Trump's Tax Plan Will be BIGGER than Reagan's but . . .

[kpt018]

Trump is giving himself a billion dollar tax cut. 30% of the middle class will see their taxes rise. Rest will see a small cut that they won't even really realize a difference.

I'm no historian but I can't recall if there has ever been a president with such massive conflicts of interest, openly profits from the presidency and refuses to put his assets in a trust to avoid all of this. This all should be gigantic red flags, including this dumpster fire of a tax cut.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

The attempt by you to claim huge tax cuts helped the economy while completely ignoring the parts refuting that narrative is, how did you put it, sickening.

Did, or did not, the federal income increase up to 65%?

So.... explain the positives of the opposite happening... raising income taxes & business taxes to lower federal income.

Happened under Carter, so it must have been a good thing, right?

 

[Jim Bob]

 

[DickSarp]

So, the article admits that lowering income tax rates increased the federal income to 65%.

Go ahead liberals, explain why that's a negative.

Good lord. Is that what you took from it? You're beneath a response after that.

 

[Falsedawn]

...according to Obama.

 

[DickSarp]

Then you should explain it and show us how you know the details of this tax plan.

President Trump has exclaimed that the GOP proposal would bring the “biggest tax cuts ever in the history of this country.”

“We will cut taxes for hardworking, middle-class families,” the President wrote, adding that the United States will “restore our competitive edge so we can create better jobs and higher wages for American workers.”

Seems to me, we're talking about the largest tax cuts ever in history. Or are you going to take the GearMetalSolid tact and miss the obvious entirely? Your call.

 

[kpt018]

LOL! Life fucking sucked in 1912 compared to now.

I'll pay tax and live in NY in 2017 than go back to 1912.

 

[DickSarp]

The attempts of the MSM to get the American population to forget what it was like in the most prosperous years of the American ecomony, is sickening.

Yet they have endless praise for the Obama years, which was the longest recession in history. That's the new baseline normal, including the inflation and doubling of the national debt.

Somehow, that's fine under Obama, but looking into a crystal ball and predicting the future of it happening under a Republican President.... oh no... that can't happen.

Just another example of the MSM narriative that everything is fine under Democrat Presidents, and horrible under Republicans.

The Clinton years were more prosperous.

It is quite obvious you lack the requisite intelligence to grasp the contours of the issue. Here's a hint or two. Paul Volcker. Tax Hikes. Population growth.

Obama? Why not discuss the Great Tax Cutter GW Bush?

 

[Roaming East]

Most of the country was illiterate, there was no interstate system and rail was the primary method of travel, college was for the elite only and our army and navy were considered laughably bad.
next myth please?

 

[DickSarp]

this is why nobody will listen to you. you just sound salty

How can you not be 'salty'...you've been conned by an ex gameshow host.

How can you support a guy who did Trump University to the public? Got nailed for money laundering over a hundred times. Lies every damn time he opens his mouth. Built a following on race baiting...obvious race baiting.

What are you getting out of this my man?

 

[Iceberg Slim]

All I want to know is what this means for mofos in this bracket right here:

View media item 27489
Anybody know?

 

[Falsedawn]

you keep forgetting that to a right wing nutjob, Obama's magical time machine allows him to be at fault for things he wasnt even in a position of power to effect. Like how it was Obama's policy of invading Iraq and destabilizing the region that led to Obamas creation of ISIS. If Obama hadnt created the power vacuum in the mid-east, in 2003, he wouldnt have had to deal with all its BS in 2014!

We laugh about this, but it's definitely kinda scary.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...-unsure-if-katrina-response-was-obama-s-fault

The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, provided exclusively to TPM, showed an eye-popping divide among Republicans in the Bayou State when it comes to accountability for the government’s post-Katrina blunders.

Twenty-eight percent said they think former President George W. Bush, who was in office at the time, was more responsible for the poor federal response while 29 percent said Obama, who was still a freshman U.S. Senator when the storm battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, was more responsible. Nearly half of Louisiana Republicans — 44 percent — said they aren’t sure who to blame.

 

[RockstarChris]

How can you not be 'salty'...you've been conned by an ex gameshow host.

How can you support a guy who did Trump University to the public? Got nailed for money laundering over a hundred times. Lies every damn time he opens his mouth. Built a following on race baiting...obvious race baiting.

What are you getting out of this my man?

freedom

 

[Jim Bob]

Most of the country was illiterate, there was no interstate system and rail was the primary method of travel, college was for the elite only and our army and navy were considered laughably bad.
next myth please?

Kids go to school today and still can't read!

 

[Roaming East]

Kids go to school today and still can't read!

hell, judging by the last few administrations, if they poll well in the fly overs, they can even be president.

 

[kpt018]

All I want to know is what this means for mofos in this bracket right here:

View media item 27489
Anybody know?

We won't know until they release details around what income levels fall under each of the proposed tax brackets.

 

[Rod1]

So, the article admits that lowering income tax rates increased the federal income to 65%.

Go ahead liberals, explain why that's a negative.

Did you missed the part about the tax hikes and the population growth?

Not to even mention the spending increase.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

The Clinton years were more prosperous.

Yeah, would have been even more prosperous if he didn't raise taxes and kept riding the wave that Reagan and Bush made for him.

It is quite obvious you lack the requisite intelligence to grasp the contours of the issue. Here's a hint or two. Paul Volcker. Tax Hikes. Population growth.

'Population growth,' as in that's a completely seperate issue, right? Married couples intentionally have kids when it's economically convienient, due to more and higher paying jobs are available.

Oh, don't count on that being included in any MSM economic reports about the 1980s.

Obama? Why not discuss the Great Tax Cutter GW Bush?

With the exception of 9/11 and the 2008 Spring recession, the 2000s were pretty good in-between those events.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Did you missed the part about the tax hikes and the population growth?

Not to even mention the spending increase.

Spending increases always happen.

Don't tell me you were bitching about Obama's spending increases and his record deficits.

They're only bad when Republicans do it.

 

[Rod1]

Did you missed the part about the tax hikes and the population growth?

'Population growth,' as in that's a completely seperate issue, right? Married couples intentionally have kids when it's economically convienient, due to more and higher paying jobs are available.

Babies dont really add to the productivity of a nation, it takes years for them to become productive, in most cases it actually takes away productivity as parents work less to care for the baby.

What really propelled the economy though was the 80s oil glut.