Mfers crying about e-webs and crap that doesn’t matter at all, meanwhile Trump taking caring of business like a boss.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
WaPo, the most hardcore, Trump hating, liberal of the liberals gives your Democrat talking points four Pinocchios...
Senate Democrats falsely claim GOP tax plan will raise taxes for most working-class families
Regarding Snopes and fake news...
Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger
And nearly all of their data and analysis is sourced. But just going to ignore the BBC article I posted that says the same damn thing? lol
@wildcatbos
Snopes Caught Lying
Doesn't matter who it is. It could be Santa Claus. The video is plain to see. That's why you're a troglodyte because you automatically dismiss everything that doesn't line up with your propaganda. Video doesn't lie. They were caught outright lying to cover for Democrats and were actually forced to retract. A public retraction doesn't lie. I can do this all day with Snopes, from a plethora of respected sources. Here's another one.Tucker Carlson?
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Snopes Caught Lying
And the highly partisan, in your favor, Washington Post, says they're full of it. It's not some half assed graph, with zero explanation of how they came up with their figures, either. All the numbers are there, broken down for all to see. Do the math yourself and find out.
Are you literally claiming WaPo is making up phony numbers and putting out fake news in favor of Trump? If that's the case, then you have zero credibility and will spout whatever to push the agenda.
And the article I linked to sourced everything, and the data was backed up by the BBC. ANd you'll find plenty of other reputable sites out there that say the same thing. To say Snopes was lying in that Sweden article would be to say every source was lying and that the BBC was lying as well. If you want to say every source listed in both articles is lying then so be it, but don't turn it around and essentially say I am burying my head in the sand.
Snopes are lying partisan hacks. That's what you linked. It's that simple. Resist all you want, it's true. Linking them and then screaming about fake news is not a good look.
What a crock of crap! That analysis claims that taxes are going up on people who don't even pay income tax. The bottom 50% of tax filers (who pay no income tax) are not affected by the new tax bill in any way other than they are no longer forced to buy health care if they do not want it. That is a good thing and will mean more money in their pockets.
The flaw with your post is that The Washington Post article that cites the tax policy center is only doing the math for 2018.
The CBO analysis analyzes the math for 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 years down the road.
That's not the same set of data and math. To say the CBO analysis is wrong beyond 2018 because the Tax Policy Center math only for the year 2018 says otherwise is a logical fallacy.
Actually if you read that article the claim was that there were no flags on display...that was false because flags were displayed. I'll bet nowhere in the original The Daily Caller article did it note that flags were presented for the national anthem and pledge of allegience. I quote from your linked article, "Several flags were briefly on stage for the national anthem and pledge of allegiance, at which point they were carried off stage". How were they carried off the stage if they weren't first there on display? The rest of the article is moot relative to the claim and is just an attempt by The Daily Caller to cover its' ass.
Note: Wrapping yourself in the flag doesn't make you any more or less a patriot. It is too often no different than people like Roy Moore who wrap themselves in God all the time. Talking about Jesus and God doesn't make you better person, how you live your life is what matters.
It will also take money out of the pockets of people who have to buy insurance because dropping the mandate will force rates up even higher.
Not being insured is not a good thing if you end up needing care. It also means that population that doesn't have insurance will return to the emergency rooms, unable to pay for their medical bills that cost will be passed on to the insured consumer.
And as the Tax Policy Center shows with the most recent available bill for analysis, more people by 2027 will be receiving a tax increase. Just like what the CBO says.
For all people, 31.3% of all tax units will receive a tax cut. 47.5% will receive a tax increase.
Only the top quintile will see more people with a tax decrease than will see a tax increase, 56.8% to 42.1%.
31.1% of the lowest quintile will see an increase, as opposed to 13.8 who will see a decrease. 53.7% of the second quintile will receive an increase, 62.2% of the middle quintile will increase, 54.2% of the fourth quintile will increase.
Perhaps I am reading this wrong. If so, please feel free to correct me as the table is not exactly the most self-explanatory in my opinion.
For all people, 31.3% of all tax units will receive a tax cut. 47.5% will receive a tax increase.
Only the top quintile will see more people with a tax decrease than will see a tax increase, 56.8% to 42.1%.
31.1% of the lowest quintile will see an increase, as opposed to 13.8 who will see a decrease. 53.7% of the second quintile will receive an increase, 62.2% of the middle quintile will increase, 54.2% of the fourth quintile will increase.
Perhaps I am reading this wrong. If so, please feel free to correct me as the table is not exactly the most self-explanatory in my opinion.
That is not a TAX INCREASE especially if you don't buy the insurance. Biased CBO is just trying to scare people. Obamacare costs are spiraling out of control on their own. Recall that the CBO projected that Obamacare would pay for itself (what a joke) due to a bunch of false assumptions.
And that's the biggest flaw of all. They automatically assume the cuts phase out and don't get renewed by Congress, and then they assume the hikes are going to be more than what they are.
The legislation isn’t perfect, but its critics aren’t telling the truth.
A Tax Policy Center analysis of the Senate bill reveals that three-quarters of all families would get a tax cut. Just 12 percent would see a tax increase — and they are concentrated among the rich. The average middle-income family would receive a tax cut of approximately $850 per year through 2025.
At that point, Congress would have to vote to extend most of the family tax cuts. This vote would probably be a formality, as a similar vote five years ago to extend the Bush tax cuts for middle-class families passed the Senate 89–8. There is no appetite in Congress to steeply raise middle-class taxes.
Even in the worst-case scenario, where the cuts fully expire, the typical middle-income family would receive a cumulative $7,000 tax cut in the early years, followed by a (roughly) $100 annual tax increase later. Still a good deal.
