Democrats are in full attack mode against the success of the tax cuts
The media and other Democrats campaigned hard against the Trump tax cuts and tax reform plan. It is already clear from the first month that the law will be successful at allowing benefits and money to trickle down throughout the economy. So the success must be attacked. We see many stories about how not that many Americans are benefiting from the cuts to corporate taxes, that shareholders are getting too great a portion, that people in high-tax blue states may be getting hurt. The mantra is that the tax cuts are adding $1.5 trillion to the debt (they rarely point out that the $1.5 trillion is a wild guess over ten years.)
We know that the journalists and other Democrats never cared about the $10-trillion debt increase during Obama's eight years, and we saw that Durbin, Schumer, and other Democrats don't actually care about the deficit today when they voted for the new budget. They care about deficits only if they involve allowing people and businesses to keep more money they earn.
On Wednesday, Senate Democrats attacked the law, saying the money isn't trickling down to the people, but is instead being kept for shareholders.
Senate Democrats launched a new line of attack on the Republican tax plan Wednesday in a report showing [that] companies have announced $97.2 billion in share buybacks since the start of the year. That figure dwarfs a number that Republicans have been touting: $2.5 billion in bonuses that companies have announced in response to the new tax law.
If Democrats weren't so intent on misleading the public, they would put in their report everything the corporations are doing with the money instead of just cherry-picking stock buybacks, which will occur over several years. Many companies have announced new investments in the U.S because of the tax cuts, and those investments will course throughout the economy, which will help growth and create economic opportunities for people of all races and economic levels.
Why didn't they list $350 billion in Apple investment, the $50-billion Exxon investment, the $20-billion Chase investment, and all the others that have been announced? These investments, along with raises, bonuses, and increased benefits, will dwarf the buybacks, so why did they choose to leave them out?
Democrats like to portray corporations and shareholders as rich, and they believe that the government is entitled to a bigger rate of return than the investors who took all the risk, so I thought I would give some examples of these rich shareholders who are getting too much benefit:
The California Pension system, CALPERS, had a value of $326 billion, had 1.9 million members, and had $21.4 billion in payments in 2017.
The third largest pension system in N.Y. had $192 billion in assets, over 1 million members, and over $10 billion paid out in 2017.
In 2008, the largest pension funds in the U.S. had $6 trillion in assets. I am sure that the number is much higher today.
I think Democrats should go around the country telling government workers, teachers, and union members that they are rich shareholders and that the government deserves the money more than their pension funds. That should be a winning issue in elections.
It is inconceivable to me that Governor Brown of California, Governor Cuomo in N.Y., Democrats throughout the U.S., and even journalists don't understand that a higher rate of return on assets for corporations helps everyone. How could they not know that the higher profits will reduce the amount government needs to fund the pensions that taxpayers from this and future generations have to pay? Therefore, since they complain about corporations keeping too much, we have to believe that they would rather have higher taxes for everyone, especially the middle class to fund the pensions. Democrats should stop pretending they care about future generations when they advocate for bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.
We hear a lot about collusion today, but the biggest collusion is between and among Democrats and journalists to push the Democrat agenda. Whether it is illegal immigration, fake Russian collusion with Trump, global warming caused by humans, Obamacare, or the tax cuts and tax reform, the journalists just regurgitate Democrat talking points over and over again in an attempt to indoctrinate the public. No matter how many things in the talking points are proven false and how many predictions and projections are proven wrong, the same talking points are pushed, which makes most journalists worthless and dangerous to our freedom and prosperity. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/02/democrats_are_in_full_attack_mode_against_the_success_of_the_tax_cuts.html
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
Success of the tax cuts for the rich and filthy rich?
Working people got a tax break--I know, I am one of them.
Me too.
Me too.
'It is already clear from the first month that the law will be successful at allowing benefits and money to trickle down throughout the economy.'
