Trump's Tax Plan

[Danny Bateman]

@FrankWheeler Ahhh, OK. So this is SALT you were talking about as well. Wouldn't Nebraskans run a decent risk of being hurt by the hill if the cap is also on property taxes? Isn't that pretty much the thing all Nebraskans have in common to complain about?

It's actually rather interesting how each of them voted. For instance, every CA GOP Rep voted Yea except Darrell Issa. NY/NJ were more scattershot. It appears they're trying to protect vulnerable members.

 

@45timesbetterthanemptysuit Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Personally I stand firmly unopposed to increasing the tax burden on the wealthy. We have a fundamentally different view of the ethical way to tax a population, and that's fine. Wages for the middle class are stagnant and have been for far too long. Wealthy people are accusing more and more wealth and have been for years. We need to reverse income inequality for the majority of the country to start getting ahead again. 

 

All the stuff you listed, that's fine. I personally don't give a plugged nickel about slight GDP upticks because it doesn't affect me all that much. I don't own stock. Unemployment is low as it has been for years. I personally don't care if corporations get the warm and fuzzies about where we're at & I question why consumers need an R in office to have faith in the economy. ISIS is about as much of a threat as it ever has been (in that it doesn't faze me at all) & the war crimes we're committing to try to eradicate them are despicable. I'm not entirely sure what Trump's strategy vis a vis NK is, but the needle appears to be moving about as much as it has for other presidents (not at all). Immigration to the U.S., on the whole, is a positive & net illegal immigration from Mexico has been negative for years. 

 

Are you a believer in trickle-down economics?

 

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's always nice to see people tacitly admit that the Democrats were right all along.

 

Republicans in Congress won't admit it, but they've known all along. They only pretend to care when there is a Democrat in charge so they can use it as a cudgel. 

[45timesbetterthanemptysuit]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

A)  Our respect in the world has gone down

B)  Relationships with our best allies has gone down

C)  Nothing has changed on coming up with an actual fix on healthcare

D)  The vast divisions in America are much wider

E)  Nazi's feel proud and secure enough to march in American streets along with the KKK.....because they are emboldened by the President

F)  The civil discourse in America is at an all time low with a President who is a sexual predator who has no ability to carry on a civil discussion about issues.

G)  1.4 trillion added to the deficit

H)  Millions of Americans losing healthcare with no plan that actually fixes the problem

I)   The Boys Scouts having to apologize to their members after the President addresses the kids in the organization

J)  The police union having to apologize and distance themselves from the President after comments made to their convention

K)  The President having lack of respect for American law enforcement (FBI) simply because they are investigating him while demonizing people who protest law enforcement non-violently, the actions of law enforcement in their neighborhoods.

 

I'm sure I can come up with more.

So, a list of hyperbole, half-truths and hurt feelings. 

 

The government has has no business, nor legal obligation to provide any healthcare and I am ecstatic that we are no longer buying other countries “respect”. Absolutely nothing you stated mutes the reality that our country is in a much better position than it was last year. 

 

Frankly the bribe to Iran, particularly with the recent revelations, should be considered a nadir in our countries last 40-50 years. 

[zoogs]

Deficits aren't the big deal they're made about to be. When to increase it, and *especially* for what, that's where these parties differ.

[45timesbetterthanemptysuit]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I'm confused.

 

 

Adverse means unfavorable. The people in those states will be adversely affected. (Pay more federal taxes) because there is a cap on the deductions they may claim (10k). The wealthy people that are not affected will have (rightfully) the greatest benefit. 

[BigRedBuster]

6 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

So, a list of hyperbole, half-truths and hurt feelings. 

 

The government has has no business, nor legal obligation to provide any healthcare and I am ecstatic that we are no longer buying other countries “respect”. Absolutely nothing you stated mutes the reality that our country is in a much better position than it was last year. 

 

Frankly the bribe to Iran, particularly with the recent revelations, should be considered a nadir in our countries last 40-50 years. 

OK....I'm just wanting to clarify, Republicans are no longer concerned about our respect in the world, deficits or someone in the office of President who should be respected.

 

Just needing the clarification because that's a big change from their mantra over the previous 8 years.

 

BTW....I added this comment about the same time you were posting.

14 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Along with that, the GDP, stock market, unemployment, corporate earnings...etc.....all started on this trajectory years ago.

 

And...you're not bothered by the Nazi's or KKK being emboldened by the President of the US.

Edited December 20, 2017 by BigRedBuster

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

hyperbole, half-truths and hurt feelings. 

 

Are these things you do or do not respect?

