Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 20, 2017 12:25:02 GMT -5
I am quite sure you have every statement he has ever made st your disposal. That said, he clearly spoke the truth in the piece you just posted. Can you say the same about the laundry list of nonsense spouted about ACA and cost? As for the stimulus package, I quite enjoyed the money in my wallet. I will let you in on a little secret. I vote with my wallet and what happens to my family. That may be selfish; in fact I am sure it is. That said self-interest is not necessarily a bad thing. 1 truth doesn't excuse many lies Elvado. That's a pretty stupid argument, and you didn't exactly answer the stimulus package question... In favor, yes or no? Ryan said the bill was "designed" as a middle-class tax cut. True or false? When he was selling this bill he said: "I don't think [the tax bill] will increase the deficit." Clearly he knew that was likely false, correct? I’ll let you know when I get back from my new doctor affiliated with my newer more expensive Heath care plan. Bull crap flows out of donkeys as well as elephants my friend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2017 12:29:40 GMT -5
1 truth doesn't excuse many lies Elvado. That's a pretty stupid argument, and you didn't exactly answer the stimulus package question... In favor, yes or no? Ryan said the bill was "designed" as a middle-class tax cut. True or false? When he was selling this bill he said: "I don't think [the tax bill] will increase the deficit." Clearly he knew that was likely false, correct? I’ll let you know when I get back from my new doctor affiliated with my newer more expensive Heath care plan. Bull crap flows out of donkeys as well as elephants my friend. Slippery as ever.. Based on your comments it appears you're willing to excuse lying as long as it comes from Republicans and gives you something you are in favor of. BTW the bill that just passed will add more cost to your "more expensive health care plan" fyi...
|
|
aristides
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by aristides on Dec 20, 2017 14:39:38 GMT -5
I am frustrated with the hypocrisy of the GOP on this tax bill. The one silver lining I saw to the GOP gaining control of the executive and legislative branches was that finally we'd get movement towards reducing, or at least not adding to, the deficit. One of the most consistent messages of the GOP has been how they don't want to increase the deficit. But, apparently, that message was just partisan schtick and now the deficit is only a concern when the Democrats are in control.
I am not buying at all the message of the cuts will produce enough economic growth to offset the increase in the deficit. I fear the GOP is reenacting some of the failed plans that plunged Kansas into economic problems, but now on a nationwide scale.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,312
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 20, 2017 15:06:13 GMT -5
However, the Act contains a number of problematic provisions that will have dramatic negative consequences, particularly for those most in need. Among other things, the Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that the bill will eventually raise taxes on those with lower incomes while simultaneously cutting taxes for the wealthy. This is clearly problematic, especially for the poor. The repeal of the personal exemption will cause larger families, including many in the middle class, to be financially worse off. The final bill creates a large deficit that, as early as next year, will be used as a basis to cut programs that help the poor and vulnerable toward stability. The legislation is also likely to produce up to a $13 billion drop in annual charitable giving to nonprofits that are relied upon to help those struggling on the margins. This will also significantly diminish the role of civil society in promoting the common good. www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-251.cfm
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 20, 2017 15:10:44 GMT -5
I am frustrated with the hypocrisy of the GOP on this tax bill. The one silver lining I saw to the GOP gaining control of the executive and legislative branches was that finally we'd get movement towards reducing, or at least not adding to, the deficit. One of the most consistent messages of the GOP has been how they don't want to increase the deficit. But, apparently, that message was just partisan schtick and now the deficit is only a concern when the Democrats are in control. I am not buying at all the message of the cuts will produce enough economic growth to offset the increase in the deficit. I fear the GOP is reenacting some of the failed plans that plunged Kansas into economic problems, but now on a nationwide scale. Your concerns are all completely legitimate and if Washington hypocrisy were dollars there would be no deficit. That said, Washington’s primary problem is not revenue; it is expense.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Dec 21, 2017 10:47:06 GMT -5
I am frustrated with the hypocrisy of the GOP on this tax bill. The one silver lining I saw to the GOP gaining control of the executive and legislative branches was that finally we'd get movement towards reducing, or at least not adding to, the deficit. One of the most consistent messages of the GOP has been how they don't want to increase the deficit. But, apparently, that message was just partisan schtick and now the deficit is only a concern when the Democrats are in control. I am not buying at all the message of the cuts will produce enough economic growth to offset the increase in the deficit. I fear the GOP is reenacting some of the failed plans that plunged Kansas into economic problems, but now on a nationwide scale. That said, Washington’s primary problem is not revenue; it is expense. While a cute line, I believe (haven't done the math to be 100% sure) we're now at or near the point where federal revenues will be so low that cutting the entire non-defense discretionary budget still wouldn't balance the budget. So we either need to cut Defense (like the GOP would ever do that) or Medicare/Social Security as well, and just hope the world's opinion of America's finances doesn't turn negative, since we're dead as a country if we ever have to pay 5%+ on our debt...
