the Polo Grounds

Back to the forum index

Anyone care of defend the GOP

by JN @, Seattle, Friday, December 01, 2017, 20:25

On the tax plan? I know you can't argue substance bc no one knows the details, but this process is fucking embarrassing.


I don't want to pay any tax.

by ⌂ @, Monday, December 04, 2017, 09:18 @ JN

That said, I'm fully aware that I have to pay some sort of tax. Otherwise, my daily commute would be far more difficult, I'd probably get robbed along the way, and the question of "where" I am and "where" I'm going would be constantly in flux. But I still think it's utterly absurd that because I'm "more successful" than other people - at least in terms of an annual income - I have to pay a higher percentage of taxes than the less successful. Except for one thing: I get the sense that that sort of absurd agreement is part of the glue that holds a civilization together. I get to pay more of my money in taxes for the privilege of not having the country completely fall apart and then being eaten by the starving masses.

And that's what concerns me about this bill. It's such a stark violation of this agreement between the haves and the have-nots. I am very worried it's a real "let them eat cake" sort of moment. It just may take a decade for the folks seeking bread to realize it.

Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.


Agree on substance. On process...

by Greg, sittin on the dock of the bay, Monday, December 04, 2017, 08:31 @ JN reminds me quite a bit of the passage of the ACA. That is, it was a huge part of the President's campaign drive, the party in power held both houses and the White House and so had the ability to push it through, changes were being made up to the date of passage such that legislators did not really know what was in the final version (and said so on television), the vote was essentially on party lines, the final version had negative financial impacts on people it was putatively drawn up to protect, and much of the wrangling was done out of sight.

The Washington Post has a good (and I think fair, as it notes the process used last month is even worse than the ACA process) timeline/history here, drawn up in response to the current travesty of a bill:


I think they (and Trump) did a masterful job.

by Grantland @, y'allywood, Monday, December 04, 2017, 07:27 @ JN
edited by Grantland, Monday, December 04, 2017, 07:30

First, Trump appealed to a very large portion of the middle class, and I do not want to stereotype too much, but who have racist tendencies. Those same people tend to believe conspiracy theories. Those same type of people are not going to admit they were wrong - ever.

Further, he bashes the press, and bashes the press and bashes the press...

So, none of those people are going to believe the so-called press when it cites statistics showing this is no middle class tax cut.

So they stay loyal to Trump.

Meantime, Trump and Republicans have given the people who donate large sums of money a HUGE tax break and they all understand that.

Build that warchest.

Then, the current economy will continue to improve for a year or two. They will cite their tax plan as the cause "just passage of the tax bill has stimulated the economy". When in reality we all know it is just cyclical and, God forbid, may be a result of more measured policies.

Then, by the time this shit comes home to roost, it will be too late because Trump will have been re-elected unless, of course, Flynn has indeed given the goods...


(sorry for responding to myself) but if economic stimulus

by Grantland @, y'allywood, Monday, December 04, 2017, 07:44 @ Grantland

was really the goal. Then why not build things into the Code that would have a direct effect?

Two common examples:

- some sort accelerated depreciation or investment tax credit;
- credits for hiring.


Accelerated depreciation

by jcocktoaston, Monday, December 04, 2017, 08:11 @ Grantland

As to that point of yours, the bill retains significant amounts of immediate depreciation/section 179 expense election.

Just an FYI as I salute you for a comment that shows a rational desire for dialogue. A strong argument can be made that lowering the C corp dividend rate will be a strong incentive to distribute excess cash. Other than that though, I agree with you that little in the tax bill directly fosters spending.


Or what about giving an actual credit for purchases of

by Grantland @, y'allywood, Monday, December 04, 2017, 08:23 @ jcocktoaston

equipment? So it is a permanent benefit. Similar to a tax cut except that it stays in the business/economy.

I have not heard anyone on either side talking about things like this.

Frankly, this is what I think there will never be a simple tax code. The code influences (or can influence) many things other than the tax revenue. See Obamacare for an example.


Credit vs deduction

by jcocktoaston, Monday, December 04, 2017, 08:56 @ Grantland

I apologize in advance if I am telling you things that you already know as I am unsure of your background but a credit is a dollar for dollar reduction in tax while a deduction just lowers taxable income. While I am not opposed to what you are suggesting, a credit would be extremely favorable to the taxpayer as the credit would be basically worth 3x as much for a top rate taxpayer as even a full expense deduction.

