Why should I vote Republican after this tax plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will pay more, but I want it to go to shrimps on treadmills, programs to buy more needles for drug abusers, free housing for intergenerational welfare recipients and the study of monkey farts.

So you are for cuts at NIH?

Absolutely.

What would you cut at the NIH? Specifically?

PP is probably an anti-vaxxer. And thinks the way to stop illnesses like ebola is to never allow anyone into the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an upper middle class professional and a Democrat. For years I’ve been hearing that I should really be Republican for my own self interest. Less taxes and all that. But now this new Trump/Republican tax plan come out and guess what, it complete is not good for me.

Can someone explain?

I thought liberals wanted their taxes raised to support those in need. All talk?

Is that part in the Republican budget?

No the Republican budget is all about taking from those in need and giving to billionaires.

I don't care about those in need. Got it? Your definition of need is dividing people into groups/classes and then playing them off against one another. Time for you to start supporting yourself, and flattening the tax code so EVERYONE pays an equal percentage.

Yep, we sure do. This is the Republican motto. You might as well write it into your party platform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said, Rand Paul.

"We have to understand that the owners of our businesses — the people we work for — are richer than us. They pay more taxes," Paul said. "But if you lower their taxes, they will either buy stuff or hire more people. If you raise their taxes, it goes into the nonproductive economy, which is Washington, D.C., and it will be squandered."

"So really, even if rich people get a tax cut, we should all stand up and cheer because it means more jobs for us because you're leaving more money in the private sector," Paul continued. "So I'm one of the few that will stand up on TV and say everybody's taxes should go down, including the wealthy."

What a naive/disnigenous idiot Rand Paul is. The rich are certainly not going to dispense any extra money. It's all going to remain safely in their hands. A toddler would know this.

Yes, the old "they will spend the money or hire more people" yarn is tiresome. Did that happen under GW Bush's tax cuts? No.

The wealthy hoard their wealth. They don't spread it around.

The wealthy invest in companies through the stock market. That's what keeps the companies going and what keeps the pay checks flowing. If they have to dissolve part of their wealth to pay more taxes, it gets pulled from the market and companies shrink in size and more people go on social programs, where the are unproductive and get money for doing nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will pay more, but I want it to go to shrimps on treadmills, programs to buy more needles for drug abusers, free housing for intergenerational welfare recipients and the study of monkey farts.

So you are for cuts at NIH?

Absolutely.

What would you cut at the NIH? Specifically?

PP is probably an anti-vaxxer. And thinks the way to stop illnesses like ebola is to never allow anyone into the country.

Don't be an idiot. Vaccinations are a good thing. Don't tell me we only have them because of the NIH either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yep, we sure do. This is the Republican motto. You might as well write it into your party platform.

And the dem motto can be, take more from workers and give to those who won't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep, we sure do. This is the Republican motto. You might as well write it into your party platform.

And the dem motto can be, take more from workers and give to those who won't work.

Like all the poor rural out of work miners and steelworkers on disability?

[Anonymous]

I am a republican. I think it's a crappy plan that won't pass.

On the other hand, your party (the democrats) is in shambles with Dirty Donna and equally bad policy.'

Time for a third party movement based on sound public policy.

[Anonymous]

Yes, Hillary in her $20,000 Armani jackets talking about the plight of the poor. Now THAT'S rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I am a republican. I think it's a crappy plan that won't pass.

On the other hand, your party (the democrats) is in shambles with Dirty Donna and equally bad policy.'

Time for a third party movement based on sound public policy.

Yes, it's a bad plan that won't pass.

The minority party isn't supposed to be proposing smart tax policy.

Both parties are in disarray, but one of them is supposed to be governing the country right now...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said, Rand Paul.

"We have to understand that the owners of our businesses — the people we work for — are richer than us. They pay more taxes," Paul said. "But if you lower their taxes, they will either buy stuff or hire more people. If you raise their taxes, it goes into the nonproductive economy, which is Washington, D.C., and it will be squandered."

"So really, even if rich people get a tax cut, we should all stand up and cheer because it means more jobs for us because you're leaving more money in the private sector," Paul continued. "So I'm one of the few that will stand up on TV and say everybody's taxes should go down, including the wealthy."

