GOP Tax Overhaul

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who? That nut doing infomercials for her book? Is she still around?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Got any other predictions?

2018
I suspect the Dems will pick up some house and senate seats. Rumors of lots of women in both parties invigorated, running or supporting women running. Possibly flipping the senate to dems, but not flipping the house.

2020
Donald will get primaried from inside the GOP
Not a clue who runs for the dems. We’ll see after 2018 who emerges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

2018
I suspect the Dems will pick up some house and senate seats. Rumors of lots of women in both parties invigorated, running or supporting women running. Possibly flipping the senate to dems, but not flipping the house.

2020
Donald will get primaried from inside the GOP
Not a clue who runs for the dems. We’ll see after 2018 who emerges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2018: in the senate, the GOP could not have better hand-picked which seats are up for re-election. There are twice as many democrats up for re-election as republicans. And I believe there is one Republican up for re election in a state that Hilary won, and 8 or 9 democrats up in states that Trump won. It would take a major event for the democrats to pick up seats in the senate. And that could happen.

You may be right in the house. Or, if the Dow is at 30,000, unemployment is at 3%, and 80% of Americans are actually seeing a small bump in their net take home pay, they might remember that not a single democrat voted for any of that. That's the gamble with tax reform. It's why the democrats are scared sh*tless of that bill.

In 2020 I think Trump steps down, and Pence runs, hopefully with Nikki Haley. Unless God answers my prayers and Condaleeza Rice steps up. Lie-awatha will run for the Democats, maybe Sanders too. Can't see anyone else on the horizon, Chris Murphy (God help us) maybe...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

2018: in the senate, the GOP could not have better hand-picked which seats are up for re-election. There are twice as many democrats up for re-election as republicans. And I believe there is one Republican up for re election in a state that Hilary won, and 8 or 9 democrats up in states that Trump won. It would take a major event for the democrats to pick up seats in the senate. And that could happen.

You may be right in the house. Or, if the Dow is at 30,000, unemployment is at 3%, and 80% of Americans are actually seeing a small bump in their net take home pay, they might remember that not a single democrat voted for any of that. That's the gamble with tax reform. It's why the democrats are scared sh*tless of that bill.

In 2020 I think Trump steps down, and Pence runs, hopefully with Nikki Haley. Unless God answers my prayers and Condaleeza Rice steps up. Lie-awatha will run for the Democats, maybe Sanders too. Can't see anyone else on the horizon, Chris Murphy (God help us) maybe...

You are not wrong on the senate, but even if it falls on the same lines one or two seats either way are huge. If Bannon gets involved and makes the gop voters divisive, all bets are off...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am a simple guy poor writer and worse speller but I work pay bills and have a house and live comfortably ..

its been said by many conservatives the Government should be run as a business or as we run our households.. ok hows is this tax plan doing that?

It should be run at the behest of its citizens. If the citizens want personal freedom then it should be run differently than if they want to be subservient to government and to depend that it will provide all wants and needs. In either case, the smarter, more able, most aggressive, most dominant, will find a way to "run" things. Powerful, ruling humans, not being angels, will more often than not progress into a form of tyranny. A check against that would be a system of government which pits power versus power. Checks and balances, as we say in our system. Power seekers would over time tend to eliminate as many checks against them as they can.

Sure i may get a tax break of 500 or 1000 bucks . i could also switch to geico stop going to D&D and save as much ..

You could also make that switch with the tax plan and so save twice as much. If $2000 thousand is a pittance to you, you're not as poor as you say.

Republicans know poor people and the middle class drive the economy 98% of any money they get is put back into the system.. where is the rich its reverse 2% goes back the other 98% gets invested or remains as wealth passed along

Entrepreneurs and businesses drive the economy. The rest of us are passengers who buy the tickets. Both are equally needed.

And investment in business also drives the economy. Investment in business maintains and grows the economy. Confiscating money from business over and above the money business spends in wages, maintenance, growth, etc., and distributing it to others without compensation limits its abilities to hire, maintain, and grow. So it cannot "drive" as well and so cannot carry as many passengers.

so in a nut shell the government gives big business more money and the government gives the middle class some money back to give it back to the companys who just got a huge tax break . but we should be thanking Trump for this bounty?

