GOP pushes more tax cuts while the world watches the Kavanaugh Trial

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6511
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
05 October 2018 09:23
 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/house-passes-gop-bill-to-make-new-tax-cuts-permanent.html

Republicans have sped legislation through the House to expand their massive new tax law, capping their session for the year as they rush out of town to face voters in the November elections.
The new bill would make permanent the individual and small-business tax cuts in the law.
It’s the second tax-cut proposal that Republican leaders have pushed in less than a year.

...

The sweeping rewrite of the tax code that Republicans hustled through Congress late last year, signed into law by Trump as his signature legislative achievement, is expected to add about $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

The bill approved Friday would add another $545 billion through 2028, according to an estimate by Congress’ bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

2 Trillion in deficit over 10 years. 

 

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20713
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
05 October 2018 12:33
 
Jefe - 05 October 2018 09:23 AM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/house-passes-gop-bill-to-make-new-tax-cuts-permanent.html

Republicans have sped legislation through the House to expand their massive new tax law, capping their session for the year as they rush out of town to face voters in the November elections.
The new bill would make permanent the individual and small-business tax cuts in the law.
It’s the second tax-cut proposal that Republican leaders have pushed in less than a year.

...

The sweeping rewrite of the tax code that Republicans hustled through Congress late last year, signed into law by Trump as his signature legislative achievement, is expected to add about $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

The bill approved Friday would add another $545 billion through 2028, according to an estimate by Congress’ bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

2 Trillion in deficit over 10 years. 

 

Nobody cares about deficits and debt anymore. Trump is the “king of debt.” Mexico will pay for it.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2543
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
05 October 2018 20:47
 

This is probably not going to pass the Senate.
It’s more like a parting gift for Republicans who might lose their seats in the Midterms, so they can up their “low taxes” credentials.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9144
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
06 October 2018 08:01
 

I can get with the tax cut as long as the military is cut proportionately, and oil and agriculture subsidies are cut, too.  That will lower the deficit and end that silly conversation.

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9144
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
07 October 2018 09:05
 

I find the cynical and repulsive actions of the Republican Party perplexing.  Are Americans really so small-minded to think it is best to live in fear and hate?  Nothing they say or do is for the benefit of anyone but the rich, the racists, and Christian bigots.  They seem to have a sadistic desire to punish or hold down anyone who does not fit their standard of a good person, and I see it first hand in my dad and father-in-law, who openly detest anyone who does not look like them, have as much money as them, has a different political view than them, etc.  In their eyes, they are the embodiment of perfect men, whose ideas are unassailable, and they cannot accept the possibility that anyone outside of their ideal has validity.

Remarkably, they also resent people who are wildly more successful than them.  The San Francisco Bay Area is flooded with obscene amounts of money (of which I have enough to squeak by), and they routinely give a hint of scorn when they see obvious signs of wealth (houses, cars, boats, etc.) by questioning how the wealth was obtained and implying that anyone who does better than them has done so with nefarious means.  They have a strange combination of detesting those who do not look like them, talk like them, have as much money as them, or hold the same political opinions as them, yet someone who meets their ideas and has far more money than them also falls under suspicion.  Naturally, anyone who is wildly wealthy but not a white male is deemed a crook.

Of course their xenophobia, homophobia, and racism is proudly tattooed on their foreheads and it constantly bites them in the ass, but even then they disregard the contradictions.  “Deport all illegals!” they say, and when I agree and demand we start by clearing out San Francisco’s world-famous Chinatown, or jail/fine/disposes farmers in California’s agricultural behemoth money-maker, the Centeal Valley and world-famous wine growing regions who employ armies of illegal immigrant workers with impunity, they change the subject.  “America would have far more money if we didn’t give all our money to Welfare recipients!” suddenly becomes a moot topic when I suggest that anyone receiving government money for doing nothing should be cut off since both men are on Medicare and receive a military pension including medical care, and my FIL receives a public school teacher’s pension for his 10 years in the profession.  “Gays can’t marry!” but my dad’s brother is gay, and my FIL’s son is gay and living with his husband in France.

The endless list of self-serving contradictions are easily shot down when their own interests are included in their rants, but that only means I’m not listening to their bigoted dog whistles.  What they really mean when they repeat Fox News talking points is to cut off everyone but themselves.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6511
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
07 October 2018 09:26
 

There’s a not too subtle selfishness embodied in the US conservative sphere that contradicts a bunch of economic and sociological thought that suggests that mode is incorrect or less productive on the whole.
It’s like punching downwards is the only way they can respond to the world around them.  I’m not sure where it all comes from, but there seems to be a ton of cognitive dissonance at play.

An example:

We pretty much know that people having more free money means a growing expanding economy.  People with extra cash, spend extra cash.  The more people there are with extra cash, the more of them start spending that extra cash on stuff.  The more people buying extra stuff, the more businesses they can support - in aggregate - because of that extra buying power. 

HOWEVER - any time there is talk about making life easier for the poor folk, it seems the downward punching begins.  It’s like ‘they’ don’t want anyone to have it easier than they had it - walking uphill, both ways, to school every day; working 3 jobs to get by in Uni/College/whatever - so they push back on any move to improve the economies of the lower classes.  They turn their head on improved economics while punching downward at the poor folks.

And the mega-elite rich don’t seem to understand that their earning potential also increases comensurately with a robust strong economy full of people with free-cash with which to buy stuff.

