Depends upon the original source, if there is one. May as well go to the source and avoid any potential discrepancy.
Now THERE’S an opinion, albeit an unsubstantiated one.
This is a legitimate concern, but it is too early to tell. You may end up being right about this, or you may end up being wrong. OR, you may end up being right, but the benefit to corporations will be good enough for our overall economy that most people won’t care that they got 90% of the cut. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong about your percentages, the cut for the middle class could very well be higher than Obama’s cut with or without the Making Work Pay credit factored in. Until you have numbers saying one or the other, your claims are baseless.
Like the tax cuts during the last admin. Here you are again using the argument that TEMPORARY somehow makes them lesser than even though Obama’s cuts were temporary too.
Are you saying there are more people that got an increase than stayed the same? Are you distinguishing between whether these people are middle class or upper class?
1 Like
OK so every time you make a claim I’ll just dismiss it as opinion unless you provide the original source, if there is one. You know to avoid discrepancy
.
4 Likes
Indeed, a proper use of Hitchen’s Razor:
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Or you can just stop reading and replying to JoeFriday in this thread, as I have.
6 Likes
It’s not a “concern”, it’s a fact.
Not mathematically.
Already gave it to you.
False, no matter how many times you make the false claim.
Helps if you actually read what others post.
Do whatever you like.
The head of Wikipedia self-described it as opinion. Can’t get any more sourced than that.
"The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that the tax-cut law, never broadly popular, has sagged in public esteem lately. Just 27 percent of Americans call it a good idea, down from 30 percent in January.
Moreover, a majority gives thumbs-down on the plan when asked to consider its potential effects. Just 39 percent foresee a positive impact from a stronger economy, more jobs and more money in their pockets; 53 percent foresee a negative impact from higher deficits and disproportionate benefits for the wealthy and big corporations."
OUCH.
Original source?
2 Likes
Forgive me for not combing through 1188 posts, but I don’t remember seeing you post a link that said $XXX billion of Obama’s $288 billion went to the middle class and $XXX billion of Trump’s $1.5 trillion is going to go to the middle class. If you did and I missed it, I apologize. Feel free to post it again and I will look and see if I agree with that analysis.
Also, don’t forget that anything posted about Trump’s tax cut will be estimates. We won’t know how the middle class did in 2018 until after this time next year. And of course, the $1.5 billion number isn’t a 1 year figure. So, while I will grant you your point if you can show estimates that support it, I will continue to point out that we won’t know the full effects of these tax cuts until after 2027 and they are either replaced or just allowed to expire. That was the point of my comment when I said, “it is too early to tell,” which you left off when quoting me. It was the crux of that sentence, yet you only focused on what preceded it.
You always get upset when I misinterpret what you are saying, yet when I ask for clarification, you reply like this. Why should we respond to you if you won’t even clarify your points when we ask?
1 Like
Jimmy Wales has said a lot about wikipedia. It’s quite disingenuous of you to claim that he simply describes it as “opinion” with absolutely no other context, don’t you think? I mean, I get that you’re trying to argue with jerosen, but you really show how poorly you are able to prove your point when you twist someone’s words to claim they said something that isn’t even remotely close to their overall viewpoint. Claiming Jimmy Wales describes wikipedia as “opinion” is like claiming Steve Jobs describes the iphone as a “camera.”
2 Likes
Jimmy Wales various interviews.
What does it have to do with what “the Middle-class did in 2018” ? The costs are in regards to the legislation enacted, not what the Middle-class does.
That’s utter nonsense.
Ah, because I’ve posted Umpteen times that I was contrasting the Middle-class tax cuts as part of the stimulus bill (that were not temporary) versus the part of the recent GOP tax bill that went to the Middle-class. Yet you posted this ridiculous question:
“Are you distinguishing between whether these people are middle class or upper class?”
Why would you require further clarification ?
Again, you’re either not reading what others post, or you’re simply trolling. Either way, you’re making yourself look foolish.
Not at all.
Obviously you haven’t seen his various interviews.
The costs and how much will go to the middle class are ESTIMATES. IT HASN’T HAPPENED YET. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Why is this the part of my post that you focus on? Since you ignored my request to post the link describing how the CBO or some other organization has estimated what you are claiming, I assume you focus on my point about estimates because you don’t have the sources you claim you have.
I will boil my question down to a specific word in your claim. My question was in regards to this sentence you wrote:
Millions more than what? Millions more than people that are getting nothing (your prior sentence)? Or millions more generally speaking?
The part of my question about distinguishing between upper and middle class was in reference to the fact that a large portion of people getting a tax increase are NOT middle class. And since you have been talking about the middle class this whole time (which you just reiterated), I was wondering if you were trying to include these upper class folks in your “millions more are getting a tax increase” claim.
Nope. I’ve only read articles. Care to post links of his interviews where he claims wikipedia is opinion with context surrounding that indicate he doesn’t believe it should be used as a crowd sourced encyclopedia?
…That’s not a source. He never said what you’re saying he said.
That would be news to all the Republicans running around telling everyone how grateful they should be about all the money they supposedly are already getting in their pay checks because of their tax bill.
Because it’s stupendously wrong.
You keep repeatedly making this false claim. I’m aware you wish it to be true, but it simply is not. Likely, Tinker Bell sez it’s because you’re not clapping loud enough.
Then you know not what you’re posting about, eh ?
What links ? I watched the interviews (one I listened to).
He IS the source.
Of course he did.
~ He admitted there are lots of Wikipedia editors that are BIASED.
~ He admitted that there are Wikipedia editors who have disputes, and repeatedly edit each others listings, so you could read one thing one day and another thing another day.
~ One of the interviewers told Wales during the interview that their staff had edited Wikipedia with false information, and it remained that way for an extended period of time, and was still uncorrected up to the time of the interview.
~ Wales admitted that for a very long period of time, his own birth date listed on Wikipdia has been incorrect.
I could go on and on.
Saying “I heard someone say something” is not citing a source. Jimmy Wales is not a source unless you can cite a specific time/date of an interview that other people can reference to confirm what you’re saying. You have no more credence here than the Wikipedia articles you are complaining about.