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 25th November 2017, 11:58 AM   #81
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,258
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
A few facts:

Meadmaker 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 25th November 2017, 12:38 PM   #82
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 65,162
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Total direct revenue? What is that graph showing and how do major variables correlate? Is there any correction for inflation and/or population growth?

After a major economic collapse in 2008, there was a stimulus paid to certain corporations to prevent their collapse and slowly (without billionaire tax cuts) the economy and therefore federal income increased. And some of those companies paid the government back.

Reagan's tax cuts were a big lie, they were paid for by an increase in the deficit which was the equivalent of a stimulus injection into the economy. Production increased, profits increased and wages stagnated.

Under Bill Clinton federal spending and income evened out and the economy did well, sans billionaire tax cuts.


Anyone that believes the current tax cuts benefit the middle class is a fool.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 25th November 2017 at 01:08 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 25th November 2017, 12:45 PM   #83
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 18,719
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Depends if you're talking about classical liberals or US modern ones.
As a modern US liberal I am not against big business.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk
Mycroft 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 25th November 2017, 01:22 PM   #84
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,258
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Total direct revenue? What is that graph showing and how do major variables correlate? Is there any correction for inflation and/or population growth?
No adjustments. It's just plain revenue. (I don't know if there is such a thing as "indirect revenue". I'll see if I can look up the exact definition of "direct revenue".)

ETA: "Direct revenue" is taxes, of all sorts. The source of the graph is usgovernmentrevenue.com.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 25th November 2017 at 01:30 PM.
Meadmaker 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 25th November 2017, 01:41 PM   #85
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 65,162
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No adjustments. It's just plain revenue. (I don't know if there is such a thing as "indirect revenue". I'll see if I can look up the exact definition of "direct revenue".)
I wasn't referring to indirect revenue, I was referring to correlating variables and adjusting for inflation and the population denominator.

Bobtaftfan has asserted an unsupportable claim that "Every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by large *increases* in federal revenue." He cites a blogger that relies heavily on right wing sources and blames the deficit increases solely on increased spending as his evidence. The problem is the analysis ignores the effect of increased deficit spending which acts initially as a stimulus. It's no different than increasing the money supply.

Politifact: Do tax cuts pay for themselves? Evidence is thin
Quote:
"The Trump administration will say, 'Well, hey, tax cuts are going to create growth, growth is going to create revenue, that's going to offset all this deficit,'" Rana Foroohar, a CNN economic analyst and Financial Times columnist, told CNN April 26. "Well, there's no real evidence in the last 20 years that that has happened."
This is the problem of picking and choosing variables and proclaiming that variable is the one that results in economic growth:
Quote:
Several experts cautioned that isolating tax cuts as the sole cause of whatever economic conditions are to follow is more than a little tricky, since good or bad economic conditions can coincide with tax cuts and affect federal revenue. Another caveat is that tax cuts can be manipulated to look as if they’re boosting growth when they’re really not -- as we’ve shown before.
You want economic growth and you want to use tax dollars to get it? Fine, put those dollars where they get the best return: invest in infrastructure.
Skeptic Ginger 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 25th November 2017, 01:56 PM   #86
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,578
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I wasn't referring to indirect revenue, I was referring to correlating variables and adjusting for inflation and the population denominator.

Bobtaftfan has asserted an unsupportable claim that "Every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by large *increases* in federal revenue."
Well the graph showed he was wrong there anyways as the Bush Tax Cuts were 2001 and subsequent years show lowered direct Revenue, not recovering until 2005, though if you took the trend pre-2000 and extended it, the Revenues never recovered to where that trend line would be after Bush's Tax Cuts.
__________________

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 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 25th November 2017, 02:29 PM   #87
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,884
Reagan's tax cuts during his first term are often used to support the idea that revenue grows after tax cuts. Accepting this requires that you ignore the effect of double digit inflation. Adjusted for inflation revenues went down substantially after those tax cuts.
Kestrel 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 25th November 2017, 02:33 PM   #88
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 65,162
Thanks, both of you.
Skeptic Ginger 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 25th November 2017, 02:42 PM   #89
chrispy
Critical Thinker
 
chrispy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Mexico/Guatemala
Posts: 377
Where are all the Republican defecit-hawks these days?
chrispy 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 25th November 2017, 02:45 PM   #90
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 65,162
Originally Posted by chrispy View Post
Where are all the Republican defecit-hawks these days?
Counting their graft.
Skeptic Ginger 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 25th November 2017, 02:56 PM   #91
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,408
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
Rich people make better use of their money than the government does, in most cases.
That's right! Billion dollar mansions, private jets and super-yachts make much better use of our money than maintaining law and order, providing essential infrastructure, defending us from invaders and promoting the general Welfare of the country. Those old guys who drafted the Constitution were idiots!

