Senate Dems propose tax cut rollback to pay for infrastructure

a reply to: Aazadan

I guess in your world $0 is better than $11?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah I'm in that group everyone says will benefit from this. So it's all good for me. I'm retired.
Nothing to say about my actual post?

You are retired? Then you must be rich.

A lib 1%'er.

No wonder you don't give 2 craps about anyone else.

Ya gots yours.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Good luck trying to beat up the electorate with a tax bill that actually worked out for the middle class.

$11 per week is working out for the middle class?

Better than the $40 Obama gave everyone.

Democrats: "You will get measly peanuts!"

Also Democrats: "We need those peanuts pumped back into government! Think of all the roads we can build!"

F them and the taxpayer funded horses they rode in on. They want to take the money, the PEOPLE'S MONEY that they should be getting back, and pour it into quite possible one of the most wasteful programs in the entire country.

It goes without saying though, whenever they see a an extra dime of someone else's money, they immediately think of a plan to spend it, as well as an upcoming plan to spend another $10 of your money that you can't afford to begin with.

originally posted by: dothedew
Democrats: "You will get mealy peanuts!"

Also Democrats: "We need those peanuts pumped back into government! Think of all the roads we can build!"

F them and the taxpayer funded horses they rode in on. They want to take the money, the PEOPLE'S MONEY that they should be getting back, and pour it into quite possible one of the most wasteful programs in the entire country.

It goes without saying though, whenever they see a an extra dime of someone else's money, they immediately think of a plan to spend it, as well as an upcoming plan to spend another $10 of your money that you can't afford to begin with.

This is opposed to the Republican tax plan of cutting taxes without first figuring out how to pay for government expenses that didn't change.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: dothedew
Democrats: "You will get mealy peanuts!"

Also Democrats: "We need those peanuts pumped back into government! Think of all the roads we can build!"

F them and the taxpayer funded horses they rode in on. They want to take the money, the PEOPLE'S MONEY that they should be getting back, and pour it into quite possible one of the most wasteful programs in the entire country.

It goes without saying though, whenever they see a an extra dime of someone else's money, they immediately think of a plan to spend it, as well as an upcoming plan to spend another $10 of your money that you can't afford to begin with.

This is opposed to the Republican tax plan of cutting taxes without first figuring out how to pay for government expenses that didn't change.

What are they doing with the money they been getting?

You idiots can give them more, don't take someone else's money.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Ah yes, label taxes as "taking other people's money" as justification why you shouldn't be taxed. Never mind that the Constitution outlines that the government is allowed to collect taxes and all. And you call ME the idiot... You guys have seriously lost your way in your extremism.

Of course, the bloated, wasteful, immoral military budget is never on the chopping block..

originally posted by: BilboBaggins3
Of course, the bloated, wasteful, immoral military budget is never on the chopping block..

Of course not. That was expanded instead; to be paid for with imaginary money since we reduced government income instead of raised it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Ah yes, label taxes as "taking other people's money" as justification why you shouldn't be taxed. Never mind that the Constitution outlines that the government is allowed to collect taxes and all. And you call ME the idiot... You guys have seriously lost your way in your extremism.

When is enough is enough for you people?

Taxes ok, but you want a blank check.

Shouldn't happen.

We worked for that money, not the Govt.

originally posted by: BilboBaggins3
Of course, the bloated, wasteful, immoral military budget is never on the chopping block..

Yeah, f'k the military.

No money for you!

You give it to illegals instead?

That sounds like a plan.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BilboBaggins3
Of course, the bloated, wasteful, immoral military budget is never on the chopping block..

Of course not. That was expanded instead; to be paid for with imaginary money since we reduced government income instead of raised it.

Ya got trillions already, that ain't enough?

Bout time the govt took a pay cut instead of the people.

Ya think?!

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Ok, but the government didn't take a spending cut to match that pay cut. Which is the point you keep avoiding.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Ah yes, label taxes as "taking other people's money" as justification why you shouldn't be taxed. Never mind that the Constitution outlines that the government is allowed to collect taxes and all. And you call ME the idiot... You guys have seriously lost your way in your extremism.

When is enough is enough for you people?

Taxes ok, but you want a blank check.

Shouldn't happen.

We worked for that money, not the Govt.

I dunno. When can you talk to people without hyperbolic stereotyping them just because they disagree with you? I never typed the phrase "blank check". You did, yet you attribute that to me? That's called a lie, Holmes.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan

I guess in your world $0 is better than $11?

In my world, taking a stance on $11 one way or the other is BS. Are you really going to sell your vote for $11? $11 might as well be $0. In fact, because these cuts were inflationary, $11 is most likely negative money and your $11 is temporary while 99% of the cut went in much larger amounts to much fewer people.

Trickle down doesn't work, give the money directly to the people who you want to see spend it if that's the goal. Of course, what the GOP isn't telling you is that they did give it to exactly who they wanted to give it to, the donor class. Not you.

originally posted by: bulwarkz
WOOT! I gave up starbucks over 2 years ago for this reason What a waste of money and I easily found a better way to spend $5 than on a cup o mud

I like their products, the tea is especially good, I don't drink much straight coffee, I prefer decaf espresso drinks. The point stands though. If you don't like Starbucks then by all means spend your money elsewhere. The main point was that if you're in a position to be getting $2400 back (making over $200k per year), then $2400 is pretty much pocket change. The people who it would significantly help are getting back much less, an average of a bit under $600 per year which is still pocket change. $11 per week does not alter a budget in one direction or another unless you are very, very tight on money... in which point financial management rather than income is your problem.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Just crumbs, right nancy?

You gonna give him that 6% every single year?

Why not 10%?

That's better than 6%.

Fool.

If an employer will give you 10% then sure. If you're getting less than a 3.5% raise annually your purchasing power is declining due to inflation, if you're getting over 3.5% you need to be looking at the rate of increase. Did you know that Taco Bell starts at minimum wage and they give 25 cents every 90 days which works out to about an additional $2100 annually? That's a better raise than the vast majority of people get. If you're not getting at least 6% your worth isn't appreciating at all.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Aazadan

People are bad at saving, increasing their income won't lead to more savings.

None of that is actually the governments business.
It was only to point out that most americans don't even have 1k saved, so you saying $2400 is nothing but a cup of coffee a day is ridiculous.
Instead of realizing this you double down by crapping on someone who makes $50k per year, and by the same survey does not have 1k in savings, who will get back $570. To that person the $570 is most likely significant.
But you keep on telling them that it is not.

Because it's not. I've been there. I just recently finished living for the past 15 years on $10000/year. Even at that income, $570 annually would not be significant. When you get the money divided up into $11/week, anything you might want to buy with that income will be eaten up by finance charges. Saving it is a no go because as I pointed out before, people are bad at saving. A single $570 check would be more significant as it would allow people to buy something. $11/week gets you pretty much nothing. Of course, at that level of income you wouldn't even be getting $570, you would be getting zero.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

It did and will make a difference. The issue is the more you make the more you will have cut.

If you make 500 dollars a week and you will have an extra 25-30 bucks in your check it makes a difference.

If you make 10,000 a week and there is an extra 500 bucks it 'looks' bigger and is how those against the tax break talk about it.

Myself, my check was increased by about 70 bucks. That is an 1820.00 in my pocket this year instead of the 15k in taxes I paid last year I will pay 14k or so. ANYTHING is something...

a reply to: Aazadan

$11 per week is a cell phone bill, and netflix
$11 per week is a utility bill
$11 per week is a pair of athletic shoes for a child

You are welcome to dismiss it all you like, it won't be a winning strategy come November.