That's great and all but my point was that you(and others) went straight after the guy proposing this instead of the proposal itself. I'm sorry if you can't handle that being pointed out to you...Originally posted by: Craig234
Try to work on your reading comprehension - the point you're missing is that I didn't say not to look at the details, I said not to trust the numbers supplied with the sales pitch.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, so instead of the actual details, we need to look at the (R) or (D) at the end of their name? Wow, hackery at it's finest(worst).Originally posted by: Craig234
Did you have a point? I don't trust any of the numbers the plans are sold with, the bottom line is that they're going to shift taxes off the wealthy, whatever the sales pitch says.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Right... because lowering taxes by only $5K/25%+ for the 100K guy is shifting the burden to him from the guy who got his lowered by $100K/18% (numbers estimated). Boy you people really don't have a clue do you. Do you live in a raw numbers world? No - no you don't. So it is intellectually dishonest to use them as shock value and try to compare $5K to $100K reduction in raw values.
Similarly, remember the administration's numbers with the Medicare drug benefit, where they had to threaten the person who had the actual figures to hide them from Congress?
Similarly, remember the administration's numbers with the Iraq war that 'would pay for itself', that might cost tens of billions?
Similarly, remember the administration's numbers that they would not skyrocket the deficit with their tax cuts for the rich, they were just returning surplus?
My point that the (R) after the tax bill tells you a lot about how the plan will shift taxes off the wealthy is a different point, which you have not begun to prove wrong.