Why do Democrats need to lie? (rhetorical question)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A) Sorry, slashing taxes on the rich benefited the rich and nobody else. What you are buying into is the discredited trickle down theory.
B) You are giving us a good view of what's wrong with today's Republicans, they believe in demonization, conspiracy theories and and falsehoods impersonating facts. No elected Democrat has advocated what you said they advocate, namely "tak[ing] away every citizens guns, and control everyone's speech, where they work, etc." I dare you to find the quotes.
What you call taking away guns is really the sensible idea of background checks.
once again you have missed my point. democrats are not going to come right out and say the things they REALLY want to do because they would LOSE elections. however dianna feistein HAS said she wants to take away ALL americans guns, now do you really think hillary doesnt agree with her?
as for the slashing of taxes on the rich, everyone must have been rich because EVERYONE benefited from lower taxes. the proof is out there, you just are too blind to see it. or you listen tot the huffpo too much. try a real news paper once. there was one more benefit from the tax cuts, and that was the tax burden shifted UPWARDS to where the top 10% went from paying 40% of the taxes collected to 70% of the taxes collected by the IRS.
2 days ago - James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released video evidence that left-wing organizer and high-level Democratic Party operative Robert Creamer is, in fact, linked directly to Hillary Clinton, who personally approved at least one of his disruptive tactics. ... Foval described ...
It's like "You can keep you health plan if you like it." He didn't say how much it would cost you, did he? So technically, he didn't lie. If you had a few billion dollars, of course you could keep you health plan you like.
Had Obama said, "You can keep you health plan if you like for the same cost, same coverage, same everything, and you don't have to change a thing," he would be lying but he didn't say that.
He did mention something..........Oh yeah, something about a family of 4 saving $2500. a year.
"a ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security made an outrageous statement that militia groups are mobilizing and could act if Donald Trump loses the election"
once again you have missed my point. democrats are not going to come right out and say the things they REALLY want to do because they would LOSE elections. however dianna feistein HAS said she wants to take away ALL americans guns, now do you really think hillary doesnt agree with her?
as for the slashing of taxes on the rich, everyone must have been rich because EVERYONE benefited from lower taxes. the proof is out there, you just are too blind to see it. or you listen tot the huffpo too much. try a real news paper once. there was one more benefit from the tax cuts, and that was the tax burden shifted UPWARDS to where the top 10% went from paying 40% of the taxes collected to 70% of the taxes collected by the IRS.
There is no defensible economic case for the obsession with cutting taxes on the rich. That is, you might think that if you’d spent the past 20 years in a cave (or a conservative think tank) that such policy makes sense. Otherwise, you’d be aware that tax-cut enthusiasts have a remarkable track record: They’ve been wrong about everything, year after year.
Some people might remember the forecasts of economic doom back in 1993, when Bill Clinton raised the top tax rate. What happened instead was a sustained boom, surpassing the Reagan years by every measure.
Undaunted, the same people predicted great things as a result of George W. Bush’s tax cuts. What happened instead was a sluggish recovery followed by a catastrophic economic crash.
A few years ago, the usual suspects once again predicted doom in 2013, when taxes on the 1% rose sharply due to the expiration of some of the Bush tax cuts and new taxes that help pay for health reform. What happened instead was job growth at rates not seen since the 1990s.
I'll repeat this once again, since it seems not to have filtered through some thick heads, there is no evidence that cutting taxes on the rich is beneficial to either the economy as a whole or working Americans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.