MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Paul Ryan is so happy about the $1.50 we...

Paul Ryan is so happy about the $1.50 week raise for Secretary

posted 7 years ago by [deleted]
21 replies | jump to latest

Speaker of the House praised T-rump's tax cuts which are now taking effect, and Tweeted about a public high school secretary who was delighted with her $1.50 / week raise in pay. "This covers my membership to Costco!" she told him.

Again, it's $1.50 more PER WEEK for her. Not per hour, not per day...PER WEEK.

That amounts to less than $100 per year.

It may cover one's annual membership to Costco, but it hardly covers anyone's monthly essentials such as utility bill, property taxes, car payment, mortgage, insurance payment, student loan, credit card bill, etc.

As this was pointed out to 'out of touch Ryan' with response tweets, along with comparisons to the $500,000 campaign donation he received from the Koch Brothers just hours after the tax bill passed which made them all much richer, Ryan thought it best to just to...ummmm....delete his Tweet. Good going, hound-dog!

[–] jamesboland (690) 7 years ago

President Trump cut taxes in his first year in office. A savings that benefits middle class America, people like that delightful school secretary. The Speaker of the House sees the value in that. Good going is right. It's a positive.

"I pulled you aside because I'd like to discuss your personal hygiene. Would you consider knocking on my neighbor's door and breathing in his face for money? He's a bible thief."

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

The middle class has been practically abolished in the past 30+ years thanks to Reagan's trickle-down economy. There is no middle class to speak of any more. There's now the 2% and 'the others'. SO...

What about the 98%? What about working class America?

Yes, the 'tax savings' will benefit those in the 2% range, such as T-rump himself. And the Koch brothers who donated the $500K to spineless Ryan for saving them millions.

But $1.50 per week for the working class? That's an affront to our hard work and intelligence, not a benefit.

[–] jamesboland (690) 7 years ago

Reagan gets unfairly blamed for Bush blunders.

This year, taxes didn't go up for America's middle class. They went down. Unemployment went down in America. Whining went down a little.

All positives.

"I was wondering what time you're coming home later. I want to make chicken cordon bleu and eat caterpillars while the kids barricade the door."

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Taxes are going down for America's shrunken - if existent at all - middle class?

What about America's full-grown lower classes? The lower classes which rapidly grew under Reagan's trickle-down economy that never trickled?

As for unemployment, it has been going down since the end of 2009, under Obama.

[–] jamesboland (690) 7 years ago

Do you think raising the minimum wage is what America needs right now?

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I think America has long needed to raise every hourly employee to a 'living wage' where they can meet their necessary expenses each month such as rent, utilities, food, medical. For far too long, these necessities have outpaced their working wage.

Do you disagree?

[–] jamesboland (690) 7 years ago

I'll start a thread aboot it...

[–] Xenopharb (617) 7 years ago

Reagan gets the blame he fairly deserves. There is no sugar coating it.

This tax swindle is like using a neighbor's credit card to purchase a car and then saying that the neighbor is happy when you give him a pair of driving gloves.

Fake news? This is a fake break.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

"Voo Doo Economics" as Bush 41 rightfully called them.

[–] jamesboland (690) 7 years ago

A middle class worker's taxes went down. Could you articulate what went to the rich, on her credit, and how?

This pineapple's going bad. Like your breath, honey.

[–] Xenopharb (617) 7 years ago

All of this is a deficit paid tax break, and the middle class will be the one paying it back in the future.

If these guys had any guts, they would balance the budget - which mean military spending cuts.

[–] jamesboland (690) 7 years ago

America's deficit is like a long running bad joke.

The military does need to be cut, as well as other programs.

"Take me to your cheater."

[–] Xenopharb (617) 7 years ago

Many programs save money in the long run. Military spending is a black hole.

That is not to say we don't need any military spending; it just means the United States doesn't have to spend three to ten times their potential adversaries.

[–] jamesboland (690) 7 years ago

Handouts don't save money in the long run. Handouts promote a dependent society.

Military spending should be gauged according to need. Comparison to other countries spending is not the gauge. America should spend what it needs up to the point of providing domestic tranquility.

"My aunt came over and noticed the plant in the corner. Then the self doubt and uneasiness took over and I showed her the door."

[–] Xenopharb (617) 7 years ago

Sure ... if you believe that, then we need to pay for it with higher taxes. We need to stop stealing from our kids and grandkids with interest.

The military wastes so much money. They "lose" billions of dollars, and are supplied by just a few large conglomerates that are soaking the taxpayer. Noncompetitive and no-bid contracts mean big profits, but those don't count as hand outs to the wealthy?

This same thing caused the demise of the Soviet Union, but we think were are immune. Fools we are.

[–] jamesboland (690) 7 years ago

Just look at Haliburton. Handouts to the wealthy do exist and that needs to stop because all handouts need to stop. Corporate bailouts are not handouts if every penny is payed back with interest. I'm not against assistance, but it should only be permanent for those who are truly disabled. Millions of healthy Americans have EBT cards, brand new cars and premium cable packages *with no end in sight* and that looks pretty bad.

Taxes don't need to go up if the wastefulness can be turned around.

"I don't need chairs. I don't need drugs. I just need a nasty idea."

[–] Xenopharb (617) 7 years ago

The big banks paid back those loans by foreclosing on houses, jacking up interest rates to 30+% on credit cards, upping transaction fees, and getting zero percent loans from the Federal Reserve. That was from the banks that actually paid it back.

The people I know who are disabled can't even pay their healthcare bills and live in low quality housing. The poor and the children of the poor are not doing well. Where are you getting your information?

[–] jamesboland (690) 7 years ago

Banks can be evil institutions, no doubt aboot it.

Information:

You and I know both know that there are plenty of hard working people out there, dealing with unfortunate situations. They don't get to live in new homes. They have roof leaks. They have setbacks. And these are working people. Life is a struggle sometimes.

Some people on government assistance live in buildings where the hallways smell like piss. But they're not homeless. They can spray lysol and go back in their their apartments.

It stands to reason that the people who ask for more assistance are generally the same ones who don't plan on getting off it.

Those who want assistance to provide better and newer things, and aren't disabled, suffer from Entitlement.

[–] ThreeTenToYuma (922) 7 years ago

School teachers make low incomes and therefore pay little in taxes. People who actually pay taxes (i.e. middle and upper income Americans) are benefiting from this bill. My taxes went down by approximately $230/month. That's quite significant.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I think it depends on the school district and location.

Here in my state, public school teachers get paid pretty well - especially those who have sniority and and a strong union behind them. On the other hand, those who teach in private schools and parochial schools get paid very little (but then again, they don't need a Master's Degree like the teachers do in Public school),despite the high tuitions.

[–] Xenopharb (617) 7 years ago

But if your taxes went down, you are basically stealing from future generations because the budget is not balanced.