ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gop , tax cuts

Reply
Old 20th November 2017, 07:44 AM   #1
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,705
Forbes: GOP Tax Bill Is The End Of All Economic Sanity In Washington

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancol.../#774a835f77ef
Originally Posted by Forbes
... If it's enacted, the GOP tax cut now working its way through Congress will be the start of a decades-long economic policy disaster unlike any other that has occurred in American history.

There's no economic justification whatsoever for a tax cut at this time. U.S. GDP is growing, unemployment is close to 4 percent (below what is commonly considered "full employment"), corporate profits are at record levels and stock markets are soaring. It makes no sense to add any federal government-induced stimulus to all this private sector-caused economic activity, let alone a tax cut as big as this one.

This is actually the ideal time for Washington to be doing the opposite. But by damning the economic torpedoes and moving full-speed ahead, House and Senate Republicans and the Trump White House are setting up the U.S. for the modern-day analog of the inflation-producing guns-and-butter economic policy of the Vietnam era. The GOP tax bill will increase the federal deficit by $2 trillion or more over the next decade (the official estimates of $1.5 trillion hide the real amount with a witches brew of gimmicks and outright lies) that, unless all the rules have changed, is virtually certain to result in inflation and much higher interest rates than would otherwise occur.

The GOP's insanity is compounded by its moving ahead without having any idea of what this policy will actually do to the economy. The debates in the Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees and on the House floor all took place before the Congressional Budget Office's analysis and, if it really exists, the constantly-promised-but-never-seen report from the Treasury on the economics of this tax bill.
Of course, most of the Republican Congressmen are not actually insane; they know full well who this bill helps -- their donors, who will see fantastic returns on their investment -- and they simply don't care who it hurts. But they know we do care, so they are simply lying through their teeth about what the bill does -- lying so blatant and so destructive to honest debate that I can't think of any real precedent in my 5 decades of watching Congressional maneuvering. It surpasses the previous record so recently set by their lies about Obamacare "repeal and replace," but only by a little.

How can any intellectually honest Republican not be ashamed of these bait-and-switch con jobs?

2018 needs to be the year that this version of the GOP dies an ignoble death, and good riddance.
WilliamSeger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 07:48 AM   #2
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 41,130
Of course a liberal rag like forbes would say that.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 07:51 AM   #3
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,459
It seems the point of the article is that this tax bill hurts their donors through inflation.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 08:20 AM   #4
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 23,899
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It seems the point of the article is that this tax bill hurts their donors through inflation.
Then I think you have misunderstood the article.

My reading of the article is that:
  • Given the current state of the US economy (steady if unspectacular growth, low unemployment) there is no need for such a stimulus
  • That in any case, this would not be the way to do it
  • By doing this now, the GOP is denying themselves one of the necessary levers to deal with future downturns
  • Even the timetable for this legislation is wrong and is targeted at the needs of the policy makers and not the needs of the US economy
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 08:31 AM   #5
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,459
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Then I think you have misunderstood the article.

My reading of the article is that:
  • Given the current state of the US economy (steady if unspectacular growth, low unemployment) there is no need for such a stimulus
  • That in any case, this would not be the way to do it
  • By doing this now, the GOP is denying themselves one of the necessary levers to deal with future downturns
  • Even the timetable for this legislation is wrong and is targeted at the needs of the policy makers and not the needs of the US economy
Their donors would hate a bad downturn, also.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 08:43 AM   #6
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,185
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Their donors would hate a bad downturn, also.
But they don't know that they would.

They think that they're each special, gifted, harder-working, and worth more than other people and would still come out ahead. They rationalize this foolish self-centered idiocy with rationalizations such as thinking it's the only way to keep them and others strong, that there is no other way, that it makes the weak stronger by making them fight for it (by having the price of failure be catastrophic and the rewards stratospheric), that the 'losers' deserve it and after all, they are not losers. Many just want to hurt the 'losers'.