If it hadn't been for Federal, State and local government waste, we would all be much richer now - and probably speaking Japanese or Russian.

Quote:
When you get a home loan, whose money do you think you're borrowing? A good chunk of it comes from the savings and investments of rich people.
And where did those rich people get their money from? Poor people!

But seriously, the truth is that most of that money came from nowhere.

Quote:
Why do liberals pretend to care about small businesses when they demonize small businesses as soon as they become big businesses? If you're a mom and pop small business, liberals will pretend to care deeply about helping you grow.
Not this liberal. I ran a small business for 12 years that employed 3 people. I gladly paid my taxes and never expected any favoritism. Unlike my main supplier I didn't hide profits in the Caymans, or suck all the money out leaving the business bankrupt and stiffing the creditors.

Quote:
But, oh boy, if you are successful and become a big business, suddenly you're heartless, greedy, and predatory.
How do small businesses become big businesses? By being heartless, greedy, and predatory.
__________________
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 25th November 2017, 04:10 PM   #92
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,969
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You want economic growth and you want to use tax dollars to get it? Fine, put those dollars where they get the best return: invest in infrastructure.
Also education and early-years health. A healthy, edcated workforce is crucial for a prosperous and flexible economy.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger 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 25th November 2017, 04:25 PM   #93
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,969
The supply-side theory has it that, if the rich have more money, they will invest it productively in anticaption of a future revenue stream. Another school of thought has it that, if the rich have more money, they will spend it on themselves.

These theories have been tested over 37 years during which the rich have become ever richer, and they have spent the money on ever more egregious displays of conspicuous consumption, and on asset inflation bubbles, starting with junk bonds, the '87 dump, the dot-con fiasco, and culminating in 2007-8 (I blame Obama). Domestic US manufacturing investment collapsed, and manufacturing has experienced mass outsourcing of jobs. And of course status no longer depends on your yacht - you need a fleet of yachts for all occasions to be in the game.

This is a world-wide phaenomenon, of course, and it will end in tears.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger 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 25th November 2017, 05:48 PM   #94
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 15,359
Originally Posted by chrispy View Post
Where are all the Republican defecit-hawks these days?
They're voting yes and hoping it fails.
Craig4 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 25th November 2017, 06:11 PM   #95
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,581
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
The supply-side theory has it that, if the rich have more money, they will invest it productively in anticaption of a future revenue stream. Another school of thought has it that, if the rich have more money, they will spend it on themselves.

Yep. That other school of thought is otherwise known as "basic human nature". This experiment has been repeated, and its results confirmed, in various ways over the course of human history.

It's pitifully amusing that certain conservatives are so transparent in their double standard: rich people deserve even more money, because they'll spend it on things that benefit the country as a whole; poor people, however, will just spend that extra money on drugs or personal and frivolous ******** (like phones and refrigerators).

As if "rich people" aren't stereotyped as being drug-fueled and spending vast amounts of money on personal and frivolous ********.

It's a clear expression of the ignorant belief that rich people are just innately better human beings.

