(12-04-2017 01:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Why can't you snowflake conservatives ever take a neg rep point without immediately looking for any reason to neg rep point the one who gave it to you?
What a bunch of ******* *****'s you are. Sad.
Lol... a guy who literally has a fit every time someone says "talking points" calls out others for being a snowflake.
(12-04-2017 12:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: The tax plan is 500 pages, anyone read it so far?
Probably just the lobbyists who wrote much of it. Congress certainly hasn't.
Gotta pass it to know what was in it... When it was pointed out that it was mathematically near impossible for the dems to have read O-care before voting on it all we got from guys like you was
Much like Obama's massive increases in the debt were OK and a slight increase under Trump isn't it was OK for a dim congress to not read bills before passing them.
It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite. It's the GOP who harp on the deficit, holding them accountable for a subject they claim is very important is logically consistent, and entirely defensible.
(12-04-2017 12:10 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: The tax plan is 500 pages, anyone read it so far?
Probably just the lobbyists who wrote much of it. Congress certainly hasn't.
Gotta pass it to know what was in it... When it was pointed out that it was mathematically near impossible for the dems to have read O-care before voting on it all we got from guys like you was
Much like Obama's massive increases in the debt were OK and a slight increase under Trump isn't it was OK for a dim congress to not read bills before passing them.
It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite. It's the GOP who harp on the deficit, holding them accountable for a subject they claim is very important is logically consistent, and entirely defensible.
So, you know, try again.
Can you point out the part of the latest GOP platform that says what you are claiming? You know we have to ask what with your history of just making **** up and claiming it as fact and all.
Depending on what happens during reconciliation ill either pay a little more or alot more in taxes.
I currently file as HOH with one dependent. That puts me in the 25% bracket, with two exemptions plus mortgage interest, property tax and charitable deductions as itemized deductions. My total itemized deductions are around 24k add the personal exemptions of 8k, thats 32k I am able to write off my gross.
As i understand the 2 bills
Under the House plan I lose property taxes and personal exemptions, which takes me from 32 K to 17K, tax rate stays at 25%.
Under Senate plan I lose personal exemptions which takes me from 32K to 24, tax rate goes to 24%.
(12-04-2017 01:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote: It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite.
Tell it to the guy who called 4 trillion "unpatriotic" before raising it 10 trillion..
(12-04-2017 01:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote: 1. The GOP campaigns on the importance of lowering the deficit, the Dems don't,
Someone should have told this guy...
For all your pissing and moaning about tribalism..
therefore critiquing the GOP on their plans to raise the deficit simply points
Quote:2. You're literally saying "I bet things change before the worst parts of this bill are enacted" as if it's a compelling argument.
It is a sound argument. Taxes get chanced every 5-10 years.
Quote:The obvious counter being, why the f*ck you supporting something if you acknowledge it needs to change?
And f*ck you because the same could have been said about Obama care. The left acknowledged all its flaws but said we could fix it as we went along.
Did you clutch your pearls then, you f'ing hypocrite.
1. Sure, Obama did and said hypocritical things, not at all sure how that's a defense of GOP hypocrisy.
2. So because tax laws usually change every few years, we should ignore glaring flaws with this one? I suppose it's an argument, but it's certainly not an argument strengthening the position of the bill you're trying to pass.
3. The ACA also prevented people from being denied coverage, expanded coverage, and guaranteed set minimums to coverage. This tax bill has been denounced by the economists I've seen and every analysis questions the growth it's stated will occur, so where is the plus to go with he minus? Is this really the best the GOP can do?
(12-04-2017 01:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote: It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite.
Tell it to the guy who called 4 trillion "unpatriotic" before raising it 10 trillion..
Sure, tell that to him, doesn't change the hypocrisy the GOP is exhibiting right now.
(12-04-2017 01:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote: It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite.
Tell it to the guy who called 4 trillion "unpatriotic" before raising it 10 trillion..
what he doesn't also understand is that's the projected number that could easily flip to a zero-sum or positive if other policies begin to fall in line....
once again, it's pointless arguing with a dippo about macro economics.....
you can fix dems w/o dems continuing down the path of shite as they will most certainly continue to lose until they design a solvent platform or term limits are enacted (which is my fave for the long term solution)
they're simply ******* scared of abandoning their fan base with a yea vote......
can't wait for the midterms to shake out....
(This post was last modified: 12-04-2017 01:44 PM by stinkfist.)
(12-04-2017 01:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote: 1. The GOP campaigns on the importance of lowering the deficit, the Dems don't,
Someone should have told this guy...
For all your pissing and moaning about tribalism..
therefore critiquing the GOP on their plans to raise the deficit simply points
Quote:2. You're literally saying "I bet things change before the worst parts of this bill are enacted" as if it's a compelling argument.
It is a sound argument. Taxes get chanced every 5-10 years.
Quote:The obvious counter being, why the f*ck you supporting something if you acknowledge it needs to change?
And f*ck you because the same could have been said about Obama care. The left acknowledged all its flaws but said we could fix it as we went along.
Did you clutch your pearls then, you f'ing hypocrite.
