The GOP Plan is the Biggest Tax INCREASE in American History, By Far

You are the ones who brought in the partisanship.

 

"Underfunded" doesn't mean "failed". Democrats have tried to get Republicans on board with increasing funding to correct it. So it's the Repub's doings. But that will all be corrected when we have a Democratic Congress majority and a Democratic president.

You're going to have to turn up some of these "tons of studies" because I don't believe it, given what I've seen. Just don't quote some clearly biased source like Cato.

You mean "my generation of REPUBLICANS failed". But they haven't failed yet, though they're trying really hard to fail. And listen, I had some question about whether keeping SS was likely or not when I was your age because I saw how hard the Republicans were working to eliminate it. But when it lasted and was protected enough to keep it going, I was glad, and I saw that there is a huge need for it and even for an increase in the benefit, and I care about fellow man.

And that is based on either no change to funding, or a change in the FICA deduction. It ignores what is the number 1 idea and demand for a fix, which is lifting or removing the cap on taxable income. And so I think it is more likely that the cap will be raised significantly to fix it and your article doesn't consider that.

 

Trump's almost a $Trillion ahead of where Obama was at this point of his Presidency when it comes to debt savings so Trump may have already saved the whole trillion.

Obama ran up the Federal Debt by $1,693,226,106,842.73 in his first year.
Trump, in his partial tear, only $602,194,362,096.75.

Due to inflation, Obama's total would be $1,931,965,329,009.00 in 2017 dollars, so, we should be ahead of the game. Trumponomics, converting Obama's debt into taxcuts!

https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

The Heritage Foundation compared the two versions of the GOP tax reform, the differences are minor, window dressing, with two major exceptions.

The Senate version repeals the Obamacare individual mandate, while the House version keeps it in place. It should go. Senate version wins.

The House version repeals both the individual and corporate alternative minimum taxes, whereas the Senate version keeps both. Both should go. House version wins.

The finished product then gets President Trump's signature.

The cadre of #NeverTrump Republicans – Flake, Corker, McCain, Murkowski, Collins – jockeying to see who will cast the crucial nay vote to torpedo the bill and throw a wrench into the Trump agenda is why Roy Moore's likely arrival to the Senate are quite important.

Both bills will spur the economy and with recession looming, the time to pass it is now. As JKF said "a rising tide lifts all boats."

Suppose they take the tax bill to conference, and it fails to pass both houses once in final form, with McCain, Flake, or Corker casting the decisive nay vote? It might be better for the House to simply pass the Senate bill and not give these never Trumper clowns another bite of the apple.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._a_congressional_conundrum.html#ixzz50bYDF3d2

 

Can you name anything that is guaranteed except death?

 

Anything you cannot confront isn't real is it.

 

Sucker. Your power structure is designed to sodomize the will of the people in favor of the ruling aristocracy.

 

So what your saying is you'd buy a car from a car lot where everyone wears rubber masks so they can't be identified?

 

FDR was smart enough to know that no government can guarantee anything for an extended period. FDR was also smart enough not to let on that he knew that. But the first old people who drew checks (1937 iirc) who hadn't paid in much thought it was an awfully good deal, a whole new kind of deal. FDR called it Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Program. People were told it was like sending your money into your account at your bank. Over the years the people who got on the disability part of it got younger and younger, had disabilities that were not physical (e.g., alcoholism, drug abuse), and there got to be more and more of them -- putting exceedingly great risk on the SS system.

 

Why would I buy a car from any lot.

 

The only thing that has ever been "wrong" with the SS system is that some people don't want it to exist for fundamentalist ideological reasons. Pitiful souls.

 

Sucker? For voting against what gave us that power structure. I have pointed out what you just pointed out, in regards to the end of our republic and the birth of an oligarchy. Since day one here on this forum. You really should know what kinda feller you are addressing, before you do the addressing. lol That is okay though, you just didn't know. So, my political beliefs, match neither the DP nor the GOP. And, I am stuck in a system which insures we only have two choices, realistically, given what Nader revealed about this two party tyranny.

So if you want to argue with someone, you chose the wrong cat. Quick, where is the litter box? For this cat has got to go!

Now that I think about it, are you a drinker? And perhaps got one drink too many? Just kidding.

 

You voted clown, Jesus, feel the change.

 

The question still has to be asked of it, as it exists now, how much can the system take and still exist?

 

It's fine, the empire is cannibalizing society at home to expand and maintain the outter reaches of empire. You know, kinda like North Korea phucks its people for military spending.

 

so the rate decrease isn’t temporary ? The deductions aren’t permanently removed ?

then why didn’t they make them permenant in the first place ?

If anyone is falling for propaganda it is you and yours. Paul Ryan is already talking about reforming social program citing the deficits as the driver !!!!!!!