But I suppose that belief is human nature, too. Some of us try to work around our flaws, and some of us try to build societies around them.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 25th November 2017 at 06:14 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd 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 25th November 2017, 06:38 PM   #96
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 15,193
Originally Posted by chrispy View Post
Where are all the Republican defecit-hawks these days?
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
They're voting yes and hoping it fails.
No. They only exist when Democrats are President. Republican deficits are good.
__________________
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 26th November 2017, 03:10 PM   #97
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,578
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
No. They only exist when Democrats are President. Republican deficits are good.
I really don't get this. I mean, can you imagine the bank manager's response if you went to him/her and told them that you wanted to increase your mortgage to cover your bills because you'd just told your boss that you were up for taking a huge pay cut.
__________________

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 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 26th November 2017, 04:50 PM   #98
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,134
Well, one thing's for certain! (my side) is with the angels, and (the other side) are congenital thieves and layabouts.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina 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 26th November 2017, 05:55 PM   #99
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 15,359
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
No. They only exist when Democrats are President. Republican deficits are good.
I still have hope that enough Republicans leaving the House and Senate will kill this.
Craig4 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 26th November 2017, 09:32 PM   #100
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,408
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
It's a clear expression of the ignorant belief that rich people are just innately better human beings.
But it's true! The only valid measure of a person's worth is their wealth - by definition.

You see, the only way you can measure the value of anything is by its monetary value. To be a better human being you have to be more successful, ie. richer. For proof of this we need only look to the best human being ever, Jesus Christ:-

Matthew 6:20-21
"...lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
__________________
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 26th November 2017, 10:49 PM   #101
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,046
As I see it, a lot of the decisions made by the US republicans would actually make sense if decisions were really made by 'the market' and 'the companies'
After all, for both of those fictional entities it would be a good thing to re-invest profit into the work force by providing a good salary, good job security, a good health care package, unemployment benefits, and investing in a good, all round, totally accessible schooling system for everyone in the country.

After all, that way you get happy workers, with an incentive to take risks and develop new things, who don't take a lot of sick days and you know that the next generation of workers will be well educated and you don't miss out on geniuses that could create a lot of profit because they happen to be born in the wrong part of the country.

But it is not those fictional entities that make the decisions, it is the very human people running them. And when they are faced with the decision on whether to invest in long term profit that benefits everyone OR giving the money to themselves so they can buy that second gold-plated jet, experience has shown that the vast majority choose option two.

Now in the short term that isn't much of a problem, as long as you are rich. But in the longer term the economy will suffer from this. That is why a government is needed to make unpopular decisions in order to make a nation, not a few people, powerful. And that is exactly what populists like Trump and his fellow travelers in Europe are really bad at.
Lukraak_Sisser 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 27th November 2017, 10:32 AM   #102
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,101
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
A few facts:

Every major tax cut since the early 1900s has been followed by large *increases* in federal revenue. "The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth," http://miketgriffith.com/files/taxcutfacts.htm .
Given his apparent lack of qualifications and that his "facts" sheet seems to only reference commentary/opinion pieces I have zero confidence in this guys info.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Griffith
Quote:
Michael T. Griffith (born 1957) is a Mormon apologist who has written several books defending The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
paulhutch 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 27th November 2017, 10:49 AM   #103
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,771
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why on earth would liberals be against "big business", big business arises from liberal ideas. Before liberalism there wasn't really "big business".
Depends if you're talking about classical liberals or US modern ones.

Adam Smith on the corporations of his day:

Quote:
But the greater part of those proprietors seldom pretend to understand anything of the business of the company, and when the spirit of faction happens not to prevail among them, give themselves no trouble about it, but receive contentedly such half-yearly or yearly dividend as the directors think proper to make to them. This total exemption from trouble and from risk, beyond a limited sum, encourages many people to become adventurers in joint stock companies, who would, upon no account, hazard their fortunes in any private copartnery. Such companies, therefore, commonly draw to themselves much greater stocks than any private copartnery can boast of. . . . The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own.
While corporations have evolved since he wrote this most of the issues Smith saw in them can still be seen today. Eg here is an article written a few years ago regarding IBM on how the quest for short term profits earned the then CEO massive financial benefits but handcuffed the company’s growth and profitability long term.


