Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "GOP's New Tax Plan Serves The Wealthy While Pretending Not To" video.

  1. Interesting to note, but that still doesn't prevent people from becoming wealthy.
    1
  2. Scott Ritchie, the idea of the tax code was to simplify it. That helps out the lower and middle class. Also, defense spending is only a drop in the bucket. Trump is cutting spending elsewhere and an idea of lower taxes is that the overall economy increases leading to more revenue. What is higher? 10% of 1000 or 50% of 100? Lower taxes does not necessarily mean lower revenue.
    1
  3. Scott Ritchie, look up defense spending as a percent of GDP. The US is not number one in the world. Defense spending is less than 20% of our government spending and less than 4% of our total GDP. The federal government spends more on healthcare and social welfare programs. In fact, at 1940 federal government spending was 14% of GDP, now it is 20%. Defense spending was 10% of GDP in 1960, now it is around 3%. The idea of cutting defense spending and increasing federal government spending that the left wants has been in place for over 50 years. As for "trickle down economics", that is not even an economic term. And there is more to the economy than just taxes.
    1
  4. Scott Ritchie, you have to look at the entire budget. "Obama doubled defense spending! " What? On pure dollars it was $696 billion in 2008, come 2015 it was $637 billion. That is a decrease.
    1
  5. When pushed Bernie admitted that he will have to raise taxes on everyone. Sorry, but intelligent, hard working people won't fall for that.
    1
  6. " I've seen poor and middle class people say that as long as you provide them the services they need then they didn't mind their taxes being raised" And I have seen the opposite, so what's your point? " Trump wants to raise taxes on the poor 2%" Not true at alll. "Oh no bernie would want to raise taxes by a flat 2.2% to pay for universal healthcare and he wants to increase taxes on anyone who makes over 250k a year. " When pushed in a corner in the debate against Cruz Bernie admitted he has to raise taxes on everyone, not just the rich. Cruz has shown that taking all of the rich's money will not pay for Bernie's plan so he will have to raise taxes on everyone. Bernie never denied that. When the individual from Denmark cornered Bernie Bernie admitted you have to raise all taxes on everyone.
    1
  7. NobleBird, other countries are not better off. You can look at the services they provide and see many shortcomings. You have to also deal with a difference of culture. Those countries are small in population. In the US we have 320+ million people and the vast majority of them will not accept higher taxes. Also, higher taxes does not necessarily mean more services. If no one is willing to work then you will get nothing.
    1
  8. Ever thought they were voting for their best interest? Why do you think you know what they want?
    1
  9. Jonathan, I thought you were "studying". I am still waiting for your peer reviewed papers dealing with healthcare. Remember, I gave you 5 and a book. You have me raw data on life expectancy and the CommonWealth Fund ranking which is not peer reviewed.
    1
  10. Jonathan, also, you are looking at states. Look at exit polling. People who are poor typically vote for democrats, people who have higher income typically vote for republican. Also http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls Jonathan, you are too easy.
    1
  11. Under Reagan we had very strong economic growth.
    1
  12. Tommy Knocker, FDR winning 4 times does not mean he was popular. How many times have the incumbent lost? And what were the reasons? FDR was elected during harsh economic times to make things better. Unless the entire country would have went into a civil war he was going to win no matter what. That still does not mean he was popular nor that he was great.
    1
  13. Tommy Knocker, fire departments are locally ran and funded. In some areas they are private and around 70% of volunteer.
    1
  14. Not always. There is more to it. For example, under Clinton we had a republican congress, now which branch controls the purse?
    1
  15. "guys we need to work with republicans. please stop demonizing them. Prove them wrong with facts and evidence." That is demonizing them. You assume that people who vote for republicans don't know facts or don't have evidence when in fact they do. I have seen many cases where republican voters have more than democrat voters, especially in these comment sections. Many of Kyle's viewers are calling out Kyle for being partisan on this tax bill which does help out many in the middle and lower class. Also, it goes beyond facts and evidence but how you interpret them. When you give facts out in a deceptive way that is not any better. Either you are lying or don't understand the issue yourself.