Your point is certainly correct that a simpler tax code means fewer attempts at social engineering via tax policy for better or worse.


No worries.

by Grantland @, y'allywood, Monday, December 04, 2017, 11:36 @ jcocktoaston

I was trying to say why not give them a credit versus a deduction or a reduction in rates. The credit takes away certain variables such as timing of deductions etc. They would have to figure the proper amount to give as a credit, of course, but it is a way to put $$$$ in rich people's pockets because they did something to directly effect economy.


Given the tone of your post, how many would want to?

by Turtlecrack, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 09:51 @ JN
edited by Turtlecrack, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 09:54

Most of the bills sucks, some of it is good. But I don’t think you want discussion, you want agreement with your views.


I do want discussion

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 10:41 @ Turtlecrack

I also want transparency. I want policy that matches the rhetoric that these politicians promised to get elected.

That's not what I see from this bill. I don't see fiscal responsibility (a long-time strawman from GOP conservatives). I don't see easing the economic situation for the middle class. I am worried about potential broken healthcare promises made to the elderly. I also see a very bullshit process that sought to hide any reasonable analyses on this bill (and I feel that same way no matter what party is doing it).

This was done for the the Kochs, Devos's, Scaifes, Olins of the world. And it was done at the peril of the long-term future of the republican party. A large constituency that put this president in power is going to be negatively impacted by this bravado to simply get some legislative "win."


Republicans just voted for a generational transfer of wealth

by Jim (fisherj08) @, A Samoan kid's laptop, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 10:16 @ Turtlecrack

from the poor to the rich and we're worried about tone?


Yes. This should be very easy for folks here.

by Pat, Right behind you, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 13:35 @ Jim (fisherj08)

It’s a good thing that people are paying attention and want to hold our country’s leadership accountable for actions they think are a net negative for this country.

At the same time, it is possible to be extremely pissed off about the current state of the government and still treat people here with respect, patience, and civility. When we fail to do that, not only does the board become worse, but then we aren’t really doing much better than the folks in the various branches of government we decry as lacking compassion and understanding.


There seems to be a pretty stark generational divide...

by Slainte Joe, Raleigh, Sunday, December 03, 2017, 15:49 @ Pat

on this issue.

Before I abandoned twitter, my feed had basically descended into:

Gen X: Maybe we can talk about this without being complete dicks to each other.


Well said, Pat.

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 13:59 @ Pat

And it's a nice reminder of why so many of us are here. We're obviously an impassioned group but trying respect everyone's opinion was why some of us were trying to find better forums to communicate.

I am sure I am guilty of snark on occasion, but definitely worth being reminded of the community that's developed here.


Like this a lot

by Turtlecrack, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 13:52 @ Pat

[ No text ]


We must protect the norms

by CW (Rakes) @, Harlan County, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 13:09 @ Jim (fisherj08)

[ No text ]


tend to agree

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 10:09 @ Turtlecrack

Jeff, I’m sympatico with your political positions and I’m as outraged as the next guy, but if you’re looking for a discussion here (assuming you’re looking for a discussion) your posting tone could be better.


As I mentioned just a second ago

by JN @, Seattle, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 10:21 @ Jay

I'm pissed at the GOP lawmakers. I certainly do want a discussion (and got one). I didn't expect anyone in the entire country, let alone the well educated folks who post here, to want to defend the process. It's shameful. Is that really up for debate?

I expected some of the responses that were received ("the process sucked, but this is a standard GOP bill") and those elicited further discussion of the substance. I didn't expect anyone to be offended by my attacking the GOP lawmakers that are so weak that they have to do this shit in the middle of the night on Friday to minimize the likelihood that their supporters find out what's really happening.

So I guess I'm not sorry for the tone as it wasn't directed at anyone here. As long as people continue to vote for these guys, I'll probably continue being pissed. I'm happy to talk substance but the current GOP lawmakers are too evil to focus only on that. This isn't normal and needs to be called out, imo.

