Jump to content

Conservatives ONCE AGAIN increase taxes on the upper middle class, middle class and lower incomes to pay for privileged tax deductions!


merrill
 Share

Recommended Posts

Conservatives ONCE AGAIN increase taxes on the upper middle class, middle class and lower incomes to pay for privileged tax deductions!

 

Borrow and spend , borrow and spend , borrow and spend  = supply side economics = wreckanomics which is applied every time conservatives control the house, senate and 

white house. 

 

Supply side economics is neither fiscally conservative nor fiscally responsible!  IT IS HOWEVER RECKLESS AND FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY!!!

 

Conservatives NEVER reduce spending they simply relocate tax dollars to their campaign supporters any way possible. We're talking kickbacks!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, merrill said:

Conservatives ONCE AGAIN increase taxes on the upper middle class, middle class and lower incomes to pay for privileged tax deductions!

 

Borrow and spend , borrow and spend , borrow and spend  = supply side economics = wreckanomics which is applied every time conservatives control the house, senate and 

white house. 

 

Supply side economics is neither fiscally conservative nor fiscally responsible!  IT IS HOWEVER RECKLESS AND FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY!!!

 

Conservatives NEVER reduce spending they simply relocate tax dollars to their campaign supporters any way possible. We're talking kickbacks!!!

 

At least the tax increase is offset by lower healthcare premiums. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For decades now "conservatives" have simply been THIEVES. They say anything to get into office, then rob the Treasury of every dime.

 

And the idiotic, gullible moron con base let themselves be manipulated every single time.

 

 

 

 

SOUTHERN STRATEGY....the racist rednecks are the gop base...Its been working for them for 50 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBO and the JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce the deficit by $3.8 billion over the 2018–2027 period without substantially changing the number of people with health insurance coverage, on net.

By KneeJerk, October 25 in No Holds Barred Political Forum

 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53232

 

The Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act of 2017 would make several changes to the state innovation waiver process established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), appropriate money for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) through 2019, require many insurers to pay rebates to individuals and the federal government related to premiums in the nongroup health insurance market for 2018, allow anyone in the nongroup market to purchase a catastrophic plan, and require some existing funding for health insurance marketplace operations to be used specifically for outreach and enrollment activities for 2018 and 2019.

 

On net, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that implementing the legislation would reduce the deficit by $3.8 billion over the 2018-2027 period relative to CBO’s baseline. The agencies estimate that the legislation would not substantially change the number of people with health insurance coverage, on net, compared with that baseline projection. Enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.

 

 

 

 

Libloonys here will be furious.

 

 

giphy.gif                                                         m7gw2b.jpg

"He's talking about you ... BUGWIT !!!"                 "Fuck me bennie ... you desperate shill."

 

 

giphy.gif

"Hey, I'm a desperate democRat shill too."

 

 

 

 

 

The static economic Tax Policy Center Report that all the Desperate DemocRat Shills are using

By KneeJerk, October 24 in No Holds Barred Political Forum

 

 

The Report ... from these guys ...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/preliminary-analysis-unified-framework/full

 

A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS  OF THE UNIFIED FRAMEWORK

TPC Staff

September29,2017

 

ABSTRACT
The Tax Policy Center has produced preliminary estimates of the potential impact of proposals included  in the “Unified Framework for Fixing Our Broken Tax Code.”
We find they would reduce federal revenue by $ 2 .4  trillion over ten yearsand  $ 3 .2  trillion over the second decade (not including any dynamic feedback).

 

 

(not including any dynamic feedback).

 

Static economics ... the Soviets didn't even do that in their five year plans.

 

Poor Desperate DemocRat Shills.

 

Still using the same debunked report.

 

Clinton-Benghazi-G1-620x362.jpeg

"Why are liberals such desperate democRat shills?"

 

 

tantrum.jpg

      "We can't help it ... we're democRats."