    1
  16. "So if you are a republican, you should enjoy my first comment about NOT demonizing you," Except you did. You said they don't know facts. You said you should "prove them wrong" which is you saying they are wrong from the very beginning. Ever thought that maybe you are wrong?
    1
  17. Radix, I agree. People on this page, and really the political left have become extreme. I noticed how Brenden did not list any facts in all of his comments. If he wants to "prove us wrong" with facts, he is doing a very poor job at it.
    1
  18. Sha Dow, I have a degree in physics, a degree in chemistry and a math minor. I am currently a doctoral candidate in physical chemistry. I lean right and vote for many republicans. I have friends who are in the same position. Apparently you feel that all we need are taxes and things magically appear. In reality it doesn't matter how much tax revenue you have, if there isn't anyone to produce than it won't be produced. That is why simply raising taxes does not generate wealth. It seems like you don't understand complex subjects.
    1
  19. They are around supporting this. This tax plan is what they voted for as it simplifies the code and lowers taxes. The only people who hate it are rich, corrupt democrats as they can no longer take advantage of the tax cuts.
    1
  20. Democrats are the real party of the rich. They push for higher taxes but give breaks to all of their rich buddies. Who ends up paying are the upper middle class through higher taxes and the middle class through higher prices. But it is OK, the government will give you a check in the end according to them. On thing Trump ran on was the idea that for decades the tax code has become more complex and the federal government grew. During that time the politicians and their buddies have become richer. Democrats are scared now as they have to now earn their money.
    1
  21. The bill is to make the tax code simpler. People are pointing at these deductions for the poor, now how many actually take advantage of it? I know college students who did not know that you can write off textbooks you buy. Here people earning less than a certain amount simply pay zero.
    1
  22. Jonathan, I thought your expertise was in healthcare, not taxes. Go back to studying being a "doctor". At this point I know you are a fake.
    1
  23. "Again this is mainly a huge tax benefit for the upper class, " They have been paying the most taxes for years. But again, this is to simplify the tax code. The tax code is too complicated and needs to be simplified. The complex tax code only favors the rich and intelligent. Those rich enough to hire accountants or those intelligent enough to know what to deduct.
    1
  24. ch33tos sesh, your understanding of economics is poor. The rich just don't keep the money, they invest it. Even if they save they save in banks and stocks which are invested. Also, what deregulation? I keep hearing that but I have yet to hear what kind.
    1
  25. " regulations set by the EPA will be eliminated" Such as? Also, I am talking about the past. People keep bringing up the past of "deregulation". What deregulation? Not now but in the past. "Or the regulation that allows consumers to file class action lawsuits against banks" We have that. What is your point? ". Or cutting funds to the CFPB! " It was redundant as we already had the Bureau of Consumer Protection. I see cutting funds to the CFPB as cutting an unnecessary program. "The proposed tax bill will cost $1.5 trillion" Based on what? "Also increased military spending of $80 billion annually. $80 billion could pay for tuition for public colleges!" 100% not true unless you restrict it. If the government were to fund college than colleges will increase prices as demand will go up but not supply. If not than college will lower quality. Something has to give.
    1
  26. State and local governments can handle the Great Lakes. I don't see an issue. " the cfpb" Is unnecessary. We have an agency that already exists we can use. " so you'd be ok with public college being tuition free as long as the government can "regulate" it?" I don't as I want the most people possible to have a chance for college. In other countries they restrict who can and cannot go to college to limit demand to keep prices low. Thus if you went to a bad high school or lack maturity as a child you will have a harder time getting into college. There are several things wrong with "tuition free college" and we can discuss them. But to think that it can be paid for with only $80 billion is simply not true unless you place strict limitations on who can attend and the overall price.
    1
  27. Scott Ritchie, that can be done at the state and local level. Plus, we already have laws against pollution. What is the point of having more on a particular lake?
    1
  28. Not every pays 15%. A lot of people get money back from the government.
    1