Finally, my tone doesn't stand out from many of the others here. I'm not as measured as some, but far, far from the worst in tone and attacks on other posters (direct or indirect). I honestly cannot believe this shit just happened, I called out the parties responsible (no one here) and the focus is on whether those in power are being treated with the appropriate degree of respect.


you framed it as a challenge to people here

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 11:02 @ JN

specifically, to GOP supporters, of which we have more than a few, instead of simply stating your own opinion. It reads as if you’re trying to call people out. Judging from your follow up it seems that wasn’t your intent, so moving forward you might be more cognizant of being clear in stating what you’re trying to convey. Sorry to pick on you but I think it’s a good reminder for anyone posting in highly charged political threads.



by Turtlecrack, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 11:52 @ Jay

[ No text ]


he’s correct on all the points though

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 12:00 @ Turtlecrack

[ No text ]


I actually think it's important

by JN @, Seattle, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 11:24 @ Jay

The people who voted for the current GOP lawmakers are the only ones who can truly fix this. If they think the process is fine, then stand up and say so (or don't). If not, then do something. But to play the victim card when your elected officials do this and then turn the focus on me for calling it out is disturbing. If people saw my post as a challenge, then maybe there are people who think midnight bills written by lobbyists and voted on without being read are good. To those people, it was a challenge then. I didn't expect there to be any.

I'll stop responding as this is exactly how it works. Distract and deflect so the focus isn't on the policy or the horrible process but on the tone of those opposed to it.


instead of doubling down

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 11:30 @ JN

how about, "Hey, thanks for the constructive criticism, let me take a look at my own posting style, do some self-scouting, and see how I might improve?" Not an option?


If anyone wants to come here and say

by JN @, Seattle, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 10:07 @ Turtlecrack

the process used to pass this bill was desirable and should be the way the US is governed, then I'd be very interested in seeing that.

But the tone is reflective of the way my GOP government treats me. And I don't mean the loss of tax deductions. And I'm not going to apologize for being pissed off at the GOP for this shit.

BTW - there have been a couple dozens responses in this thread even though I started it late Friday night (West Coast time). Many people didn't seem to have trouble discussing it despite how mean I was to the slimy GOP lawmakers.


It will be a fascinating acid test for Randian economics.

by MattG, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 08:57 @ JN

For once and for all, the conservative economic theory will be put to the test. They have gotten absolutely everything they wanted.

We have a known status quo - tax policy has been generally stable over the last 2 administrations, and we have seen about a decade of steady, non-explosive-but-consistent growth every quarter.

Now, we have a known variable. This is, for better or worse, a massive shift in how the economy will function.

If this fails wildly, will the Paul Ryans of the world reevaluate their dogma? No. They will attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the “lazy welfare poor” who they just shivved.

I literally cannot believe that a unified GOP government raised my taxes. I hate the rest of their policies with my entire being - In most cases, i think they run from vaguely immoral to comically evil.

But as a well-off white guy, I expected to be bought off. I anticipated the moral quandary of “yes, we are fucking over the poor, but look at your W2!” Now, I get the white supremacy AND I lose all my deductions. I’m not even mad, I’m almost impressed they pulled it off.


This should be the soundbite for 2017...

by Angel, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 18:33 @ MattG

“Now, I get the white supremacy AND I lose all my deductions.“

I’m shameless stealing it. It’s perfect.


adding to that

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 09:15 @ MattG

The three so-called deficit hawks—Corker, Flake, and McCain—didn’t get anything to allay their concerns about fiscal stability. After the Senate parliamentarian ruled out Corker’s proposal for a “trigger mechanism” to raise taxes if the budget deficit hit a certain level, the Republican leadership dropped the idea of having a fallback method to restrain the deficit. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper on Capitol Hill, the Senate bill would boost the deficit by a trillion dollars over the next ten years. To raise this money, the U.S. Treasury would have to issue another trillion dollars in debt, which would add to the nation’s already formidable borrowings. By 2027, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio, a key measure of fiscal solvency, will be approaching a hundred per cent.


At least Corker voted no...

by CK08, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 22:19 @ Jay

[ No text ]


They tried it in Kansas

by Jim (fisherj08) @, A Samoan kid's laptop, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 08:59 @ MattG

Surprise! It was a failure.


Louisiana, too

by Jack @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 10:28 @ Jim (fisherj08)

Same result, and it got a Democrat elected governor.

I expect this is going to get a lot of Democrats elected.


Over 70% of Alabamans believe Roy Moore's accusers are lying

by Pat (Moco), Slave Den, Brian Cook's Basement, Sunday, December 03, 2017, 11:51 @ Jack

They'll blame the lazy welfare poor, Hollywood, illegals, brown people, crime in Chicago, or whatever grab bag/Fox News-Chiron-generating enemy comes up next on the GOP "Wheel of Excuses."