Many have been buying their own dog food for too many years to see it. Otherwise rational people think that they'd be fine even with massive civil unrest. Even the mechanism so beloved by libertarians of 'rational self-interest' fails hard when the group is not being rational. They would be hurt by a downturn, that should be enough to make them support a better policy, but not enough of them believe they would be hurt. They're 'special'.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 09:49 AM   #7
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 23,899
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Their donors would hate a bad downturn, also.
Which is it, downturn or inflation

In any case, you claimed that:

Quote:
It seems the point of the article is that this tax bill hurts their donors through inflation.
I disagree, and think that you have misunderstood the article if you think that's the sole, or even the main, point of the article.

If you meant that it's one of many points made in the article then I think that your comment is very poorly worded.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 10:26 AM   #8
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,781
It probably wouldn’t result in inflation. The Fed largely controls that with monetary policy. It would however force the Fed towards tighter monetary policy that would raise interest rates and wash away any of the hoped for economic growth.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 10:29 AM   #9
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,817
One danger of having a bumbling imbecile of epic proportions as POTUS is the normalization of comparatively normal, fact-challenged, Rand-worshiping ideologues such as Ryan.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 10:30 AM   #10
logger
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,939
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post


Of course, most of the Republican Congressmen are not actually insane; they know full well who this bill helps -- their donors, who will see fantastic returns on their investment -- and they simply don't care who it hurts. But they know we do care, so they are simply lying through their teeth about what the bill does -- lying so blatant and so destructive to honest debate that I can't think of any real precedent in my 5 decades of watching Congressional maneuvering. It surpasses the previous record so recently set by their lies about Obamacare "repeal and replace," but only by a little.
So the article discusses the economic disaster this bill would create by inflation? Is this your side admitting what tax cuts do but ignoring the revenue coming in?
Quote:
How can any intellectually honest Republican not be ashamed of these bait-and-switch con jobs?
Ashamed? To get more of our money b@ck from wasteful disgusting government. And by the way, I don’t think they should do it either. Maybe do something for corporations bu5 we’re way too deep in debt. We need to cut spending!
Quote:
2018 needs to be the year that this version of the GOP dies an ignoble death, and good riddance.
Yes because we want to go back to the horrendous Obama economy.

Electing Dems instead of republicans goes from stupid to insane!
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 10:51 AM   #11
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,095
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Of course a liberal rag like Forbes would say that.
I know you are being facetious but the "liberal rag" Forbes allows contributors of many different views to post articles. Too bad more sources don't allow varying viewpoints.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 10:58 AM   #12
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,251
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Then I think you have misunderstood the article.

My reading of the article is that:
  • Given the current state of the US economy (steady if unspectacular growth, low unemployment) there is no need for such a stimulus
  • That in any case, this would not be the way to do it
  • By doing this now, the GOP is denying themselves one of the necessary levers to deal with future downturns
  • Even the timetable for this legislation is wrong and is targeted at the needs of the policy makers and not the needs of the US economy
A different contributor at Forbes interprets those same economic conditions as indicators of a recession. I don't know which author at Forbes to believe.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 11:00 AM   #13
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 41,130
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
That isn't actually arguing that the tax plan would help though.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 11:02 AM   #14
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,781
Originally Posted by logger View Post
So the article discusses the economic disaster this bill would create by inflation? Is this your side admitting what tax cuts do but ignoring the revenue coming in?
“our side” has long understood that fiscal stimulus of any kind puts upwards pressure on inflation and interest rates. The real question is when such upward pressure is desirable and when it is not. Under current economic conditions it is not, so it would create a massive amount of new debt for doing something actively harmful to the US economy. The ultimate lose-lose.

Originally Posted by logger View Post
We need to cut spending!
2/3 of US government spending is Mandatory and can't be cut without massive cuts to programs that heavily benefit a block of voters (Seniors) that lean heavily Republican. Significant cuts to Mandatory spending would require new laws be enacted to strip this group of existing benefits so we can surmise that no such cuts will occur under Republican leadership.

2/3 of discretionary spending go to Defence and Security, areas Republicans ant to increase spending.

Much of the remaining 8%-10% of the US budget is still on essential services like highways, the court system, and also cannot reasonably be cut.

What's left after that almost all shows a positive ROI, so in the long run cuts would cost more than the programs themselves.

