Here It Comes ... First Big Tax Cut for the Rich is on the Table ...

Sal wrote:... let's just "give them a chance" ...

Shortly after his nomination as Treasury Secretary was announced, Steven Mnuchin went on television to offer some tax-reform principles that would guide the new administration:

   "Any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

This appears to be false, at least if Republicans follow through on their plan to repeal-and-delay the ACA. Although the bill that’s under discussion would only gut the ACA in 2019, it would immediately cut taxes on the very rich.

How big is the tax break? According to CBO, the reconciliation bill that Republicans are using as a template would cut taxes by $623 billion over ten years. Of that, $123 billion would come from the repeal of the Medicare tax surcharge and $223 billion from the repeal of the tax on investment income.

That $346 billion represents about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every cent will go into the pockets of people making more than $200,000 per year—the “upper class” that Mnuchin says won’t be getting any tax cuts. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion of offsetting those cuts in the repeal-and-delay bill. Maybe offsets will come later, but you’ll forgive me for some skepticism.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rich-are-about-to-get-a-big-tax-cut/

othershoe1030 wrote:

Sal wrote:... let's just "give them a chance" ...

Shortly after his nomination as Treasury Secretary was announced, Steven Mnuchin went on television to offer some tax-reform principles that would guide the new administration:

   "Any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

This appears to be false, at least if Republicans follow through on their plan to repeal-and-delay the ACA. Although the bill that’s under discussion would only gut the ACA in 2019, it would immediately cut taxes on the very rich.

How big is the tax break? According to CBO, the reconciliation bill that Republicans are using as a template would cut taxes by $623 billion over ten years. Of that, $123 billion would come from the repeal of the Medicare tax surcharge and $223 billion from the repeal of the tax on investment income.

That $346 billion represents about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every cent will go into the pockets of people making more than $200,000 per year—the “upper class” that Mnuchin says won’t be getting any tax cuts. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion of offsetting those cuts in the repeal-and-delay bill. Maybe offsets will come later, but you’ll forgive me for some skepticism.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rich-are-about-to-get-a-big-tax-cut/

I am under the impression that putting their hands on cash is not a huge problem for the wealthy. They and their corporations are sitting on piles of money. "Trickle Down" does not work. So what point would there be in doing this other than just the enjoyment of seeing the rich get richer? How does this put the American Worker first? Rhetorical questions....

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Sal wrote:... let's just "give them a chance" ...

Shortly after his nomination as Treasury Secretary was announced, Steven Mnuchin went on television to offer some tax-reform principles that would guide the new administration:

   "Any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

This appears to be false, at least if Republicans follow through on their plan to repeal-and-delay the ACA. Although the bill that’s under discussion would only gut the ACA in 2019, it would immediately cut taxes on the very rich.

How big is the tax break? According to CBO, the reconciliation bill that Republicans are using as a template would cut taxes by $623 billion over ten years. Of that, $123 billion would come from the repeal of the Medicare tax surcharge and $223 billion from the repeal of the tax on investment income.

That $346 billion represents about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every cent will go into the pockets of people making more than $200,000 per year—the “upper class” that Mnuchin says won’t be getting any tax cuts. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion of offsetting those cuts in the repeal-and-delay bill. Maybe offsets will come later, but you’ll forgive me for some skepticism.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rich-are-about-to-get-a-big-tax-cut/

I am under the impression that putting their hands on cash is not a huge problem for the wealthy. They and their corporations are sitting on piles of money. "Trickle Down" does not work. So what point would there be in doing this other than just the enjoyment of seeing the rich get richer? How does this put the American Worker first? Rhetorical questions....

The rich have gotten far richer under the failed administration and economic policies of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama and the middle-income worker has remained static.

So explain to us all how that's working for you?

As you well know too, "Trickle Down" does work, see a quarter of a century of growth following the policies of former President Ronald Regan.

If you respond, instead of running, please explain Lame Duck President Obama being the first president in history who NEVER had even one single year with growth over 3%.

Is President Obama also not the President who has increased our DEBT by more than all 43 other presidents COMBINED.

