(12-20-2017 09:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Nanci Pelosi just called this tax bill more shameful than the Chinese exclusion act..

(12-20-2017 10:37 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Nanci Pelosi just called this tax bill more shameful than the Chinese exclusion act..

I get it that somebody from San Francisco would be more likely to be politically-familiar with the history of Chinese immigration to America, vs. most other people from most other places in this country. But still — and aside from Pelosi’s characteristic hyper-emotionalism — what a weird point of comparison to use in 2017

Lol...things that happen in your childhood tend to stick with people.

(12-20-2017 11:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Nanci Pelosi just called this tax bill more shameful than the Chinese exclusion act..

That's better than Armageddon though

(12-20-2017 10:37 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Nanci Pelosi just called this tax bill more shameful than the Chinese exclusion act..

I get it that somebody from San Francisco would be more likely to be politically-familiar with the history of Chinese immigration to America, vs. most other people from most other places in this country. But still — and aside from Pelosi’s characteristic hyper-emotionalism — what a weird point of comparison to use in 2017

Well she specifically said it's the worst bill congress has ever passed... I just picked an example

(12-21-2017 12:13 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Well she specifically said it's the worst bill congress has ever passed... I just picked an example

Ah-so. Rhetorically, that is very different.

The problem is that they kept this a secret from the Democrats because of the Mandate that was snuck in there on purpose. Republicans agreed with the Democrats about taken out the loopholes. The rich could claimed a private jets as deductible for travel expenses. The Republicans agreed that the reforms should removed these loopholes, but they did not. As it is, the wealthy and nig corporation got a major gift while everybody else got the shaft. If you do not take out these loopholes? The wealthy could pay little to no taxes at all. Second, there is no guarantee that they will not hike minimum wages, bonuses or hire new employees.

(12-20-2017 09:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Nanci Pelosi just called this tax bill more shameful than the Chinese exclusion act..

She truly is a despicable twat.

(12-21-2017 05:03 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem is that they kept this a secret from the Democrats because of the Mandate that was snuck in there on purpose. Republicans agreed with the Democrats about taken out the loopholes. The rich could claimed a private jets as deductible for travel expenses. The Republicans agreed that the reforms should removed these loopholes, but they did not. As it is, the wealthy and nig corporation got a major gift while everybody else got the shaft. If you do not take out these loopholes? The wealthy could pay little to no taxes at all. Second, there is no guarantee that they will not hike minimum wages, bonuses or hire new employees.

I would strongly suggest that you read what is actually in the bill rather than rely on some hyperbolic interpretation by a biased reporter.

What "Mandate that was snuck in there on purpose"?
How does getting a tax reduction constitute getting the shaft?
What loopholes mean that the "wealthy" pay little or no taxes at all?
And while we don't have a "guarantee" that they will hike wages or employ more people, that is certainly the most likely result.

The original house bill didnt have the mandate in there, and a grand total of zero democrats voted for it.

The mandate wasnt snuck in anywhere. When the senate originally announced their plan, it was stated then that the repeal of the mandate would be in there. ( Which I thought that was odd since the senate is where Obamacare repeal and replace got stuck. )

(12-20-2017 07:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I keep reading all these complaints that the new tax law is "partisan" and worse. Remember back in 2009 when we decided we needed to reduce the deficit and we formed the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission to come up with an approach? And the Domenici-Rivlin group sprung off from that as another bipartisan look at the problem?

So we had two bipartisan and very well informed looks at the problem. Interestingly, on the tax side both came up with the same approach, with slight variations--lower corporate tax rates to world standards, and on the individual side lower and flatten rates and get rid of itemized deductions, and go from a worldwide to a territorial taxing system.

Now take the "bipartisan" Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approaches and lay them side by side with what was just passed by congress. Guess what? Except for the fact that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin lowered and flattened individual rates even further, and got rid of even more itemized deductions, they are basically the same approaches. One other difference, Domenici-Rivlin lowered the deficits even more by adding a consumption tax, a move that I would have approved.