If anything most of todays Liberals are more willing to work with a framework of large corporations. An insistence on a strong regulatory framework is not inconstant with this, in fact they go hand in hand.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 27th November 2017, 11:01 AM   #104
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,267
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
Given his apparent lack of qualifications and that his "facts" sheet seems to only reference commentary/opinion pieces I have zero confidence in this guys info.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Griffith
The state of Kansas would like to weigh in on this subject...
Delphic Oracle 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 27th November 2017, 04:22 PM   #105
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,217
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The state of Kansas would like to weigh in on this subject...
Along with Louisiana and Oklahoma. I mean who needs healthcare or education, anyway>
Stacko 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 27th November 2017, 04:43 PM   #106
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,658
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Reagan's tax cuts during his first term are often used to support the idea that revenue grows after tax cuts. Accepting this requires that you ignore the effect of double digit inflation. Adjusted for inflation revenues went down substantially after those tax cuts.
There were a variety of factors that caused the economic growth of the Reagan years. The tax cut was one, and tax rates prior to that cut were arguably too high. Also, starting in the Carter years, the Fed attacked inflation aggressively, initially leading to extremely high interest rates, "stagflation" and then a rather deep recession. However, the Fed's policies eventually resulted in a taming of inflation and interest rates dropped. There was also a significant drop in energy prices, due largely to the Iran-Iraq war, as both countries boosted production to pay for the war, as well as Reagan's deregulation of domestic oil prices. The combination of these factors cased a robust recovery.

However, the notion that tax cuts will always increase revenue, which has become essentially a religious belief among right-wingers, has not been supported by reality with subsequent tax cuts, especially the cuts during the Bush administration.
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 28th November 2017, 05:06 AM   #107
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,243
I recently read on an economists' website, tax cuts that are mostly targeted towards the top 10% wage earners will produce some economic benefits. Of that, the economists all seemed to agree. However, most also stated, that if the tax cuts were instead targeted towards the 'other' 90% of wage earners the benefits to the economy would be much greater.

The Republican idea is that cutting the tax rates on the very wealthy will produce a lot of economic activity. Other than the very wealthy themselves and hardcore conservatives, only one demographic seems to still buy into that. That group is working class/middle income whites. This is what probably scares the hell out of the Republicans. Look at the numbers: 90% vs. 10%. If white working class/middle income people ever stop believing tax cuts for the very wealthy is the way to go then, as they used to say, the 'jig is up, folks.'

The Republicans must continue to drive a wedge between white working class/middle income voters and non-white working class/middle income voters. I think behind-the-scenes the Republican leadership, and people like the Mercers and Koch brothers, are very well aware of that. And no recent Republican leader has been better at this than Trump. Because if those two demographics ever come together politically...the jig really will be up!
newyorkguy 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 28th November 2017, 06:30 AM   #108
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,139
Trump messing up tax bill with Pocahontas talk.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politi...nch/index.html
He can still snatch failure from the jaws of victory! Go Trump!!!
__________________
So Hillary sharing her email secrets with a server in her own basement was dangerous? But Trump spilling his guts to Russian agents that hold his pee pee tapes is not?
http://karireport.blogspot.com/
Tero 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 28th November 2017, 06:42 AM   #109
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 23,893
The tax bill will IMO still sail through regardless because:
  • The GOP needs a legislative "win" this year
  • The GOP loves them some tax cuts
  • Trickle-down is now part of GOP DNA
  • The economy will have a short uptick as a result
  • The multi-trillion dollar downside won't happen for years
  • By then there'll likely be a Democratic Party President and (s)he can try to tackle the self-inflicted additional deficit - with the GOP fighting a rearguard action all the way
  • Most GOP legislators stand to gain significantly on a personal basis
  • Any GOP senators currently concerned with the deficit will be plied with pork
The Don 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 28th November 2017, 06:44 AM   #110
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 41,130
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The tax bill will IMO still sail through regardless because:
  • The GOP needs a legislative "win" this year
  • The GOP loves them some tax cuts
  • Trickle-down is now part of GOP DNA
  • The economy will have a short uptick as a result
  • The multi-trillion dollar downside won't happen for years
  • By then there'll likely be a Democratic Party President and (s)he can try to tackle the self-inflicted additional deficit - with the GOP fighting a rearguard action all the way
  • Most GOP legislators stand to gain significantly on a personal basis
  • Any GOP senators currently concerned with the deficit will be plied with pork
Maybe there are enough senators who are on the way out to block it 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 28th November 2017, 09:53 AM   #111
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The tax bill will IMO still sail through regardless because:

*The GOP needs a legislative "win" this year
They do, but they also need to get re-elected, and right now the polls show the public does not support the tax plans. (And while most Republican voters support the plan, its far from universal.)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politi...orm/index.html

Lets face it, the republican base doesn't seem to be very smart. Just tell them you did something and they'll believe it.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur 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 28th November 2017, 09:58 AM   #112
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Maybe there are enough senators who are on the way out to block it though.
Yup, they only have a margin of 2 votes, and they have to maintain the support of both "deficit hawks" (who will object to an increase in government debt levels), and moderates who may not like the impact of the tax plan on health care.