How's that working out for us?

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Sal wrote:... let's just "give them a chance" ...

Shortly after his nomination as Treasury Secretary was announced, Steven Mnuchin went on television to offer some tax-reform principles that would guide the new administration:

   "Any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

This appears to be false, at least if Republicans follow through on their plan to repeal-and-delay the ACA. Although the bill that’s under discussion would only gut the ACA in 2019, it would immediately cut taxes on the very rich.

How big is the tax break? According to CBO, the reconciliation bill that Republicans are using as a template would cut taxes by $623 billion over ten years. Of that, $123 billion would come from the repeal of the Medicare tax surcharge and $223 billion from the repeal of the tax on investment income.

That $346 billion represents about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every cent will go into the pockets of people making more than $200,000 per year—the “upper class” that Mnuchin says won’t be getting any tax cuts. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion of offsetting those cuts in the repeal-and-delay bill. Maybe offsets will come later, but you’ll forgive me for some skepticism.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rich-are-about-to-get-a-big-tax-cut/

I am under the impression that putting their hands on cash is not a huge problem for the wealthy. They and their corporations are sitting on piles of money. "Trickle Down" does not work. So what point would there be in doing this other than just the enjoyment of seeing the rich get richer? How does this put the American Worker first? Rhetorical questions....

The rich have gotten far richer under the failed administration and economic policies of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama and the middle-income worker has remained static.

So explain to us all how that's working for you?

As you well know too, "Trickle Down" does work, see a quarter of a century of growth following the policies of former President Ronald Regan.

If you respond, instead of running, please explain Lame Duck President Obama being the first president in history who NEVER had even one single year with growth over 3%.

Is President Obama also not the President who has increased our DEBT by more than all 43 other presidents COMBINED.

How's that working out for us?

Vikingwoman wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Sal wrote:... let's just "give them a chance" ...

Shortly after his nomination as Treasury Secretary was announced, Steven Mnuchin went on television to offer some tax-reform principles that would guide the new administration:

   "Any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

This appears to be false, at least if Republicans follow through on their plan to repeal-and-delay the ACA. Although the bill that’s under discussion would only gut the ACA in 2019, it would immediately cut taxes on the very rich.

How big is the tax break? According to CBO, the reconciliation bill that Republicans are using as a template would cut taxes by $623 billion over ten years. Of that, $123 billion would come from the repeal of the Medicare tax surcharge and $223 billion from the repeal of the tax on investment income.

That $346 billion represents about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every cent will go into the pockets of people making more than $200,000 per year—the “upper class” that Mnuchin says won’t be getting any tax cuts. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion of offsetting those cuts in the repeal-and-delay bill. Maybe offsets will come later, but you’ll forgive me for some skepticism.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rich-are-about-to-get-a-big-tax-cut/

I am under the impression that putting their hands on cash is not a huge problem for the wealthy. They and their corporations are sitting on piles of money. "Trickle Down" does not work. So what point would there be in doing this other than just the enjoyment of seeing the rich get richer? How does this put the American Worker first? Rhetorical questions....

The rich have gotten far richer under the failed administration and economic policies of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama and the middle-income worker has remained static.

So explain to us all how that's working for you?

As you well know too, "Trickle Down" does work, see a quarter of a century of growth following the policies of former President Ronald Regan.

If you respond, instead of running, please explain Lame Duck President Obama being the first president in history who NEVER had even one single year with growth over 3%.

Is President Obama also not the President who has increased our DEBT by more than all 43 other presidents COMBINED.

How's that working out for us?

"And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

Markle wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Sal wrote:... let's just "give them a chance" ...

Shortly after his nomination as Treasury Secretary was announced, Steven Mnuchin went on television to offer some tax-reform principles that would guide the new administration:

   "Any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

This appears to be false, at least if Republicans follow through on their plan to repeal-and-delay the ACA. Although the bill that’s under discussion would only gut the ACA in 2019, it would immediately cut taxes on the very rich.