So, could somebody explain to me how what was a bipartisan idea in 2009-10 became somehow "partisan" and "hateful" less than a decade later?
I've said it before but will repeat it here. When republicans regained control of the house in 2011, their first moves should have been to pass French Bismarck health care, a universal basic income, and some form of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or the best of both. I wonder how easy it would have bene to characterize a bipartisan approach as "partisan" and "hateful" back then? Not that I don't think the democrats would have tried.

I'll have to go back and refresh my memory on those two approaches. If this is true, why hasn't anyone with a brain told GOP leaders to preach this from the rooftops?

(12-21-2017 10:41 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 07:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I keep reading all these complaints that the new tax law is "partisan" and worse. Remember back in 2009 when we decided we needed to reduce the deficit and we formed the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission to come up with an approach? And the Domenici-Rivlin group sprung off from that as another bipartisan look at the problem?
So we had two bipartisan and very well informed looks at the problem. Interestingly, on the tax side both came up with the same approach, with slight variations--lower corporate tax rates to world standards, and on the individual side lower and flatten rates and get rid of itemized deductions, and go from a worldwide to a territorial taxing system.
Now take the "bipartisan" Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approaches and lay them side by side with what was just passed by congress. Guess what? Except for the fact that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin lowered and flattened individual rates even further, and got rid of even more itemized deductions, they are basically the same approaches. One other difference, Domenici-Rivlin lowered the deficits even more by adding a consumption tax, a move that I would have approved.
So, could somebody explain to me how what was a bipartisan idea in 2009-10 became somehow "partisan" and "hateful" less than a decade later?
I've said it before but will repeat it here. When republicans regained control of the house in 2011, their first moves should have been to pass French Bismarck health care, a universal basic income, and some form of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or the best of both. I wonder how easy it would have bene to characterize a bipartisan approach as "partisan" and "hateful" back then? Not that I don't think the democrats would have tried.

I'll have to go back and refresh my memory on those two approaches. If this is true, why hasn't anyone with a brain told GOP leaders to preach this from the rooftops?

Because “brain” and “GOP leaders” should not be used in the same sentence.

Do you remember after the 2010 midterms when I said that republicans’ first order of business after regaining control of the house should have been to pass Bismarck health care and either Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin-Rivlin? This is what I was talking about.

I do remember you championing that approach back then.

(12-20-2017 08:41 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  The simple answer is that it absolutely doesn't matter what is proposed by the GOP or anyone with an "R" in front of their name. It's going to be attacked, and attacked fiercely.

We are at a point in this country where it honestly wouldn't matter what is said or done by an "R", as the left will brand them racists, sexists, middle-class haters and the pundits over at CNN and other mainstream networks will eat it up like Halloween candy on Nov 1.

Let's not forget that this all started when the Republicans vowed to oppose Obama no matter what.

Obama spoke with the republicans and promised them he would support their ideas if they were good ones. He did and they walked away from their own legislation in order to oppose him even when he agreed with him.

That is why we are where we are at now.

Thanks republicans.

(12-21-2017 02:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 08:41 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  The simple answer is that it absolutely doesn't matter what is proposed by the GOP or anyone with an "R" in front of their name. It's going to be attacked, and attacked fiercely.
We are at a point in this country where it honestly wouldn't matter what is said or done by an "R", as the left will brand them racists, sexists, middle-class haters and the pundits over at CNN and other mainstream networks will eat it up like Halloween candy on Nov 1.

Let's not forget that this all started when the Republicans vowed to oppose Obama no matter what.
Obama spoke with the republicans and promised them he would support their ideas if they were good ones. He did and they walked away from their own legislation in order to oppose him even when he agreed with him.
That is why we are where we are at now.
Thanks republicans.

What republican ideas did he support? When and how?

