The Democrat Party self destructs

[Schnitzer318is]

But it took three awfully bad republican figures to change all that. Luther Strange. Roy Moore. Donald Trump.

You left out Bannon, who is possibly the worst of the bunch.

great to debate you schnitzer. next time pay attention in history class.

George, I thought you were talking to me LoL. Was confused for a sec as I hadn't been in the thread.

[Massive Lee]

45 got 35 - A historic low. Why are Trump supporters even discussing the future of the Dems with all the problems they have in-house? ;-)

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/19/poll-trump-approval-ratings-304742

[gwb72tii]

more of the Democrats self-destructing prior to 2018

Pelosi and her cohorts are free to mislead and lie about the tax cuts all they wish, but it will be a losing strategy once we get to keep more of our own money. the economy will strengthen, more jobs will be available, and voters will see their paychecks go up.

sounds like a good idea to be 100% opposed as a political party. snatching defeat out of the hands of victory. LOLOL

[mbonder]

Except for those that will need to pay more in taxes because they are cutting out property tax and state income tax deductions above $10k. Oh wait, those are all people in predominantly blue states, punish those people for voting against Trump. Yep, makes sense to me.

Last round of tax cuts led us to huge deficits, and a stock market crash a half decade later, I'm not saying it's going to happen again, but what went so right about the Bush tax cuts that warrants doing it again except larger?

Going further back, Reagan cut taxes and that led to the recession of the early 90s, which ended Bush I's term after one and brought Clinton in. What history here am I missing that says this is going to work this time when it's failed before?

i certainly hope things work out for the better of many people, but I'm into history and if I'm putting my money on anything it's in history woefully repeating itself yet again.

[mrsleeve]

WTF are you taking about... Your history books are woefully inaccurate with what actually happened in the real world, and how this current deal is going down.

Except for those that will need to pay more in taxes because they are cutting out property tax and state income tax deductions above $10k. Oh wait, those are all people in predominantly blue states, punish those people for voting against Trump. Yep, makes sense to me.

According to the most recent IRS data, for the 2013 tax year, 30.1 percent of households chose to itemize their deductions (44 million returns). 68.5 percent of households chose to take the standard deduction (101 million returns).Feb 22, 2016. Thought you wanted to punish the richers (by the tone of this post of yours) and make them pay more taxes...... Thats what this does.....

So 68% of the people are making out much better in this deal. 1 minute Google search. Top of the page. Which is the intention of this this cut, help lower and middle income earners keep more of their money

Last round of tax cuts led us to huge deficits, and a stock market crash a half decade later, I'm not saying it's going to happen again, but what went so right about the Bush tax cuts that warrants doing it again except larger?

Yes the bush cuts caused the Dot.Com bubble to burst didnt it?????

Going further back, Reagan cut taxes and that led to the recession of the early 90s, which ended Bush I's term after one and brought Clinton in. What history here am I missing that says this is going to work this time when it's failed before?

Your missing perspective and a proper complete time line of events. You have to CUT FUCKING SPENDING too.........

The Regan cuts lead to MASSIVE RECORDS in tax receipts for the feds. (Top rate was 80% in income over 1m,) Tax receipts and spending are two different things, when the tax rates were reduced significantly the income to the feds skyrocketed within a couple years. The thing that brought your recession were the deficits because the only thing growing faster than the income to the feds at the time was the spending by Ronnie and congress.

It was those tax cuts that generated massive growth in gross income to the feds, and the SPENDING CUTS from slick willy that lead to the "glory years" of the Clinton surpluses.......

[z31maniac]

You aren't even trying anymore. You've literally been repeating yourself for the last decade in contrary to evidence and studies against your position.

You live in a welfare state! 38% of your state revenue is federal funds! $1.24 dollars back from the feds for everything you pay in!

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

[Wschnitz]

Not to mention the irony of someone talking about not knowing history, and ignoring the recessions following every one of these corporate welfare tax cuts.

[z31maniac]

Not to mention the irony of someone talking about not knowing history, and ignoring the recessions following every one of these corporate welfare tax cuts.

To be fair, the corporate tax rate hasn't significantly changed in 3 decades.

Although, that depends on if you want to talk about statutory or effective.

[z31maniac]

I'd like sleeve to explain how the much higher corporate tax after WWII and during Vietnam stifled/ruined/destroyed/*insert your favorite pejorative* slowed our economy?

[Wschnitz]

To be fair, the corporate tax rate hasn't significantly changed in 3 decades.

Although, that depends on if you want to talk about statutory or effective.

Just kinda lumping it in with how overall its the largely wealthy getting any real benefit out of this.

I just find it silly garbage like this gets passed, then the people who pass it blame everyone else when it fails.

[gwb72tii]

Not to mention the irony of someone talking about not knowing history, and ignoring the recessions following every one of these corporate welfare tax cuts.

correlation is NOT causation, and as is typical of the left, attempting to re-write and interpret history

there is a reason the Reagan years are called the 7 fat years.

[Wschnitz]

correlation is not causation, and as is typical of the left, attempting to re-write and interpret history

there is a reason the reagan years are called the 7 fat years.

lol

[gwb72tii]

I'd like sleeve to explain how the much higher corporate tax after WWII and during Vietnam stifled/ruined/destroyed/*insert your favorite pejorative* slowed our economy?

All taxes are regressive. All taxes hamper economic growth. period. end of story.

per Alan Greenspan

[gwb72tii]

lol

care to expand?

[gwb72tii]

Just kinda lumping it in with how overall its the largely wealthy getting any real benefit out of this.

I just find it silly garbage like this gets passed, then the people who pass it blame everyone else when it fails.

this is a false statement schnits. you sound a lot like Pelosi.
maybe the blue states like CA and NY will have a tax revolution over spending now, like CA did in the 70's over property taxes with prop 13.