Majority of Americans not happy with new tax law.

[1bad65]

why did you cut out some of the post? wait a sec, you have me on ignore, how did you see that?

You've been removed, for now.

You know this, as I've replied to you a few times the past two or so weeks.

I give foljs second chances when I'm in good moods. Did it to Siablo awhile back. He lasted all of 5 minutes. So far, you're doing better....

Anyhow, George Bush called it Voodoo economics (an economic policy perceived as being unrealistic and ill-advised, especially a policy of maintaining or increasing levels of public spending while reducing taxation) when he debated Regan in 1980. and it still holds true now.

And??

Bush was a failed President, at least fiscally.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/reade...928-story.html

Opinion piece. Yeah, no thanks. I prefer facts.

Face it dude, short term the tax cuts put a little in poor/working/middle class pockets and then kills these groups long term. The rich benefit now and in the future.

All who got tax cuts benefited.

The rich pay the lion's share, so of course they get the lion's share of tax cuts.

Again, simple Math.

We don't mind you blowharding about the tax cuts short term success so long as you also are just as loud about the negative long term impact.

As Tua showed, the long term effects in terms of revenue were quite positive.

It's all about spending guys.

[The Big Dunn]

Here's what I don't get-why do the Trump supporters assume anyone that points out the long term negatives of the tax cuts wants Trump to fail?

1bad, Tua and anyone else that says the issues is spending is only partly correct. the issue is tax cuts combined with the failure to address entitlement/defense spending-2 issues that no politician wants to touch because its too hard.

Reagan's tax cuts ultimately failed long term for this reason. That's why its stupid for trump/ryan to repeat the same thing.

What was promising IMO was when Clinton and Gingrich made a deal to create a centrist policy to fix long-term problems facing Social Security and Medicare. Sadly, the Lewinsky scandal ruined it all.

If the Dems take over the house, maybe Trump can carve out a Bill/newt type centrist deal that addresses entitlement spending.

[1bad65]

Your link is ****, even CNN is more credible.

Oh the irony!! Lmfao!!!!

You should just keep demanding more and more sources from him. Put the shoe on the other foot there.

[1bad65]

I got a big house in Florida. Property tax isn’t too bad. But I went from 15 to 22 percent because of all of the overtime I did this year.

I feel like Overtime shouldn’t be taxed because the worker is sacrificing his personal time to improve the economy and make a little extra for his family.

I feel no labor should be taxed myself.

I'm for a consumption or sales tax.

Just remember this when you vote. Vote D, and your taxes go up.

[siablo14]

You've been removed, for now.

You know this, as I've replied to you a few times the past two or so weeks.

I give foljs second chances when I'm in good moods. Did it to Siablo awhile back. He lasted all of 5 minutes. So far, you're doing better....



And??

Bush was a failed President, at least fiscally.



Opinion piece. Yeah, no thanks. I prefer facts.



All who got tax cuts benefited.

The rich pay the lion's share, so of course they get the lion's share of tax cuts.

Again, simple Math.



As Tua showed, the long term effects in terms of revenue were quite positive.

It's all about spending guys.

Revenues has increased under all president unless the year was preceded by a recession check it.

[siablo14]

Oh the irony!! Lmfao!!!!

You should just keep demanding more and more sources from him. Put the shoe on the other foot there.

Too bad. He is ducking and dodging like you.

[siablo14]

You've been removed, for now.

You know this, as I've replied to you a few times the past two or so weeks.

I give foljs second chances when I'm in good moods. Did it to Siablo awhile back. He lasted all of 5 minutes. So far, you're doing better....



And??

Bush was a failed President, at least fiscally.



Opinion piece. Yeah, no thanks. I prefer facts.



All who got tax cuts benefited.

The rich pay the lion's share, so of course they get the lion's share of tax cuts.

Again, simple Math.



As Tua showed, the long term effects in terms of revenue were quite positive.

It's all about spending guys.

Red- Wow! Am I my own person now or am I still Sunspace?

[siablo14]

Here's what I don't get-why do the Trump supporters assume anyone that points out the long term negatives of the tax cuts wants Trump to fail?

1bad, Tua and anyone else that says the issues is spending is only partly correct. the issue is tax cuts combined with the failure to address entitlement/defense spending-2 issues that no politician wants to touch because its too hard.

Reagan's tax cuts ultimately failed long term for this reason. That's why its stupid for trump/ryan to repeat the same thing.

What was promising IMO was when Clinton and Gingrich made a deal to create a centrist policy to fix long-term problems facing Social Security and Medicare. Sadly, the Lewinsky scandal ruined it all.

If the Dems take over the house, maybe Trump can carve out a Bill/newt type centrist deal that addresses entitlement spending.

Look at this damn superfan. He put the D guy in capital letter and the R guy in common letter.

[jazluvr]

Oh the irony!! Lmfao!!!!

You should just keep demanding more and more sources from him. Put the shoe on the other foot there.

Why do you have your visitors messages turned off?

[WarVeteranO01]

I cant say that I am mad but I cant say I am happy either. I do see somewhat of a pay difference but the price of gas has gone up so it pretty much takes away the difference I see. I mean I guess its better than gas going up and not getting more money but at the same time I feel its smoke in mirrors.