Oh, but you already do--you are a constant source of amusement.Anyway, I'm willing to pitch in if y'all are having trouble paying for your mood stabilizers.
Oh, but you already do--you are a constant source of amusement.Anyway, I'm willing to pitch in if y'all are having trouble paying for your mood stabilizers.
Its absurd and to think otherwise is absurd!Quite readable if you're a congressman willing to do his job. I wonder what they did back before having the luxury of searchable electronic files, which they may very well have before any final vote anyway.
Not really, given that there have been drafts, that there has been a House version available for about a month, and that a conference committee and conference report are still part of the process.Its absurd and to think otherwise is absurd!
Glad to be a moderating influence. That’s the point.Oh, but you already do--you are a constant source of amusement.
Must be a barefaced lie since the Dems haven't had time to read the bill.I think they got a little too greedy this go-round. A lot of senators and representatives are going to being facing posters like this meme...
Not sure why it would bother you if it is since you're a-ok with lies to further an agenda.Must be a barefaced lie since the Dems haven't had time to read the bill.
To which lies are you referring? Obama's? Keep your doctor? Save $2,500 annually in premiums? Did you buy those hook, line, and sinker?Not sure why it would bother you if it is since you're a-ok with lies to further an agenda.
You dont have to read the entire garbage bill to be aware of some egregious problems.Must be a barefaced lie since the Dems haven't had time to read the bill.
Eh, anything that reduces the funds available to the federal government is a good bill. Much more needs to be handled at the local level rather than being handled in a one-size-fits-all manner at the federal level. There's nothing egregious about letting people keep more of their hard-earned money.You dont have to read the entire garbage bill to be aware of some egregious problems.
AKA 'starve the beast'. Been proven over and over that it doesn't work. Just leads to larger deficit spending.Eh, anything that reduces the funds available to the federal government is a good bill. Much more needs to be handled at the local level rather than being handled in a one-size-fits-all manner at the federal level. There's nothing egregious about letting people keep more of their hard-earned money.
Whatabout? Whatabout? Whatabout?To which lies are you referring? Obama's? Keep your doctor? Save $2,500 annually in premiums? Did you buy those hook, line, and sinker?
You should be more specific next time.Whatabout? Whatabout? Whatabout?
The last gasp defense of the Trumpsters.
Never said I condoned them because you clearly don't know my posting history or how much I criticized Obama or the Dems.You should be more specific next time.
Nevertheless, it's interesting that you condone Dem lies. Makes your current outrage seem rather...uh...disingenuous.
Tangled up I do not feel.Never said I condoned them because you clearly don't know my posting history or how much I criticized Obama or the Dems.
Instead I was pointing out your pathetic defense of your team at the expense of any integrity or honesty. It's sad and amusing watching someone mentally and morally tie themselves in knots to convince themselves that it's ok for "their team" to act like steaming garbage just for a "win" over the "bad guys."
Whataboutism is pretty lazy for someone that supposedly appreciates intelligent conversation.
The federal government certainly is a beast - a blood-sucking monster that acts as if you should appreciate its destructive ways. If starving it won't work it's because Congress spends too much. $4,000,000,000,000 in spending. $20,000,000,000,000 in deficits. Many times more than that in unfunded liabilities. Sadly, many people want to keep feeding the beast (and act as if it is a loyal dog existing only to protect them).AKA 'starve the beast'. Been proven over and over that it doesn't work. Just leads to larger deficit spending.
Neither the D or the R.Out of curiosity, which presidential candidate did you vote for in 2012?
Major companies including Cisco Systems Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Coca-Cola Co. say they’ll turn over most gains from proposed corporate tax cuts to their shareholders, undercutting President Donald Trump’s promise that his plan will create jobs and boost wages for the middle class.
The president has held fast to his pledge even as top executives’ comments have run counter to it for months. Instead of hiring more workers or raising their pay, many companies say they’ll first increase dividends or buy back their own shares.
Robert Bradway, chief executive of Amgen Inc., said in an Oct. 25 earnings call that the company has been “actively returning capital in the form of growing dividend and buyback and I’d expect us to continue that.” Executives including Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey, Pfizer Chief Financial Officer Frank D’Amelio and Cisco CFO Kelly Kramer have recently made similar statements.
“We’ll be able to get much more aggressive on the share buyback” after a tax cut, Kramer said in a Nov. 16 interview.
LOL! Which "people" are you talking about keeping more of their "hard-earned" money. I bow to your expertise on the present bill. You must be referring to the estate tax...Eh, anything that reduces the funds available to the federal government is a good bill. Much more needs to be handled at the local level rather than being handled in a one-size-fits-all manner at the federal level. There's nothing egregious about letting people keep more of their hard-earned money.
As has been discussed previously, sometimes it makes sense for a company to invest in its own stock, particularly when said stock is undervalued. If anyone thinks all companies will invest in stock buybacks, he might need to go to school and educate himself.