½ûÂþÌìÌÃ

@Enzyte Bob

The good news Bob is that the headline rate of inflation in the Philippines dropped to 1.9% in September and is on a steady trajectory downwards.

That’s a ‘real’ increase of point 6% for you. Which translates to an extra large fries next time you fill up at the Filling station

Lotus Eater said . . . .Enzyte Bob,The good news Bob is that the headline rate of inflation in the Philippines dropped to 1.9% in September and is on a steady trajectory downwards. That’s a ‘real’ increase of point 6% for you. Which translates to an extra large fries next time you fill up at the Filling station

*

On the other hand many companies instead of raising prices just give smaller portions. For example:Trojan Magnum XL condoms now will only fit  a 3" weenie (7.6 centimeters)

What's a perv to do?

@Enzyte Bob

😂

@Enzyte Bob

How is this going to pay for everything they promised?  It won't but it's a start,  unlike the other side that lives to give more and more breaks to the rich.  Both sides have proven that they are going to continue big spending,  which I agree ain't good.  But only one side proposes somebody actually pays for it.

Well Newbee (Stoic Voyager) asked How is this going to pay for everything they promised? It won't but it's a start, unlike the other side that lives to give more and more breaks to the rich. Both sides have proven that they are going to continue big spending, which I agree ain't good. But only one side proposes somebody actually pays for it.

They are not going to pay for everything promised. Why: Because they are going to promise the same things in four years from now.

In 1928 an ad appeared for Herbert Hoover "A chicken for every pot", but he didn't actually say that. It may have swung some votes his way, but look what happened. In 1929 people didn't have a pot to piss in.

More and more breaks to the rich? The system is set up by the rich to let hard working stiffs to become millionaires, but not much beyond that. If they really taxed the rich they wouldn't receive their campaign allotment and your mailbox would be empty of ads every four years, then the post office would go out of business and Ben Franklin would be turning over in his grave.

That one side making proposals on the rich paying for it, again take everything those billionaires have, all six trillion dollars, the national debt is 31 trillion dollars, so the debt would be 25 trillion dollars.

So elect me as President. The first day in office I will have the mint issue me 50 . . . One Trillion face value coins and put them in my Prince Albert can for safe keeping.

@Enzyte Bob

Well oldie,  history repeats itself.  Under Reagan tax cuts for the rich and record deficits.  Under Bush tax cuts for the rich and record deficits.  Under Trump tax cuts for the rich and record deficits.  You might see a trend if you open your eyes,  but keep complaining about deficits while voting republican.  Smart.

@Enzyte Bob
Well oldie, history repeats itself. Under Reagan tax cuts for the rich and record deficits. Under Bush tax cuts for the rich and record deficits. Under Trump tax cuts for the rich and record deficits. You might see a trend if you open your eyes, but keep complaining about deficits while voting republican. Smart. - @Stoic Voyager

The problem is you only see half the story. Tax cuts spur investment, they always have since JFK started doing it. By cutting taxes you eventually increase the treasury by increased economic activity. Sure, I can see what you are saying, causing deficits by way of less rax receipts but your failing assumption is that taxes, investments and economic activity are a zero sum game. Big mistake, proven wrong time and time again. What happens when you cut taxes is to spur growth from investment and worker productivity...Just don't renew trumps tax cuts and see for yourself what happens when you reverse the process.

The Laffer curve has been proven wrong with actual history,  those tax cuts resulted in record deficits and that's simply a fact. The first thing Bill Clinton did in 1993 was raise taxes on the rich.  Instead of the depression republicans predicted we paid down debt and had the best economy in modern times.  But if you want to use tax cuts for economic growth,  why not give them to the people who need them most,  the poor and middle class?  81% of the 2017 Trump tax cuts went to the top 1%,  another fact.  During the Obama admin dems in congress offered a deal to republicans to cut taxes for the poor and middle class but not the rich,  and republicans refused.  Their reply was that if everybody (including the rich) couldn't get them then nobody would. 

Look man,  if you are going to spend the money,  and both sides have proven they are,  then somebody has to pay.  You can legitimately criticize dems for being tax and spenders,  but that's better than republicans who are borrow and spenders.