Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jeb couldn't have done better. (-: If you have a stock invested pension or 401K, it's a good day.Thank the RINOS in congress, Trump didnt have a damn thing to do with passing the bill he gets to sign.
... or $9 trillion like the last guy.GREAT ... taxpayers will need a little extra cash in their piggy bank when the tax cuts add an EXTRA TRILLION DOLLARS to the deficit.
I thought the Left just loved the idea of increasing demand with all sorts of ideas to redistribute money downward. I'm pretty sure they heartily approved of that $400 Obama stimulus, right? So now it's a bad idea?
It's a bad idea because it was proven that it didn't work. They didn't know it wouldn't work when they proposed it. See that's how things work in real life... you don't know if it works if there is no precedent to compare it to.
Excuse us no precedent ?
How old are you? Did you forget about bush Jr rebate checks ?
They are proven NOT to work.
Bush's didn't work... so on the second one they thought it was because it wasn't large enough to make a difference... so they increased it. It still didn't work.
We had growth in the 60s and 80s on corp tax reform. But the thing is, AT&T is promising 1 billion in capital spending, that it says wouldn't have occurred without allowing it to deduct 100% rather than 50%. They also got a tax cut in their corp rate, and that's what people say will result in corporate stock buybacks and stock prices rises, rather than jobs. No one knows what really will occur with that tax cut. But, it's very possible economic growth will result.
What's interesting will be what they want to do with this one billion. Get Trump to ok it's take over of Time Warner, and use the money to pay off Time Warner shareholders? Or actually build something.
You mean when JFK cut corporate rate to immodest 47%?
Reagan cut it to 28 in 1987 which was followed by recessionary economy all the way untill Clinton raised it to 35% in 1993.
Oh, I think lower earners and the middle class will take it up the shorts and not just in terms of actual taxes paid ... once you factor in state and local taxes, reductions in student aid and healthcare.Jeb couldn't have done better. (-: If you have a stock invested pension or 401K, it's a good day.Thank the RINOS in congress, Trump didnt have a damn thing to do with passing the bill he gets to sign.
or not
The Joint Committee on Taxation, the official congressional scorekeeper, estimates every income group would receive an average tax cut next year. But the JCT also found taxes would go up for lower incomes over time, in part because fewer eligible taxpayers would choose to receive health care subsidies through the ACA. By 2027, every income group making less than $75,000 would see a net tax increase.
It's a bad idea because it was proven that it didn't work. They didn't know it wouldn't work when they proposed it. See that's how things work in real life... you don't know if it works if there is no precedent to compare it to.
Excuse us no precedent ?
How old are you? Did you forget about bush Jr rebate checks ?
They are proven NOT to work.
Bush's didn't work... so on the second one they thought it was because it wasn't large enough to make a difference... so they increased it. It still didn't work.
We had growth in the 60s and 80s on corp tax reform. But the thing is, AT&T is promising 1 billion in capital spending, that it says wouldn't have occurred without allowing it to deduct 100% rather than 50%. They also got a tax cut in their corp rate, and that's what people say will result in corporate stock buybacks and stock prices rises, rather than jobs. No one knows what really will occur with that tax cut. But, it's very possible economic growth will result.
What's interesting will be what they want to do with this one billion. Get Trump to ok it's take over of Time Warner, and use the money to pay off Time Warner shareholders? Or actually build something.
You mean when JFK cut corporate rate to immodest 47%?
Reagan cut it to 28 in 1987 which was followed by recessionary economy all the way untill Clinton raised it to 35% in 1993.
Showing your ignorance again?
I think it was Rudyard Kipling who said, "There is no greater sin than ignorance."Excuse us no precedent ?
How old are you? Did you forget about bush Jr rebate checks ?
They are proven NOT to work.
Bush's didn't work... so on the second one they thought it was because it wasn't large enough to make a difference... so they increased it. It still didn't work.
