Trump's Tax Plan

[HuskerNBigD]

.

Edited December 27, 2017 by HuskerNBigD

[Nebfanatic]

29 minutes ago, HuskerNBigD said:

 

That's because the chart would take a while to compile and no republican senator has done that. The chart came from Bernie Sanders and, while I don't agree with the poster's (45timesbetterthananemptysuit) style of trolling, he does have a point. It is the same thing I was mentioning to dudeguyy. Here is an example though, just so there is "sourced data". People are so quick to dismiss the counter argument because they don't want to go to the website that 45 was mentioning.

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000021754&cycle=2016

 

Knock your heart out with the rest of them, but you can clearly see this chart was designed to neglect/distort some of the data. Such as APPL giving 86% of their total contribution to democrats.

 

Goldman: 49% Democrat vs. 46% Republican

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000085&cycle=2016

 

GE: 46% Dem vs. 54% Rep

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000125&cycle=2016

 

Citi: 47% Dem vs. 50% Rep 

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000071&cycle=2016

 

Microsoft: 54% Dem vs. 44% Rep

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000000115&cycle=2016

 

 

...You get the idea.

Thank you for the information. I acknowledged the contributions would look similar and that chart is misleading. That said my point remains and that is people like to come in here with big opinions but provide no support for their opinions other than "it's all on this one website." While we have other, more experienced posters who back their view with a supporting piece of information quite often. This provides a very solid footing for their argument. If more posters don't want their views dismissed so quickly they should try this approach rather than making brash statements in hopes of getting a reaction.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Nebfanatic

[HuskerNBigD]

1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

Thank you for the information. I acknowledged the contributions would look similar and that chart is misleading. That said my point remains and that is people like to come in here with big opinions but provide no support for their opinions other than "it's all on this one website." While we have other, more experienced posters who back their view with a supporting piece of information quite often. This provides a very solid footing for their argument. If more posters don't want their views dismissed so quickly they should try this approach rather than making brash statements in hopes of getting a reaction.

 

I don't disagree at all, I think 45's comments are tongue in cheek and he should try and be a bit more civil and people will respect his differing view a bit more. 

[Big Red 40]

The point of the chart was to show motive behind the massive handout the republicans just gave to many of those companies .i don’t see how Democrats taking money has anything to do with that . I know both sides take lots of money from donors yes, but the GOP always returns the favor with tax cuts and deregulation greatly benefiting the rich , this isn’t the first time they’ve done it. .Democrats didn’t  vote for this bill and don’t typically favor the  trickle down type of logic the repubs do. I Trump wants to call it a middle class tax,  cut so why didn’t he build that 1.5 Trillion into direct  cuts for the middle class and leave the corporate rate alone? I don’t the bill was ever intended to help anyone but corporate interests. 

Edited December 27, 2017 by Big Red 40

[BigRedBuster]

7 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

The point of the chart was to show motive behind the massive handout the republicans just gave to many of those companies .i don’t see how Democrats taking money has anything to do with that . I know both sides take lots of money from donors yes, but the GOP always returns the favor with tax cuts and deregulation greatly benefiting the rich , this isn’t the first time they’ve done it. .Democrats didn’t  vote for this bill and don’t typically favor the  trickle down type of logic the repubs do. I Trump wants to call it a middle class tax,  cut so why didn’t he build that 1.5 Trillion into direct  cuts for the middle class and leave the corporate rate alone? I don’t the bill was ever intended to help anyone but corporate interests. 

My issue is that it’s a chart with no link or backup information. Typically I’m very skeptical of graphics like this.    

[Big Red 40]

i understand that. I did admit that those numbers may not be 100% accurate too. I saw the  "source Senate Budget Commitee Analysis"  and deemed it credible.

[HuskerNBigD]

32 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

The point of the chart was to show motive behind the massive handout the republicans just gave to many of those companies .i don’t see how Democrats taking money has anything to do with that . I know both sides take lots of money from donors yes, but the GOP always returns the favor with tax cuts and deregulation greatly benefiting the rich , this isn’t the first time they’ve done it. .Democrats didn’t  vote for this bill and don’t typically favor the  trickle down type of logic the repubs do. I Trump wants to call it a middle class tax,  cut so why didn’t he build that 1.5 Trillion into direct  cuts for the middle class and leave the corporate rate alone? I don’t the bill was ever intended to help anyone but corporate interests. 