Went back to refresh my memory on Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin. One thing they both did was align the corporate rate with the top individual rate, 28% for Bowles-Simpson and 27% for Domenici-Rivlin (remember, the latter added a consumption tax). So they both proposed significant cuts in the top rates for both, but they avoided the spread between top corporate rate and top individual rate that is IMO a potential problem with the tax reform bill that was passed. I'm guessing there's no way that republicans could have fended off the democrat hoops and hollers if they had gone to a 27% top individual rate, so they left the individual rate higher (37%) and lowered the corporate rate to offset. I'd have been fine with the actual Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin rates. But basically they all got to significant reductions in top tax rates for corporations, and at least Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin got to significant reductions in individual rates (and the bill that was passed to minor reductions). And both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin eliminated far more deductions than the tax law that was passed. Here is a summary:

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/...%20(3).pdf

Interestingly, that page also included the Obama and Ryan proposals. Ryan went to a 25% rate for both individuals and corporations, with elimination of some unspecified deductions. Obama proposed eliminating the deductions but keeping individual rates where they were, and called for revenue-neutral revisions to corporate taxation (hard to see any significant change with that limitation).

So, bottom line, the law that was passed includes significant reductions in the corporate rate (similar to, but not as great as, the oder studies) and a minor reduction in the individual rate (less of a reduction that either of the older studies recommended). I still thing republicans should have passed Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or some combination of the best of both, immediately after they regained the house in 2011, and passed it on to the senate to deal with. Not sure where we'd be if that had happened, but I'm guessing somewhere better.

(12-20-2017 07:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I keep reading all these complaints that the new tax law is "partisan" and worse. Remember back in 2009 when we decided we needed to reduce the deficit and we formed the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission to come up with an approach? And the Domenici-Rivlin group sprung off from that as another bipartisan look at the problem?

So we had two bipartisan and very well informed looks at the problem. Interestingly, on the tax side both came up with the same approach, with slight variations--lower corporate tax rates to world standards, and on the individual side lower and flatten rates and get rid of itemized deductions, and go from a worldwide to a territorial taxing system.

Now take the "bipartisan" Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approaches and lay them side by side with what was just passed by congress. Guess what? Except for the fact that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin lowered and flattened individual rates even further, and got rid of even more itemized deductions, they are basically the same approaches. One other difference, Domenici-Rivlin lowered the deficits even more by adding a consumption tax, a move that I would have approved.

So, could somebody explain to me how what was a bipartisan idea in 2009-10 became somehow "partisan" and "hateful" less than a decade later?
I've said it before but will repeat it here. When republicans regained control of the house in 2011, their first moves should have been to pass French Bismarck health care, a universal basic income, and some form of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or the best of both. I wonder how easy it would have bene to characterize a bipartisan approach as "partisan" and "hateful" back then? Not that I don't think the democrats would have tried.

Well they reduced rates but they didn't do a lot to close loopholes or end expenditures. Things such as eliminating the capital gains rate and increasing the social security wage base. Not to mention hundreds (literally hundreds) of industry specific deductions and credits that were left untouched and were called for to end. Bowles-Simpson's tax plan called for raising revenues by 600 Billion over 10 years, this plan will cost 1.5 trillion over the same period. That's a 2 trillion dollar difference! You can't be that confused about this. If so, I could point to other provisions such as opening the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve for drilling and ending the cap on executive pay.

(12-21-2017 03:37 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 07:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I keep reading all these complaints that the new tax law is "partisan" and worse. Remember back in 2009 when we decided we needed to reduce the deficit and we formed the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission to come up with an approach? And the Domenici-Rivlin group sprung off from that as another bipartisan look at the problem?
So we had two bipartisan and very well informed looks at the problem. Interestingly, on the tax side both came up with the same approach, with slight variations--lower corporate tax rates to world standards, and on the individual side lower and flatten rates and get rid of itemized deductions, and go from a worldwide to a territorial taxing system.
Now take the "bipartisan" Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approaches and lay them side by side with what was just passed by congress. Guess what? Except for the fact that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin lowered and flattened individual rates even further, and got rid of even more itemized deductions, they are basically the same approaches. One other difference, Domenici-Rivlin lowered the deficits even more by adding a consumption tax, a move that I would have approved.
So, could somebody explain to me how what was a bipartisan idea in 2009-10 became somehow "partisan" and "hateful" less than a decade later?
I've said it before but will repeat it here. When republicans regained control of the house in 2011, their first moves should have been to pass French Bismarck health care, a universal basic income, and some form of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or the best of both. I wonder how easy it would have bene to characterize a bipartisan approach as "partisan" and "hateful" back then? Not that I don't think the democrats would have tried.

