Donald Trump says "They will screw us again"

T

Tomas Fabregas

Banned
Hey guys, I'm against Trump's tax reform because it will only benefit the rich. But I want to show you this video which Donald Trump says "They will screw us again". Click on the video below and listen to pervert Donald Trump.

 
countryboy said:
Are you seriously that stupid, or are you purposefully lying?
Click to expand...

I think he means mostly. It will benefit others for a time, but it will benefit the rich more. Also the goodies for us expire, while the riches don't. I'd love to just believe this was a good thing for people, but the shiftiness of how they handled everything, the lies, every group you can think of that evaluates this stuff warning about it. There's no way someone in their right mind should smile at this. In truth I might not mind if they gave bigger breaks to the rich, as long as we got something too, and something that lasts. They just need to be upfront with it, and stop lying their asses off when what is being said is not possible in what was written. It also needs to be paid for, but as I've said before, they're doing the equivalent of handling malnutrition with fasting. For the group that was so against adding to the deficit no matter what it accomplished, this is abhorrent hypocrisy at the highest levels. I pray to God, that people will start to wake up, and send these holders of great sin, packing with their votes.
 
Last edited:
Jade Dragon said:
I think he means mostly.
Click to expand...

so he's mostly stupid, which leaves him a shade smarter than yourself.......as for getting something for yourself, you have to realize that the amendment saying "JD get's nothing" was unanimously approved in both houses of Congress..........
 
Jade Dragon said:
I think he means mostly. It will benefit others for a time, but it will benefit the rich more. Also the goodies for us expire, while the riches don't. I'd love to just believe this was a good thing for people, but the shiftiness of how they handled everything, the lies, every group you can think of that evaluates this stuff warning about it. There's no way someone in their right mind should smile at this. In truth I might not mind if they gave bigger breaks to the rich, as long as we got something too, and something that lasts. They just need to be upfront with it, and stop lying their asses off when what is being said is not possible in what was written. It also needs to be paid for, but as I've said before, they're doing the equivalent of handling malnutrition with fasting. For the group that was so against adding to the deficit no matter what it accomplished, this is abhorrent hypocrisy at the highest levels. I pray to God, that people will start to wake up, and send these holders of great sin, packing with their votes.
Click to expand...

The biggest breaks go to the middle class, and the working poor. You might look into the actual bill instead of relying on left wing spin meisters.

Corporations and business cannot be categorized as "teh rich". Democrat leaders have called for the lowering of the corporate tax for years, including Obama. Now, suddenly, they're against it. You don't find that the least bit troubling?
 
countryboy said:
The biggest breaks go to the middle class, and the working poor. You might look into the actual bill instead of relying on left wing spin meisters.

Corporations and business cannot be categorized as "teh rich". Democrat leaders have called for the lowering of the corporate tax for years, including Obama. Now, suddenly, they're against it. You don't find that the least bit troubling?
Click to expand...
By 2019, Americans earning less than $30,000 a year would be worse off under the Senate bill, CBO found. By 2021, Americans earning $40,000 or less would be net losers, and by 2027, most people earning less than $75,000 a year would be worse off. On the flip side, millionaires and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 would be big beneficiaries, according to the CBO’s calculations. (In the CBO table below, negative signs mean people in those income brackets pay less in taxes).
Source: Congressional Budget Office report on Nov. 26, 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lly-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.28492272b7cd
 
Micawber said:
By 2019, Americans earning less than $30,000 a year would be worse off under the Senate bill, CBO found.
Click to expand...

The CBO analysis has been shown to be flawed, in that it didn't take into consideration realistic GDP growth. Furthermore, this discussion is about the final bill. Not the Senate bill from a month ago. Gee, another intellectually dishonest argument from a leftist loon, shocking.
 
countryboy said:
The biggest breaks go to the middle class, and the working poor. You might look into the actual bill instead of relying on left wing spin meisters.

Corporations and business cannot be categorized as "teh rich". Democrat leaders have called for the lowering of the corporate tax for years, including Obama. Now, suddenly, they're against it. You don't find that the least bit troubling?
Click to expand...

Umm.... I'd check your info from all the studies, and not rely on the news. It's sad that you fall into this nonsense. Don't take the words of those writing it, that are set up to reap the benefits from it. That's a fools decision. The lower class rightist won't listen to reason, and keep getting shanked, as they smile on, because they were told it was good. Where are the don't trust government people now? Hypocrisy 101 isn't their forte. None of this is paid for, it's just on an IOU basis, hoping they find a way to pay for it. You can't take away without giving back somewhere. Why the Trumpies accept that a quickly thrown together bill will be paid for, is beyond me. It's literally like College kid spending, and Mom, and Dad, will have to pay to pick up their slack. Mom, and Dad, being whatever cuts they have to make. Cutting Government assistance has always been a want of the right. What idiot trusts them not to cut it, when they have in the past, and show that's really what they want?
 