We had growth in the 60s and 80s on corp tax reform. But the thing is, AT&T is promising 1 billion in capital spending, that it says wouldn't have occurred without allowing it to deduct 100% rather than 50%. They also got a tax cut in their corp rate, and that's what people say will result in corporate stock buybacks and stock prices rises, rather than jobs. No one knows what really will occur with that tax cut. But, it's very possible economic growth will result.
What's interesting will be what they want to do with this one billion. Get Trump to ok it's take over of Time Warner, and use the money to pay off Time Warner shareholders? Or actually build something.
You mean when JFK cut corporate rate to immodest 47%?
Reagan cut it to 28 in 1987 which was followed by recessionary economy all the way untill Clinton raised it to 35% in 1993.
Showing your ignorance again?
Try me dummy.
Oh, I think lower earners and the middle class will take it up the shorts and not just in terms of actual taxes paid ... once you factor in state and local taxes, reductions in student aid and healthcare.Jeb couldn't have done better. (-: If you have a stock invested pension or 401K, it's a good day.Thank the RINOS in congress, Trump didnt have a damn thing to do with passing the bill he gets to sign.
or not
The Joint Committee on Taxation, the official congressional scorekeeper, estimates every income group would receive an average tax cut next year. But the JCT also found taxes would go up for lower incomes over time, in part because fewer eligible taxpayers would choose to receive health care subsidies through the ACA. By 2027, every income group making less than $75,000 would see a net tax increase.
But again the gop is trying two things. One to stimulate overall growth by making it easier for business to make capital expenditure. And its pretty much a public relations gambit to counter the unpopularity of the bills with really nice goodies to corporations, which are handing out bonuses paid for with public debt for our kids. And two, reward their conttributors.
Excuse us no precedent ?
How old are you? Did you forget about bush Jr rebate checks ?
They are proven NOT to work.
Bush's didn't work... so on the second one they thought it was because it wasn't large enough to make a difference... so they increased it. It still didn't work.
We had growth in the 60s and 80s on corp tax reform. But the thing is, AT&T is promising 1 billion in capital spending, that it says wouldn't have occurred without allowing it to deduct 100% rather than 50%. They also got a tax cut in their corp rate, and that's what people say will result in corporate stock buybacks and stock prices rises, rather than jobs. No one knows what really will occur with that tax cut. But, it's very possible economic growth will result.
What's interesting will be what they want to do with this one billion. Get Trump to ok it's take over of Time Warner, and use the money to pay off Time Warner shareholders? Or actually build something.
You mean when JFK cut corporate rate to immodest 47%?
Reagan cut it to 28 in 1987 which was followed by recessionary economy all the way untill Clinton raised it to 35% in 1993.
Showing your ignorance again?
Try me dummy.
Are you sure it wasn't Cardinal Bernard Law? Only joking, it was Kipling and I had to look it upI think it was Rudyard Kipling who said, "There is no greater sin than ignorance."They are proven NOT to work.
Bush's didn't work... so on the second one they thought it was because it wasn't large enough to make a difference... so they increased it. It still didn't work.
We had growth in the 60s and 80s on corp tax reform. But the thing is, AT&T is promising 1 billion in capital spending, that it says wouldn't have occurred without allowing it to deduct 100% rather than 50%. They also got a tax cut in their corp rate, and that's what people say will result in corporate stock buybacks and stock prices rises, rather than jobs. No one knows what really will occur with that tax cut. But, it's very possible economic growth will result.
What's interesting will be what they want to do with this one billion. Get Trump to ok it's take over of Time Warner, and use the money to pay off Time Warner shareholders? Or actually build something.
You mean when JFK cut corporate rate to immodest 47%?
Reagan cut it to 28 in 1987 which was followed by recessionary economy all the way untill Clinton raised it to 35% in 1993.
Showing your ignorance again?
Try me dummy.
They are proven NOT to work.
Bush's didn't work... so on the second one they thought it was because it wasn't large enough to make a difference... so they increased it. It still didn't work.