Here's more...
Reality Check: The Facts vs. the Left's Top Two Lies About Tax Reform
All these numbers, all these facts, from multiple sources, even the most liberal of the left, and they're all wrong. Your half assed graph, with zero data to back it up, where half of those in the red aren't even taxes payers is what you're going with?
Just like CBO's repeal Obamacare report, they assumed and reported that millions would lose insurance, but made no mention that they weren't actually losing insurance, but instead choosing to drop because there was no longer a mandate forcing them to purchase it.
And as the Tax Policy Center shows with the most recent available bill for analysis, more people by 2027 will be receiving a tax increase. Just like what the CBO says.
For all people, 31.3% of all tax units will receive a tax cut. 47.5% will receive a tax increase.
Only the top quintile will see more people with a tax decrease than will see a tax increase, 56.8% to 42.1%.
31.1% of the lowest quintile will see an increase, as opposed to 13.8 who will see a decrease. 53.7% of the second quintile will receive an increase, 62.2% of the middle quintile will increase, 54.2% of the fourth quintile will increase.
Perhaps I am reading this wrong. If so, please feel free to correct me as the table is not exactly the most self-explanatory in my opinion.
Of course taxes are going up if you only look at 2027 as all of the individual tax cuts expire in 2025. Nice spin. Here is the truth. The bottom 50% will continue to pay no income tax and they might even get a little refundable child tax credit if Sen. Rubio gets his way. This will continue past 2025. 98% of everyone else will get a tax cut until the end of 2025. In 2026, individual rates go back to where they are today. Congress will have to reauthorize them just like in the fiscal cliff deal a few years back. There is the increase that you are trying to sell.
yep..cuz the CBO is always right.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-trust-cbos-numbers
Can you prove the Tax Policy Center has been 100% accurate? And lol at linking an article where the second sentence says spin machine. Yeah, that's really going to be a trustworthy article
ANd come on, an article from 2001? That references CBO analysis from the 90s? I doubt any of them members of the CBO from the 1990s are still members of the CBO. WOuld be like blaming Joker Phillips for decisions Mark Stoops has made.
Last edited:
Can we just pin the DNC talking points each day to the top? It would save us all a lot of time and energy lol.
And even then it's not guaranteed. Tax policy will more than likely be revisited before '27 where the cuts will be renewed or adjusted, making the '27 phase out moot; or, if the time does come, Congress could easily vote to extend them.
Can you prove the Tax Policy Center has been 100% accurate? And lol at linking an article where the second sentence says spin machine. Yeah, that's really going to be a trustworthy article
ANd come on, an article from 2001? That references CBO analysis from the 90s?
yeah, the way that you show that something you are using to reference a topic of today is fake is to show where they have been wrong in the past.
i know its difficult for you to process. these teachings were probably found on your fathers half of netflix.
My guess is that Congress will vote to extend most of the cuts with the top bracket or two being held in question.
Can you prove the Tax Policy Center has been 100% accurate? And lol at linking an article where the second sentence says spin machine. Yeah, that's really going to be a trustworthy article
ANd come on, an article from 2001? That references CBO analysis from the 90s? I doubt any of them members of the CBO from the 1990s are still members of the CBO. WOuld be like blaming Joker Phillips for decisions Mark Stoops has made.
CBO estimated 22 million people would enroll in obamacare by 2016. they were only wrong by more than half.
Does one great big lie actually blind your base to the overall truth?
Last edited:
You support additional revenue coming from taxes on the wealthy being 100% over $5 million dollars. The Paddocks does not forget.
Says the expert from personal experience.
Lol at the Dems fury over allowing productive Americans to keep more of their own money.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." - Thomas Sowell.
"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." - Thomas Sowell.
So if someone is wrong in the past they are wrong on everything going forward? Interesting theory.
I don't have enough info about need neutrality to form an opinion. It's obviously a big deal.
Can anyone here educate me?
Can anyone here educate me?
did i say that?
or was i providing times they have been wrong to counter argue your pimping of the CBO having some perfect track record. in fact, i would wager they are wrong more often than not.
but you sure do like to twist words and do mental gymnastics to fit a point.
My problem with the tax cuts is not that people are getting more money, it's that they are not doing nearly enough cuts to spending to offset the decrease in tax dollars.
If you owned an apartment complex, and you decreased rent by $25 a month per unit, but you decreased spending by only $13 a month per unit, you are coming out a net of negative $12 per month. That's what this tax bill is doing, and it doesn't make sense.
the first 3 "lies"
JAN. 21 “I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)JAN. 21 “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)JAN. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.)
so, because you change positions its a lie to say your clairifed position?
oh no, 11 times instead of 14...thats a big one
theres no evidence that there WASNT illegals voting.
this is fricken ridiculous
JAN. 21 “I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)JAN. 21 “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)JAN. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.)
so, because you change positions its a lie to say your clairifed position?
oh no, 11 times instead of 14...thats a big one
theres no evidence that there WASNT illegals voting.
this is fricken ridiculous
Last edited:
The effects won't be immediate but there is absolutely nothing about repealing net neutrality that is going to benefit consumers.
Literally, the only people I have heard come out in support for repealing net neutrality are hard-line Rs who will support anything R leadership wants no matter what, ISP execs, and people who are ignorant about what net neutrality really is.
another "lie"
“Professional anarchists, thugs and paid protesters are proving the point of the millions of people who voted to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” (there is no evidence of paid protestors)
“Professional anarchists, thugs and paid protesters are proving the point of the millions of people who voted to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” (there is no evidence of paid protestors)
Similar threads