How big is the tax break? According to CBO, the reconciliation bill that Republicans are using as a template would cut taxes by $623 billion over ten years. Of that, $123 billion would come from the repeal of the Medicare tax surcharge and $223 billion from the repeal of the tax on investment income.

That $346 billion represents about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every cent will go into the pockets of people making more than $200,000 per year—the “upper class” that Mnuchin says won’t be getting any tax cuts. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion of offsetting those cuts in the repeal-and-delay bill. Maybe offsets will come later, but you’ll forgive me for some skepticism.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rich-are-about-to-get-a-big-tax-cut/

I am under the impression that putting their hands on cash is not a huge problem for the wealthy. They and their corporations are sitting on piles of money. "Trickle Down" does not work. So what point would there be in doing this other than just the enjoyment of seeing the rich get richer? How does this put the American Worker first? Rhetorical questions....

The rich have gotten far richer under the failed administration and economic policies of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama and the middle-income worker has remained static.

So explain to us all how that's working for you?

As you well know too, "Trickle Down" does work, see a quarter of a century of growth following the policies of former President Ronald Regan.

If you respond, instead of running, please explain Lame Duck President Obama being the first president in history who NEVER had even one single year with growth over 3%.

Is President Obama also not the President who has increased our DEBT by more than all 43 other presidents COMBINED.

How's that working out for us?

"And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

You may not have noticed, but this is 2016, not 2012.

I don't even have to go to the site to prove the error of your ways.

That's not even a cute try.  That was kind of pathetic.  The biased Factcheck information you cite is from FOUR YEARS AGO.  Try to catch up!

Telstar wrote:

Markle wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Sal wrote:... let's just "give them a chance" ...

Shortly after his nomination as Treasury Secretary was announced, Steven Mnuchin went on television to offer some tax-reform principles that would guide the new administration:

   "Any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

This appears to be false, at least if Republicans follow through on their plan to repeal-and-delay the ACA. Although the bill that’s under discussion would only gut the ACA in 2019, it would immediately cut taxes on the very rich.

How big is the tax break? According to CBO, the reconciliation bill that Republicans are using as a template would cut taxes by $623 billion over ten years. Of that, $123 billion would come from the repeal of the Medicare tax surcharge and $223 billion from the repeal of the tax on investment income.

That $346 billion represents about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every cent will go into the pockets of people making more than $200,000 per year—the “upper class” that Mnuchin says won’t be getting any tax cuts. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion of offsetting those cuts in the repeal-and-delay bill. Maybe offsets will come later, but you’ll forgive me for some skepticism.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rich-are-about-to-get-a-big-tax-cut/

I am under the impression that putting their hands on cash is not a huge problem for the wealthy. They and their corporations are sitting on piles of money. "Trickle Down" does not work. So what point would there be in doing this other than just the enjoyment of seeing the rich get richer? How does this put the American Worker first? Rhetorical questions....

The rich have gotten far richer under the failed administration and economic policies of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama and the middle-income worker has remained static.

So explain to us all how that's working for you?

As you well know too, "Trickle Down" does work, see a quarter of a century of growth following the policies of former President Ronald Regan.

If you respond, instead of running, please explain Lame Duck President Obama being the first president in history who NEVER had even one single year with growth over 3%.

Is President Obama also not the President who has increased our DEBT by more than all 43 other presidents COMBINED.

How's that working out for us?

"And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

You may not have noticed, but this is 2016, not 2012.

I don't even have to go to the site to prove the error of your ways.

That's not even a cute try.  That was kind of pathetic.  The biased Factcheck information you cite is from FOUR YEARS AGO.  Try to catch up!

Except for gross violations, which SOME have done here with no hint of even a slap on the wrist, I would encourage posts with opinions other than mine.

Markle wrote:

Telstar wrote:

Markle wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Sal wrote:... let's just "give them a chance" ...

Shortly after his nomination as Treasury Secretary was announced, Steven Mnuchin went on television to offer some tax-reform principles that would guide the new administration:

   "Any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

This appears to be false, at least if Republicans follow through on their plan to repeal-and-delay the ACA. Although the bill that’s under discussion would only gut the ACA in 2019, it would immediately cut taxes on the very rich.

