It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress Passes Continued Funding -- Lots of No Votes

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: MOMof3

Is your standard of living better today than it was in 2007?


Greatly. It isn't even close.




posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
How was Trump right? Every poll had the tax plan being very unpopular.

Also, what riders did the GOP try to sneak in to this bill?


Polls, lol.
Brilliant.


edit on 22/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

To be really honest. I was either poor or living pay check to pay check until 2015. Then my husband got a nice inheritance from selling the family 150 yr family wheat farm. That gave us a huge boost and we paid cash for a house.

ETA. Not all poor and sick choose to be there.
edit on 22-12-2017 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
How is this even news? It is politics and anyone who has been paying attention to the last 10 to 20 years will tell you how it goes:

The republicans and the democrats fight it out in the floor, which ever side has the majority, then they hold the cards, the minority to get what they want have to do a series of stunts to keep the fight alive.

The budget is due and usually the minority will stop and stall, fight it out, causing smaller bills to keep things going to the very last. Then the 2 reconcile and miracle of miracles, a funding budget that goes for the year.

When Obama was in office, the republicans did such, and it switches from party to party.

In short this is nothing new, and what has become standard for the year. They do it to be able to beat their chest and point to it as something that they accomplished. So in a few months when this comes up again, there will be infighting once again and another miracle budget at the last minute, to keep the government running.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
How was Trump right? Every poll had the tax plan being very unpopular.

Also, what riders did the GOP try to sneak in to this bill?


So what is unpopular about it? Just because its Trump, I think... He would have had the greatest tax plan in the history of the world and "Every poll would have it unpopular"
edit on 22-12-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3


ETA. Not all poor and sick choose to be there.


Lots though are where they are at, good or bad, due to life choices though.... It isn't one big choice...it is a lifetimes of choices...



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Except cancer. It doesn’t care who you are, babies , athletes.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3


Except cancer. It doesn’t care who you are, babies , athletes.


My statement is more inline with anyone that is physically and mentally capable.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Not all the economists are even saying it will increase the deficit. Many are, but they are using something called "static scoring" as opposed to "dynamic scoring." The difference is that with static scoring, the assumption is made that the GDP will not be affected by the tax cuts (which history has shown to be false). Dynamic scoring makes the assumption that there will be an effect on GDP caused by the tax cuts, but even those using dynamic scoring disagree on how much effect it will have.

It really doesn't take much of a GDP increase for this tax cut to be revenue-neutral... that is, it will not raise the deficit. Anything more and it will actually reduce the deficit. I believe it will eventually cause us to have a surplus (if Congress doesn't spend it faster than it can be collected).

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

That sounds feasible. I’m ready to embrace the optimism, just not cuts to social programs.

I’m going to play in the fresh snow with my doggies. Have a merry Christmas with your loved ones.
Pam



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3


That sounds feasible. I’m ready to embrace the optimism, just not cuts to social programs.



Optimism is a good thing.

Believe you me, I don't want to see anyone go without. There are places where the budget can be cut without losing real benefits, though. Things like departmental budget changes, a better method of dealing with waste/fraud, or stopping duplicated efforts. Benefits to those who need them should never be cut.

SS especially. People paid into that; they have a right to their benefits. SS is not charity.

Merry Christmas.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Just think: out of all the Federal LEO (BATF, FBI, DEA, Marshalls, etc), it could all be done under a single banner. And if we did that we wouldn't need to engineer ways for these agencies to talk to each other and be more effective.

Everything about the way the government conducts business is ridiculous.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join