Like Obama who racked up more deficit then all previous administrations in our country's history combined? Then maybe your state should quit voting straight blue and racking up $1B+ a year in freebies for illegals. I get that folks don't like Trump. I totally get it, but when your state's politicians are shooting you right in the wallet just to show how much they hate him, well, that's on y'all for voting for them. Personally I'd be a bit pissed off at my elected officials if I had to pay stupid high taxes and my governor doubled down and made my state a sanctuary state just to say "Fuck Trump."
I'm another one that hates CNN, but according to their calculations my tax bill is going to be $1500 less this year. God damn that hurts. I hate having an extra $1500 that could go to someone that doesn't work.
Yeah, the biggest problem with the bill is the numbers just don't add up. The cuts he's made to spending will never equal the tax cuts. However, this is nothing new. See: the last 16 years. For the majority of Americans, this will help them in short run, and hurt the whole country in the long run. The tariffs that are going up at the end of the month and the cuts to the corporate tax rate should boost the gdp. Consumers will lose, but I find it hard to see the arguments for why GDP won't increase, it's just still going to be short of matching the cuts. Is that deliberate targeting, or is that an insufficient measure to balance the cuts out? If one region charges substantially higher taxes that is primarily spent in that region, what is the rationale for why that should cut federal intake? When the DOJ starts arresting people for smoking week in Colorado, that'll be an unwarranted (but legal) attack on blue states. The rationale behind the taxes is quite reasonable. Maybe the blue states acting like it's an attack are upset Obama isn't subsidizing them anymore? Speaking of Obama, there are flaws abound in Trump's economic policy, but even this makes more sense than the haphazard way he managed spending. Unless people really buy the line that's it's acceptable to blame Bush for 8 years after he left office and $9 trillion of accumulated debt. I can partially blame corruption on why we don't have public health care, but the debt imbalance falls squarely on the voters. Who added to the debt? The public who votes for tax cuts every time. Who wants to pay for it? It's always 2 income blocks above them that "don't pay enough" until you hit the 1% of the upper class and then it's "the middle class and lower classes don't pay enough." I can't think of a single voting bloc that wants to cover their share of the costs. They demanded and voted for this (year after year, this is not at all a recent phenomenon) and now it's always someone else that should pay for it. Personally, I don't give a fuck who people want to blame for it as long as they could get on board with a plan that paid it off, but that's not going to happen. My estimate I'm sticking with is $50 trillion. Fifty fucking trillion before voters demand a plan that starts going in the opposite direction.
Yeah, I don't know if he is talking about cuts to government programs, or the tax rates. Taxes are going down for nearly all of the middle and lower classes. The media is pretending the tax plan is doing the opposite while putting out blips that "no, actually it won't" so as to be 'technically correct and totally not lying'. They're trying to make the tax plan into an assault on the middle class, when obviously it isn't, but they figure that's the narrative that will resonate with the most Americans.
It's a little from column A, little from column B. They needed to get more revenue from somewhere to offset the cuts enough to pass through reconciliation, and finding a source that exclusively hurts blue states warmed their cold little hearts to no end. I don't know why you're referring to it as "Obama subsidizing" the blue states; SALT deductions have been a feature of federal taxation since federal taxation was a thing. I might be more open to the elimination of SALT if: a) Blue states weren't already subsidizing red states b) other aspects of the bill offset this transfer of blue state wealth to red states. I've seen many conservative commentators celebrate that this would force blue states to lower their taxes, which is strange for two reasons. First, it's conservatives celebrating a gross abuse of the principal of federalism. Second, how do you explain a tax cut at the federal level reducing the amount of money left over at the state level such that they would have to reduce revenues?
The media is being inaccurate on one side of a nuanced point, and the Republicans on the other. Basically the issue is as follows: 1) The corporate tax cuts are permanent, but the middle class tax cuts are set to expire. 2) This is the case because if both cuts were made permanent, the bill wouldn't qualify for the reconciliation process, and the Republicans would never get 60 votes in the Senate. 3) The Republicans chose to make the middle class tax cuts the ones that expire on the belief that there would be far more pressure to make those cuts permanent down the road than there would be for corporate tax cuts. So ultimately the middle class tax cuts are set to expire, at which point the middle class would see a tax increase. However it has always been the Republicans intention to make the cuts permanent. But if the cuts are made permanent, the already bad deficit numbers will become disastrous. The media is acting as if the Republicans intend to repeal the middle class cuts, and the Republicans are acting as if the middle class tax cuts aren't a deficit time bomb.
I think anyone facing a team of Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other heavyweights, has to be considered the underdog by default right?
Oh, you very well may get more money back and save on your personal taxes... but how do you think they're paying for that shit? It's not like they're just no longer paying that money to those that don't work and giving it to you... Estimates are that the tax bill is going to add $1.4 trillion to the deficit. So congrats... the rich get a big tax break, the middle class gets a very small break, the corporations get an even bigger break... and it's deficit financed. While your health care system rots. And your education system rots. What could possibly go wrong?
Obviously the "very stable genius" line is both the meat and potatoes of this tweetstorm, but I can't get over that he actually included a valley-girl-esque "like" earlier on.
Except trolling implies some sort of intentional act to elicit a response... can you actually be a troll if you don't know you're trolling?
His tweets are the one thing I think he might actually be playing a 4d chess game with. I think part of it is trying to keep himself on the top of the front page in a narcissistic way, another part is just a smoke and mirrors game to keep the media in a froth while his crew can carry out his agenda on the administrative side.
Trolling is satirical. He actually believes what he’s typing. A very successful businessman who bankrupted casinos. That’s right, casinos. How exactly do you go out of business when people give you money for literally nothing? Don’t ask the natives in America who are living out in the middle of Lower Asscrackylvania, because they somehow make it work.
People spend more and put more in savings? Corporations pay their executives and employees more? Stock prices go up? Lol, why didn't Trump tweet "on my first try?" I seem to remember him running for President in 2000, Reform Party or something?
He also ran for president in 2012. So, it was a third time. But he was close in his guess. 3 is only 2 numbers away from 1. That’s pretty good math for him. Especially when you consider how he credits his success to being his own, forgetting about the 450 million reasons he’s actually a successful businessman that were left to him when his dad and brother died.