Not clear at all. What benefits and money trickle down to the lower and middle class? NONE, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA. These tax cuts don't trickle down - they trickle up to the already rich and filthy rich. Does nothing for the middle and lower class.
I make about $65k a year. My last check went up about $90 bucks, so I am receiving a TAX BREAK.
I am not in the top 1% or even close to it. Is that money I got real, because my bank let me spend it just like it was real.
Never heard so many people bitch about paying less in taxes.
SMDH
Oh, it's real, this year but, it won't be there by the 2020 election. The tax cut that you received this year will end by the next general election, however, the tax cuts for the upper 1% and, corporations will continue.
Like how the Bush tax cuts expired---but only on about 10% of the people?
What politician do you know of who will go along with raising taxes in an election year?
Not by current law. My understanding is that it sunsets in ten years not two but that's really beside the point right now. Who knows what will happen between now and then so just enjoy it while you have it.
If some are so upset by the tax cut i encourage you to give the money saved back. After all, as many if you have said, it's just chicken feed right? So unless you are a chicken, i suggest you do the right thing and just give it back. I'm sure you'll feel much better about it if you do.
Mine is getting selfishly spent in a few weeks down at Spring Training and that ain't chicken feed or peanuts. Although i might buy some of those with it. Peanuts not chicken feed.
LOL, like I said above, I am retired, your taxes are paying my current wages through Social Security and, I thank you for that but, what I am trying to tell you is this, those tax cuts that you are enjoying right now, won't be there in a few years, unless of course we want to continue having trillions in debt and, people like Rand Paul have already said they don't want that. How do we get rid of that debt then? We raise taxes and, the people who fund the campaigns of the Republicans don't want theirs raised so, who gets the axe, the middle class and, the poor.
It has been this way since before my mother retired and, she retired in the seventy's, I paid her social security with my taxes at that time. The fact is the government has been borrowing money from social security since the sixties and, that has caused social security to run out of funds long ago so, when you pay social security taxes you are paying what people who receive it get in social security.
You are welcome. I see light at the end of the tunnel ..... it's only a pin-prick right now but its steadily growing in diameter.
Who knows where SS will be when i get there. One thing for sure, based on our governments mishandling of SS i'm not counting on it being what it would be today. I've been operating on the premise it will be little to nothing since i started in the workforce over 40 years ago. Unlike many who are counting on SS to be their ENTIRE retirement. Something it was NEVER intended to be.
Time will tell how this all plays out in relation to the Debt but i find it interesting that some on the left now find the Debt to be a bad thing. I recall many of them defending it during the Obama years. That said i agree the Debt needs to be reduced. Not only when a Republican is POTUS but also when a Democrat is POTUS. That knife cuts both ways for all Americans.
I have never said that the debt was a good thing and, I can't think of anyone on the left who thinks that, however, what we have defended against is the idea that the debt was all Obama's fault, the records show that this statement isn't true, the debt increased under George W. Bush and, continued under Obama for several reasons and, now it seems that it will increase under Trump so, the question is, should we blame the debt now on Republicans and, Trump since they are the ones involved in running the government and, control all three branches and, just voted to increase said debt through tax cuts and, the continuing resolution passed last night.
GM bud,
Yeah i suspect it will be there in some form but my premise was to not plan on it. I've been pretty successful in that regard through hard work, thrift and some luck.
Anything i get from SS will be icing on the cake. Unfortunately too many folks are counting on SS for their ENTIRE retirement. The amount the average American has saved for retirement is pitifully low. When that bill comes due it's going to get a little sporty that's for sure.
Lol, I never said you did but if you never heard that you weren't paying very good attention. That premise was pushed regularly on NV but i think you know that.
Again, i never said it was and don't recall anyone else saying that either. The fact that the debt went up on his watch is on him to some degree. He's not teflon. He does have responsibility for the bad things that happened under his watch as well as getting credit for any good.
