser capacity. And maga people will praise him for doing this, like you do.

"The Trump Tax Cuts saved low-income and middle-income families a significant amount." - Only to take back and make them pay from another direction which I've proven multiple times with actual numbers and examples (ignoring the obvious tax on the whole country called tarrifs). Not to mention that after 100 comments you've still ignored the original comment: trump's policies benefit the rich and their corporations a lot more more (aka himself and his pedo goons). Every single "argument" you've made just looked at a few policies for individuals taken out of context and not the whole picture.

It's pathetic to see you defend such BS (besides the fact that you openly support rape, sexual harassment, racism, fascism, corporate and tax fraud and pedophilia - and you are proud of this, you think trump is "powerful" and "manly" for doing this)

You've lost every argument against me, HARD. It's like you are trying to convince us that trump meme coin wasn't a scam rug pull, but a "genius business decision". That's the level of you arguments: childish, easy to disprove and misleading at best.

 

[Endymio]

When I proved you wrong you just switched topics ... I already showed that the numbers you copy pasted were wrong and taken out of context

Your statement that the Trump tax cuts removed personal deductions and child credits that cost low and middle income taxpayers money is a flat-out, easily-debunked falsehood. Period. An untruth. A fabrication. Deception. A lie.

When I proved that, you switched to an entirely different argument: "well, if Democrats proposals hadn't been rejected, they might have saved even more money!" Irrelevant to the original claim, and a lie itself -- Democrats have repeatedly held Congress and the White House simultaneously, yet they only advance these proposals when in the minority and are thus assured they will never pass.

And now predictably, you'll respond with yet another falsehood to be debunked. But then what else does one expect from fascist Romania. They fought alongside the Nazis in WW2, alongside the USSR in the Cold War, and have grown even worse in modern times.