[ Edited: 07 October 2018 09:35 by Jefe]
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  16763
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
07 October 2018 09:32
 

Yep, yep, and yep. That said I’m just as perplexed by the liberals agenda to save everyone at any cost, and if you try and point the insanity of those costs your are a monster who hates women, children, elderly, minorities, immigrants, puppies, kittens, the earth…

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6511
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
07 October 2018 09:38
 
GAD - 07 October 2018 09:32 AM

Yep, yep, and yep. That said I’m just as perplexed by the liberals agenda to save everyone at any cost, and if you try and point the insanity of those costs your are a monster who hates women, children, elderly, minorities, immigrants, puppies, kittens, the earth…

To some degree, cost is arbitrary.  To some degree, a re-balancing of the books - away from military, toward social self-care -makes some sense.  But yes, the super extreme liberal groups that vilify moderation seem more than a little dissonant to me too.

 

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9144
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
07 October 2018 09:58
 
Jefe - 07 October 2018 09:38 AM
GAD - 07 October 2018 09:32 AM

Yep, yep, and yep. That said I’m just as perplexed by the liberals agenda to save everyone at any cost, and if you try and point the insanity of those costs your are a monster who hates women, children, elderly, minorities, immigrants, puppies, kittens, the earth…

To some degree, cost is arbitrary.  To some degree, a re-balancing of the books - away from military, toward social self-care -makes some sense.  But yes, the super extreme liberal groups that vilify moderation seem more than a little dissonant to me too.

The super-extreme liberals do not have a conservative counterpart anymore.  The conservatives have gone way bat-shit far right that disagreeing with Fox News will earn one the label of a radical liberal who will take my guns and give my taxes to illegal immigrants and welfare queens so they may drive Lamborghini cars to rob my house and rape my women.

Helping the less fortunate and ourselves is put on a slippery slope to inevitable societal collapse within five years, and accepted as gospel, just as giving all our money to an increasingly smaller group of oligarchs is not to be questioned.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  16763
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
07 October 2018 09:58
 
Jefe - 07 October 2018 09:38 AM
GAD - 07 October 2018 09:32 AM

Yep, yep, and yep. That said I’m just as perplexed by the liberals agenda to save everyone at any cost, and if you try and point the insanity of those costs your are a monster who hates women, children, elderly, minorities, immigrants, puppies, kittens, the earth…

To some degree, cost is arbitrary.  To some degree, a re-balancing of the books - away from military, toward social self-care -makes some sense.  But yes, the super extreme liberal groups that vilify moderation seem more than a little dissonant to me too.

Extreme is the new reasonable. In the culture today you aren’t going to get enough clicks and likes to be noticed if you aren’t extreme.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6511
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
07 October 2018 11:11
 
GAD - 07 October 2018 09:58 AM
Jefe - 07 October 2018 09:38 AM
GAD - 07 October 2018 09:32 AM

Yep, yep, and yep. That said I’m just as perplexed by the liberals agenda to save everyone at any cost, and if you try and point the insanity of those costs your are a monster who hates women, children, elderly, minorities, immigrants, puppies, kittens, the earth…

To some degree, cost is arbitrary.  To some degree, a re-balancing of the books - away from military, toward social self-care -makes some sense.  But yes, the super extreme liberal groups that vilify moderation seem more than a little dissonant to me too.

Extreme is the new reasonable. In the culture today you aren’t going to get enough clicks and likes to be noticed if you aren’t extreme.

True, dat.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  6511
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
07 October 2018 11:34
 
Skipshot - 07 October 2018 09:58 AM

...just as giving all our money to an increasingly smaller group of oligarchs is not to be questioned.

Aside from propaganda programming from Koch-run think-tanks, I just can’t see why more down-and-out in the US (rust-belt?) don’t see the trap in that kind of thinking.

 
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  395
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
13 October 2018 11:27
 
Jefe - 07 October 2018 09:26 AM

HOWEVER - any time there is talk about making life easier for the poor folk, it seems the downward punching begins.  It’s like ‘they’ don’t want anyone to have it easier than they had it - walking uphill, both ways, to school every day; working 3 jobs to get by in Uni/College/whatever - so they push back on any move to improve the economies of the lower classes.  They turn their head on improved economics while punching downward at the poor folks.

Most poor people were born to poor parents.  It seems to be implicitly accepted that I (random stranger) am responsible for improving conditions for people whose parents believed those conditions were good enough for their child (whether they were correct or not).  In other words, I am supposed to care for these poor people more than their own parents did.  That’s not a system that is set up to succeed, because those parents SHOULD have infinitely more skin in the game for their child’s success than I do.

Furthermore, basically everyone agrees that we want the economy/amount of overall wealth to be greater.  But there seems to be a very large pushback when we try to agree that people need to not sabotage their own personal finances by bringing kids into an already impoverished situation.

Things should be easiest for those who make the best decisions, and hardest for those who make the worst decisions.  That’s what I think, and that’s what most conservatives I’ve known think.  There’s always going to be those more/less privileged from birth, but again, every one of those parents believed (correctly or incorrectly) that they brought their child into a good enough situation.  Either that, or they had no regard whatsoever for the situation they were bringing their child into, in which case that is an issue of extreme selfishness/narcissism which is not something we should accept as a society.

Jefe - 07 October 2018 09:26 AM

And the mega-elite rich don’t seem to understand that their earning potential also increases comensurately with a robust strong economy full of people with free-cash with which to buy stuff.

I honestly don’t think the elite rich are afraid of people buying stuff…...I think they are afraid of people producing stuff.  People who can produce are seller and buyers (potential competitors to elite rich).  People who can’t produce can only buy.

[ Edited: 13 October 2018 11:32 by Quadrewple]