It is going to pass and it will be good for America. I would like to see some deep spending cuts..but..It will do for now.

I agree with the spending cuts. But I dont want to jeopardize or conflate tax cuts with spending cuts. There's two ways to reduce the debt; spending cuts and increasing tax revenue. Cutting taxes is a proven method of increasing tax revenue. So lets get this passed so that we can start increasing the revenue and have part of the debt problem begin solving itself.

Then, when we can get some people with balls in DC, we can tackle the spending issue.

(12-15-2017 01:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is going to pass and it will be good for America. I would like to see some deep spending cuts..but..It will do for now.

Baby steps. That's how the left brought us to this point, now we roll back a bit, little by little. Take another step before the Trump term is complete.........

(12-14-2017 07:47 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 07:42 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:55 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:40 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:00 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Ronald Regan tried that and how did it turn out?

leave out skewed data from '83 and '84 and what did it do?

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache...l-1996.pdf

still did not answer the question

You didn't read the report.

Yes I did. Even though it comes from a joint committee it does not mean there is not bias in the report. That and it did not answer my question about the numbers from 83 and 84.

(12-14-2017 02:46 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 02:42 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:46 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Investment flows back into America...Economy is revved up....tax revenues increase....people get to keep more of the fruits of their labors. Nothing to be unhappy about IMO.

Except when it doesn't work and the deficit and debt skyrocket. What then? Cuts to SS and Medicare, that's what!

Oblunder raised the deficit more than anyone. Were you concerned then?

More than every president in history combined

were you concerned when Bush did it?

Yep. That was screwed up too. Bush was no conservative.

In defense of Rubio, his demands make the final bill a better political sell. Leave the highest tax rate alone and increase the child / working poor tax credit? That's actually not a bad policy idea. I could get behind that. It's this kind of political "gift wrapping" of policy that the GOP is so damned terrible at and the Democrats are so good at.

(12-14-2017 01:03 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Investment flows back into America...Economy is revved up....tax revenues increase....people get to keep more of the fruits of their labors. Nothing to be unhappy about IMO.

LOL. Bush tried that, how did that turnout?

Actually quite well. The mortgage and securities fraud crisis that hit in 2007 had nothing to do with the 2001 tax cuts. 2 completely separate issues.

thank the good goodies somebody remembers recent history correctly.....

his comparative ranked up there with my a.m. splatter that flew into 'that' flushing mechanism.....

the two are not anywhere close to being on the same plane of reality within debate.....

(12-14-2017 02:40 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 01:00 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-14-2017 12:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Investment flows back into America...Economy is revved up....tax revenues increase....people get to keep more of the fruits of their labors. Nothing to be unhappy about IMO.

LOL. Bush tried that, how did that turnout?

Ronald Regan tried that and how did it turn out?

leave out skewed data from '83 and '84 and what did it do?

What skewed data from 1983 and 1984? And how was it skewed?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tax-bi...le/2643718

A take on the bill's benefits to small business.

This is a straight give away of 1.5 trillion to the donor class from our nations future. You won't get economists on board. The vast majority of economist hate it. This will not help out the average American and will continue the squeezing of the middle class. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer and the Corker kick back is the swampiest of swampy things ever. Pure pathetic and it will hang around the GOP's heads in 18.

What happened to that board I used to read that complained about the debt and running deficits??????? Where did it go. I guess making sure people can go see a Dr. is way way worse than giving 1.5 trillion to the donor class. We have elections to win and all. Oh wellzy.

The corporate tax rate cut is necessary and long overdue. Many on the left even agree with that. The rest of it, I'm sorta "meh" about. Bottom line is that we aren't going to come close to balancing the budget without a consumption tax.

Did you watch the Putin video?

(12-18-2017 09:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The corporate tax rate cut is necessary and long overdue. Many on the left even agree with that. The rest of it, I'm sorta "meh" about. Bottom line is that we aren't going to come close to balancing the budget without a consumption tax.

Bull. ****.

A donor give away borrowed from millennials...........................

and Trump CAMPAIGNED ON not cutting taxes for the rich..................... Not cutting SS or Medicare........... THIS IS THE THING THAT THE Y pass......................... This albatross...............

(12-18-2017 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The corporate tax rate cut is necessary and long overdue. Many on the left even agree with that. The rest of it, I'm sorta "meh" about. Bottom line is that we aren't going to come close to balancing the budget without a consumption tax.

Bull. ****.

Fine, don't pass it, and see jobs keep going overseas and wages keep stagnating here.

(12-18-2017 09:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A donor give away borrowed from millennials...........................

It's easy to say that "assuming" the economy is static and unchanging. I'm willing to see if it kicks the economy into gear and that $1.5 trillion loss turns out to be much smaller or goes away.

Mach, you can't have a tax system that punishes the corporate world for staying here because, as we have seen, in today's world - they will just up and leave.

It's like choking the goose that lays the golden eggs and saying that if I just squeeze harder, it will lay more eggs.

If this tax bill doesn't kick start the economy and lead to higher tax revenues, then maybe I'll agree with you. But the one thing we can't afford to do is continue the "Obama path' of ever higher government expenditures with nothing done to increase the economy..........

Mach and RedTom can't help it. They have never tried to look at things from a producer point of view. Their combination of left-wing politics and Keynesian economic theory does not permit them to do so. They don't understand that producers and investors will always chase the highest ROI. That's not evil greed, it's just reasonable and rational behavior.

The good thing about it is that in a capitalist economy that can be used to the advantage of everyone. The best way to make the highest sustained ROI is to produce a quality product or service at a reasonable price.

From the standpoint of government policy, it's very simple--you want more investment and jobs and growth, you make your country a more attractive place to invest. You cannot get to a better life for everyone through redistribution. At some point you have to produce something. And bringing production home is the best way to spur the domestic economy.

(12-18-2017 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The corporate tax rate cut is necessary and long overdue. Many on the left even agree with that. The rest of it, I'm sorta "meh" about. Bottom line is that we aren't going to come close to balancing the budget without a consumption tax.

Bull. ****.

no, he's correct.