The end result is that Republican leadership would almost certainly increase spending in the long term over and above what would be seen under Democrats. Combined with large decreases in revenue being proposed the inevitable outcome is a massive increase in US debt.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 11:05 AM   #15
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 41,130
On the plus side this tax bill will solidly destroy what is left of science in our universities so that is a win for conservatives. No one is going to be able to afford to get advanced degrees in science anymore.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 11:13 AM   #16
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,659
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Of course a liberal rag like forbes would say that.
It seems Forbes hasn't gotten the memo: Deficits and increased national debt are only bad when a Democrat is the president. Most likely we won't really see the deficit ramp up until after a Democrat has replaced Donald Trump, at which point the deficit will be said Democrat's fault.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 11:15 AM   #17
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17,748
Auntie Em, it's a twister!
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 11:27 AM   #18
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 23,899
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Indicators of a possible future recession according to the linked article.

Removing one of the levers to address a future recession whilst not in one sounds like a bad idea
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 11:31 AM   #19
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,722
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
“our side” has long understood that fiscal stimulus of any kind puts upwards pressure on inflation and interest rates. The real question is when such upward pressure is desirable and when it is not. Under current economic conditions it is not, so it would create a massive amount of new debt for doing something actively harmful to the US economy. The ultimate lose-lose.

2/3 of US government spending is Mandatory and can't be cut without massive cuts to programs that heavily benefit a block of voters (Seniors) that lean heavily Republican. Significant cuts to Mandatory spending would require new laws be enacted to strip this group of existing benefits so we can surmise that no such cuts will occur under Republican leadership.

2/3 of discretionary spending go to Defence and Security, areas Republicans ant to increase spending.

Much of the remaining 8%-10% of the US budget is still on essential services like highways, the court system, and also cannot reasonably be cut.

What's left after that almost all shows a positive ROI, so in the long run cuts would cost more than the programs themselves.

The end result is that Republican leadership would almost certainly increase spending in the long term over and above what would be seen under Democrats. Combined with large decreases in revenue being proposed the inevitable outcome is a massive increase in US debt.
Well said.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 12:20 PM   #20
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,095
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
On the plus side this tax bill will solidly destroy what is left of science in our universities so that is a win for conservatives. No one is going to be able to afford to get advanced degrees in science anymore.
Here is a different opinion from Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/preston.../#2d4917074876



What % of graduate students receive stipend and tuition assistance? I couldn't find the answer.
But I do know when I got my masters degree I had to pay my tuition plus I had to pay taxes on the income I earned from a non university job that I used to pay my tuition.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 12:35 PM   #21
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 41,130
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Here is a different opinion from Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/preston.../#2d4917074876



What % of graduate students receive stipend and tuition assistance? I couldn't find the answer.
But I do know when I got my masters degree I had to pay my tuition plus I had to pay taxes on the income I earned from a non university job that I used to pay my tuition.
Depends on the field. In the hard sciences it is near 100% certainty for those going into research. It will not effect many doctorates but it will destroy the hard sciences.

We will see all the grad students in many science departments drop out if this passes.

https://www.wired.com/story/grad-stu...hey-should-be/

"For years, PhD candidates have "paid" for their educations almost exclusively through research and teaching—working in labs, TAing courses, hosting office hours. It works like an apprenticeship: Trade five years of your life learning and working in a field that interests you in exchange for a meager, but livable, salary. "The point is to be stressed about class work and research—not finances," Coston says. Fewer than 10 percent of PhD candidates in STEM fields rely primarily on their own money to pay for grad school; and in 2015, more than three-quarters graduated with no debt. (At least from their graduate programs; plenty of graduate students complete their PhDs burdened with debt from their undergrad years.)"

So as a nation we will say goodbye to science education and advancement.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

Last edited by ponderingturtle; 20th November 2017 at 12:38 PM.
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 01:16 PM   #22
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,412
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So as a nation we will say goodbye to science education and advancement.
That's the plan...
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 02:07 PM   #23
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,705
Originally Posted by logger View Post
So the article discusses the economic disaster this bill would create by inflation? Is this your side admitting what tax cuts do but ignoring the revenue coming in?
Well, if you had read the very next paragraph in the article, you wouldn't need to ask that:

Originally Posted by Forbes
Meanwhile, Congress has ignored other estimates like this one from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School showing that the tax bill won't do what the GOP is promising.
There is neither evidence nor logical reason to expect the bill will do what the Republicans are claiming.