 

 

 

 

 

 

kj

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recessions and Unemployment

 

Recession of 1953 Dwight D. Eisenhower( R )

Recession of 1957-1958 Dwight D. Eisenhower( R )

Recession of 1960 -1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower(R )   (3 recessions)

Recession of 1969-1970 Richard M. Nixon( R )

Recession of 1973-1975 Richard M Nixon( R )   (2 recessions)

Recession of 1980 2nd & 3rd quarters Jimmy Carter ( D) (Shortest and least severe slow down)

Recession of 1981-1982 Ronald Reagan( R )

Recession of 1990-1991 George H.W. Bush( R )

Recession of 2001 George W. Bush( R )

Recession of 2007 George W. Bush( R ) (2 recessions)

 

 

Civilian Unemployment Rate, U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics

     period          start   end   chng   President       Party 
Jan 1949 Jan 1953    4.3   2.9  -1.4   Truman         Democrat 
Jan 1953 Jan 1957    2.9   4.2  +1.3   Eisenhower I   Republican 
Jan 1957 Jan 1961    4.2   6.6  +2.4   Eisenhower II  Republican 

Jan 1961 Jan 1965    6.6   4.9  -1.7   JFK/Johnson    Democrat 
Jan 1965 Jan 1969    4.9   3.4  -1.5   Johnson        Democrat 

Jan 1969 Jan 1973    3.4   4.9  +1.5   Nixon          Republican 
Jan 1973 Jan 1977    4.9   7.5  +2.6   Nixon/Ford     Republican 
Jan 1977 Jan 1981    7.5   7.5   0.0   Carter         Democrat 
Jan 1981 Jan 1985    7.5   7.3  -0.2   Reagan I       Republican 
Jan 1985 Jan 1989    7.3   5.4  -1.9   Reagan II      Republican 
Jan 1989 Jan 1993    5.4   7.3  +1.9   Bush, GHW      Republican
 
Jan 1993 Jan 1997    7.3   5.3  -2.0   Clinton I      Democrat 
Jan 1997 Jan 2001    5.3   4.2  -1.1   Clinton II     Democrat 
Jan 2001 Jan 2005    4.2   5.2  +1.0   Bush, GW I     Republican 

Jan 2005  Jan2009     5.2      8.3     +3.1       Bush, GW II        Republican 

Jan2009 Jan2013 8.3 8.0  -0.3  Obama  I                 Democrat 

Jan  2012  Nov 2016  8.0     4.6    -3.4       Obama II                Democrat 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

POLITICIANS HAVE A BIG CONFLICT OF INTEREST --- KNOWN AS SPECIAL INTEREST CAMPAIGN MONEY! ALL OF THEM SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM THE HEALTH CARE DISCUSSION. THEN TURN THE DECISION OVER TO THE VOTERS.

 

Why are conservatives throwing republicans, democrats, WOMEN, tea party thinkers, green party thinkers and CHILDREN under the bus?

 

 Taxpayers realize that the medical insurance industry is as corrupt as the mafia, President Trump, ALEC, too many in the house and senate, campaign finance , electoral college,the Presidential Debate Commission and our election system.

 

Members of the house and senate instead allow the insurance industry to design whatever then kick back to elected officials billions of campaign dollars over time ….those  are health care dollars btw.

 

 

Paying back like a busted slot machine......

 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/10/bill_moyers_michael_winship_in.html#more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, merrill said:

Conservatives ONCE AGAIN increase taxes on the upper middle class, middle class and lower incomes to pay for privileged tax deductions!

Lather, Rinse, Repeat. 

Liberals repeat this law EVERY time a tax cut is proposed. 

 

Can someone tell me how the middle class, and "lower incomes" are being forced to pay, when they pay no income tax at all?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, merrill said:

Conservatives ONCE AGAIN increase taxes on the upper middle class, middle class and lower incomes to pay for privileged tax deductions!

 

Borrow and spend , borrow and spend , borrow and spend  = supply side economics = wreckanomics which is applied every time conservatives control the house, senate and 

white house. 

 

Supply side economics is neither fiscally conservative nor fiscally responsible!  IT IS HOWEVER RECKLESS AND FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY!!!