How big is the tax break? According to CBO, the reconciliation bill that Republicans are using as a template would cut taxes by $623 billion over ten years. Of that, $123 billion would come from the repeal of the Medicare tax surcharge and $223 billion from the repeal of the tax on investment income.

That $346 billion represents about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every cent will go into the pockets of people making more than $200,000 per year—the “upper class” that Mnuchin says won’t be getting any tax cuts. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion of offsetting those cuts in the repeal-and-delay bill. Maybe offsets will come later, but you’ll forgive me for some skepticism.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rich-are-about-to-get-a-big-tax-cut/

I am under the impression that putting their hands on cash is not a huge problem for the wealthy. They and their corporations are sitting on piles of money. "Trickle Down" does not work. So what point would there be in doing this other than just the enjoyment of seeing the rich get richer? How does this put the American Worker first? Rhetorical questions....

The rich have gotten far richer under the failed administration and economic policies of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama and the middle-income worker has remained static.

So explain to us all how that's working for you?

As you well know too, "Trickle Down" does work, see a quarter of a century of growth following the policies of former President Ronald Regan.

If you respond, instead of running, please explain Lame Duck President Obama being the first president in history who NEVER had even one single year with growth over 3%.

Is President Obama also not the President who has increased our DEBT by more than all 43 other presidents COMBINED.

How's that working out for us?

"And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

You may not have noticed, but this is 2016, not 2012.

I don't even have to go to the site to prove the error of your ways.

That's not even a cute try.  That was kind of pathetic.  The biased Factcheck information you cite is from FOUR YEARS AGO.  Try to catch up!

Except for gross violations, which SOME have done here with no hint of even a slap on the wrist, I would encourage posts with opinions other than mine.

Markle wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Sal wrote:... let's just "give them a chance" ...

Shortly after his nomination as Treasury Secretary was announced, Steven Mnuchin went on television to offer some tax-reform principles that would guide the new administration:

   "Any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

This appears to be false, at least if Republicans follow through on their plan to repeal-and-delay the ACA. Although the bill that’s under discussion would only gut the ACA in 2019, it would immediately cut taxes on the very rich.

How big is the tax break? According to CBO, the reconciliation bill that Republicans are using as a template would cut taxes by $623 billion over ten years. Of that, $123 billion would come from the repeal of the Medicare tax surcharge and $223 billion from the repeal of the tax on investment income.

That $346 billion represents about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every cent will go into the pockets of people making more than $200,000 per year—the “upper class” that Mnuchin says won’t be getting any tax cuts. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion of offsetting those cuts in the repeal-and-delay bill. Maybe offsets will come later, but you’ll forgive me for some skepticism.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rich-are-about-to-get-a-big-tax-cut/

I am under the impression that putting their hands on cash is not a huge problem for the wealthy. They and their corporations are sitting on piles of money. "Trickle Down" does not work. So what point would there be in doing this other than just the enjoyment of seeing the rich get richer? How does this put the American Worker first? Rhetorical questions....

The rich have gotten far richer under the failed administration and economic policies of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama and the middle-income worker has remained static.

So explain to us all how that's working for you?

As you well know too, "Trickle Down" does work, see a quarter of a century of growth following the policies of former President Ronald Regan.

If you respond, instead of running, please explain Lame Duck President Obama being the first president in history who NEVER had even one single year with growth over 3%.

Is President Obama also not the President who has increased our DEBT by more than all 43 other presidents COMBINED.

How's that working out for us?

"And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

You may not have noticed, but this is 2016, not 2012.

I don't even have to go to the site to prove the error of your ways.

That's not even a cute try.  That was kind of pathetic.  The biased Factcheck information you cite is from FOUR YEARS AGO.  Try to catch up!

Vikingwoman wrote:

Markle wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Sal wrote:... let's just "give them a chance" ...

Shortly after his nomination as Treasury Secretary was announced, Steven Mnuchin went on television to offer some tax-reform principles that would guide the new administration:

   "Any reductions we have in upper income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. There will be a big tax cut for the middle class, but any tax cuts we have for the upper class will be offset by less deductions that pay for it."