1. Sure, Obama did and said hypocritical things, not at all sure how that's a defense of GOP hypocrisy.
2. So because tax laws usually change every few years, we should ignore glaring flaws with this one? I suppose it's an argument, but it's certainly not an argument strengthening the position of the bill you're trying to pass.
3. The ACA also prevented people from being denied coverage, expanded coverage, and guaranteed set minimums to coverage. This tax bill has been denounced by the economists I've seen and every analysis questions the growth it's stated will occur, so where is the plus to go with he minus? Is this really the best the GOP can do?
Your #3 is wrong. ACA actually has limited coverage for a lot of folks.
(12-04-2017 01:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote: 1. Sure, Obama did and said hypocritical things, not at all sure how that's a defense of GOP hypocrisy.
But it's a glaring spotlight on yours.
Quote:2. So because tax laws usually change every few years, we should ignore glaring flaws with this one? I suppose it's an argument, but it's certainly not an argument strengthening the position of the bill you're trying to pass.
If we wait to pass a perfect bill no bill will ever be passed. All things considered this is a good bill
Quote:3. The ACA also prevented people from being denied coverage, expanded coverage, and guaranteed set minimums to coverage. This tax bill has been denounced by the economists I've seen and every analysis questions the growth it's stated will occur, so where is the plus to go with he minus? Is this really the best the GOP can do?
The ACA killed my parents plan, and they lost their doctor. But you like how it helped you, so it's cool.
(12-04-2017 01:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote: 1. The GOP campaigns on the importance of lowering the deficit, the Dems don't,
Someone should have told this guy...
For all your pissing and moaning about tribalism..
therefore critiquing the GOP on their plans to raise the deficit simply points
Quote:2. You're literally saying "I bet things change before the worst parts of this bill are enacted" as if it's a compelling argument.
It is a sound argument. Taxes get chanced every 5-10 years.
Quote:The obvious counter being, why the f*ck you supporting something if you acknowledge it needs to change?
And f*ck you because the same could have been said about Obama care. The left acknowledged all its flaws but said we could fix it as we went along.
Did you clutch your pearls then, you f'ing hypocrite.
1. Sure, Obama did and said hypocritical things, not at all sure how that's a defense of GOP hypocrisy.
2. So because tax laws usually change every few years, we should ignore glaring flaws with this one? I suppose it's an argument, but it's certainly not an argument strengthening the position of the bill you're trying to pass.
3. The ACA also prevented people from being denied coverage, expanded coverage, and guaranteed set minimums to coverage. This tax bill has been denounced by the economists I've seen and every analysis questions the growth it's stated will occur, so where is the plus to go with he minus? Is this really the best the GOP can do?
Your #3 is wrong. ACA actually has limited coverage for a lot of folks.
(12-04-2017 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Probably just the lobbyists who wrote much of it. Congress certainly hasn't.
Gotta pass it to know what was in it... When it was pointed out that it was mathematically near impossible for the dems to have read O-care before voting on it all we got from guys like you was
Much like Obama's massive increases in the debt were OK and a slight increase under Trump isn't it was OK for a dim congress to not read bills before passing them.
It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite. It's the GOP who harp on the deficit, holding them accountable for a subject they claim is very important is logically consistent, and entirely defensible.
So, you know, try again.
Can you point out the part of the latest GOP platform that says what you are claiming? You know we have to ask what with your history of just making **** up and claiming it as fact and all.
(12-04-2017 12:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote: Gotta pass it to know what was in it... When it was pointed out that it was mathematically near impossible for the dems to have read O-care before voting on it all we got from guys like you was
Much like Obama's massive increases in the debt were OK and a slight increase under Trump isn't it was OK for a dim congress to not read bills before passing them.
It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite. It's the GOP who harp on the deficit, holding them accountable for a subject they claim is very important is logically consistent, and entirely defensible.
So, you know, try again.
Can you point out the part of the latest GOP platform that says what you are claiming? You know we have to ask what with your history of just making **** up and claiming it as fact and all.
(12-04-2017 01:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote: 1. The GOP campaigns on the importance of lowering the deficit, the Dems don't,
Someone should have told this guy...
For all your pissing and moaning about tribalism..
therefore critiquing the GOP on their plans to raise the deficit simply points
Quote:2. You're literally saying "I bet things change before the worst parts of this bill are enacted" as if it's a compelling argument.
It is a sound argument. Taxes get chanced every 5-10 years.
Quote:The obvious counter being, why the f*ck you supporting something if you acknowledge it needs to change?
And f*ck you because the same could have been said about Obama care. The left acknowledged all its flaws but said we could fix it as we went along.
Did you clutch your pearls then, you f'ing hypocrite.
1. Sure, Obama did and said hypocritical things, not at all sure how that's a defense of GOP hypocrisy.
2. So because tax laws usually change every few years, we should ignore glaring flaws with this one? I suppose it's an argument, but it's certainly not an argument strengthening the position of the bill you're trying to pass.
3. The ACA also prevented people from being denied coverage, expanded coverage, and guaranteed set minimums to coverage. This tax bill has been denounced by the economists I've seen and every analysis questions the growth it's stated will occur, so where is the plus to go with he minus? Is this really the best the GOP can do?