If you want the economy to drive better, to carry more passengers, it is wise to invest in the drivers. Investing in government siphons fuel from the economy's engine, and we find ourselves walking or peddling a bike or driving an old car or staying home waiting for a government check rather than riding in a new car to work and pleasure.

So the government just took a $5.5 trillion in revenue loss over a decade.

this is like one of us in our house losing our job.. the out come is clear things have to go ....or worse

No, it's like one of us overextending ourselves and our resources and needing to cut back to a more sustainable level of work and spending. And one of us does not have the ability to print fiat money, as does the federal government, to cover our profligate spending, and by doing so, to devalue everyone elses savings and spending power.

a business with such a reduction in revenue would more likely close

General Motors was forced, by the federal government, to downsize and pay entry level workers less, and the company divested itself of pension responsibilities giving that to the workers and their unions to handle, and it is back bigger than ever, Now, for some reason, the federal government cannot see the wisdom it applied to an over-bloated, overextended, financialy in unstainable debt, General Motors, to its own similar financial condition. But then, why should we expect it to see the light when it can just print its own money and screw the rest of us by doing so, and then blaming it on the evil businesses, and entrepreneurs, enabling it to regulate them into submission and placing them under threat of new regulations.

What are they going to try to Take next? the next argument will be need to balance the budget

Oh, as Spence would say, the horror.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh, as Spence would say, the horror.

who said i was poor? I know I should be happy with my 1000.00 dollars (sarcasm) with the estate tax removal the Trump family would get $7B windfall I should be happy for them (sarcasm) like they need a tax break

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

who said i was poor?

I apologize. I misread your post. You said you are a poor writer, not a poor person. But you certainly are not a poor avoider of rational discussion. I give a detailed response to your post, and the only thing you can respond back to is my irrelevant misread. But that gives you the appearance of actually responding to the meat of my post, which you are, apparently, incapable of doing. That you can't actually debate economics, makes you a poor judge of economic issues, so an unreliable judge of how the tax bill will impact the economy. You spout leftist talking points, but give no evidence that you know what you're talking about.

I know I should be happy with my 1000.00 dollars (sarcasm) with the estate tax removal the Trump family would get $7B windfall I should be happy for them (sarcasm) like they need a tax break

If you are not happy with $1,000 tax free every year, why should the rest of us care how you feel? There are probably millions of folks who'd be happy to take it off your hands if it means so little to you. Millions of folks who would be thrilled with the extra money. I doubt if the rest of the world cares what your emotional reaction to getting the money is. Burn it, for all we care. No, wait, spend it or invest it or save it in some bank account which will all contribute to the economy. And everyone else who gets the 1K or more will do the same, and the economy will be better off.

But why do you care how much of Trump's money he gets back? He's going to do the same thing you do, but on a grander scale, so will personally make a far more positive impact on the "economy" than you will, with your puny unappreciated 1K.

But if the federal government keeps it, the record shows that it will squander most of it on projects and programs that stifle the market growth needed to create jobs in which people will depend on earned income. So, instead, it will create more permanent government dependents. And, somehow, even with the massive cut the fed gets from tax confiscation, it manages to keep getting further in debt. Which also becomes a drag on the rest of us, not to mention the drag on the economy.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you are not happy with $1,000 tax free every year, why should the rest of us care how you feel? There are probably millions of folks who'd be happy to take it off your hands if it means so little to you. Millions of folks who would be thrilled with the extra money. I doubt if the rest of the world cares what your emotional reaction to getting the money is. Burn it, for all we care. No, wait, spend it or invest it or save it in some bank account which will all contribute to the economy. And everyone else who gets the 1K or more will do the same, and the economy will be better off.

But why do you care how much of Trump's money he gets back? He's going to do the same thing you do, but on a grander scale, so will personally make a far more positive impact on the "economy" than you will, with your puny unappreciated 1K.

