I think its a safe bet regardless. But you'd still have to do a detailed analysis on who got the money in both cases to simply say "this won't be as much as tax cuts the rich got". Because if - inside the "trump tax cuts" were things that the rich didn't get, but benefited the middle class or poor, you'd have to exempt those. Unless your claim is that the tax cuts went entirely to the rich.
I'm sure we're on different sides on a whole multitude of issues. Same with Tony and I. But I respect his opinion, and yours. There's no reason why we cannot argue for reasons for doing something, but we should also accept any flaws when they are outed. What tends to get me going all rude and whatnot is when people start with snarky and insulting tones with me unprovoked, or lie and don't admit their lies despite being shown directly (you said the sky is green, look up, man). GWB is a good example of the lying type. You've always shown yourself to be someone interested in civil and intelligent discourse, and so it is my obligation to respond in kind!
Its a political band aid nothing more.. like giving your gambling addicted friend $1000 to pay off his debts but not addressing the gambling problem...so they will just go and lose more money again.
Thank you. I appreciate the civil dialogue as well. Your comment of green sky reminds me of @speedo recent reply of; Grass is blue <- luv this story.
Tell me about it. I mean, this guy has to find some kids that answer correctly and he just doesn't show them, because that's not what drives his clicks. But the fact that anyone could not know what continent we are on, or what a square is, or what language people in Idaho speak, argh!!!