Your #3 is wrong. ACA actually has limited coverage for a lot of folks.
Not shocking when you consider the source.
The number of uninsured went down drastically, what was required to be covered under that insurance increased, and they could not refuse those with pre-existing conditions. What metric are you using come to the conclusion that the ACA has limited coverage?
(12-04-2017 12:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Much like Obama's massive increases in the debt were OK and a slight increase under Trump isn't it was OK for a dim congress to not read bills before passing them.
It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite. It's the GOP who harp on the deficit, holding them accountable for a subject they claim is very important is logically consistent, and entirely defensible.
So, you know, try again.
Can you point out the part of the latest GOP platform that says what you are claiming? You know we have to ask what with your history of just making **** up and claiming it as fact and all.
(12-04-2017 12:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote: Much like Obama's massive increases in the debt were OK and a slight increase under Trump isn't it was OK for a dim congress to not read bills before passing them.
It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite. It's the GOP who harp on the deficit, holding them accountable for a subject they claim is very important is logically consistent, and entirely defensible.
So, you know, try again.
Can you point out the part of the latest GOP platform that says what you are claiming? You know we have to ask what with your history of just making **** up and claiming it as fact and all.
(12-04-2017 10:33 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: I'm not sure that is exactly what they are saying.
There are two arguments against the tax plan I've heard
1 - In 10 years some people pay more
2 - It benefits the higher income groups more
To 1 all I have to say is *10 years*. If you think there won't be more changes to the tax code in the next ten years.
Seriously? You haven't heard one complaint about the projected 1T to 1.5T hole in the deficit?
And it's not 10 years. It's closer to 5 years for lower income folks. And it's not just some people, it's a LOT of people! Pretty much everyone earning under 75K a year will have a tax increase by 2027. That's roughly 60% of the population.
Lol.
Doubles the exemption to 24 grand, tax FREE, for lower income folks, bonanza.
Moving from “blowing a hole” in the debt/deficit of a trillion plus PER YEAR to maybe, maybe, static scoring of a trill over ten plus years and now you moan?
Just have some consistency somewhere, anywhere for once.
(12-04-2017 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Seriously? You haven't heard one complaint about the projected 1T to 1.5T hole in the deficit?
I ignored those talking points given the dems ignored 10T of new debt under Obama..
Quote:It's closer to 5 years for lower income folks.
Fine, let's give you five years. You don't think there will be changes to the tax code in the next five years?
Quote:And it's not just some people, it's a LOT of people! Pretty much everyone earning under 75K a year will have a tax increase by 2027
Hey it's 2017, that means 2027 is 10 years away, not five. Pick something and go with it... Just put your talking points in some kind of sensible order, would you..
Dude, in 5 years lower income folks are expected to start seeing tax increases. By 10 years, those up to 75k will see them.
It's not a one or the other thing. And it's not a ******* talking point. It's an analysis of the bill by the JCT.
Quote:President Trump and Republican lawmakers have been heralding their bill as a win for hard-working Americans, but the JCT report casts doubt on that claim. Tax increases for households earning $10,000 to $30,000 would start in 2021 and grow sharply from there, JCT found. By 2027, most Americans earning $75,000 a year or less would be forced to pay more in taxes, while people earning more than $100,000 a year would continue to pay less. The report generated intense debate on Capitol Hill.
It’s because of whatever arcane rules they have in the swamp, some of this tax relief will “sunset” in ten years, barring further approval by Congress.
And that’s fine. Let’s say, the dims finally figure out how to win a legislative seat or two by then, they are welcome to hike taxes on the majority of THOSE WHO PAY THE TAXES.
People earning between $10,000 and 30,000?!? What do they pay now?
(12-04-2017 01:14 PM)UCF08 Wrote: It's almost like if you make lowering the deficit an intrinsic part of your party platform, and you then raise the debt, that makes you a hypocrite. It's the GOP who harp on the deficit, holding them accountable for a subject they claim is very important is logically consistent, and entirely defensible.
So, you know, try again.
Can you point out the part of the latest GOP platform that says what you are claiming? You know we have to ask what with your history of just making **** up and claiming it as fact and all.
If you were intelligent enough to notice you would see it's at the bottom of the list. Typically you put your higher priorities first.
What's not at the bottom of the list? This:
Quote:Fair and Simple Taxes for Growth
So it's literally part of their party platform, therefore raising it would be hypocritical of the GOP. You're unable to admit that, aren't you?
LOL I never said it wasn't in it. It's just the fact that you are an unreliable poster so everything you say has to be questioned and verified.
My "platform" as an incident commander on a structure fire was to save lives and property. There were times when we had to write off property to save lives. That didn't make us hypocritical, it's called setting priorities. The priority here for the GOP as witnessed by it's placement in the platform list was tax reform so that's what they've tackled first.
![[Image: jlaw-whtvr.gif]](http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jlaw-whtvr.gif)
![[Image: house-shruggy-hands.gif]](http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/uexc_attach/house-shruggy-hands.gif)