We had growth in the 60s and 80s on corp tax reform. But the thing is, AT&T is promising 1 billion in capital spending, that it says wouldn't have occurred without allowing it to deduct 100% rather than 50%. They also got a tax cut in their corp rate, and that's what people say will result in corporate stock buybacks and stock prices rises, rather than jobs. No one knows what really will occur with that tax cut. But, it's very possible economic growth will result.
What's interesting will be what they want to do with this one billion. Get Trump to ok it's take over of Time Warner, and use the money to pay off Time Warner shareholders? Or actually build something.
You mean when JFK cut corporate rate to immodest 47%?
Reagan cut it to 28 in 1987 which was followed by recessionary economy all the way untill Clinton raised it to 35% in 1993.
Showing your ignorance again?
Try me dummy.
Ever hear of dot com dumb ass?
They are proven NOT to work.
Bush's didn't work... so on the second one they thought it was because it wasn't large enough to make a difference... so they increased it. It still didn't work.
We had growth in the 60s and 80s on corp tax reform. But the thing is, AT&T is promising 1 billion in capital spending, that it says wouldn't have occurred without allowing it to deduct 100% rather than 50%. They also got a tax cut in their corp rate, and that's what people say will result in corporate stock buybacks and stock prices rises, rather than jobs. No one knows what really will occur with that tax cut. But, it's very possible economic growth will result.
What's interesting will be what they want to do with this one billion. Get Trump to ok it's take over of Time Warner, and use the money to pay off Time Warner shareholders? Or actually build something.
You mean when JFK cut corporate rate to immodest 47%?
Reagan cut it to 28 in 1987 which was followed by recessionary economy all the way untill Clinton raised it to 35% in 1993.
Showing your ignorance again?
Try me dummy.
Ever hear of dot com dumb ass?
AT&T is giving $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 employees after tax bill
AT&T was quick to respond to news of U.S. tax reform, announcing it would give some employees bonuses once the law is official.
div > div.group > p:first-child" itemprop="cssSelector">
The telecom giant said in a press release on Wednesday that it would give more than 200,000 U.S. union members a special bonus of $1,000. The company also increased its capital expenditures budget by $1 billion in the U.S.
So they're giving bonuses and not jelly of the month club memberships and INVESTING in the US......holy shit......who knew????
Well everyone who voted for and will sign this and all those like me that supported the bill......
liberals, life isn't that difficult and full of misery and pain like you think. Open your minds!
Oh, I think lower earners and the middle class will take it up the shorts and not just in terms of actual taxes paid ... once you factor in state and local taxes, reductions in student aid and healthcare.Jeb couldn't have done better. (-: If you have a stock invested pension or 401K, it's a good day.Thank the RINOS in congress, Trump didnt have a damn thing to do with passing the bill he gets to sign.
or not
The Joint Committee on Taxation, the official congressional scorekeeper, estimates every income group would receive an average tax cut next year. But the JCT also found taxes would go up for lower incomes over time, in part because fewer eligible taxpayers would choose to receive health care subsidies through the ACA. By 2027, every income group making less than $75,000 would see a net tax increase.
But again the gop is trying two things. One to stimulate overall growth by making it easier for business to make capital expenditure. And its pretty much a public relations gambit to counter the unpopularity of the bills with really nice goodies to corporations, which are handing out bonuses paid for with public debt for our kids. And two, reward their conttributors.
Yep, and they are lying about the success of this type of move in the past and who it helps.
It is being compared to Reagan's, and though the taxes went down over the entire time Reagan was in office, after his initial tax cut he RAISED taxes 5 years out of his 8 year Presidency. Not to mention, there is factual PROOF that his tax cut for trickle down economics actually created a larger gap in the middle class, not an improvement.
"3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980’s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted."
10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan
Let the Democrats and MSM's heads start exploding.
A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, helps more.I suspect that come February when ordinary folks start seeing a bigger paycheck due to less withholding being taken out that opinions might change and this tax bill could become more popular. I believe there is some precedent for that.
That's what they don't understand because most libtard posters on these boards don't work.