They won't blame their own failed ideologies because they are intellectually incapable of doing so.


Tell me your objections to the tax reform bill

by scriptcomesfirst @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:15 @ JN

Just now digging into it and before I've read a line there seems to be wholesale rejection by Dems and of course this board. Pasadena just informed me essentially that I'm a racist gun nut who hates abortion. Only one of those things is true, for those keeping score at home. Love the elevation of the discourse.


Pasadena had a very measured response

by JN @, Seattle, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 08:16 @ scriptcomesfirst

You turned yourself into a victim.

Then complained about discourse.


I'm no victim but the condescension here is astounding

by scriptcomesfirst @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 20:38 @ JN

[ No text ]


It is a very good book, as well.

by Bryan (IrishCavan), Howth Castle and Environs, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 08:21 @ JN

One might disagree with her conclusions, but not her facts and evidence.


Well, the process sucked balls.

by Bill, Southern California, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:53 @ scriptcomesfirst
edited by Bill, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 08:01

I think that's obvious. But the bill itself seems like every-day Republicanism. If any other Republican won the White House, we'd have something similar. And I think a decent case can be made for cutting the corporate tax rate to become more competitive with worldwide rates. But they could have done that without gifting all of the benefits of those rate cuts to the uber-wealthy.

The 'funny' thing here though is that neither the House or the Senate bills make good on Trump's campaign promises to help the American worker. This bill is a gift to the elites they disdain. But Trump will try to sell it to them as a triumph for them. He'll be lying, of course.


How many corporations actually pay the 35% tax rate

by Bryan (IrishCavan), Howth Castle and Environs, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 08:03 @ Bill
edited by Bryan (IrishCavan), Saturday, December 02, 2017, 08:06

or whatever it is? My understanding is that most corporations, due to loopholes and deductions, pay about 20%, which is more in line with other nations. I'd support a corporate tax rate if businesses and the economy were truly struggling. The timing, other than pleasing their donors, doesn't make any sense. The idea that this will grow an already healthy economy or trickle down is fantasy.


A few quick ones

by Jim (fisherj08) @, A Samoan kid's laptop, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:42 @ scriptcomesfirst

It raises taxes on most low and middle-income earners and gives high earners a tax break

Corporations will take the massive corporate tax cuts and just hoard money as opposed to hiring new workers

Repeal of the individual mandate

Sets the stage for Socail Security and Medicare cuts

It's going to blow up the deficit

Taxation of graduate students

Not to mention that this process is a fucking joke.


Please explain the merits of the individual mandate

by scriptcomesfirst @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 20:39 @ Jim (fisherj08)

As well as what about it is fundamentally compatible with the spirit of freedom.


I think it boils down to two options.

by Joe ⌂ @, North Endzone Goal Line, Sunday, December 03, 2017, 14:50 @ scriptcomesfirst

A person gets hit by a car. He is unconscious and rushed to the emergency room, where significant medical intervention is needed to save his life.

The first option is that the doctors (either ethically or legally) must perform the lifesaving intervention on him with no idea of his status with regard to an ability to pay (whether insured, or wealthy enough to pay it out of pocket). In the event that he's unable to pay, the cost gets subsidized by those who do pay for insurance (or pay out of pocket) in the form of higher care costs, which drives up premiums.

The second option is that the doctors must wheel that guy back out onto the curb until he can prove his ability to pay. In the time it takes him or his family (assuming he is able, or his family can be identified) to prove that, maybe he dies. That's the cost of the "spirit of freedom" to allow people to not carry health insurance, in this case. To me, this is pretty bankrupt morally and ethically.

Because forcing me to pay through increased cost of care and higher premiums for those who willfully choose not to get insurance, but still consume health care in situations where the cost is likely the highest (emergency situations) isn't exactly speaking well of of the "spirit of freedom" either, in my mind. Why should the responsible people, who spend money and plan to protect themselves, be forced to cover for the people who refuse to do so?


That's not hard

by ndphilo @, Seal Beach, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 21:11 @ scriptcomesfirst
edited by ndphilo, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 21:16

A mandate is necessary to solve free rider problems that arise if you get rid of, most importantly, pre-existing condition exclusions.