But if the federal government keeps it, the record shows that it will squander most of it on projects and programs that stifle the market growth needed to create jobs in which people will depend on earned income. So, instead, it will create more permanent government dependents. And, somehow, even with the massive cut the fed gets from tax confiscation, it manages to keep getting further in debt. Which also becomes a drag on the rest of us, not to mention the drag on the economy.

Hard to have a rational discussion. when your only point in all your threads is anti government this anti government that ,,

.. i would have rather kept taxes where they were and took care of nations infrastructure.. but that wont happen now

its basic math ... you pull that much revenue from any system things suffer... you dont need a degree in economics to figure that out ..

[Raider Ronnie]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1134026]Hard to have a rational discussion. when your only point in all your threads is anti government this anti government that ,,

.. i would have rather kept taxes where they were and took care of nations infrastructure.. but that wont happen now

What “nations infrastructure” you talking about, ours or the rest of the world ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

Maybe he would be much happier had Hillary won and no doubt instead of getting $1000 the government would be taking atleast that $1000 from all of us !

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you are not happy with $1,000 tax free every year, why should the rest of us care how you feel? There are probably millions of folks who'd be happy to take it off your hands if it means so little to you. Millions of folks who would be thrilled with the extra money. I doubt if the rest of the world cares what your emotional reaction to getting the money is. Burn it, for all we care. No, wait, spend it or invest it or save it in some bank account which will all contribute to the economy. And everyone else who gets the 1K or more will do the same, and the economy will be better off.

But why do you care how much of Trump's money he gets back? He's going to do the same thing you do, but on a grander scale, so will personally make a far more positive impact on the "economy" than you will, with your puny unappreciated 1K.

But if the federal government keeps it, the record shows that it will squander most of it on projects and programs that stifle the market growth needed to create jobs in which people will depend on earned income. So, instead, it will create more permanent government dependents. And, somehow, even with the massive cut the fed gets from tax confiscation, it manages to keep getting further in debt. Which also becomes a drag on the rest of us, not to mention the drag on the economy.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

You guys are insane if you think that parking millions or billions in a bank account Ian”returning it back into the economy”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You guys are insane if you think that parking millions or billions in a bank account Ian”returning it back into the economy”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are insane if you park millions or billions in a bank account....

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

you are insane if you park millions or billions in a bank account....

As opposed to the same amount of money used by the middle class “consumers”. I should have explained my point further.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You guys are insane if you think that parking millions or billions in a bank account Ian”returning it back into the economy”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are insane, more accurately ignorant, if you deny it.

Nebe, where do you suppose banks get money to make loans, so that people can get mortgages and open businesses? They are lending the depositors' money. If there are no depositors, the bank has no funds to make loans.

Turn off MSNBC and read an economics text.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nebe, where do you suppose banks get money to make loans, so that people can get mortgages and open businesses? They are lending the depositors' money. If there are no depositors, the bank has no funds to make loans.

Nebe, you just got schooled.

Since you're ignorant and insane I'll break this down for you. The reason the economy is in the tank is because the banks don't have money to loan business so they can hire people and pay higher wages.

If we give the banks money in the form of deposits the banks will be able to lower interest rates and give out tons of loans. If we give the banks a lot of money they will lower rates to zero and we will have unlimited growth.

Make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The reason the economy is in the tank is because.....


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Nebe, you just got schooled.

Since you're ignorant and insane I'll break this down for you. The reason the economy is in the tank is because the banks don't have money to loan business so they can hire people and pay higher wages.

If we give the banks money in the form of deposits the banks will be able to lower interest rates and give out tons of loans. If we give the banks a lot of money they will lower rates to zero and we will have unlimited growth.

Make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said that it’s good for the economy when people deposit money in banks. I was correct. You somehow made the Evil Kineval leap that I meant that banks would lower interest rates? Not sure how you concluded that.

But Spence, if you think I’m wrong, and that it’s better when banks have no depositors, you are entitled to that opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I said that it’s good for the economy when people deposit money in banks. I was correct. You somehow made the Evil Kineval leap that I meant that banks would lower interest rates? Not sure how you concluded that.