I agree with your full statement 9MM but, I have to say that this part struck me as a point were you needed to point to yourself as well. You are celebrating the tax cuts like it is a good thing, it is, for you and, some others but, it is a bad thing for government spending, even without the new resolution passed last night it is a bad thing.
You know as well as I do, that we have a government that eats steak and, lobster every night as far as spending goes, yet, we have a budget that only allows for hamburger and, tuna.
Would you as a worker, take a pay cut and, still try to live high on the hog? Of course not, yet, that is what this current administration and, Congress thinks they can do.
LOL, tell that to the current 20 somethings that think they'll never get old and, retire.
It took me a little longer, I was out of the service when it finally struck me, my sister died and, I realized then that if she could "buy it" then I could too.
There are many things in your post that I like, however, I think that the tax cuts, as I've said before, are good for certain groups and, bad for others, some of those tax cuts aren't there permanently, they are temporary and, like milk, have an expiration date, yes, they can be continued but, the question is, will they be, what is the reason for them being temporary and, the corporations tax cuts being permanent? Why not switch it so that the middle class got the permanent tax cuts and, the corporations got the temporary ones? Politics and, donor money.
The military equipment is also an issue that I find to be a sore contention, yes, we need new equipment, all the time but, do we need to continue to use the old equipment? I remember when I was stationed around seeing equipment that dated back to Vietnam, that was in the '80's, Abrams sitting next to APC 113's, jeeps dating back to the Korean War sitting next to Hummer's, really? Let's not put another tax dollar towards keeping up old equipment and, let's not put another tax dollar towards jets that won't fly, even if they are new.
The electrical grid is ancient compared to most in the world, it is broken up over many parts of the country, New York's grid needs to be up dated and, needed to be up dated back in the sixties. The people who have upgraded their grids to include wind and, solar energy are starting to see the benefits to it, their electric company's are selling the excess energy to other areas and, the savings are coming back to the customers in rebates. So, why not continue with this idea and, expand it to the rest of the country? Trump continues to talk about "Beautiful, clean coal", there is nothing beautiful or, clean about coal and, mining it today destroys the land it is mined from.
Roads and, bridges we have today date back to at least Eisenhower's day, how did he build the current highway system, with tax dollars, how did we maintain it all this time, with tax dollars, he had the highest income tax rate of any president and, no one complained because they saw the results of those high taxes.
LOL, love it.
It was many years ago, her kids are all grown now and, they were toddlers then. Thanks though.
At the end of the Clinton Administration, we were on the verge of turning the corner and seeing the actual possibility to start to lower the total deficit.
Instead of continuing those policies, the first round of Bush tax cuts in 2001 & 2003 added approximately 3.5 trillion to the deficit
while giving back 39 billion in personal tax rebates.
Bush repeated this "strategy" in 2008, with another 1.35 trillion tax cut and rebate scheme....
and they increased military spending ...
and here we are...
Yeah, i've more or less decided i'm taking it as soon as i can. I WILL NOT wait for full benefits unless the markets really tank. And if that happens we'll have a lot bigger problems than worrying about retirement money.
Unfortunately for me, my health went south and, never returned so, I had to take it early, I was going to wait until I could get full benefits, guess it all worked out though, it's increasing as the years go by.
Honestly i don't think things have changed that much. Maybe it's a little worse with younger generations but i have friends my age and some family members for that matter that never had the discipline to save. And that is exactly what it takes. Discipline.
Spending only on absolute necessities when money is tight is a requirement but most of the folks i know who can't save at all will never make enough money. No matter what they make, they spend it. Money is like shit through a goose for them.
So some think people who manage to save a little are somehow responsible for others who don't?
Nope, don't think so.
Not what I'm saying but, take it how you see it.
Sorry to hear that, that sucks.
Hope i have the choice when the time comes
I didn't mean to say that YOU were but it certainly is in the discussion for some. One discussion being about coming after retirement plan wealth just sitting there doing nothing.