Well they reduced rates but they didn't do a lot to close loopholes or end expenditures. Things such as eliminating the capital gains rate and increasing the social security wage base. Not to mention hundreds (literally hundreds) of industry specific deductions and credits that were left untouched and were called for to end. Bowles-Simpson's tax plan called for raising revenues by 600 Billion over 10 years, this plan will cost 1.5 trillion over the same period. That's a 2 trillion dollar difference! You can't be that confused about this. If so, I could point to other provisions such as opening the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve for drilling and ending the cap on executive pay.

The difference is that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin factored in increased growth, whereas the static scoring for this bill does not. That plus the fact that this bill didn't get rid of nearly as many deductions and Bowles-Simpson did.

(12-21-2017 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 02:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 08:41 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  The simple answer is that it absolutely doesn't matter what is proposed by the GOP or anyone with an "R" in front of their name. It's going to be attacked, and attacked fiercely.
We are at a point in this country where it honestly wouldn't matter what is said or done by an "R", as the left will brand them racists, sexists, middle-class haters and the pundits over at CNN and other mainstream networks will eat it up like Halloween candy on Nov 1.

Let's not forget that this all started when the Republicans vowed to oppose Obama no matter what.
Obama spoke with the republicans and promised them he would support their ideas if they were good ones. He did and they walked away from their own legislation in order to oppose him even when he agreed with him.
That is why we are where we are at now.
Thanks republicans.

What republican ideas did he support? When and how?

lol. Not one. Lets not forget he famously told republicans that they lost--it was time for them to shut up and sit in the back of the bus. Thats certainly the tone of guy who clearly wants to work closely with the other party. Obama was just your typical product of the corrupt Chicago machine politics.

(12-21-2017 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 03:37 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 07:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I keep reading all these complaints that the new tax law is "partisan" and worse. Remember back in 2009 when we decided we needed to reduce the deficit and we formed the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission to come up with an approach? And the Domenici-Rivlin group sprung off from that as another bipartisan look at the problem?
So we had two bipartisan and very well informed looks at the problem. Interestingly, on the tax side both came up with the same approach, with slight variations--lower corporate tax rates to world standards, and on the individual side lower and flatten rates and get rid of itemized deductions, and go from a worldwide to a territorial taxing system.
Now take the "bipartisan" Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approaches and lay them side by side with what was just passed by congress. Guess what? Except for the fact that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin lowered and flattened individual rates even further, and got rid of even more itemized deductions, they are basically the same approaches. One other difference, Domenici-Rivlin lowered the deficits even more by adding a consumption tax, a move that I would have approved.
So, could somebody explain to me how what was a bipartisan idea in 2009-10 became somehow "partisan" and "hateful" less than a decade later?
I've said it before but will repeat it here. When republicans regained control of the house in 2011, their first moves should have been to pass French Bismarck health care, a universal basic income, and some form of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or the best of both. I wonder how easy it would have bene to characterize a bipartisan approach as "partisan" and "hateful" back then? Not that I don't think the democrats would have tried.

Well they reduced rates but they didn't do a lot to close loopholes or end expenditures. Things such as eliminating the capital gains rate and increasing the social security wage base. Not to mention hundreds (literally hundreds) of industry specific deductions and credits that were left untouched and were called for to end. Bowles-Simpson's tax plan called for raising revenues by 600 Billion over 10 years, this plan will cost 1.5 trillion over the same period. That's a 2 trillion dollar difference! You can't be that confused about this. If so, I could point to other provisions such as opening the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve for drilling and ending the cap on executive pay.