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,907
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 21, 2017 11:54:50 GMT -5
That said, Washington’s primary problem is not revenue; it is expense. While a cute line, I believe (haven't done the math to be 100% sure) we're now at or near the point where federal revenues will be so low that cutting the entire non-defense discretionary budget still wouldn't balance the budget. So we either need to cut Defense (like the GOP would ever do that) or Medicare/Social Security as well, and just hope the world's opinion of America's finances doesn't turn negative, since we're dead as a country if we ever have to pay 5%+ on our debt... Nice post! I was gonna make similar points..
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 21, 2017 12:18:40 GMT -5
That said, Washington’s primary problem is not revenue; it is expense. While a cute line, I believe (haven't done the math to be 100% sure) we're now at or near the point where federal revenues will be so low that cutting the entire non-defense discretionary budget still wouldn't balance the budget. So we either need to cut Defense (like the GOP would ever do that) or Medicare/Social Security as well, and just hope the world's opinion of America's finances doesn't turn negative, since we're dead as a country if we ever have to pay 5%+ on our debt... Assuming your numbers are correct, does that mean that Washington doesn’t have spending problem? Try saying that with a straight face.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2017 12:33:29 GMT -5
Well good thing we cut revenue and raised spending... 🙃
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Dec 21, 2017 13:11:22 GMT -5
While a cute line, I believe (haven't done the math to be 100% sure) we're now at or near the point where federal revenues will be so low that cutting the entire non-defense discretionary budget still wouldn't balance the budget. So we either need to cut Defense (like the GOP would ever do that) or Medicare/Social Security as well, and just hope the world's opinion of America's finances doesn't turn negative, since we're dead as a country if we ever have to pay 5%+ on our debt... Assuming your numbers are correct, does that mean that Washington doesn’t have spending problem? Try saying that with a straight face. Somehow I'm able to have the belief that Medicare does a good job controlling costs (compared to the private sector) and think it's shameful that the DoD has never passed an audit at the same time without my head exploding.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 21, 2017 14:09:57 GMT -5
While a cute line, I believe (haven't done the math to be 100% sure) we're now at or near the point where federal revenues will be so low that cutting the entire non-defense discretionary budget still wouldn't balance the budget. So we either need to cut Defense (like the GOP would ever do that) or Medicare/Social Security as well, and just hope the world's opinion of America's finances doesn't turn negative, since we're dead as a country if we ever have to pay 5%+ on our debt... Assuming your numbers are correct, does that mean that Washington doesn’t have spending problem? Try saying that with a straight face. We have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem. We need to raise more revenue. We need to cut spending. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Social security is 25% of our budget and ought to be rightsized to be consistent with its original intent: governmentally mandated insurance consisting of premiums paid by workers with beneficiaries consisting of all citizens unable to work due to old age. The age at which that happens is a heck of a lot higher now. Making it means tested in some form would be fine with me too and, in my view, would be entirely consistent with its purpose as "insurance" (even though it has not been used that way since its inception). Medicare is about 15% of our budget and should be right-sized consistent with SSI. Defense spending is way too high (we're higher than the second through eighth countries combined). It's 15% of our budget. There's no reason it needs to be that high. All the other medical programs (e.g., CHIPS, Medicaid, etc.) combine to account for 10% of overall spending. They're already been cut pretty significantly, so I question whether they can be more. So, sure, make those adjustments. But let's not pretend that the government couldn't use some more revenue. We're spending a fortune on (important) disaster relief. Well, pay for it! Maybe we'd have a true national conversation on appropriate building codes, flood insurance, etc. if people understood that every American's tax rate was going up by one percentage point to pay for these issues. We've spent more than a fortune on various military conflicts. Well, taxes ought to have gone up to reflect it. Marginal rates (both the top and low brackets) are nearly at all-time lows -- very similar to where they were in the 20s. We don't need a return to the confiscatory rates of the 1950s in the 70% range (though the wealthy seemed to do perfectly fine then....) But we certainly don't need a tax cut for any demonstrable economic reason, particularly given the expense-side issues. As for the corporate rate? If it really is a reason for jobs/profits to go overseas then by all means fix the problem. But it can be made revenue neutral by taxing personal income at a higher level. The biggest governmental tragedy of the past couple decades was that the grand bargain reached between Obama and Boehner was nixed by conservatives in the House who wouldn't agree to any increased revenues.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,451
|
Post by TC on Dec 22, 2017 9:10:27 GMT -5