Originally Posted by logger View Post
Ashamed? To get more of our money b@ck from wasteful disgusting government. And by the way, I don’t think they should do it either. Maybe do something for corporations bu5 we’re way too deep in debt. We need to cut spending!
Well, either you must be very rich or you don't know what this bill actually does (or maybe you just aren't familiar with the term "bait and switch"?), because most of us are not going to "get more of our money back." You've been conned.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 20th November 2017 at 03:20 PM.
WilliamSeger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 02:50 PM   #24
TellyKNeasuss
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Depends on the field. In the hard sciences it is near 100% certainty for those going into research. It will not effect many doctorates but it will destroy the hard sciences.

We will see all the grad students in many science departments drop out if this passes.
That will just leave more graduate student slots available for Chinese. And it seems to be the goal of the Trump Administration to help China as much as possible.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 02:53 PM   #25
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 15,222
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Depends on the field. In the hard sciences it is near 100% certainty for those going into research. It will not effect many doctorates but it will destroy the hard sciences.

We will see all the grad students in many science departments drop out if this passes.

https://www.wired.com/story/grad-stu...hey-should-be/

"For years, PhD candidates have "paid" for their educations almost exclusively through research and teaching—working in labs, TAing courses, hosting office hours. It works like an apprenticeship: Trade five years of your life learning and working in a field that interests you in exchange for a meager, but livable, salary. "The point is to be stressed about class work and research—not finances," Coston says. Fewer than 10 percent of PhD candidates in STEM fields rely primarily on their own money to pay for grad school; and in 2015, more than three-quarters graduated with no debt. (At least from their graduate programs; plenty of graduate students complete their PhDs burdened with debt from their undergrad years.)"

So as a nation we will say goodbye to science education and advancement.
PHD Comics is on the case.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 02:54 PM   #26
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 15,222
Quote:
Meanwhile, Congress has ignored other estimates like this one from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School showing that the tax bill won't do what the GOP is promising.
Guess where Trump went to school....
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 05:07 PM   #27
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 56,252
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancol.../#774a835f77ef


Of course, most of the Republican Congressmen are not actually insane; they know full well who this bill helps -- their donors, who will see fantastic returns on their investment -- and they simply don't care who it hurts. But they know we do care, so they are simply lying through their teeth about what the bill does -- lying so blatant and so destructive to honest debate that I can't think of any real precedent in my 5 decades of watching Congressional maneuvering. It surpasses the previous record so recently set by their lies about Obamacare "repeal and replace," but only by a little.

How can any intellectually honest Republican not be ashamed of these bait-and-switch con jobs?

2018 needs to be the year that this version of the GOP dies an ignoble death, and good riddance.
I usually have no interest in Forbes. I think that may need to change - they clearly go for the truth!!!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 05:41 PM   #28
logger
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,939
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, if you had read the very next paragraph in the article, you wouldn't need to ask that:



There is neither evidence nor logical reason to expect the bill will do what the Republicans are claiming.



Well, either you must be very rich or you don't know what this bill actually does (or maybe you just aren't familiar with the term "bait and switch"?), because most of us are not going to "get more of our money back." You've been conned.
Did you miss the part where I’m not for this tax cut? Not only is it not a tax cut for many, it throws more tax payers off the rolls. It’s fine to want to do something to help corporations but they need to raise taxes on the poor and lower class.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 06:57 PM   #29
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,584
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Did you miss the part where I’m not for this tax cut? Not only is it not a tax cut for many, it throws more tax payers off the rolls. It’s fine to want to do something to help corporations but they need to raise taxes on the poor and lower class.
And it's a wonderful tax cut plan if you own a private jet like most middle class Americans nowadays.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 08:13 PM   #30
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,097
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
That will just leave more graduate student slots available for Chinese. And it seems to be the goal of the Trump Administration to help China as much as possible.
I know you are being sarcastic but at most state universities tuition for foreign students is typically at a much higher non-resident rate than for USA citizens who can establish residency, meaning they would have to pay even higher income taxes.