This seems so much like "Republican Health Care version 2.0".... lets create a complex plan quickly, then attempt to ram it through congress before the effects can be properly evaluated.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur 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 28th November 2017, 10:13 AM   #113
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,062
Analysis by the Congressional budget office:

From: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/27/politi...tax/index.html
...on-budget deficit increase of about $1.44 trillion

From: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/27/sena...bo-report.html
The CBO report, released Sunday, estimates that lower-income groups would foot a bigger bill from tax cuts than previously expected. In 2019, all income groups under $30,000 would have a bigger burden under the bill, the CBO projected. In 2027, that would extend to all income groups under $75,000, as individual tax reductions expire.
(The biggest impact is in the way health care is handled for those with lower income.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur 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 28th November 2017, 10:31 AM   #114
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 23,893
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
They do, but they also need to get re-elected, and right now the polls show the public does not support the tax plans. (And while most Republican voters support the plan, its far from universal.)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/18/politi...orm/index.html

Lets face it, the republican base doesn't seem to be very smart. Just tell them you did something and they'll believe it.
For most GOP representatives, the biggest risk to their being reelected isn't the Democratic Party and their candidates but being "primaried" by a GOP candidate more suitable to the GOP which means:

- More likely to get rid of Obamacare
- More theocratic
- More anti-science or indeed knowledge of any kind
- More tax-cuts
- More Trumpist

Which is why IMO it'll sail through despite any personal concerns from the senators
The Don 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 28th November 2017, 03:28 PM   #115
Stacko
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,217
Holy ****** The chart on page 10 of the CBO score of the bill. This is literally robing the poor to pay the rich.
Stacko 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 28th November 2017, 04:22 PM   #116
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 22,969
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Yup, they only have a margin of 2 votes, and they have to maintain the support of both "deficit hawks" (who will object to an increase in government debt levels), and moderates who may not like the impact of the tax plan on health care.
One for the connoisseur, isn't it? And that's without Trump working the phones.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger 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 28th November 2017, 04:33 PM   #117
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,139
Beautiful present coming tomorrow?
http://karireport.blogspot.com/2017/...l-present.html
__________________
So Hillary sharing her email secrets with a server in her own basement was dangerous? But Trump spilling his guts to Russian agents that hold his pee pee tapes is not?
http://karireport.blogspot.com/
Tero 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 28th November 2017, 04:45 PM   #118
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 65,162
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
Beautiful present coming tomorrow?
http://karireport.blogspot.com/2017/...l-present.html
I don't think those tiny presents for Trump's followers is true. All economic reports that look at the actual taxes show the middle income and poor paying more. The only way they get a tax cut is if Republicans add in their imaginary elements to the equation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 28th November 2017, 04:50 PM   #119
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,698
Good news! Corker is on the Senate Budget Committee and his vote alone could prevent it from passing out of committee!

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/sen-...-tax-vote.html
Quote:
Sen. Bob Corker: 'I've been a deficit hawk for 11 years' and don't want to damage the nation with tax vote


Just kidding. We all know they're spineless

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...kely-this-week
Quote:
The Senate Budget Committee voted to send the tax bill to the Senate floor for a vote as early as Thursday. The panel’s approval came on a party line vote of 12-11 after GOP Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Bob Corker of Tennessee put aside objections related to business taxes and deficit impacts.
Or maybe Republican spines are just removable. He had it in place at the beginning of the day but then it started to chafe so he had to remove it later prior to the vote.
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus 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 28th November 2017, 06:50 PM   #120
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,267
Notice their line is "next year you'll save x dollars" which is ostensibly true.

It's just all the years after that you'll get screwed.

They are probably hoping people will assume that meant "going forward." They are probably right about that.

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 28th November 2017 at 06:51 PM.
Delphic Oracle 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 11:51 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.