Only if spending is not reduced.Thank you for the correction. revenue is the word I should have used. Lower rates for the rich require higher rates for everybody else.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Only if spending is not reduced.Thank you for the correction. revenue is the word I should have used. Lower rates for the rich require higher rates for everybody else.
Reduced spending for the future is a different subject. We already spent the money, and we have bills to pay our bills now. After that, we can talk about how much we will spend in the future.Only if spending is not reduced.
If spending reduction is not part of the deal at the same time as revenue, it will NEVER be done.Reduced spending for the future is a different subject. We already spent the money, and we have bills to pay our bills now. After that, we can talk about how much we will spend in the future.
Stop making it so easy. You aren't Conservatives.Your thread is off-topic silliness. There is nothing political about the greed of an individual like Shkreli. It's bozos like you who have to somehow connect the dots of every frigging bad thing that happens back to Conservatives.
You could be right, but they are still not the same thing. We can reduce spending at any time. All congress has to do is not vote to spend money. Problem solved. However, there is nothing that can be done about the money we already spent. It is a bill, and it won't go away. Unless you want the country to default and collapse, (nobody wants that) we have to continue making the payments we agreed to make. Since we have to come up with the money, it would make sense for those who benefit most from all the things we have already paid for to pay more than those who have not. The rich should pay more, but they get all the massive tax cuts.If spending reduction is not part of the deal at the same time as revenue, it will NEVER be done.
And, quite frankly, they get massive tax cuts because they already pay the vast majority of the taxes. My objection to taxing more in the vain hope of paying our bills is that Congress will turn a $900 billion deficit into a $2 trillion one overnight if they think there will be more money coming in and we'll be right back where we are now, only with more taxes to be paid. That's why not tying spending cuts to tax hikes never works.You could be right, but they are still not the same thing. We can reduce spending at any time. All congress has to do is not vote to spend money. Problem solved. However, there is nothing that can be done about the money we already spent. It is a bill, and it won't go away. Unless you want the country to default and collapse, (nobody wants that) we have to continue making the payments we agreed to make. Since we have to come up with the money, it would make sense for those who benefit most from all the things we have already paid for to pay more than those who have not. The rich should pay more, but they get all the massive tax cuts.
Again, not the same thing. Not making more bills is not the same as not paying the ones we already have.And, quite frankly, they get massive tax cuts because they already pay the vast majority of the taxes. My objection to taxing more in the vain hope of paying our bills is that Congress will turn a $900 billion deficit into a $2 trillion one overnight if they think there will be more money coming in and we'll be right back where we are now, only with more taxes to be paid. That's why not tying spending cuts to tax hikes never works.
Was that supposed to make sense?Stop making it so easy. You aren't Conservatives.
To you? I give zero fucks, magaturd.Was that supposed to make sense?