 

Conservatives NEVER reduce spending they simply relocate tax dollars to their campaign supporters any way possible. We're talking kickbacks!!!

 

The House bill left the max tax bracket (for the rich) at 39%... NO CHANGE... and taxes were lowered for EVERYONE else...

 

SO, how is THAT lowering taxes for the RICH?

 

THAT is why the Democrats recently got 4 PINOCCHIO pertaining to their description of the Tax bill... LIARS that they ARE !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, merrill said:

Conservatives ONCE AGAIN increase taxes on the upper middle class, middle class and lower incomes to pay for privileged tax deductions!

 

Borrow and spend , borrow and spend , borrow and spend  = supply side economics = wreckanomics which is applied every time conservatives control the house, senate and 

white house. 

 

Supply side economics is neither fiscally conservative nor fiscally responsible!  IT IS HOWEVER RECKLESS AND FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY!!!

 

Conservatives NEVER reduce spending they simply relocate tax dollars to their campaign supporters any way possible. We're talking kickbacks!!!

 

The United States federal government expects to spend $3.8 trillion dollars in 2015 – that sounds like a lot of money, and it is. That’s about $12,000 for each woman, man and child living in the United States. It’s also about 21 percent of the entire United States economy.1

 

But the government is not just a bill collector and spender. At its best, each of the dollars our government spends can advance the common good and Americans’ quality of life through public investments in infrastructure, systems and structures that only government is positioned to make – investments in things like court systems, clean water, transportation, income security, energy and education.

 

A few examples: the federal government provides an average of thirty percent of state government revenues for things like transportation and education; most Americans will rely on government programs like Social Security and Medicare as they age; and half of the nation’s public schools receive federal aid. Without the federal government, our communities and families would not be the same.

 

And we all contribute to government, whether we engage through voting or other civic involvement, or whether we simply go to work and pay our taxes. In fact, in 2015, 80 percent of federal revenues will come from individual income and payroll taxes.

 

It is in all of our best interests – and it is our responsibility -- to see that our tax dollars are raised and spent in ways that reflect our priorities. To do that we need to know where that money is going, and how budget decisions are made. Federal Budget 101 gives you that crucial information.

 

Throughout Federal Budget 101, you’ll see that some words are in bold text. Those are words you can find in the Federal Budget Glossary.

 

 

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although conservatives portray government as incompetent, public sector programs have actually amassed an admirable record of success in a wide variety of policy areas.

One of the most persistent myths about American government is that it has a poor record of achievement. Conservatives and libertarians have constantly promoted the idea that government fails more often than it succeeds. They have been telling Americans for years that government is an incompetent institution that has achieved little of real value in society. As one conservative critic put it: “The more important question is not why government is so big … but why with few exceptions, it fails in even its simplest tasks.”1 Another critic, Charles

 

Murray, puts it even more bluntly: “The reality of daily life is that, by and large, the things the government does tend to be ugly, rude, slovenly – and not to work.”2 Or consider the bold challenge uttered by Rush Limbaugh on one of his radio shows: “With the exception of the military, I defy you to name one government program that has worked and alleviated the problem it was created to solve. Hhhmmmmmmm? I'm waiting. . . . Time's up.”3

The Stereotype: Government as Bungling and Inept

 

Many of us have bought into this image of government as a bungler – a bunch of bureaucrats that can’t do anything right. Ask most Americans and they will tell you: if you want something messed up, have the government do it. We’ve all heard the jokes:

Q: How many government bureaucrats does it take to screw in a light bulb? 
A: Two. One to assure everyone that everything possible is being done while the other screws the bulb into the water faucet.

Q: How many government workers does it take to screw in a light bulb? 
A: Two. One to screw it in and one to screw it up.

This popular view of government as a low-achieving screw-up is echoed in many surveys as well. When asked, “When the government in Washington decides to solve a problem, how much confidence do you have that the problem will be solved?” only four percent of Americans said “a lot.” Sixty-four percent said “none at all” or “just a little.” Of these, more than a three out of four said the reason was “government is incompetent” not that “those problems are often difficult to solve.”4 Surveys also show that a large majority of citizens (70%) believe that “government creates more problems than it solves."5 Clearly, for many Americans, government is the Inspector Clouseau of institutions.