Politicians hate that. All that money just sitting there where they can't get their grubby hands on it.
Don't you know? That's why they want Dodd/Frank repealed. There was one other regulation that was repealed under Clinton I can't remember the name of now, old age I guess but, without these in place that money is available, it's what banks use to "bet" on certain things, it's what caused the great recession under Bush, not having these things in place. Banks and, stock brokers can use that money to make more money, for themselves, thus giving them money to fund campaigns, so yes, they are using your money to fund the crooks in Washington.
Interesting. And here i thought it was caused largely by lax lending standards/subprime lending and a massive real estate bubble among other things like the one you did mention .....
Those wouldn't have been possible without the repeal of Glass/Stiegel, damn, finally remembered it.
Not according to Krugman. As i recall he said that repeal was indeed a mistake but not the major cause of that recession. And Krugman rarely has a kind word for anything that can be blamed at least partially on Conservatives
Yeah, all smoke and mirrors....lol.
mostly spin and BS as Newt was gone from the House for two of those budgets.
and the truth lies somewhere in between.
Had Bush left well enough alone he probably would not only have continued to have balanced budgets but also lowered the deficit - but it just wasn't that important to him. Especially after 911.
My plan is to get to 67 before thinking about taking social security and to consider going for a retirement at age 70 or at least as much beyond 67 as I can do. Early retirement at 62 for me is 4.25 years away and I know I won’t be financially ready then.
When obama was President and democrats controlled everything they considered the confiscation of peoples IRA’s and 401k’s.
Its called giving the masses just enough to shut them up. Pretty simple really, you give them just enough so they don't complain while you take the lion's share. If I were extremely wealthy I would have been all about the tax cut too, and would be thrilled that you are so happy with your $90 while I get hundreds of thousands, if not millions. If $90 every couple of weeks is all that it takes to shut you up, then perfect, you are indeed cheap.
Except that the truly rich will be facing tax increases as they see limits on the deductibility of the interest on their mansion mortgages and when their deductions for state and local taxes are capped at 10k and their exposure is 10x that or more. The truly rich lose those shelters and pay more federal taxes as a result.
Sorry, the Trump tax cuts haven't even gone into effect yet.
Why would I save as much on taxes as someone who makes thousands more? Where is the sense in that?
Sorry, but everyone should know that when you file your taxes for 2018, the new rates will be in effect. That is why millions of working Americans are seeing their paychecks increase as we are allowed to keep more of what we earn.
Quoting Alex Jones or Ron Paul?
Neither is a good look on you.
I made 75.00 on Friday more than my pay two weeks prior. That times the 24 remaining pay periods this year is what I will benefit from the trump tax cuts up front.
I doubt that will ever really happen. If it does, there will be chaos in this country the like of which we have never seen. Pretty sure that even they understand that or at least i hope they do.
There ya go, now you can close this seed down and dream up your next "I hate democrats" article.
Comment removed for skirting the CoC. jwc2blue
If you didn't receive a tax break on your check, your payroll people might have dropped the ball and not switched to the new tax codes yet.
Nope - I got more money in my check also and I'm not bitching about it - my Payroll Department is competent. It's just a drop in the bucket as far as more money in my check. They have to appease us little folks somehow but like GMR said - that will not continue. The rich and filthy rich will still get their tax breaks.
Donald Rump at his white trash country club in Maralago - after he told everyone that he and the rich wouldn't benefit - told the white trash in Florida - that they'd all be a lot richer now.
Yup GMR - his pissing on the lower and middle class isn't gold - it's piss.
So you DID get a tax break, like virtually every working American.
And it makes you sad because?
Enjoy it while it lasts - that windfall!
Read my comment above to you Texan, I realize that right now the tax cuts look great but, for people in your tax bracket they are only temporary, they will end in 2020 the corporate tax cuts will continue, this is nothing but, Reaganomics 2.0 and, we all know that was a failure.