But Spence, if you think I’m wrong, and that it’s better when banks have no depositors, you are entitled to that opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think, but can't be sure when it comes to Spence, that he thinks that banks, wealthy folks, businesses, just sit on large chunks of money, preferring that it lose its value to inflation rather than moving it in ways to increase its value.

[Sea Dangles]

I used the last of my garden grown shallots to make a red wine gravy for the tenderloin roasts. Next year I hope to grow more from the allium family as the red onions are almost gone. Especially tasty were the leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I used the last of my garden grown shallots to make a red wine gravy for the tenderloin roasts. Next year I hope to grow more from the allium family as the red onions are almost gone. Especially tasty were the leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I forgot to buy shallots and had to use the end of a yellow onion. No wine, just herbs and stock. Big fan of leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[DZ]

Geez it was OK when it was Bernie's plan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=FYAClOv3px4

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

I forgot to buy shallots and had to use the end of a yellow onion. No wine, just herbs and stock. Big fan of leeks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are a staple but don't last too long after harvest. I have been making a dish for special occasions for many years. Google potatoes w leeks and gruyere for a dish that will impress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Hard to have a rational discussion. when your only point in all your threads is anti government this anti government that ,,

You are not only what you describe as a poor writer, you are a poor reader. Some of my threads have not been about government. None of them have been anti-government this or that. Neither have any of my posts been anti-government. I am opposed to bad government. I am opposed to unconstitutional government. I am for good government. I am for constitutional government. I am for that government which governs best when it governs least. I am for self government. I am for equality before the law government. I am opposed to government of special interests and for special groups.

If your definition of "anti-government" is narrowed to any form or any instance of "government," then you are anti-government. You have issued a chit load of criticisms of the Trump Administration and especially against Trump, the President, himself. By your own definition, it would be hard to have a rational discussion with you.

Come to think of it . . .

.. i would have rather kept taxes where they were and took care of nations infrastructure.. but that wont happen now

Infrastructure was not taken care of when taxes were where they were. It was not taken care of even when a so-called stimulus package of billions of dollars were set aside to take care of infrastructure. So what would have been the magic wand to all of a sudden now the infrastructure would be repaired by keeping taxes where they were?

its basic math ... you pull that much revenue from any system things suffer... you dont need a degree in economics to figure that out ..

I's called restructuring the system to fit available revenue. Downsizing is one form of successful restructuring. Over extending any system beyond actual resources is a sure way to make that system, as you put it, "suffer"--even collapse. And constantly borrowing, without repaying on the principal, getting further and further in debt, will also cause a system to "suffer"--even to collapse. And creating a Ponzi scheme system wherein it pays returns to its investors (the "people" in a government system) from new capital (fiat money in a Ponzi government system) paid to the operators (government bureaucracy and its special interests and lobbyists who support it) by new investors (new generations, the children of the "people" in a government system), rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources (reasonable, affordable, taxes to support a rigorously defined, limited, and consistently responsible, well structured system of government), will eventually, as all Ponzi schemes do, collapse.

As you say, it doesn't require a degree in economics to understand that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If we give the banks money in the form of deposits the banks will be able to lower interest rates and give out tons of loans. If we give the banks a lot of money they will lower rates to zero and we will have unlimited growth.

Make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Federal Reserve's program of quantitative easing created an artificial bubble of bank reserves for which the Fed paid a secured higher interest to the banks than the banks could get from less secure loans to the private sector at the lower interest dictated by the Federal Reserve's low benchmark interest rates.

That coupled with the economic downturn after 2008 which lowered the demand for loans, made it more profitable for the banks to lend less to the private sector and depend more on the Fed interest payments to them on the money it was holding for them, and so was not being released at normal volume into the market in the forms of loans to the private sector.

This intrusion by the Fed Reserve distorted the normal relationship of bank deposits to loans. It created a huge bubble of artificial bank reserves, not related to market activity, which can create massive inflation when that reserve is released into the market. The economy has recovered since then and the demand for loans is rising, and expected to rise more if the public confidence in the economy remains. There may be a tricky balance for the banks in taking on a great amount of public deposits to add to their reserve bubble which could infuse too much money into the economy and cause the feared inflation. In any event, the market will have to correct for the ill conceived bubble created by massive quantitative easing. Let's hope it doesn't provoke another crash.