A cash penalty, like is included in the ACA, is the likely the least restrictive means to secure a mandate. Many other countries use a much simpler approach, they sign you up for a basic plan if you don't do so yourself. That seems less compatible with freedom to me, but maybe you would prefer that?

The point of a system of healthcare is not simply to maximize freedom because, well, FREEDOM! It is to balance reasonable competing values in an attempt to ensure the public good. You know, kind of like traffic rules, or contract law, or just about everything else in civil society. What is the better way to provide access to reasonable health insurance to, say, someone born with a condition that requires lifelong medical treatments? Is someone born with epilepsy simply forced to never be able to have insurance through the individuals market? And then what, either we all carry the cost of their care, or we just force them to live without access to healthcare? And even if you reject that principle, there is even an argument that a mandate is, in fact, freedom maximizing if you consider society as a whole because it places modest restrictions on all to open up life saving options for millions. A net increase in freedom, if you further consider the economic avenues opened for those who would have no access to insurance otherwise, to devastating consequence.

And even if you think the mandate has to go, I can respect that, so long as you recognize that getting rid of the mandate alone has a string of predictable economic consequences. Ending the mandate, without making comprehensive revision of the ACA, is horrific policy that will devastate the individual insurance market, and likely have knock on effects for health insurance generally. You can't get rid of the mandate and keep other provisions of the ACA without cratering the market. It might make individual insurance impossible, restricting the ability of millions to buy a product that they would very much like to purchase and which is crucial to their economic, not to mention physical, well-being (yay freedom!).


It really isn't.

by Pat (Moco), Slave Den, Brian Cook's Basement, Sunday, December 03, 2017, 09:50 @ ndphilo

To make the system sustainable, the healthy need to participate to offset the costs of the sick. If only the sick participate, the costs balloon and we're back to where we were pre-ACA. Repealing the individual mandate without a massive influx of funding into the system will crash the insurance markets. There's a reason literally every single medical association was against the original repeal bill in the first place.

The "spirit of freedom" and American ideals shouldn't be used as an excuse to deny people an affordable right to survive. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and it's fucking embarrassing that we are running behind other countries in the world and allowing companies and corporations to make a quick buck on the desperately ill.


It is not a principled bill.

by San Pedro, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:55 @ Jim (fisherj08)

This is the party that opposed the stimulus in 2009 on the grounds that it would increase the deficit. They've abandoned fiscal responsibility as much as the Democrats.


They never cared about the deficit

by Jim (fisherj08) @, A Samoan kid's laptop, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:59 @ San Pedro

The party that enacted the Bush tax cuts and waged two unfunded wars never, ever cared about the deficit. They just didn't like Barack Obama.


Or Clinton or poor people

by JN @, Seattle, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 08:21 @ Jim (fisherj08)

It's never been fiscal responsibility.

Just like they made up the shit about appointing a justice in your last year of office.

They know they can get away with it bc there are lots of people that will support them no matter what they do. Trump is the absolute proof. And 2018 will be the confirmation.


I do think more S Corps and LLC's may elect to convert

by Kevin @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:54 @ Jim (fisherj08)

To C Corps. I know that's a discussion tax accountants and lawyers are having all over the country right now. I've not studied any of this closely enough to know whether projections of an increased pool of double-taxed income has been taken into account when estimating the deficit hit.


I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to hire an accountant

by Bill, Southern California, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:59 @ Kevin

to sort through this for my pass-through LLC.


same boat

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 08:40 @ Bill

Was on the horn yesterday with my accountant trying to strategize. But whatever. I’m more worried about how this is going to fuck over people in worse shape all while enriching the already rich.


Other than adding $1T to the deficit?

by San Pedro, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:26 @ scriptcomesfirst

I will let you know the rest when I finish reading the .pdfs of the last minute handwritten amendments. :)


Dark Money

by PasadenaDomer @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 06:50 @ JN

Read Jane Meyer’s book, the GOP is now the private party of the American Oligarchs, the +/- 200 dynastical families who have wrapped themselves in the theme of guns, abortion, bigotry... however all they care about is transferring as much wealth from the rest of America into their pockets.


Their desire to turn the US into a third-world nation

by KGB, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 01:33 @ JN

is bewildering. This is not "conservatism" and has not one goddamn iota to do with that sort of tradional ideology. These people are nothing more than corporate flunkies, plain and simple, and if folks don't stop voting for the assholes because GUNS or ABORTION or spite or whatever they'll transform America into The fucking Road over the course of the next generation.