As far as my wages are concerned, I am retired now, I work at my pleasure, that is why I'm on here so often.
Democrats didn't do it.
Are they going to end in 2020 just like the Bush tax cuts ended?
You know politicians of both parties will be trying to extend these tax cuts. No one wants to raise taxes in election years.
No, because it won't last past the next general election.
Exactly.
Remember when $40 a check was GRAND, according to Pelosi?
Here:
Pelosi slams company bonuses as 'crumbs' despite once ...
www.foxnews.com/.../01/15/pelosi-slams...once-praising-40-tax-cut.html
Jan 15, 2018 · House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi slammed Thursday President Trump’s tax reform ... despite praising Obama-era $40 tax cut to workers as a ...
Great! It's National Pizza Day ... treat yourself and your family to a few loaded pizzas!
People better save any extra in their checks as they will need it to pay taxes next year instead of getting refunds.
Once the other privisions in the gop's bill come into fruition working folk are going to see their total taxes go up...
And, what about Rand Paul's hypocrisy last night.
Paul voted for the tax cuts and, now the Republicans are adding to the deficit. How do they plan on paying for all this stuff they just added on, middle class tax RAISES in 2020.
Gotta love when Liberal "Millionaire" Politicians tell you what you should "have" and how you should "think", as they trash millionaires outside the political spectrum for having the same millions. Did Miss "I'm Melting" Pelosi give her worker bee's a raise this year ?
I hear this Tax Break actually "Helps" the millionaire likes of her too.
Isn't that what politics are all about for the "Majority". I'll take it ANYDAY !
We all know....ONLY the Minority get Fixed for life.
Time to quit my business I guess.
You make the assumption that Trump will get another four years, never assume anything.
I said during the election that if people didn't take Trump seriously he would be in the White House. I saw the writing on the wall and, I remember, unlike some folks, Obama's win in 2008 over Hillary because, people didn't take him seriously and, thought it was "Hillary's turn".
Wrong.
Tell us what taxes will go up for each bracket.
It is also National Bagel Day.
They will not end in 2020.
The tax cuts that expire do so in 2025 not 2020. Bushs tax cuts were set to expire too but except for the then top 35% rate being raised back to 39.6%, all the rest was made permanent. They will all be made permanent by the expiration date.
And yet taxes will be raised this year on the rich through limits on their tax deductions and its rich liberal democrats and their political allies also rich democrats who are throwing a huge fit over it. And their tax increases are not in the temporary category.
During the time span between now and, the expiration date they will become less and, less until they are nothing. Currently what is being received won't even cover most peoples rent or, mortgage payment for a month by the time it gets to 2025 you won't be able to buy a dollar meal at McDonalds.
That's completely wrong. People will be paying less in taxes next year.
Where do you come up with this stuff from???
Borg central comand sends out a commuication they all get thru their implants and they spread the words like the good little drones they are.
Maybe they are communicating democrats intent should they win congress and the presidency in 2020 to end the GOP tax reform immediately and revert to higher taxes again.
I'm sure those that are offended, including the members here, will write out a check and send it back to the government to help pay down the debt becuase they are so upset at these tax cuts.
Nope, they'll just piss and moan about having a few dollars more to keep from what they earned.
Funny how Democrats are so worried over the expiration date of some tax cuts.
I guess they don't realize that the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, too, and how hard both parties worked to preserve something like 90% of them.
Surely Democrats aren't silly enough to vote against keeping taxes lower in an election year, are they?
What is odd is the gop's inability to admit the only recent President to manage a budget surplus was Democrat Bill Clinton...
Yep, and, Bill Clinton was the one who raised taxes on the 1% which is what gave us that surplus.
What these folks don't realize is, there can be tax cuts for the middle class and, tax raises for the ubber rich and, the government can function with a surplus. What the Republicans have done is supplied a temporary cut for the middle class to get them re-elected in 2018 and, 2020 and, then take away that cut when it is no longer needed to insure their re-elections. That is really sad.
