On 10/24/2017 9:28 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 11:19:08 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2017 4:55 PM, wrote:

Can you imagine what I feel like standing in line at the grocery store when a lady with two children has to pay $15 for a SMALL package of hamburger meat?

Hmm. I just checked the package of lean ground beef we bought two days
ago. 1.2 pounds, $7.66. I hope her small package was at least two pounds
of meat.

So you have two kids and are going to live on 1.2 lbs of hamburger meat for a month until the next welfare check. Or for two weeks until the next minimum wage check. You always show such compassion for people other than yourself. I suppose that's why you spent 1/2% over "the average charitable donations".

What do you suppose Frank or Jay do around these people?

Hmm. Tell her to shop at a less expensive store?

And as usual you do not remember that I shop at the cheapest place in town. Unless you want to shop at a Mexican market where people are getting rotten mean and vegetables that the FDA is banning because of insecticide contamination.

Or I could adopt the right wing strategy: tell those out of work that
eventually, prosperity will "trickle down" to their recently-laid-off
level, if we give tax breaks to the corporate heads who make big bucks
by laying them off.

But in actual fact, I give more than the national average to charity,
and that's just the documented amount for which I have receipts. Some of
my recent donations to hurricane relief, etc. were just cash, no receipt.

Do you means like it did for John F. Kennedy's tax cuts? Or Reagan's tax cuts? In both of those cases the average income of working people rose substantially.But you couldn't care less could you?

Someone sent me an interview of Cal students. To a man they considered Trump's tax plan as being diabolical and anti-poor. They then explained each stipulation of the tax plan and assigned them to Bernie Sanders and again to the last man they thought it brilliant. You and Jay in action.

And no I'm not going to give you a link. I'm not doing the work of an ass. Too bad you're not running for public office. I would LOVE to print this conversation in your local paper's letters to the editor so people can see you for what you are.

I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing I said was incorrect or even controversial.

Now this may be controversial: estimates are that the tax plan will reduce federal revenue between $4.4T and $5.9T. No new revenue sources have been identified. What usually happens with giant tax cuts is that they get reversed in part (Reagan/Bush) to fill the massive revenue shortfall, and the people filling the shortfall are those with the least clout -- ordinary tax-payers. So what will happen is that the standard deduction/personal exemptions will be rolled back and marginal rates may creep up again. The corporate rate would undoubtedly stay the same. The biggest winners would continue to win. I've itemized for decades, and the planned changes would probably mean a tax increase for me (even with the elimination of the AMT) -- but I haven't seen actual proposed code sections, so who knows.

Reagan filled the revenue gap in part by phasing out certain deductions for the wealthy. That wouldn't happen today. Reagan couldn't get elected today and would be considered a back-stabbing RINO. What happens these daysy is that the little(r) guy carries the load.

Doesn't every system depend on screwing the little guy?
There are just more of us, targets of every scheme.

an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971