Trump is a disgrace, and I hope the Lord takes him soon.

by Kevin @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:32 @ KGB

But if He does not, Trump will win a second term if you guys can't help yourselves when describing the people who elected him.


I hear what you're saying.

by ReginaldVelJohnson @, (FaytlND), Saturday, December 02, 2017, 10:40 @ Kevin

But I also find it hard to muster respect and restraint for the segment of the population who--to use Roy Moore as a recent example--have basically said "We'll tolerate an accused pedophile as long as they're not a Democrat."


Won't win an election being right.

by ⌂ @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 13:05 @ ReginaldVelJohnson

Sure as hell won't win being right and offensive.

Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.


Oh, I'm not saying it's wrong.

by Kevin @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 11:15 @ ReginaldVelJohnson

Only that it's not prudent.


I agree with you

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 10:30 @ Kevin

I basically was born and raised in an area that totally relates (and supports) Trump.

But there's a flip side to this coin. The political situation we find ourselves in is not the sole province of condescending liberals looking down on middle class folks in rural America. It's also that same middle class rural base that forms it's own stereotypes about others and refuses to budge. They can be just as insulting when it comes to Democratic figures.

So there's some soul searching that both sides need. I don't imagine it coming any time soon, because the current president thrives on further polarizing this country. It's a dangerous cycle we're feeding.


We're becoming a banana republic,

by Bryan (IrishCavan), Howth Castle and Environs, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:11 @ KGB

starting with the tin pot dictator wannabe. From what I've read, the bill taxes college endowments but specifically exempts Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian college favored by the Devos family. It also includes a law stating that life begins at conception (fine...but in a tax bill?), allows for drilling in Alaska's wildlife preserve, and essentially targets grad students and public higher education. Most importantly, it will raise the deficit by over 1 trillion, which will allow them to then gut social security, medicare, and medicaid. This is a kiss to their donors and a "fuck you" to the rest of us, esp. those who live in blue states.

Seriously, we are living in the 1920s again, and we know how that turned out.


Trump IS indeed a wannabe dictator & the sooner he's gone

by scriptcomesfirst @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:18 @ Bryan (IrishCavan)

From office, the better.

The deficit number, though, is a canard. It assumes 0 growth over 10 years which is NEVER the case following middle class tax relief.


The CBO, a number of economists and even some GOP senators

by Bryan (IrishCavan), Howth Castle and Environs, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:26 @ scriptcomesfirst
edited by Bryan (IrishCavan), Saturday, December 02, 2017, 07:29

would disagree with that. Why, then did Corker demand a trigger clause (which he never received)? Rubio admitted that they would likely need to cut entitlements when the deficit rose. The real fact is that the GOP is assuming it will grow the economy at rates which, history shows, isn't going to happen.


The 1.4 trillion figure is based on 0 growth. It is.

by scriptcomesfirst @, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 20:41 @ Bryan (IrishCavan)

[ No text ]


There are multiple projections w assumed GDP growth

by MattG, Monday, December 04, 2017, 07:17 @ scriptcomesfirst

Most are at 1T added to the deficit.

Even Tax Foundation, which is assuming pretty heavy growth, estimates a half-trillion in deficit growth.

As for “middle class tax relief” - most people outside of the highest earners will be paying the same or more, correct? I’ve seen it reported that 80% of households will see either no difference or an increase, and I don’t think the GOP is disputing that.


I realize that.

by Bryan (IrishCavan), Howth Castle and Environs, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 20:58 @ scriptcomesfirst

And it is a realistic prognosis. I'm sorry but if you think the economy is going to grow as a result of this tax plan, I really think you are wrong. The vast majority of economists think you are wrong as well. We are currently @ 3% growth rate. We have a healthy economy and it isn't going to grow tremendously, if at all, as a result of this tax plan. History shows that it won't likely happen either. In fact, the likelihood, based on history, is that it is more likely to push us in an economic recession in the near future. Maldistribution of wealth is not good for an economy.


Sure you can argue substance

by BPH, San Diego, Saturday, December 02, 2017, 00:29 @ JN

It’s a fundamentally shitty bill.

387056 Postings in 33495 Threads, 205 registered users, 67 users online (2 registered, 65 guests)
powered by my little forum