What a naive/disnigenous idiot Rand Paul is. The rich are certainly not going to dispense any extra money. It's all going to remain safely in their hands. A toddler would know this.

Yes, the old "they will spend the money or hire more people" yarn is tiresome. Did that happen under GW Bush's tax cuts? No.

The wealthy hoard their wealth. They don't spread it around.

The wealthy invest in companies through the stock market. That's what keeps the companies going and what keeps the pay checks flowing. If they have to dissolve part of their wealth to pay more taxes, it gets pulled from the market and companies shrink in size and more people go on social programs, where the are unproductive and get money for doing nothing.

Is that what happened after W's tax cuts? How did the economy improve after the wealthy got wealthier under his administration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have voted for both GOP (nationally) and Dems (congress/local) over the years, Reagan, both Bushes, etc.

I will never vote for the GOP again.

Odd. I'm a Dem and local Rep are more prudent fiscally. Clinton took over the DNC funds prior to her nomination as candidate. The DNC under Clinton resembles the govt of Puerto Rico. There are some good things in this tax plan and some bad things. There still is a hurricane casualty loss deduction for those flood plains and beach property. That is bad and what are the limits? Old up to 1m mortgages will now not have any limits on itemized deductions. That amount can easily exceed state and local tax deductions under the current plan and they get the 10k on property tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well said, Rand Paul.

"We have to understand that the owners of our businesses — the people we work for — are richer than us. They pay more taxes," Paul said. "But if you lower their taxes, they will either buy stuff or hire more people. If you raise their taxes, it goes into the nonproductive economy, which is Washington, D.C., and it will be squandered."

"So really, even if rich people get a tax cut, we should all stand up and cheer because it means more jobs for us because you're leaving more money in the private sector," Paul continued. "So I'm one of the few that will stand up on TV and say everybody's taxes should go down, including the wealthy."

Oh, everyone’s taxes should go down? Awesome. Why didn’t anybody think of that before? Surely we will be able to cover all the public services that we have taken for granted even with substantially less money to pay for them. Surely important things like national security, food safety, and environmental protections won’t take a hit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Hillary in her $20,000 Armani jackets talking about the plight of the poor. Now THAT'S rich.

As opposed to Trump, sitting on his gold toilet in his mini-Versailles, saying not a damn thing about the plight of the poor.

Given a choice, I take the former.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said, Rand Paul.

"We have to understand that the owners of our businesses — the people we work for — are richer than us. They pay more taxes," Paul said. "But if you lower their taxes, they will either buy stuff or hire more people. If you raise their taxes, it goes into the nonproductive economy, which is Washington, D.C., and it will be squandered."

"So really, even if rich people get a tax cut, we should all stand up and cheer because it means more jobs for us because you're leaving more money in the private sector," Paul continued. "So I'm one of the few that will stand up on TV and say everybody's taxes should go down, including the wealthy."

What a naive/disnigenous idiot Rand Paul is. The rich are certainly not going to dispense any extra money. It's all going to remain safely in their hands. A toddler would know this.

Yes, the old "they will spend the money or hire more people" yarn is tiresome. Did that happen under GW Bush's tax cuts? No.

The wealthy hoard their wealth. They don't spread it around.

The wealthy invest in companies through the stock market. That's what keeps the companies going and what keeps the pay checks flowing. If they have to dissolve part of their wealth to pay more taxes, it gets pulled from the market and companies shrink in size and more people go on social programs, where the are unproductive and get money for doing nothing.

Is that what happened after W's tax cuts? How did the economy improve after the wealthy got wealthier under his administration?

If you'd bought a basket of luxury stocks (LVMH, Tiffany, etc), you would have done well under the W tax cuts.

W is a disgusting pig responsible for thousands of deaths and injuries to our soldiers. Guy should hide under a rock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, Hillary in her $20,000 Armani jackets talking about the plight of the poor. Now THAT'S rich.

Better than Melania in her $50,000 Dolce and Gabana jackets when her husband says 'let them eat cake'.