The difference is that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin factored in increased growth, whereas the static scoring for this bill does not. That plus the fact that this bill didn't get rid of nearly as many deductions and Bowles-Simpson did.

The dynamic scoring of the bill was still 1 trillion I beleive. And neither scores account for the fact that they set many of the provisions to sunset to get it through the senates procedural limit of 1.5 T over ten years so the actual costs associated with the law are even higher. The corporate tax cuts suggested in Simpson Bowls plan were designed to be revenue neutral. This law isn't even pretending to be. The growth required for this law to pay for itself would be amazing (I.e. unbelievable) but it still wouldn't achieve $1 towards deficit reduction so the comparison to Simpson Bowles doesn't really make sense. If you don't beleive me you can hear it from the horses' mouths.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washing...story.html

(12-21-2017 07:16 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 06:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 03:37 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 07:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I keep reading all these complaints that the new tax law is "partisan" and worse. Remember back in 2009 when we decided we needed to reduce the deficit and we formed the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission to come up with an approach? And the Domenici-Rivlin group sprung off from that as another bipartisan look at the problem?
So we had two bipartisan and very well informed looks at the problem. Interestingly, on the tax side both came up with the same approach, with slight variations--lower corporate tax rates to world standards, and on the individual side lower and flatten rates and get rid of itemized deductions, and go from a worldwide to a territorial taxing system.
Now take the "bipartisan" Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin approaches and lay them side by side with what was just passed by congress. Guess what? Except for the fact that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin lowered and flattened individual rates even further, and got rid of even more itemized deductions, they are basically the same approaches. One other difference, Domenici-Rivlin lowered the deficits even more by adding a consumption tax, a move that I would have approved.
So, could somebody explain to me how what was a bipartisan idea in 2009-10 became somehow "partisan" and "hateful" less than a decade later?
I've said it before but will repeat it here. When republicans regained control of the house in 2011, their first moves should have been to pass French Bismarck health care, a universal basic income, and some form of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or the best of both. I wonder how easy it would have bene to characterize a bipartisan approach as "partisan" and "hateful" back then? Not that I don't think the democrats would have tried.

Well they reduced rates but they didn't do a lot to close loopholes or end expenditures. Things such as eliminating the capital gains rate and increasing the social security wage base. Not to mention hundreds (literally hundreds) of industry specific deductions and credits that were left untouched and were called for to end. Bowles-Simpson's tax plan called for raising revenues by 600 Billion over 10 years, this plan will cost 1.5 trillion over the same period. That's a 2 trillion dollar difference! You can't be that confused about this. If so, I could point to other provisions such as opening the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve for drilling and ending the cap on executive pay.

The difference is that Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin factored in increased growth, whereas the static scoring for this bill does not. That plus the fact that this bill didn't get rid of nearly as many deductions and Bowles-Simpson did.

The dynamic scoring of the bill was still 1 trillion I beleive. And neither scores account for the fact that they set many of the provisions to sunset to get it through the senates procedural limit of 1.5 T over ten years so the actual costs associated with the law are even higher. The corporate tax cuts suggested in Simpson Bowls plan were designed to be revenue neutral. This law isn't even pretending to be. The growth required for this law to pay for itself would be amazing (I.e. unbelievable) but it still wouldn't achieve $1 towards deficit reduction so the comparison to Simpson Bowles doesn't really make sense. If you don't beleive me you can hear it from the horses' mouths.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washing...story.html

The basic approach was still the same--lower both individual and corporate tax rates substantially and broaden the base by eliminating deductions. The sausage making aspect of lawmaking is that they couldn't get rid of as many deductions as Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin did. But conceptually they were the same. I don't really see why anyone who supported this could not have supported that with proper leadership (which republicans haven't had).

One thing, this is a lot closer to Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin than the Obama plan.