 

I get what the point of the chart was, but it is flawed. The argument is not, but the chart itself is. You can't just show one party contributions (over a 27 year time period) and completely neglect contributions from the other party - especially with organizations that have historically contributed more to democrats than republicans. Again, people continue to gloss over the fact that Bernie Sanders, who created the chart, received nearly 1/3 of the total contributions that APPL contributed to the republican party, in 27 years,  in one election cycle. Does that not seem like it weakens the "impact" of that chart?The fact that democrats didn't vote for the bill might have more to do with party allegiance versus what corporation is in their back pocket. We see this all the time, so I wouldn't even hang my hat on that argument.

 

Of course they bill was intended to help the corporations because it is the belief that corporations drive the economy, along with consumer spending. More money in both pockets (corporations and individuals) should theoretically stimulate GDP growth. Will it? Well, we will have to wait and see - sort of like having to wait and see what Frost can do for Nebraska. Now, depending on what economic theories you subscribe to, temporary reductions in taxes will not permanently improve GDP.

Edited December 27, 2017 by HuskerNBigD

[funhusker]

Maybe "emptysuit45" is making the argument that Republicans can be bought and Democrats can't??????    

[Big Red 40]

On 12/27/2017 at 7:45 AM, HuskerNBigD said:

 

 

Of course they bill was intended to help the corporations because it is the belief that corporations drive the economy, along with consumer spending. More money in both pockets (corporations and individuals) should theoretically stimulate GDP growth. Will it? Well, we will have to wait and see - sort of like having to wait and see what Frost can do for Nebraska. Now, depending on what economic theories you subscribe to, temporary reductions in taxes will not permanently improve GDP.

I have no reason to believe Frost wont succeed here. Hes shown that he has the proper mentality, work ethic , and process it takes to win football games, and build the program.  

Ronald Reagan , and George W both tried the same type of political tactics/mentality Trump and company are trying now  in the past and the results weren't good for the majority of American citizens. I don't hold much hope of any different results this time.

 

 

Edited January 1, 2018 by Big Red 40

[commando]

why is this called trumps tax plan?  he wrote nothing in it and didn't even consult with  anyone who was drafting it.  he desperately wanted something to sign and the republicans worked a couple weeks on a rough draft with input from their lobbyist about what they wanted (and shut the democrats out of the meetings) and passed it with side notes to trump to sign.   i doubt trump read anything more than the headline (if that much) before he signed.

[HuskerNBigD]

15 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Maybe "emptysuit45" is making the argument that Republicans can be bought and Democrats can't??????    

 

Again, I don't agree with 45, but lets not pretend that Republicans are the only politicians taking money from corporations. Links were provided above and people purposely ignoring them and continuing on the tirade that Republicans are the only corrupt politicians are being as childish as 45 himself.

14 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

 

 

At the end of the day, there will never be a bill passed that will benefit ALL Americans. It is too large of a demographic, with so many different variables that there is no bullet-proof solution. That doesn't mean that this was the right solution, only time will be able to tell.

[funhusker]

7 minutes ago, HuskerNBigD said:

 

Again, I don't agree with 45, but lets not pretend that Republicans are the only politicians taking money from corporations. Links were provided above and people purposely ignoring them and continuing on the tirade that Republicans are the only corrupt politicians are being as childish as 45 himself.

 

At the end of the day, there will never be a bill passed that will benefit ALL Americans. It is too large of a demographic, with so many different variables that there is no bullet-proof solution. That doesn't mean that this was the right solution, only time will be able to tell.

My comment was made as a joke, I realize 45 isn't making that argument.

 

But no one has disregarded the charts you posted our claimed that Democrats don't also take money.  The posts since "45's" have only tried to ask/answer the question of "why didn't Dems vote for this when Repubs voted overwhelmingly?"   

[HuskerNBigD]

3 minutes ago, funhusker said:

My comment was made as a joke, I realize 45 isn't making that argument.

 

But no one has disregarded the charts you posted our claimed that Democrats don't also take money.  The posts since "45's" have only tried to ask/answer the question of "why didn't Dems vote for this when Repubs voted overwhelmingly?"   

 

Sorry that I didn't pick up on the sarcasm, that is my bad!

 

I really think that the reason the Democrats didn't vote for this is that they were drawing lines political isle sand. But I very well could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first nor last time haha.

[BigRedBuster]

This is an interesting twist. 

 

 

[deedsker]

On 11/2/2017 at 4:21 PM, deedsker said:

 

The thresholds for brackets will be adjusted according to chained CPI, a slower-growing measure of inflation than normal CPI, which is used currently; this change raises revenue over time by gradually pushing more and more people into higher tax brackets.

 

Hey look, normal people getting screwed over time! Looks like ACA repeal all over again.

 

Not a twist BRB, we have known all along. Nobody seems to care.