Which part of that quote is a lie?
The lie, specifically, is that the law would result in tax increases for 100M americans.
Are these taxes rate changes temporary for what is now considered middle income? Yes and this was done on purpose by the Congress and nobody denies it. So, again, where is the lie?
There are lies of omission and lies of commission. To claim this will result in tax increases for 100M americans ignores actual reality.
You then state this is an idea Democrats were “for” before they were “against.” Please provide Congressional sources only for our consideration.
Republicans Use Past Democratic Tax Proposals as Ammo
Senate Republicans have a new strategy to attack Democrats on a still developing tax measure: using past legislation…
Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer Says Top Priority for Next Year Is Giant Corporate Tax Cut
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, likely to be majority leader next year if Democrats take back the Senate, told CNBC…
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, likely to be majority leader next year if Democrats take back the Senate, told CNBC Tuesday that one of his top two 2017 priorities would be an enormous corporate tax cut.
Speaking of himself in the third person, Schumer said that “we’ve got to get things done. … The two things that come, that pop to mind — because Schumer, Clinton, and Ryan have all said they support these — are immigration and some kind of international tax reform tied to a large infrastructure program.”
You then admit or seem to admit that these tax changes will not raise wages or lead to increased jobs. But this is rational for these changes put forth by the President and the Congressional leadership. Is that not then a lie?
There have been multiple rationales. As we’ve already seen, some corporations have raised wages as a result of these cuts. But BY FAR, the core benefit of these cuts is to lower taxes on the part of the economy which *traditionally* is the engine of job growth in this country, and that is the small to medium sized business sectors and entrepeneurial sectors.
Finally, you state that the monies will be used for stock buy backs and there is nothing wrong with that.
There isn’t. There are two groups that benefit from stock buybacks. One are rich people heavily invested in stocks, and the second are pensioners — — state and local pensions are under *severe* stress (that’s well documented, but I assume you know that) and continued growth in equity prices removes some of the stress that could, in the future, cause some state and city pensions to default, creating a rather remarkable situation where retired public servants end up getting a fraction of their promised pensions.
I assume you think that would be bad. I certainly do.
Given all that we could do collectively with the revenue lost (air traffic control modernization, advanced research, highway repair) please tell us what the benefit of stock buybacks to the nation at large is. Thank you.