Republicans begin walking back campaign promises

[Peabody]

5 minutes ago, Presnock said:

I have to agree as your article should only have been about walking back promises, not the fact that many promises might find difficulty in finding Congressional dollars to accomplish.

Hence the walking back of his promises, i.e Repubs saying "We can't afford it".

They could only afford the promise.

So this retreat is only 3 days post-election. Watch this space to see what else their dear leader promised that won't happen.

[NoDisplayName]

1 hour ago, Peabody said:

Continue in your blissful ignorance and keep deflecting. What does Pravda have to do with NYT?

 

What deflecting?

 

I have now read the "article" and now have been informed that some people are considering ways of being fiscally responsible by finding ways to "pay for" tax cuts.

 

And that's a bad thing?

[spidermike007]

Well we all know that everybody makes promises during a campaign, and that only a relatively small percentage of them are ever followed up. I hope that Trump's campaign promises about import tariffs are never followed up, as I believe it would destroy the American economy, hurt the consumers, and hurt thousands of American companies. It would be a huge tax hike. 

 

Some politicians are more sincere than others, I do not believe that Trump was sincere about that many of his promises. 

[bunnydrops]

28 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Well we all know that everybody makes promises during a campaign, and that only a relatively small percentage of them are ever followed up. I hope that Trump's campaign promises about import tariffs are never followed up, as I believe it would destroy the American economy, hurt the consumers, and hurt thousands of American companies. It would be a huge tax hike. 

 

Some politicians are more sincere than others, I do not believe that Trump was sincere about that many of his promises. 

Can anyone imagine the cost per head to catch feed, house, and deport a million illegal immigrants a year? Just for some of them to slip back in through our 1000 mile+ border. I also agree about the tariffs.

Edited 1 hour ago by bunnydrops
addition

[Peabody]

2 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

I have now read the "article" and now have been informed that some people are considering ways of being fiscally responsible by finding ways to "pay for" tax cuts.

"Narrowing" and "benefit(ing) fewer people" is backtracking. I stand by the original title.

"Mr. Paulson, a potential nominee for Treasury secretary, said that several other of Mr. Trump’s proposed tax cuts — including not taxing tips or overtime, and restoring a deduction for state and local taxes — should also become narrower so they benefit fewer people and cost less money."