Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wouldn't it make more sense to start carping the minute BOTH bills are passed so the message gets to the members on what's required to fix when the bills are merged to craft the final bill?
It makes sense to kill specific provisions of bills you don't like as early as possible. You don't want something to get in a bill in the first place since it might be harder to take out in conference committee. The insurance lobby, for example, was not going to wait to see if the public option had been included in the final text of the ACA. This is something you always want to get ahead of.
There also certain fundamental accounting realities that are going to be a source of disagreement between Democrats and Republicans no matter what the specifics of the bill end up being. These tax cuts have to be paid for. Who's going to pay for them? There's no way you can create a $1.4-$1.7 trillion budget deficit without shifting the tax burden to a sizable portion of the middle class. You are basically forcing the middle class to make up the difference. Lots of people are going to oppose the bill for this reason.
There are also process reasons for opposing the bill. Typically, we would have tons of public hearings for a bill of this significance with all types of studies on the macroeconomic effects with testifying experts and so on and so forth. The process has been nothing like that. Instead, Republicans are racing ahead to pass this at break neck speed, which leads many observers to believe that they don't want the public to see or know much about what they're doing.
I wonder what posters here would say if Trump comes out against the bill. It's not out of the question. Just a couple of months ago he threw the GOP leadership under the bus by calling their Obamacare repeal plan "mean." Don't be surprised if Ivanka says something to Trump and he Tweets something about the bill being "unfair," leaving McConnell and Ryan saying "WTF?"
It definitely seems that Trump is driving the policy truck for GOP base voters. They may be against big government and government spending, but then Trump says he's going to give healthcare to everyone and the government is going to pay for it. GOP voters didn't care. This would be like Barack Obama saying that he's going to abolish social security. It's amazing how his base believes one thing on Monday and then something totally different by Wednesday.
"Nonpartisan Tax Foundation analysis of Senate tax bill: "Our results indicate a reduction in tax liability for every scenario we modeled, with some of the largest cuts accruing to moderate-income families with children." Lower taxes & higher post-tax income across the board... "
I don't know who is telling the truth. How can there be two such diametrically opposed conclusions to the same tax bill?
Last edited by texan2yankee; 11-28-2017 at 12:46 PM..
well you are demonstrably wrong. CBO is in fact nonpartisan and accurate. I find your attempts to discredit the outstanding service provided by these faithful public servants a complete disgrace.
factcheck.org is owned by Upenn who are obviously liberal. CBO has sided with the liberals with all of the legislation introduced by the GOP congress, sided with ACA when Obama was in Office, so yes of course I have issues with calling them nonpartisan when their actions clearly indicate they arent.
ACA negatively affected me, my premiums have gone up 290% since its introduction; I was not allowed to keep my doctor.
AMT has negatively affected me in the recent past , so obviously Im going to be for its removal. I do not deny Im out to look out for myself first because it is my job to do exactly that.
The Flat tax and the Fair Tax propisals would both hurt and and increase taxes on the middle class and more so working class Americans. Why, well there is money in peoole's pockets. That said both give far huger tax cuts to the rich than this Republican plan we see going up for a vote in both houses of Congress.
Can't anyone spouting off answer the basic question "is what you're all worked up about the final plan or just the Senate plan" that has yet to be merged with the House plan?
I guess that must be too hard a question or, if answered would deflate all the hyperbole...
Don't get mad at us,we are just passing on the info the trumps goverment wants to rob the poor and give it to the rich.
Nonpartisan Tax Foundation analysis of Senate tax bill: "Our results indicate a reduction in tax liability for every scenario we modeled, with some of the largest cuts accruing to moderate-income families with children." Lower taxes & higher post-tax income across the board...
I don't know who is telling the truth.
That's more like a half truth. Under the Senate budget reconciliation process, a bill cannot be passed that increases the deficit. This could be a half truth because you could have an initial reduction in tax liability with gradual increases in certain brackets over time.
Quote:
The report shows that this bill is much like a teaser rate on a new credit card: there are some goodies in the first couple of years, but those disappear fairly quickly, at least for those below the median income. In 2019, the first full year that this bill would be law, the benefits are concentrated on the bottom of the income stream, with middle-class people, on average, paying just under ten per cent less in taxes than they would if the law weren’t passed. With each passing year the benefits shift upward, toward the rich. By 2021, those making between twenty thousand and thirty thousand dollars a year are paying considerably more in taxes, those between thirty thousand and two hundred thousand see their benefit shrinking, and those making more start to see their taxes falling. By 2027, every income level below seventy-five thousand dollars a year sees a tax increase, while everybody above that level sees a continued decrease, with the greatest cut in taxes accruing to those making more than a million dollars a year.
It could also be wishful thinking based on an assumption that economic growth will lead to an increase in revenues.
The bottom line, though, is that the bill can't increase deficits, and it's impossible to lower taxes for everyone without increasing the deficit. At least not without commensurate decreases in spending.
Ah, so dead and suffering people and another 1.5 TRILLION piled onto debt is the conservative definition of "cutting spending"....
And please don't lecture us about the 5%. The only way to bring the budget into balance is to raise taxes, cut the security state and improve the ACA. Without doing all three we will be more in debt in 4 years than we are today.
Right about then the world may decide that Chinas currency is more stable. Then you can go to the local bank and they will give you $1 bills for your $10's and all will be OK.
Wow, you beli f 100% of our spending goes to the suffering and needy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