Micawber said:
By 2019, Americans earning less than $30,000 a year would be worse off under the Senate bill, CBO found. By 2021, Americans earning $40,000 or less would be net losers, and by 2027, most people earning less than $75,000 a year would be worse off. On the flip side, millionaires and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 would be big beneficiaries, according to the CBO’s calculations. (In the CBO table below, negative signs mean people in those income brackets pay less in taxes).
Source: Congressional Budget Office report on Nov. 26, 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lly-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.28492272b7cd
Click to expand...

they dont like facts
 
Jade Dragon said:
I think he means mostly. It will benefit others for a time, but it will benefit the rich more. Also the goodies for us expire, while the riches don't. I'd love to just believe this was a good thing for people, but the shiftiness of how they handled everything, the lies, every group you can think of that evaluates this stuff warning about it. There's no way someone in their right mind should smile at this. In truth I might not mind if they gave bigger breaks to the rich, as long as we got something too, and something that lasts. They just need to be upfront with it, and stop lying their asses off when what is being said is not possible in what was written. It also needs to be paid for, but as I've said before, they're doing the equivalent of handling malnutrition with fasting. For the group that was so against adding to the deficit no matter what it accomplished, this is abhorrent hypocrisy at the highest levels. I pray to God, that people will start to wake up, and send these holders of great sin, packing with their votes.
Click to expand...

expires in 10 years goof-ball. And that's only of congress doesn't extend it. So tell me who in congress is going to raise our taxes by not extending it?

do you nut-jobs EVER think for yourselves, or has this Trump trigger just fu@ked all your sense of reality?

seriously man, grow up and think for yourself.
 
Micawber said:
By 2019, Americans earning less than $30,000 a year would be worse off under the Senate bill, CBO found. By 2021, Americans earning $40,000 or less would be net losers, and by 2027, most people earning less than $75,000 a year would be worse off. On the flip side, millionaires and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 would be big beneficiaries, according to the CBO’s calculations. (In the CBO table below, negative signs mean people in those income brackets pay less in taxes).
Source: Congressional Budget Office report on Nov. 26, 2017.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lly-thought-cbo-finds/?utm_term=.28492272b7cd
Click to expand...
stop being stupid, at least in public, turn on CNN and scream all the non-sense you want in the privacy of your own pitiful family, but not on a publc forum.

ok num-nut, lets expose your cluelessness,
standard deduction for a couple making 30k is 24k, with child tax credits, and a few other bells and whistles in on the form this person pays 12% tax on about 4k.
Which brings the total tax he pays to about 360 dollars.

Are you following any of this or has your brain just been so poisoned by the stupid pills even math doesn't reach you anymore?

for fu@ks sake folks, this idiot probably will bare children some day. You should be neutered
 
Jade Dragon said:
Umm.... I'd check your info from all the studies, and not rely on the news. It's sad that you fall into this nonsense. Don't take the words of those writing it, that are set up to reap the benefits from it. That's a fools decision. The lower class rightist won't listen to reason, and keep getting shanked, as they smile on, because they were told it was good. Where are the don't trust government people now? Hypocrisy 101 isn't their forte. None of this is paid for, it's just on an IOU basis, hoping they find a way to pay for it. You can't take away without giving back somewhere. Why the Trumpies accept that a quickly thrown together bill will be paid for, is beyond me. It's literally like College kid spending, and Mom, and Dad, will have to pay to pick up their slack. Mom, and Dad, being whatever cuts they have to make. Cutting Government assistance has always been a want of the right. What idiot trusts them not to cut it, when they have in the past, and show that's really what they want?
Click to expand...

What "studies" are you talking about? Citation please. Maybe you should check "all the studies".

BTW, there's nothing to "pay for". If anything, the tax cuts didn't go far enough. Why you are checking " all the studies", please cite a single instance historically where tax cuts resulted in reduced revenues. Either short-term, or long-term. For your convenience here is the historical record.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary
 
countryboy said:
The CBO analysis has been shown to be flawed, in that it didn't take into consideration realistic GDP growth. Furthermore, this discussion is about the final bill. Not the Senate bill from a month ago. Gee, another intellectually dishonest argument from a leftist loon, shocking.
Click to expand...

and this one is worse for the middle class than the previous ones



we give you facts and this is what you do with them


you flat out lie about them
 
countryboy said:
What "studies" are you talking about? Citation please. Maybe you should check "all the studies".

BTW, there's nothing to "pay for". If anything, the tax cuts didn't go far enough. Why you are checking " all the studies", please cite a single instance historically where tax cuts resulted in reduced revenues. Either short-term, or long-term. For your convenience here is the historical record.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary
Click to expand...

so you can lie about them AGAIN?
 
evince said:
so you can lie about them AGAIN?
Click to expand...

What's to lie about? This is the historical record. Now you're just making a complete fool of yourself. I accept your concession you cannot show me a single instance where tax cuts have historically resulted in reduced revenues to the federal government, not one. You lose.
 
Why do you guys deal with these right wing nuts, they don't listen to anything and just give the right wing chant of bull $hit to everything

This joint is a waste a big fukkin waste
 
countryboy said:
What "studies" are you talking about? Citation please. Maybe you should check "all the studies".

BTW, there's nothing to "pay for". If anything, the tax cuts didn't go far enough. Why you are checking " all the studies", please cite a single instance historically where tax cuts resulted in reduced revenues. Either short-term, or long-term. For your convenience here is the historical record.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary
Click to expand...

Don't feel like discussing right now. Just had to take a Norco, because I'm feeling rough. Probably going to just post recipes, or listen to music till it kicks in.:ouch:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top