It is very hard for me to not think that Trump intentionally seeks to destroy the USA as a first world country; virtually all of his policies appear to be directed to that goal. Destroying the next generation of STEM students, and the research they would have produced, is fully in keeping with that.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 08:15 PM   #31
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,459
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I know you are being sarcastic but at most state universities tuition for foreign students is typically at a much higher non-resident rate than for USA citizens who can establish residency, meaning they would have to pay even higher income taxes.

It is very hard for me to not think that Trump intentionally seeks to destroy the USA as a first world country; virtually all of his policies appear to be directed to that goal. Destroying the next generation of STEM students, and the research they would have produced, is fully in keeping with that.
Do you think trump is even aware that this tax deduction existed?
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 08:24 PM   #32
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,097
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Here is a different opinion from Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/preston.../#2d4917074876



What % of graduate students receive stipend and tuition assistance? I couldn't find the answer.
But I do know when I got my masters degree I had to pay my tuition plus I had to pay taxes on the income I earned from a non university job that I used to pay my tuition.
As already posted: virtually all STEM. Probably the largest affected group in numbers will be those in the biological sciences: the majority of whom are doing biomedical-related research. But also large numbers in chemistry, engineering, math, computer sciences, material sciences, etc. They do work for their tuition but the work is related to their research.

But why would we want to encourage them when we can give the tax breaks to golf course owners?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 08:27 PM   #33
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14,097
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Do you think trump is even aware that this tax deduction existed?
I think someone mentioned to him and he thought abolishing it would be a great slap at a demographic that typically doesn't support him.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 09:47 PM   #34
logger
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,939
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I think someone mentioned to him and he thought abolishing it would be a great slap at a demographic that typically doesn't support him.
Its hilarious how the left has always paid back their political enemies, now they’re getting it back.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 10:39 PM   #35
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,257
The left did that when?
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2017, 01:28 AM   #36
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,584
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
The left did that when?
Well there was that time when they legalised Gay Marriage and it made all God Fearing Christian Marriages null and void unless they married themselves a homosexual.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2017, 01:45 AM   #37
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,710
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Then I think you have misunderstood the article.

My reading of the article is that:
  • Given the current state of the US economy (steady if unspectacular growth, low unemployment) there is no need for such a stimulus
  • That in any case, this would not be the way to do it
  • By doing this now, the GOP is denying themselves one of the necessary levers to deal with future downturns
  • Even the timetable for this legislation is wrong and is targeted at the needs of the policy makers and not the needs of the US economy
Yes, this is an Anti-Keynesian stimulus. If anything, now is a time to do something about the fiscal deficits (save now so you have more flexibility for a rainy day later).

I predict another case of Democrats will be left to clean up the mess, just as Bush left with the economy in tatters and Obama had to deal with the aftermath for years afterwards.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2017, 01:50 AM   #38
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,675
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Yes, this is an Anti-Keynesian stimulus. If anything, now is a time to do something about the fiscal deficits (save now so you have more flexibility for a rainy day later).

I predict another case of Democrats will be left to clean up the mess, just as Bush left with the economy in tatters and Obama had to deal with the aftermath for years afterwards.
But the Republican approach to economics is so simple. If we have a surplus, cut taxes for the rich because we can afford to. If a deficit, cut taxes for the rich to raise revenue (by some kind of magic.) If the economy is booming, cut taxes for the rich because they deserve it. If the economy is in recession, cut taxes for the rich because they will create jobs (by some kind of magic.)

In short, the answer to every economic and fiscal issue is to cut taxes for the wealthy no matter what.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2017, 01:50 AM   #39
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,710
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
That's not a very funny comic. Where's the punchline? The gag?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2017, 01:56 AM   #40
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,213
The reason why the tax cuts will have next to zero positive economic impact is the fact that includes a lot of tax increases, slightly postponed.
No company is going to make major investments in consumer goods when they know that the middle class will have less disposable income in a few years.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.