This appears to be false, at least if Republicans follow through on their plan to repeal-and-delay the ACA. Although the bill that’s under discussion would only gut the ACA in 2019, it would immediately cut taxes on the very rich.

How big is the tax break? According to CBO, the reconciliation bill that Republicans are using as a template would cut taxes by $623 billion over ten years. Of that, $123 billion would come from the repeal of the Medicare tax surcharge and $223 billion from the repeal of the tax on investment income.

That $346 billion represents about $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Every cent will go into the pockets of people making more than $200,000 per year—the “upper class” that Mnuchin says won’t be getting any tax cuts. To my knowledge, there has been no discussion of offsetting those cuts in the repeal-and-delay bill. Maybe offsets will come later, but you’ll forgive me for some skepticism.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-rich-are-about-to-get-a-big-tax-cut/

I am under the impression that putting their hands on cash is not a huge problem for the wealthy. They and their corporations are sitting on piles of money. "Trickle Down" does not work. So what point would there be in doing this other than just the enjoyment of seeing the rich get richer? How does this put the American Worker first? Rhetorical questions....

The rich have gotten far richer under the failed administration and economic policies of Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama and the middle-income worker has remained static.

So explain to us all how that's working for you?

As you well know too, "Trickle Down" does work, see a quarter of a century of growth following the policies of former President Ronald Regan.

If you respond, instead of running, please explain Lame Duck President Obama being the first president in history who NEVER had even one single year with growth over 3%.

Is President Obama also not the President who has increased our DEBT by more than all 43 other presidents COMBINED.

How's that working out for us?

"And it’s also untrue — as claimed in a graphic widely circulated by email and in social media postings — that the debt has increased more under Obama than under all previous 43 presidents combined. In fact, as of Jan. 31, 2012, the rise under Obama had yet to surpass the rise under his predecessor, George W. Bush."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

You may not have noticed, but this is 2016, not 2012.

I don't even have to go to the site to prove the error of your ways.

That's not even a cute try.  That was kind of pathetic.  The biased Factcheck information you cite is from FOUR YEARS AGO.  Try to catch up!

"
So while Obama does bear some responsibility for the debt accumulation on his watch, he certainly doesn’t deserve sole responsibility. Bush’s own party played a role, too, as did the inevitable grind of demographic trends.

• Any president today would be in much the same situation. Another type of inevitable grind -- inflation -- is worth factoring in as well. Every year, inflation puts an upward pressure on the scale of the debt. Inflation "erodes the numbers and makes them a bit meaningless," Goldwein said.

For a comparison, let’s take a look at Obama’s predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush -- a Republican, and Jeb Bush’s brother.

The Debt to the Penny calculator doesn’t offer daily tallies for publicly held debt around the time of Bush’s inauguration, but it does offer daily data for gross federal debt, so we’ll use that.

When Bush came into office on Jan. 20, 2001, the gross federal debt stood at $5.73 trillion. At the end of Bush’s term eight years later, the debt had risen to $10.63 trillion -- an increase on Bush’s watch of $4.9 trillion. That’s not quite equal to what his 42 presidential predecessors accumulated, but it’s 86 percent of the way there.

That increase under Bush is a little smaller than the expected increase during Obama’s full tenure -- 89 percent -- but it’s not off by much."

There forum liar. You never tell the truth about ANYTHING!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/18/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-says-barack-obama-will-add-more-debt-all-/

Tellthetruth wrote:The middle class tax cut will take place when Obamacare is repealed.

2seaoat wrote:too funny......trickle down worked......so for somebody who probably never took an economics course, how do you reconcile the income disparity since President Reagan, and the absence of growth of the median income index.   You just lie, and do not have the training or intelligence to comprehend why it is a lie.

2seaoat wrote:too funny......trickle down worked......so for somebody who probably never took an economics course, how do you reconcile the income disparity since President Reagan, and the absence of growth of the median income index.   You just lie, and do not have the training or intelligence to comprehend why it is a lie.