SENATE BILL: Fiscal Year 2014 White House Budget Proposal (Law'd)

[tmthforu94]

I'll do the calculation again, but I got that spending was 3491.46B. Maybe something was forgotten, but I'll do the arithmetic again if anyone needs me to.

I came up with 3491.46B as well.

[tmthforu94]

Hostile, for the record.

And Nay.

Nay

While we need to live within our means, cutting education is not the way to do it, especially in this setting. I would be all for some sort of reform, perhaps clamping down on the unions, but even then I would not be in favor of reducing funding, just using the money in a smarter way.

Gimmick alert.

Haha what? Obviously you haven't been reading my posts about the teachers unions closely.

Senator TNF doesn't like to miss an opportunity to throw a jab at one of his colleagues.

[tmthforu94]

Can we not do this in every single thread?

It wouldn't be necessary if Senator TNF wouldn't insist on spreading false information about others over and over and over again.

[tmthforu94]

Nay

[tmthforu94]

75% is reaching absurd levels - whether it be through a decrease in charitable donations or it's negative impact on the job market, this would be very bad policy for our economy, and I also object to this amendment. I don't think those on the right are being unreasonable for objecting to a 75% income tax, especially when you put into context what the rates are IRL. If anything, it's the opposite.

[tmthforu94]

Nay!

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

While it's true that this would not actually be a tax hike for the rich, what I meant was if I were to vote yes I would be lowering the tax rate from what it would be if I were to vote no.

Senator,

If my interpretation of what you're saying is correct, do you believe that, regardless of the rate, it should never be appropriate to lower taxes on the rich?

[tmthforu94]

Nay

I worry about what having such high tax rates would do to job growth. Hopefully we never actually have to face this in reality.