Thank you it is exactly right. https://galeoimpactfund.org/2022/10...er-under-democratic-vs-republican-leadership/ it is not even close......to be honest...... DD
Yea deceiving liberal numbers, like the economy is good right now, people are making 100k a year, but its costing 'em 110k to live. Lol
What's causing that? Do you really think it's the president? Which party do you think would fight harder against the forces making it harder to earn a living wage?
What a snappy, fact filled comeback.....dont let the facts cloud your judgement my friend, I have noticed that no matter what thread you respond to, you are All hat and no cattle Stock market returns [edit] Stock market returns are also higher under Democratic presidents.[21] CNN reported in September 2020 that: “Since 1945, the S&P 500 has averaged an annual gain of 11.2% during years when Democrats controlled the White House, according to CFRA Research. That's well ahead of the 6.9% average gain under Republicans.”[3] Analysis conducted by S&P Capital IQ in 2016 found similar results since 1901.[22] Blinder and Watson estimated that the S&P 500 returned 8.4% annually on average under Democrats, versus 2.7% under Republicans, a difference of 5.7% percentage points. This computation used the average value in last year of the president's term, minus the average value in last year of previous term.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._... Times reported,2.4 percent under Republicans...
Republican House speaker floats deregulation, tax cuts — not tariffs — to pay for Trump proposals Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said Donald Trump can pay for his presidential campaign’s economic proposals by rolling back regulations and expanding tax cuts to stimulate growth. Trump’s policy proposals so far could add at least $5.8 trillion to the federal deficit over the next ten years, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Trump has proposed paying for his plans with a hardline tariff on all imports, with an especially high rate for Chinese imports. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday said former President Donald Trump could pay for his presidential campaign’s economic proposals by rolling back corporate regulation and expanding tax cuts to stimulate growth. “You have to bring about a pro-growth economy, and you do that with a combination of aggressive use of the tax code and reduction in government regulation,” the Louisiana lawmaker said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” “If you get Republican leadership in the White House, the Senate and the House, unified government, we will put this thing on turbo. You will see massive regulatory reform,” he said. Trump has proposed making his 2017 tax cuts permanent and further lowering the corporate tax rate, as well as wholly eliminating federal income taxes on worker tips, overtime pay and Social Security benefits. An August study from the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model found that Trump’s policy proposals could add an estimated $5.8 trillion to the federal deficit over the next ten years. That figure did not include Trump’s Sept. 12 proposal to exempt overtime pay from federal income taxes. If applied only to pay that is currently designated as overtime, the proposal would add an estimated $866 billion to the total cost of Trump’s proposals over the next decade, according to an analysis from the Yale Budget Lab. A tax exemption for all hours worked over 40 hours per week would cost an estimated $1.3 trillion over 10 years. On Tuesday, the Republican presidential nominee also floated reestablishing the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, which he capped during his first term. Johnson on Wednesday said he agreed with all of Trump’s proposals. Paying for them, he said, would come down to a combination of corporate tax cuts, deregulation and energy policy to get “the economy humming.” Trump, however, has repeatedly said he wants to pay for his plans with the proceeds from hardline tariffs on all imports, with an especially high rate for Chinese imports. During his debate against Vice President Kamala Harris last Tuesday, Trump touted the “billions and billions of dollars” in revenue generated by his first-term tariffs, which nearly triggered a trade war with China. Jonson made no mention of tariffs as a potential revenue source Wednesday. The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment about Johnson’s suggestions for how to pay for Trump’s proposed tax cuts. Rest: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/18/spe...p-corporate-deregulation-harris-election.html
Cool I understand but you can't go by the numbers because the cost of living has been high, so people are forced to make money (hence the numbers) but they're barley keeping any. Its better to be making 50k with the cost of living around 40k, than to be making 100k with the cost of living being equal to it. Thats all. Biden has better numbers than Trump, but we all know in reality (until corona happened), life was better under Trump/Republicans.
Everything is fake news am I right?! You have droves of people who used to work for Trump saying he's unfit yet do you care? That's on top of blatant lies and legal issues...
Not necessarily, but the economy was better under Trump (when you include the cost of living). I was alive Lol
You just restated what you said the first time. What do you think is the reason that cost of living has increased more than income?
Many reasons, one of them is Biden being weak n letting Russia invade Ukraine n now we're 100B+ deep because of his weakness
I don't feel sorry for anyone stupid enough to invest in the snake oil salesman Trump ventures. Trump Media stock closes at new postmerger low on eve of ‘lockup’ expiration Shares of Truth Social owner Trump Media ended the day at new lows on the eve of the expiration of “lockup” restrictions, which bar company insiders such as majority shareholder Donald Trump from selling their stakes. Shares fell 3.22% to close the trading day at $15.62 a share. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/18/djt-trump-media-slips-merger-lockup.html
Can you tell me how used Abrhams tanks can reduce the cost of living in America? Do you understand almost 100% of aid that goes to Ukraine is existing DOD weapons and equipment most of which would be going to local police departments as surplus if unused. I really don't know how having tanks and munitions sitting around reduces the cost of living. If you are worried about Ukraine spending affecting any domestic issues you aren't having a serious discussion. You are making cost of living into a hole discussion at that point. This also applies to Israel. Aid to Israel isn't really effecting domestic spending in any meaningful way. I'm against giving aid to Israel because I don't want my tax dollars funding a genocide.
Our taxes have not gone up. Please tell me, in detail, how aid to Ukraine has effected the lives in Americans.