Eventually, when things return to normal, if they do, then private deposits to banks will again create the reserve they need to make loans.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

rich people love guys like you ... your the reason they stay rich you support a party that supports the 1% over the rest of the country

The rich do well no matter which party is in power. Many of the rich support the Democrats and get favorable legislation in return. The Dems like to brag about how the richest states are run by Democrats, and the poorest by Republicans. Somehow, reality doesn't seem to fit your picture of who supports the 1%. There is a leftist political rhetoric that paints your picture, but it is, after all, political. And is meant to persuade "guys like you," as you put it.

The rich aren't rich because they are supported by a political party. Both parties receive support from the rich.


and happily wait under their table thanking them for what falls to the floor.. buying into the fantasy Anyone in American can be like them... that ship has sailed

You said a few posts ago that you own a home, pay your bills, and live comfortably. Are those scraps that fell to the floor? Those scraps are the envy of most people on this planet. And the tax plan is going to drop some more scraps to your floor. But because the 1% are doing so well, your scraps are an insult. Would you have more scraps if the 1% were doing worse?

the bottom 90% held 73% of all debt. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.


In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%.

scraps from the table theory of economics

Does the top 1% eat 35% of the food and own 35% of the homes, cars, clothes, toys, guns, televisions, computers, etc. in this country? What is meant by owning more wealth?

Does your "all debt" include the debt government owes? latest 2017 stats say that "Total Government And Personal Debt In The U.S. Has Hit 41 Trillion Dollars ($329,961.34 Per Household)." (https://thedailycoin.org/2017/07/27/...per-household/ And that does not include corporate debt.

So if the federal government debt is around $20 trillion, and the State and municipal debts are around 5 trillion, that leaves personal debt to be about $16 trillion. Which is well less than half the total debt owed in this country. Most of the debt is owed by government, supposedly borrowed on our behalf. And to whom is the government debt owed? A great deal of it is owed to the top 1%. And a lot of that money was borrowed from the top 1% by Democrat politicians--probably more than was borrowed by Republicans. Not that it matters who borrowed it, but gives a lie to your who supports the top 1%.

So the government has handed you a personal bill of $329,961.34. Thanks to both parties but mostly to the Democrats. Can you pay that? Of course not. So who is going to pay for it? Apparently, no one will. Not if the government keeps borrowing from the top 1% to pay for only the interest on the debt. Your children will be left the tab. So they will need a booming economy to provide the jobs and wealth that can chip away at that debt. I guess that's why some politicians, and economists think that structuring tax policies in favor of business growth is more important than merely lowering personal tax rates.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Would you have more scraps if the 1% were doing worse?
.

His opinion, that the wealthy get first dibs at the trough and the rest of us have to get by on the scraps, is liberal economics in one sentence. It is demonstrably false, and far beyond absurd. But it's always easier to blame the boogeyman for our lot in life, than it is to take responsibility for our own lot in life. Liberalism always looks to blame someone else, preferably a white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Liberalism always looks to blame someone else

One thing I'm grateful for this year is that my parents never allow me to grow up miserable like Jim and be filled with the type of hate he demonstrates here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Two brother-in-laws both went to pay their property tax for the rest of 2017 today. One pays 22k and the other pays 25k but also has a second house that he stays in 2 days a week. Said he will try to sell the second house now. Both were die hard Trump fans until recently. I also went to pay the rest of my property tax today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Two brother-in-laws both went to pay their property tax for the rest of 2017 today. One pays 22k and the other pays 25k but also has a second house that he stays in 2 days a week. Said he will try to sell the second house now. Both were die hard Trump fans until recently. I also went to pay the rest of my property tax today.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looks like Trump's tax plan is already working, by getting rich folks to kick in their fair share

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

One pays 22k and the other pays 25k but also has a second house that he stays in 2 days a week. Said he will try to sell the second house now.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the nerve of someone owning a second house