Trump 47

[JTOSU]

You were for a tax cut that increased debt. Claiming you are for something that doesn't exist (tax cut with spending offset) does not make it OK to be in favor of something that directly does what you are calling the biggest harm.

If I tell my college kid that it is OK to have a few beers but she needs to get an Uber home but she drives because she could not afford the Uber after the beers that is simply wrong. Saying you see debt as the major concern but advocating for a debt increasing tax cut because you would not have increased it if you could have is the same thing.

Debt is a concern for me and tax cuts to increase it are harmful. Period.

You keep trying to put words in my post that I never placed.
Sure, I absolutely want tax cuts. It is the people’s money. The government mismanages and spends money. Greed is ugly and we have a lot of citizens that are amazingly generous …with other peoples property. But get mad when it is their property.

You just posted that spending has increased over 1000%. There are myriad of opportunities to reduce spending. Which is a must. I will say it a third and final time. Yes I want tax cuts and corresponding spending decreases.

 

[steross]

You keep trying to put words in my post that I never placed.
Sure, I absolutely want tax cuts. It is the people’s money. The government mismanages and spends money. Greed is ugly and we have a lot of citizens that are amazingly generous …with other peoples property. But get mad when it is their property.

You just posted that spending has increased over 1000%. There are myriad of opportunities to reduce spending. Which is a must. I will say it a third and final time. Yes I want tax cuts and corresponding spending decreases.

It is your own words. CBO estimated a $10 T cost to the TC&J act. You have said you were in favor of that act. Have you changed your mind?

 

[JTOSU]

It is your own words. CBO estimated a $10 T cost to the TC&J act. You have said you were in favor of that act. Have you changed your mind?

I am strongly in favor of cuts to federal tax rates. In fact, I would rather see personal tax rates lowered even further.
And I want government spending cuts.

Not only have I not changed my mind. I have felt/thought this way ever since I first started being a taxpayer.

 

[steross]

I am strongly in favor of cuts to federal tax rates. In fact, I would rather see personal tax rates lowered even further.
And I want government spending cuts.

Not only have I not changed my mind. I have felt/thought this way ever since I first started being a taxpayer.

Then have a bit of intellectual honesty and say the truth. Tax cuts are what are important to you. The debt is not as important as tax cuts. Obvously shown by your support of tax cuts that increase debt.

Debt is a bigger issue to me than tax cuts. If they can cut taxes and at a minimum keep it budget neutral, go for it. But, if they cut current taxes while still spending then they are simply delaying taxes to future generations. I vehemently oppose that. You have already stated that you do not oppose that.

 

[JTOSU]

Then have a bit of intellectual honesty and say the truth. Tax cuts are what are important to you. The debt is not as important as tax cuts. Obvously shown by your support of tax cuts that increase debt.

Debt is a bigger issue to me than tax cuts. If they can cut taxes and at a minimum keep it budget neutral, go for it. But, if they cut current taxes while still spending then they are simply delaying taxes to future generations. I vehemently oppose that. You have already stated that you do not oppose that.

Hard to debate someone when they keep claiming I am saying/posting something I never have. You keep claiming I favor tax cuts and not government spending.
There was a discussion last week on the spending bill and nary a word about stopping/slowing/decreases spending. And for those claiming that debt is important….silence. Interesting how that works.

How about in the spirit of Christmas we put each other to our word — with the winner being Oklahoma State?
$100 charity challenge: You copy and paste where I posted that I was in favor of tax cuts without government spending. Should be simple to find since you stated “It is your own words”. Find and post and I will donate $100.
You are unable to find such a post —- you donate $100. Loser gets to choose which OSU charity receives the Christmas gift.

 

[steross]

Hard to debate someone when they keep claiming I am saying/posting something I never have. You keep claiming I favor tax cuts and not government spending.
There was a discussion last week on the spending bill and nary a word from you about stopping/slowing/decreases spending. And for those claiming that debt is important….silence. Interesting how that works.

How about in the spirit of Christmas we put each other to our word — with the winner being Oklahoma State?
$100 charity challenge: You copy and paste where I posted that I was in favor of tax cuts without government spending. Should be simple to find since you stated “It is your own words”. Find and post and I will donate $100.
You are unable to find such a post —- you donate $100. Loser gets to choose which OSU charity receives the Christmas gift.

If I thought that in any way you were an honest poster I would take that bet in a second. But, we both know I'd find the post where you state that you support the tax cuts and jobs act. We both know it was passed WITHOUT any provision to cut spending. THEREFORE, by supporting that act you would by definition be "in favor of tax cuts without government spending" cuts.

But, you would say something false and weasel your way out of it. Given that there is no external mechanism to make you keep your words, why would I trust someone who has shown himself to not be an intellectually honest debater?

The only way I'll do it is if a vote of the board chooses who is right.

 

[JTOSU]

If I thought that in any way you were an honest poster I would take that bet in a second. But, we both know I'd find the post where you state that you support the tax cuts and jobs act. We both know it was passed WITHOUT any provision to cut spending. THEREFORE, by supporting that act you would by definition be "in favor of tax cuts without government spending" cuts.

But, you would say something false and weasel your way out of it. Given that there is no external mechanism to make you keep your words, why would I trust someone who has shown himself to not be an intellectually honest debater?

The only way I'll do it is if a vote of the board chooses who is right.

That is a LOT of words to admit I was correct. And to back out of giving money to OSU.

BTW — the board had a big discussion about the spending bill last week. Since you claim to be such an advocate for the national debt issue —- did we miss your argument against the bill?

 

[Donnyboy]

The discussion about the spending bill had nothing to do with any spending because none of us…..nor the people voting on it knew what was in it. The discussion on the spending bill was two sides. Trump is bad Elon is president…..if we shut down the government the sky will fall…..if we pass the bill we’ll never be able to pay for it…..DOGE!!!

None of it had to do with the bill. That’s how they work. Keep us fussing about dumb stuff run up 36T in debt.

 

[steross]

That is a LOT of words to admit I was correct. And to back out of giving money to OSU.

BTW — the board had a big discussion about the spending bill last week. Since you claim to be such an advocate for the national debt issue —- did we miss you argument about the bill?

That is exactly what I am talking about. I did not "admit you are correct." I did not "back out" I explained how it would need to work. You are intellectually dishonest. Those were simple lies.

I work 55-60 hours a week. Do you think I read and react to every single thread on this board?
If you desire that I comment on something, link it and I might. If you think calling me out because there was some discussion on this message board that I missed is a big enough "gotcha" to state it to me twice, well, I'm sorry, but I am not the least bit concerned that I missed one discussion.

 

[steross]

The discussion about the spending bill had nothing to do with any spending because none of us…..nor the people voting on it knew what was in it. The discussion on the spending bill was two sides. Trump is bad Elon is president…..if we shut down the government the sky will fall…..if we pass the bill we’ll never be able to pay for it…..DOGE!!!

None of it had to do with the bill. That’s how they work. Keep us fussing about dumb stuff run up 36T in debt.

I honestly did not really see it, but I agree with you, I can't imagine a ton of headway is gonna be made trying to discuss 1500 pages of congressional puke in message format.

 

[cowboyinexile]

The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler) on Threads

WATCH: “Honor what everyone has said - to never forget.” Firefighter unions are upset after funding for a 9/11 health fund was stripped from the federal budget when Musk & Trump & Republicans killed the initial bipartisan bill.

www.threads.net