Paul Ryan Believes President Trump will Support Medicare And SS Cuts To Balance Budget

We're still at war with three different countries, and not one congressman from that article mentioned anything about it.
Money has been syphoning out of this country to fund these wars for the past two decades.

Wake up America!!!!!
 
Californians?

iZL29AA.jpg


not srs

Just don't move to Texas.

What do you propose @PEB?

 
Last edited:
Rhood said:
We're still at war with three different countries, and not one congressman from that article mentioned anything about it.
Money has been syphoning out of this country to fund these wars for the past two decades.

Wake up America!!!!!
Click to expand...

Nice post.

You cannot complain about funding if you support the insane amount of money that goes into military offense.

Military defense is fine.
 
Rhood said:
We're still at war with three different countries, and not one congressman from that article mentioned anything about it.
Money has been syphoning out of this country to fund these wars for the past two decades.

Wake up America!!!!!
Click to expand...
That would most likely fall under discretionary spending. Not mandatory like Ryan is talking about.

But I agree 100%

@HomerThompson for WR prez!!
 
Trillion dollar tax cuts, and talking about cutting Medicare and SS.

Couldn't make that shit up.

I hope Melania gets AIDS at a Saudi, picnic table cloth, toga party, gangbang.
 
I don't see how it gets 60 votes in the Senate. Hell I don't see how it gets 50 votes in the Senate if they try to use next years Reconciliation on it. My best guess is that they'd try to do it in the lame duck after GOP is shellacked. But even then, Senate will be a very heavy lift.

But just keep talking about it Granny Starver.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Trillion dollar tax cuts, and talking about cutting Medicare and SS.

Couldn't make that shit up.

I hope Melania gets AIDS at a Saudi, picnic table cloth, toga party, gangbang.
Click to expand...

It's so hard to tell what's sarcastic, what's satire, what's warroom president pandering.

I hope this is at least one of those.
 
Hey - cut medicare and SS but let's make dark money political donations tax deductible -

The tax overhaul bill offers a potentially much bigger loophole – one that political operatives will try to drive right through. It would politicize a different set of tax-exempt groups: 501(c)(3) charity organizations, where donors can take tax deductions for their contributions.


"This is going to create, possibly, tax-deductible electioneering," Franz said. [...]


As originally drafted, the repeal provision applied only to religious organizations. But House Republicans broadened it to apply toall501(c)(3) entities.
​
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/08/5692...uctible?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

So SCOTUS allows unlimited money in elections and now Congress moves to make it tax deductible. I guess Sheldon Adelson, Koch Bros and Mercer spending tens if not hundreds of millions per Presidential cycle want a tax break on it.
 
ShoelessRye said:
Hey - cut medicare and SS but let's make dark money political donations tax deductible -

The tax overhaul bill offers a potentially much bigger loophole – one that political operatives will try to drive right through. It would politicize a different set of tax-exempt groups: 501(c)(3) charity organizations, where donors can take tax deductions for their contributions.


"This is going to create, possibly, tax-deductible electioneering," Franz said. [...]


As originally drafted, the repeal provision applied only to religious organizations. But House Republicans broadened it to apply toall501(c)(3) entities.
​
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/08/5692...uctible?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

So SCOTUS allows unlimited money in elections and now Congress moves to make it tax deductible. I guess Sheldon Adelson, Koch Bros and Mercer spending tens if not hundreds of millions per Presidential cycle want a tax break on it.
Click to expand...

Only made worse because they're eliminating the ability to deduct money spent on repairs after natural disasters like wildfires and earthquakes.

To apply a bit of hyperbole, this is like banana republic level governance. You win an election and then use the government to punish your opposition as opposed to simply improving the nation.
 
panamaican said:
To apply a bit of hyperbole, this is like banana republic level governance. You win an election and then use the government to punish your opposition as opposed to simply improving the nation.
Click to expand...

Without a bit of hyperbole, the previous administration literally weaponized the IRS to audit the Tea Party out of participation in the 2012 Presidential election.

In that context, a slight tweak in the tax code seems like a pretty weak way to "punish your opposition", as you say.
 
Farmer Br0wn said:
Without a bit of hyperbole, the previous administration literally weaponized the IRS to audit the Tea Party out of participation in the 2012 Presidential election.

In that context, a slight tweak in the tax code seems like a pretty weak way to "punish your opposition", as you say.
Click to expand...

That's not actually true. Perhaps I missed where there were new laws enacted to that effect? Or something indicating that the administration gave the greenlight for that behavior, as opposed to IRS specific individuals.

I see what you're trying to say but it's a false equivalency.
 
Farmer Br0wn said:
Without a bit of hyperbole, the previous administration literally weaponized the IRS to audit the Tea Party out of participation in the 2012 Presidential election.

In that context, a slight tweak in the tax code seems like a pretty weak way to "punish your opposition", as you say.
Click to expand...

That's completely false on many levels. Groups were allowed to function when their status was being reviewed, liberal groups were also targeted (the whole point was that political groups were claiming a status that wasn't supposed to be assigned to political groups), and the administration had nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, this kind of whatabouttism is a recipe for a permanent downward spiral. You're trying to justify obviously indefensible abuses of gov't power by saying some other group of people abused gov't power. That's no justification at all. And I remember when you used to be a libertarian. The lack of any principle from you guys is actually comical. Maybe instead of teaching his kids to hate America, your dad should have tried to instill some sense of right and wrong in you.
 
Jack V Savage said:
That's completely false on many levels. Groups were allowed to function when their status was being reviewed, liberal groups were also targeted (the whole point was that political groups were claiming a status that wasn't supposed to be assigned to political groups), and the administration had nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, this kind of whatabouttism is a recipe for a permanent downward spiral. You're trying to justify obviously indefensible abuses of gov't power by saying some other group of people abused gov't power. That's no justification at all. And I remember when you used to be a libertarian. The lack of any principle from you guys is actually comical. Maybe instead of teaching his kids to hate America, your dad should have tried to instill some sense of right and wrong in you.
Click to expand...

<{you!}>
 
There is no reason to believe Trump wouldn’t at this point. All they’d have to tell him is Obama would be against and he'd sign on the line.

 
Jack V Savage said:
Furthermore, this kind of whatabouttism is a recipe for a permanent downward spiral. You're trying to justify obviously indefensible abuses of gov't power by saying some other group of people abused gov't power.
Click to expand...
It's the same thing people like yourself did during the Obama years. "Bush did it first, so it's okay!" Can't have it both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,981
Messages
55,459,162
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top