Trumps tax proposal - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Jim in CT · 04-28-2017, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

So it benefits the very rich and and from what we have seen in Trump's previous budget proposal it harms the very poor.

This was all bc Pres. Trump was upset about news stories that looked at his first 100 days and conclude that he hasn’t achieved much (there was a conserv. SC justice approved but how could he possibly screw that up).

"So it benefits the very rich "

How about a family that owns a small restaurant, a small landscaping business, a small anything. Don't they also benefit significantly from a reduction in the corporate tax rate? Does that only apply to big businesses? Or are you of the opinion that all business owners are wealthy?

If all he did in his first term was get Gorsuch to the SCOTUS, I'd be happy.

The stock market is way up in his first 100 days, but I am certain that is a residual effect of something Obama did single-handedly, I know, let's give him the Nobel Prize in economics to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.

wdmso · 04-29-2017, 04:28 AM

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung.../#459d32d17463

Bush tax cuts had resulted in significant job growth. To the true believers, Mr. Varney's position represents a restatement of the obvious—cutting taxes creates jobs while increasing taxes will likely have the opposite effect.

The results?

If the tax cuts delivered to the wealthy by President Bush are the shining beacon of policy to be used when making the case that reducing taxes leads to increased jobs numbers, tax hawks are going to have to go back to the drawing board or hope that the dishonestly of their political pitch can survive the truth come election day because the facts just don't back up the assertion.

once again Facts dont matter

scottw · 04-29-2017, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdmso

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung.../#459d32d17463

Bush tax cuts had resulted in significant job growth. To the true believers, Mr. Varney's position represents a restatement of the obvious—cutting taxes creates jobs while increasing taxes will likely have the opposite effect.

The results?

If the tax cuts delivered to the wealthy by President Bush are the shining beacon of policy to be used when making the case that reducing taxes leads to increased jobs numbers, tax hawks are going to have to go back to the drawing board or hope that the dishonestly of their political pitch can survive the truth come election day because the facts just don't back up the assertion.

once again Facts dont matter

facts and truth as you see it from your perspective(or Richard Ungar's)...doesn't necessarily make your facts and truth right, just makes you right in your mind from your perspective....and of course anyone who might disagree is wrong and lacking facts or missing truths....

Rick Ungar , CONTRIBUTOR
I write from the left on politics and policy.

at least he's honest about his obvious bias...

Jim in CT · 04-29-2017, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdmso

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung.../#459d32d17463

Bush tax cuts had resulted in significant job growth. To the true believers, Mr. Varney's position represents a restatement of the obvious—cutting taxes creates jobs while increasing taxes will likely have the opposite effect.

The results?

If the tax cuts delivered to the wealthy by President Bush are the shining beacon of policy to be used when making the case that reducing taxes leads to increased jobs numbers, tax hawks are going to have to go back to the drawing board or hope that the dishonestly of their political pitch can survive the truth come election day because the facts just don't back up the assertion.

once again Facts dont matter

"the tax cuts delivered to the wealthy by President Bush "

Bush cut the tax rates of everyone who pays taxes. Your taxes decreased too. Can't you be honest for a sentence?

The article does not dispute that the Bush tax cuts (for everybody) were followed by job growth. The author concedes that. All he does, is point to another time when job growth was NOT preceded by tax cuts.

So if anyone said "the only way jobs can ever grow is with big tax cuts", yes, your link disproves that. If, however, one says (as I did), "the Bush tax cuts were followed by job growth", the article doesn't dispute that. Your article admits that.

When anyone says "the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy", you can stop reading right there. He cut tax rates for many who are not wealthy (but for the wealthy too).