Unions Ain't the Problem Here Republicans

[sealybobo]

/——/ democRATs need to tax your brother into bankruptcy. Just to be fair of course.

If you tax the rich appropriately, don't worry you house slave, your masters won't go bankrupt from it. Hence their name??? The RICH? They'll be rich after we tax them. Just not as rich.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

And forget about taxing them you fucking moron. It's too late by then. Then the government gets the money. How does that help the workers? So my solution is to not give them so much in the first place. Instead of giving my brother $1 million, give him $750K and give the other $250K to the employees. See? I'm willing to compromise. They the workers can complain about how much taxes THEY pay because THEY are getting paid a lot of money.

Don't cry to me about how much a millionaire pays in taxes, house slave. Lap dog. Rich boot licker.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If you tax the rich appropriately, don't worry you house slave, your masters won't go bankrupt from it. Hence their name??? The RICH? They'll be rich after we tax them. Just not as rich.

Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts

Our bridges are falling apart (among other things), and its Ronald Reagan's fault. A few hours before the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, a news release landed (among hundreds) in my email inbox. It was from the right-wing "Heartland Institute" and a Minnesota conservative group calling itself...

www.commondreams.org

Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

And forget about taxing them you fucking moron. It's too late by then. Then the government gets the money. How does that help the workers? So my solution is to not give them so much in the first place. Instead of giving my brother $1 million, give him $750K and give the other $250K to the employees. See? I'm willing to compromise. They the workers can complain about how much taxes THEY pay because THEY are getting paid a lot of money.

Don't cry to me about how much a millionaire pays in taxes, house slave. Lap dog. Rich boot licker.

/----/ You're too young to know this but I remember it well. In 1982, Ronald Reagan sat down with the Democrats and they had a deal — a $3 cut in spending for every dollar they raised in taxes. Guess what? They raised the taxes, and they never cut the spending. Hence the bigger deficit.

 

[sealybobo]

/----/ You're too young to know this but I remember it well. In 1982, Ronald Reagan sat down with the Democrats and they had a deal — a $3 cut in spending for every dollar they raised in taxes. Guess what? They raised the taxes, and they never cut the spending. Hence the bigger deficit.

Well Clinton and Republicans got us a projected surplus. Bush gave it away to the rich. Then invaded two countries for 20 years.

So you guys are right. There was no surplus because bill and newt didn’t count on two wars. Or the bush tax breaks.

 

[Mac-7]

I don't want to lower wages in America to compete with mexico, just get rid of the unfair tariff that's hurting us.

I bet you're a Republican who won't stay on topic. You'll try to change the subject to unions.

Did you see the part where I said I would be okay if Ford moved their plants down to American southern states rather than Mexico but the reason Ford doesn't do that is because they would still be slapped with that 10 percent tariff. So basically I know now why Ford doesn't move down to Alabama or Mississippi to avoid union wages. I would be completely okay if Ford wanted to go down to a southern state because those southern workers would be employed and paying taxes and providing an income to their families and keeping the money in America.

How much is the US tariff on cars imported from the EU?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Well Clinton and Republicans got us a projected surplus. Bush gave it away to the rich. Then invaded two countries for 20 years.

So you guys are right. There was no surplus because bill and newt didn’t count on two wars. Or the bush tax breaks.

/——-/ That’s why I like Trump yes to tax cuts and no to wars.