But how accurate is this popular image of the government as a bumbling fool? Actually, this is largely a stereotype – one based primarily on myth and selective anecdotal evidence. Of course anyone can cite a number of failed government policies – such as the war on drugs or public housing programs. But it is wrong to leap from this kind of anecdotal evidence to the conclusion that government as a whole is inherently incompetent. The reality is this: most government programs are successful most of the time. By and large, the public sector does a good job providing clean water to drink, keeping the peace, sending out Social Security checks, reducing workplace injuries, ensuring aircraft safety, feeding the hungry, putting out fires, protecting consumers, and so on.

 

Once we begin to look at the actual performance of major government programs, we see that the vast majority of them have produced substantial improvement in the problem areas that they are addressing – they have produced successful results. This is not the conventional wisdom, but it is what the evidence shows if you bother to look at it. Let’s consider some of that evidence.

An Initial List of Government Achievements6

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DemoMan said:

We need to cure America of the cancer of the thieving, rapacious, morally and ethically bankrupt con traitors.

 

WE could start by replacing conservatives with Green Party thinkers and removing the DLC DINO's from the democratic party which 

will also require dumping the bogus electoral college.

 

An Initial List of Government Achievements

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2017 at 6:05 PM, merrill said:

 

The United States federal government expects to spend $3.8 trillion dollars in 2015 – that sounds like a lot of money, and it is. That’s about $12,000 for each woman, man and child living in the United States. It’s also about 21 percent of the entire United States economy.1

 

But the government is not just a bill collector and spender. At its best, each of the dollars our government spends can advance the common good and Americans’ quality of life through public investments in infrastructure, systems and structures that only government is positioned to make – investments in things like court systems, clean water, transportation, income security, energy and education.

 

A few examples: the federal government provides an average of thirty percent of state government revenues for things like transportation and education; most Americans will rely on government programs like Social Security and Medicare as they age; and half of the nation’s public schools receive federal aid. Without the federal government, our communities and families would not be the same.

 

And we all contribute to government, whether we engage through voting or other civic involvement, or whether we simply go to work and pay our taxes. In fact, in 2015, 80 percent of federal revenues will come from individual income and payroll taxes.

 

It is in all of our best interests – and it is our responsibility -- to see that our tax dollars are raised and spent in ways that reflect our priorities. To do that we need to know where that money is going, and how budget decisions are made. Federal Budget 101 gives you that crucial information.

 

Throughout Federal Budget 101, you’ll see that some words are in bold text. Those are words you can find in the Federal Budget Glossary.

 

 

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/

 

THE WAY IT IS.......

 

Conservatives ONCE AGAIN increase taxes on the upper middle class, middle class and lower incomes to pay for privileged tax deductions!

 

Borrow and spend , borrow and spend , borrow and spend  = supply side economics = wreckanomics which is applied every time conservatives control the house, senate and white house. 

 

Supply side economics is neither fiscally conservative nor fiscally responsible!  IT IS HOWEVER RECKLESS AND FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY!!!

 

Conservatives NEVER reduce spending they simply relocate tax dollars to their campaign supporters any way possible. We're talking kickbacks!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

That is not true, the simply stopped serving as officers of the foundation.

 

Semantics.....they were selling access and influence for profit under the guise of charity.

 

Quote

 

The Clinton Foundation’s long list of wealthy donors and foreign government contributors during the 2016 elections provoked critics to allege conflicts of interests. 

But as soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work.

 On January 12, the Clinton Foundation received more bad news: a WARN notice was filed with the New York Department of Labor. The main office of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City would be closing, laying off 22 employees. The reason for the filing was stated as the “discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initative,” after CGI previously announced layoffs leading up to the general election.

The Clinton Foundation‘s downward trajectory ever since since Hillary Clinton’s election loss provides further testimony to claims that the organization was built on greed and the lust for power and wealth—not charity.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...