That said, Washington’s primary problem is not revenue; it is expense. The analogy I'd come up with to Elvado's position here is someone cuts your salary in half to give the company's board a big raise and then repeatedly tells you your problem is that you are spending too much. You can argue that a home budget is a terrible analogy for the federal government intake/outflow, but it's the one Republicans always use.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 22, 2017 9:44:23 GMT -5
That said, Washington’s primary problem is not revenue; it is expense. The analogy I'd come up with to Elvado's position here is someone cuts your salary in half to give the company's board a big raise and then repeatedly tells you your problem is that you are spending too much. You can argue that a home budget is a terrible analogy for the federal government intake/outflow, but it's the one Republicans always use. Or they cut your salary in order to pay for two other families who don’t work...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,451
|
Post by TC on Dec 22, 2017 10:04:25 GMT -5
Or they cut your salary in order to pay for two other families who don’t work... I know you like to muddle the argument with non-sequiturs but this tax bill did not benefit the disabled nor the elderly nor the unemployed. They cut revenue to benefit the donor class - specifically their donors. They want blue states to pay taxes on the taxes they pay. The only families that don't work that benefit from this tax bill are like Trump's - passive income definitely benefitted through the increased dividends that'll be paid out and stock buybacks from the corporate rate cut.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Dec 22, 2017 10:05:57 GMT -5
The analogy I'd come up with to Elvado's position here is someone cuts your salary in half to give the company's board a big raise and then repeatedly tells you your problem is that you are spending too much. You can argue that a home budget is a terrible analogy for the federal government intake/outflow, but it's the one Republicans always use. Or they cut your salary in order to pay for two other families who don’t work... Again, even if you cut every $ from the programs that pay for things for "families that don't work" (hell, even if you include "families that work, but don't make enough to get by"), we're still running a budget deficit. If we cut all funding from NASA, all medical research grants at NIH, the Head Start program, the national weather service, we're still running a deficit at the new revenue levels. If you are certain that revenue is not the issue, then be clear that what you're actually advocating is cutting Social Security/Medicare
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 22, 2017 10:59:00 GMT -5
Funny how you leave out some of the real junk like PBS, the NEA, Etc... The deficit can however be reduced if not eliminated with cuts to some of those non-essential programs, though can’t it?
|
|
aristides
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by aristides on Dec 22, 2017 11:01:04 GMT -5
The analogy I'd come up with to Elvado's position here is someone cuts your salary in half to give the company's board a big raise and then repeatedly tells you your problem is that you are spending too much. You can argue that a home budget is a terrible analogy for the federal government intake/outflow, but it's the one Republicans always use. Or they cut your salary in order to pay for two other families who don’t work...To me, that's the fundamental belief system of the conservative movement. But I just don't see that on the ground. I see people who can't work due to various obstacles; mental health, substance use(usually a result of self-medicating for mental health issues), physical disabilities, cognitive disabilities, criminal records, lack of opportunities, lack of resources, etc. Are there moochers? Yeah, I know of one or two guys who I think are taking some advantage of the system but they are very much the exception in my experience. Most people suffering from homelessness are struggling with poverty and broken systems. Broken healthcare systems and broken judicial systems are some of the two main offenders. We used to be the land of opportunity but the data I've seen shows that most other nations have surpassed the US in economic mobility. Now we're the land of trapping people in unhealthy communities and then demonizing them for being there. I'm pinning my hopes on Bernie in 2020.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 22, 2017 11:07:20 GMT -5
Or they cut your salary in order to pay for two other families who don’t work... To me, that's the fundamental belief system of the conservative movement. But I just don't see that on the ground. I see people who can't work due to various obstacles; mental health, substance use(usually a result of self-medicating for mental health issues), physical disabilities, cognitive disabilities, criminal records, lack of opportunities, lack of resources, etc. Are there moochers? Yeah, I know of one or two guys who I think are taking some advantage of the system but they are very much the exception in my experience. Most people suffering from homelessness are struggling with poverty and broken systems. Broken healthcare systems and broken judicial systems are some of the two main offenders. We used to be the land of opportunity but the data I've seen shows that most other nations have surpassed the US in economic mobility. Now we're the land of trapping people in unhealthy communities and then demonizing them for being there. I'm pinning my hopes on Bernie in 2020. Here’s hoping the word gets out and someone else’s borders get overrun...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2017 11:11:10 GMT -5
Funding PBS is killing us so let's give a trillion dollars in tax cuts to fortune 500 companies...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,312
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 22, 2017 11:36:57 GMT -5
Trump just said "Infrastructure will be the easiest of them all." Serious question: Can someone explain to me how it will be paid for in light of the tax cuts? (My worse grades at Georgetown were in economics).
|
|