Is it true? Would you be cool with them zeroing out Jeff Bezos's tax bill if it meant 20 bucks for ICE?

>>510490842 (OP)
>Tax cut extensions
So something remained the same and you're putting it as a cost? What a joke.

>>510491193
One quick trick to make any budget item cost nothing: introduce a new spending item but have it set to expire in one day therefore the total bill is small, then the next day extend it permanently. Because it's "current policy" the bill won't increase at all!

Medicare for All for 20 bucks!

>>510491612
>""Tax cuts"" that were present for almost a decade are anything like what you described
You really are a cocksucking axewound bearing faggot, huh.

>>510492264
If you pretend you're not spending 5 trillion on tax cuts today it means you spent 5 trillion more on tax cuts than you advertised back in 2017. The 5 trillion you're adding to the deficit came from somewhere. You can't make it disappear.

>>510492671
>Spending
>Tax cuts
A total of $0 were spent on tax cuts. Taxes were lowered in 2017.

>>510493056
What is with you and being unable to see a budget gimmick when you see it? Yes, cutting taxes without cutting an equal amount of spending will have the exact same effect as increasing spending and not increasing taxes: they both increase the deficit.

Do you think if Democrats passed Medicare for All fully paid for with increased taxes (zero impact on the deficit) and then cut the taxes the following day, it wouldn't increase the deficit?

>>510493852
>Next day
The rod holding open your gaping wound must be keeping you incapable of making comparable analogies. In the big bloated bill, your least favorite orange man maintained the tax status quo. There was no budgetary impact from taxation because it remained the same. Before that when the tax was first decreased, a total of $0 was spent on taxes, because taxes are not spending.