Turn off faux news. ‘Democratic policies” did not add 1.4 trillion the the debt in one year. You seem to leave conveniently forget what they were paying for. Think “credit card”

If they wanted to make the cuts permenebt, why didn’t they just do it here ? Simple question....just answer it[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]
I took my undergrad economics before Reagan and supply side. The common wisdom was gummit was supposed to deficit spend when the country was in recession, and run a small surplus to reduce the overall debt, when the econ was expanding ... although too much of a surplus would both mess up the money supply and lead to recession as well.

Then we had Reagan (who was a great president, and his deficit spending for defense might be justified for reasons having nothing to do with economics or govt spending). But today Reagan is cited like Jehova himself for stuff he never espoused. He raised taxes to offset deficits. Listening to Fox or the gop, you'd think this statement is devil's speak. LOL He only cut rates when he also cut expenditures a/k/a tax loopholes.

I didn't vote for Obama, but when he left office the annual deficit was roughly what it was before the recession, and the gnp was higher. Comparing Obama's deficits to the current tax "reform" is pulling wool over sheeps' eyes.

 

Trump's saving Social Security. The day the Trust Fund would go bankrupt moved up a year, every year Obama was in office.

Trump's only been President less than a year, and already the Trust Fund has gained a year. If he can keep this up for the rest of his two terms, of adding a year to the trust fund for every year he is in office, and Pence can do the same for two years, the Trust fund will carry us through the Baby Boomer Bulge that has been the cause for such consternation.

Keep It Up Trump!

Obamanomics was great for the Government Connected, now its our turn. Both the House and Senate have passed great tax reform bills, either would be fine. Simplest would be for the House to simply pass the Senate Bill and not give McCain another opportunity to backstab the GOP.

Census Bureau: 5 Richest Counties Are D.C. Suburbs.

Obamanomics worked great for government workers, now it's our turn.

The five richest counties in the United States when measured by median household income are all suburbs of Washington, D.C., according to the American Community Survey data released today by the Census Bureau.

According to the American Community Survey's new five-year estimates (2012-2016), the five richest counties in the country are: Loudoun County, Va., where the median household income was $125,672; Falls Church City, Va., where it was $115,244; Fairfax County, Va., where it was $114,329; Howard County, Md., where it was $113,800; and Arlington County, Va., where it was $108,706.

An additional four Washington-area counties made it into the Top 20: No. 9 Fairfax City, Va. ($104,065); No. 14 Montgomery County, Md. ($100,352); No. 17 Prince William County, Va. ($98,546); and No, 20 Stafford County, Va. ($97,606).

That gave the Washington, D.C. area a total of 9 out of the 20 richest counties in the United States.

The nationwide median household income in 2012-2016, according to the Census Bureau, was $55,322. That means that the income in the nation's four richest counties—Loudoun, Falls Church City, Fairfax County, and Howard County—were all more than double the national median.

The median household income in Arlington County, the nation’s fifth richest county, which sits directly across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., was 96.5 percent greater than the national median.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...nsus-bureau-5-richest-counties-are-dc-suburbs

It's our turn.

 

But but candidate Trump promised he wouldn't touch my social security or Medicaid!

 

Nonetheless, under Obama we average a lost year, every year of the Social Security Trust fund. Less than a year in office and already the Trust Fund has gained a year.

 

Obama said he'd cut my social security if the gop agreed to raise taxes. I thought the gop was about protecting my social security not cutting it.

 

Agreed, the corruption is very high.

 

Your idea of funding it is move the payout even further negative compared to taxes paid. Also, you sound very partisan.

Cato lays out clear math. I see why you don't like them. Almost everyone agrees that you get less than you pay in unless you game some disability out of the system in your 40's, but we haven't even discussed the ridiculous corruption downside of SS.

First, during your time democrats controlled congress about 85% of the time. Second, you don't care about your fellow man. You look down on them as if they can't possibly care for themselves. You feel your fellow man should be protected from themselves by the glory of government. People like you have failed this country.

The article explains clearly what I have repeatedly stated. SS is no longer a good deal for those that work their entire lives. If they raise the cap, I will make life choices to avoid paying as will others. I like how you avoided admitting that you lose money paying into ss even without consideration of time value of money. If SS is still around, ill use that crap payment to pay my property taxes or something.

 

Protecting ss is like a burglar suing you if he injures himself while robbing your house.

 

YOU claimed SS was a guaranteed benefit. Even after you were shown even the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

Because not enough Democrats support the tax rate cuts.

With their 18% spending increase in 2009 they most certainly did, the budget deficit that year was $1.4 trillion and it was over $1 Trillion the next three. Go get your facts straight.

[/QUOTE]

Are you really this ignorant of why?

"Hatch’s revised plan would sunset key middle-class tax cuts starting in 2026 to comply with Senate rules"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-senate-as-house-nears-vote-tax-debate-update

Get enough Democrats to vote for them and get them permanent.

So convince me you voted for Republicans to pass the tax rate cuts and that you will in the future to make them permanent or are you going to blame Republicans for not stopping your guys opposition to them?