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.
Leave it to the liberals to cry about getting more money. Hilarious.
Leave it to the Republicans to decrease taxes, increase spending (GWB) and forget about our deficit until a Democrat has to again clean up the mess. Anyone care to collect social security 15 years from now?
What’s it gonna cost you in the long run? And, what constitutes “long run”?
Why not be happy you will have more of YOUR money in YOUR pocket? Do you think Uncle Sam needs it more than you do? Good grief .... I’ve never seen so many who refuse to take yes for an answer, or complain about a decrease in theft.
^^ Already answered that in this thread, just a few posts above yours, GuyNTexas.
Leave it to the Republicans to decrease taxes, increase spending (GWB) and forget about our deficit until a Democrat has to again clean up the mess.
We clearly need someone like Scott Walker (R-WI) in the White House. He completely balanced Wisconsin's budget after the Democrats built up a gigantic debt.
And you must be unaware that the national debt rose $9T under Obama's reign of terror. Fortunately, the Republicans will tackle entitlement spending next to help address that. A lot of it will be addressed by 3% and 4% GDP growth under Trump, which never happened during Obama's failed presidency.
This is not going to work out well for the middle-class.
Even those that get short-term federal tax cuts, will likely find these offset by increases in health insurance costs, and state (income and sales) taxes.
We clearly need someone like Scott Walker (R-WI) in the White House. He completely balanced Wisconsin's budget after the Democrats built up a gigantic debt.
And you must be unaware that the national debt rose $9T under Obama's reign of terror. Fortunately, the Republicans will tackle entitlement spending next to help address that. A lot of it will be addressed by 3% and 4% GDP growth under Trump, which never happened during Obama's failed presidency.
Yay inflation. Can't wait to have my real income decrease by 1-2% every year!
We clearly need someone like Scott Walker (R-WI) in the White House. He completely balanced Wisconsin's budget after the Democrats built up a gigantic debt.
And you must be unaware that the national debt rose $9T under Obama's reign of terror. Fortunately, the Republicans will tackle entitlement spending next to help address that. A lot of it will be addressed by 3% and 4% GDP growth under Trump, which never happened during Obama's failed presidency.
LOL! Have you driven the crumbling roads in WI lately?
Leave it to the Republicans to decrease taxes, increase spending (GWB) and forget about our deficit until a Democrat has to again clean up the mess. Anyone care to collect social security 15 years from now?
That's the point.
The Republicans have been trying to kill social security since the 1930's. If they have to bust the budget they will do that, to hell with anyone who tries to stop them.
Here's a brief history lesson for you - the federal government was created to provide a stable social order for all, and the power to tax everyone was specifically delegated to said government so that it could exist and function. A claim that the government doesn't have the power to claim some of your earning goes against the US Constitution. So, yes, what you earn isn't all "yours". That's the way the Founding Fathers set it up. What, you're going to tell us that George Washington was a socialist?
As is always the case, history is a moving target, and changes to suit those in charge of the curriculum LOL.
The truth is quite another beast. Now, for your lesson in the truth .... the Federal Government was given no such charter to “provide a stable social order for all”. What pure Marxist hogwash. The Government’s limited role is spelled out n the Constitution, and I challenge you to point to an article in it that talks about a “social order”, stable or otherwise?
Truth is, prior to 1913, taxing domestic income was unconstitutional, with very rare exceptions. And even after 1913 Fed Act and the 16th, ..... oh .... never mind. I don’t have time this morning to waist, futility atttempting to explain.
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.
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.
waa! I'm bleeding!
