CBO adjusted the deficit impact upwards to 1.7 trillion over 10 years. 170 billion per year on top of what is already a bad deficit. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/359353-gop-tax-bill-would-add-17-trillion-to-debt-cbo If Obama and Boehner would have made their grand bargain in 2011, I think by today we'd be looking at a nearly balanced budget. Maybe 250 billion in the red tops. Would have included some sensible cuts, maybe to military, loopholes and even entitlements like SNAP. All Obama was asking is a modest tax increase, most of which would have been channeled directly into a big infrastructure program ... maybe 750,000 well paying jobs created. Quickest way to redistribute money into the economy is letting the workers keep more of it. With CEOs you never know ... capital doesn't need a passport. That money could end up anywhere, fueling the economy in Panama or Ireland. Not to mention that infrastructure investment fuels the economy at the other end too ... More resiliency against natural disasters, more efficient ways to move people/products around and a more efficient energy sector. But alas, no. The priority was passing meaningless Obamacare repeals.
The Heritage Foundation, the Koch's and their like have been playing the long con for years and it's finally paying off.
The good news is that I doubt this thing will pass. I thought that before last night. I'm even more convinced after last night. There's simply no evidence that this GOP can get any substantial legislation through congress.
And look at moneyed entities 'donating' tax-free to churches which will then run their ads. For a cut. Its another campaign money anonymizing money laundry scheme.
As I said: "Top GOP senator says election losses could complicate tax reform" ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...faaa00-c496-11e7-84bc-5e285c7f4512_story.html
Three quotes this week that sum up the tax fight perfectly : “My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again,’ ” Republican rep. Chris Collins. “It doesn’t change my reading of the current moment,” Ryan said of the elections during a morning event hosted by the Washington Examiner. “It just emphasizes my reading of the current moment, which is: We have a promise to keep, and we have to get on with keeping our promise.” Paul Ryan. Who was that promise made to. Is your GOP base demanding repealing the estate tax? “Want to pass this tax bill? Want to hurt the suburbs? Make our day.” Chuck Schumer ... lol. All three of these quotes point to the open secret that everyone in Washington should have known by now. GOP economic policies are not popular in this country. If you run against the elites, you can't pass this type of bill. Bannon was right when he said the top tax rate should be in the 40s. He knows their base and he knows that even many Trump voters don't want this shit.
Buy and read "Ideology in America" by Christopher Ellis and Jim Stimson. In it, they argue that Republican ideology is preferred (who doesn't want a conservative estimate of something), but liberal policies are preferred because they actually help people.
I've mentioned this before...I hope some smart ass liberal starts a church, makes a ton of tax-free donations to said church, which then launders the money as campaign advocacy. I just want to point out that the Johnson Amendment does NOT NOT NOT forbid partisan politics from the pulpit. It just says you can't do that while getting subsidized by taxpayers.
couple of plain-as-day quotes have come out today: Lindsey Graham says “the financial contributions will stop” if tax reform fails.— Alan Rappeport (@arappeport) November 9, 2017 Gary Cohn: " The most excited group out there are big CEOs, about our tax plan." Uh, were you supposed to say that? https://t.co/E4nmDNu2Y2 pic.twitter.com/GosRE6hS85— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) November 9, 2017 Really is not going to help.
Oh, don't you worry none. Steve Bannon is just waiting to rip that liberal Jew a new asshole when this fails.
That's my point...churches currently have to choose between the tax exemption and staying out of partisan politics. They are NOT banned from participating in partisan politics.
And Goldman Sachs partners. See, this is what I don't get about the left. Yes, Hillary Clinton gave speeches to Goldman Sachs. So what? The question that matters is, would that politician cut tax breaks for Goldman Sachs partners? Pretty much every Congressional Republican is about to do that, and the White House Republican would be happy to sign such a bill. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton would never do that. Even if she wished to (which I doubt), her supporters wouldn't permit her. I don't understand the purpose of that sort of purity test. I mean, I get that Bernie would have been tougher yet on Goldman, but once the primary season ended the issue should have ended. The Democratic candidate was not going to be cutting Goldman any breaks, while the GOP candidate very likely was. Digression over, carry on.
People need to separate liking someone and voting for someone. I'm comfortable talking shit about my candidate and still voting for them on election day. I don't care about liking them. I'm not planning to date them. I just want a return on my vote, that's it. Maybe this just comes easier to DC United fans. I'll bitch and moan all day about how much we suck, but that doesn't mean I'm about to get Red Bull season tix.
I'm certainly used to it. Obama was the first non-incumbent I've voted for in a presidential primary to win a nomination. That didn't mean that I couldn't vote for the winning candidate in the Presidential election. And this started with Mondale.
I don't think it fails. I think in March and April they limp across the finish line with a watered-down $600 billion corporate tax rate reduction.
I think the House passes something like this in a few weeks. I then think another Trump bombshell forces another Republican Senate retirement, and Mitch has to retool the Senate proposal to accommodate Collins, Corker, McCain, Flake, Paul, AND the new guy. I then think Christmas and January come with a slew of retirements, and they go back to square one to get something done that actually passes the Senate instead of this collection of pipe dreams. That thing will have to be under $1.5 trillion and not ostentatious. Anything under $1 trillion will mean "Billion" and therefore acceptable. The lobbyist assault on the deduction repeals means a corporate tax rate reduction, with some closed loopholes, is their most likely outcome. I imagine that'll be $600 billion.