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

Adverse means unfavorable. The people in those states will be adversely affected. (Pay more federal taxes) because there is a cap on the deductions they may claim (10k). The wealthy people that are not affected will have (rightfully) the greatest benefit. 

 

OK...just to be clear, you're correcting your earlier post about the "relatively wealthy" being the most adversely affected.  

[Danny Bateman]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

C)  Nothing has changed on coming up with an actual fix on healthcare.

 

This one is particularly galling. This tax bill just made the problem worse!

Republicans understand how the individual mandate polled poorly. It's an ugly mechanism many people didn't like, but it also allowed the rest of the bill to actually work. To drive down costs for very sick people, you need to compel healthy people into the pool. Republicans even tried to do this in their repeal bills, via an alternate method wherein you're locked out of the market for a set amount of time or pay a higher premium for so long upon signing back up if you leave. Alternative ways to achieve the same ends: Encourage healthy folks into the risk pool and discourage them from leaving.

 

They inexplicably decide to just repeal the individual mandate... in their tax bill. For what? So they can say they "won?" Apparently this is it, because I caught some CNN at the gym broadcasting the usual Trump hogwash with a big bold chyron stating "Trump: We essentially repealed Obamacare." 

 

I know they don't like the mandate, but it was the glue holding the current healthcare law together. Without it, healthy people are free to exit the risk pool, which drives prices up for everyone left in it who actually needs the care. 

 

It was a shortsighted, partisan hack of a move. Susan Collins got bought off by a handshake deal with proven liars that they would "improve healthcare." This is what she got. Quite naive of a U.S. Senator, I'd say. 

We need to put people in office who actually care about improving healthcare instead of notching wins for their team.

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Along with that, the GDP, stock market, unemployment, corporate earnings...etc.....all started on this trajectory years ago.

 

#ThanksObama!

[Danny Bateman]

7 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

So, a list of hyperbole, half-truths and hurt feelings. 

 

The government has has no business, nor legal obligation to provide any healthcare and I am ecstatic that we are no longer buying other countries “respect”. Absolutely nothing you stated mutes the reality that our country is in a much better position than it was last year. 

 

Frankly the bribe to Iran, particularly with the recent revelations, should be considered a nadir in our countries last 40-50 years. 

 

Funny, because this:

 

Quote

Specifically, virtually everything. What is worse now than it was last year? GDP up, stock market up, unemployment down, corporate and consumer confidence higher than its been in years. ISIS feeding virtually all territory, efforts to stop the Norks from there pursuit of an effective ICBM, illegal immigration down. This seems to have been an amazing year regardless of what metrics are used. 

 

Reads a lot like this:

 

 

Surely you've got better sources than the habitual liar who currently occupies the podium at the White House?

[knapplc]

These last few pages from BRB remind me of the Home Run Derby.  Is it July already?

[BigRedBuster]

46 minutes ago, 45timesbetterthanemptysuit said:

Yes, I value this country and it’s citizens first and foremost and have dedicated my life, to date, to the protection of both. 

 

From this quote, I'm assuming you are in the military.  I greatly respect you for your service.  Thank you.

 

Question.  Which of these disrespects the military more:

 

a)  A person exercising their freedom you protect in their neighborhoods by protesting peacefully police actions by kneeling during the national anthem.

 

b)  Nazis freely marching in American Streets under a flag that over 300,000 Americans died fighting against.

Edited December 20, 2017 by BigRedBuster

[knapplc]

PR stunt alert.

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

 

33 minutes ago, zoogs said:

 

 

 

This especially.

 

There's a benefit to getting back a few more dollars a year. Or hundreds, or a couple thousand. On the other hand, you get the government you pay for. That language can actually be an impediment -- by government we're not talking about Orweillian agents in suits, unless those are the kinds of ways your preferred politicians intend to expand government. It's where and how public resources are allocated. Some things are much better done, or only possible, using pooled public resources. This is something where pocket money for consumers can't move the needle, and can't come close to making up what will be lost to them. As with any allocation of course, it's an imperfect and not lossless process. 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/canada-america-taxes/533847/

 

This is an important piece of the discussion. 

I'm sure the folks who support GOP orthodoxy on taxes and the economy are going to be celebrating tonight. Heck, all of the Congress Rs are probably heading to the Rose Garden as we speak.

 

But Paul Ryan has been exceedingly clear about his next priority: Cutting Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. He already cared about this, but he's essentially forced his own hand by tossing out so much federal revenue with his tax bill.

 

Will those same Americans be celebrating when Congress pursues cuts to the programs they rely on next year? I could see wealthy people being OK with slashing SS/Medicaid, but the vast majority of older Americans rely on Medicare to handle their medicine. 

And, as far as history goes, Social Security reform didn't go very well for W.