OK, so I went to the conservative site you linked and, did what it said to do, I got as far as the treasury page and, looked for the link the article said was there and, didn't find it. I don't like Snipe hunts.
I did this part and, number two didn't exist. Snipe hunt.
Ok, I have a question.
Why does this site say that for the most part, public debt and, intragovernmental debt are unavailable. Also, I noticed that from 2001 on the debt increased over all and, was stable before that.
I wasn't against it either but, I put in qualifiers, one, it shouldn't last as long as Vietnam, two, there had to be real proof of who was involved, neither was met by the administration in one form or, another. Later I added that the cost of the war should be covered before engaging any enemy.
What is odder is that Democrats won't admit that it was because of a GOP Congress that Clinton had the numbers he had.
What is odder is that Democrats won't admit that it was because of a GOP Congress that Clinton had the numbers he had.
What's even odder is that I hear many Republicans trying to blame Clinton for the repeal of Glass/Steagall when it was authored by and supported by the majority of Republicans but signed by Clinton. You can't have it both ways. You can't give them credit without crediting Clinton for the balanced budget and surplus while trying to shirk all responsibility for the housing bubble and financial collapse.
Why not?
Isn't that what Democrats did during the market's highest days--credit it all to Obama policies, and then blamed Trump for when the market took a hit?
Not really. The tech boom and not being in foreign wars (See Iraq and Afghanistan) had more to do with it...
Bill Clinton keeps reminding the gop of today that, "Economics is just math". That goes over the gop's head.
Exactly. Clinton would never have tried to balance the budget if not for Gingrich and the GOP congress.
Yea, he did. Remember 2 weeks after bush took office, we all, every American got a refund check from the irs. That's because we had a surplus. Of course, bush took credit for it because he is a fucking moron.
More info?
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
FULL ANSWER
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the " Financial Report of the U.S. Government ," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
According to Newt ...... he keeps taking credit for 4 balanced budgets - even though he was out of office for the last two.....
Be that as it may, Bush had a fiduciary obligation to continue the balanced budget plan.
Instead, he cut taxes bt a trillion and issued 39 billion in rebates.
Then 911 came along and he forgot to put those expenses into the balanced budget equation.........
Then he had the brilliant idea of another $1.35 Trillion dollar tax cut in 2008 along with another round of rebates?
it was about 98.5% of tax payers who got the Bush tax cuts made permanent.
Nancy Pelosi talking about crumbs reminds me of that line about letting them eat cake.
After Mr. Reagans initial trickle down failed, I prepared myself and bought an umbrella. Long term, what will trickle down will be yellow (poor hydration I suppose) and it won't be sunshine.
The corporate rate should have been reduced, the rest of it was a gift to the wealthy and a bit of short term gratification for the masses. We have a twenty trillion dollar deficit, the tooth fairy isn't going to pay it down.
He didn't last time either.
You seem to be confusing what is deficit and what is debt.
Two different things.
I stand corrected, but you get the point.
But during Obama’s regime reign over us, democrats didn’t give a darn about deficits or raising the national debt from 10T to 20 T. The only time they care about the debt is to use it as a weapon to oppose tax cuts.
For myself it doesn't matter which party one cares to blame. The two items that rankle me are the staggering amount of the National debt which just continues to climb with no effort to reduce it and the outright hypocrisy on the part of the GOP, deficit hawks out of power, spend like the DEMs when they're in.
In truth neither party represents the best interests of the common citizen nor the Country. Sadly this is the pool we must choose from.
I disagree with the headline. Democrats are only using a class-warfare strategy at this point to attack the tax cuts. “Full attack mode” means racism and sexism along with class warfare........my guess is a 3-pronged strategy is planned for the midterms.
How many times do we have to go through the same cycle of Republicans fucking up the economy and Democrats fixing it, before these right wing shitheads finally catch on?