[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that"That is what the CBO says. Until this year, everyone agreed while they would be wrong on some things they were the best non political budget forecaster, estimator of cost, etc.

And all of the media are reporting that Trump "shoved" a foreign leader when he barely put his hands on the guy. Come on, he shoved him aside. I wouldn't let someone do that to me. He has no decorum. I would think most parents would not let their child do that or let another child do that to their child. I think there were even assigned places to stand. I think JK Rowling said "You tiny, tiny, little man" And every analysis of the election had Hilary winning in an electoral rout. I'm not saying that all of the criticism is unfounded, I'm saying that people have gone bonkers trying to make the guy look bad.

"Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? "

I agree. But you can't judge the effect of a tax plan when he hasn't released what the new tax rates will be. That's a critical part of assessing who gets helped and who gets hurt. Right?Agreed - and why I thought the 1 page budget he originally released was a joke. In addition to no rates, there was nothing on the income levels for each tier.

"BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit"

Well, in the last post, you repeatedly said you were opposed to gutting the poor to help the rich. I'm not sure then, why you support an organization that takes money from the poor and uses it to provide discounted opera tickets to the uber wealthy at the Met. You're saying the ends justify the means? I'm saying that we can argue about how much $ NPR gets but the fact is that much of the discretionary budget benefits the poor and it is devestated by his budget.
"Like $ towards meals on wheels"

Oh, but of course. A program that takes money from coal miners and uses it to pay a guy in Manhattan to make a painting of Jesus drowning in urine, is the same as a program that takes money from the self-sufficient to feed the desperately poor. Gotcha.That is not a gotcha - the amount of money spend on the arts is a miniscule amount of the budget.

From a search
Trump reportedly wants to cut cultural programs that make up 0.02 percent of federal spending

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized,” the Hill's Alexander Bolton reports, “while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely

So let's look at the 2016 appropriations for the three programs identified in that quote above and compare them with the overall outlays of the federal government. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting received $445 million in 2016. (It gets additional funding from donors like you.) NEA got $148 million. NEH requested the same. The Congressional Budget Office figures that about $3.9 trillion was spent by the government during the fiscal year.

Put another way, if you make $50,000 a year, spending the equivalent of what the government spends on these three programs would be like spending less than $10.



"There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money."

I bet you didn't express that concern when Obama announced his stimulus plan. I was in favor of Bush's 2008 and Obama's stimulas plans bc the economy was in the dumps. not 4.4% unemployment.Paul, if you ran a business, and your corporate income tax rate got cut in half, would you propose to bury the money in your backyard?

What I propose to do w/my $ is different from what a large corp would do. To your point I might invest it.