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.

(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.

It would have been nice for Republicans to have passed that in 2011. Of course you would have needed a President to sign it in to law. At that time one didn't exist.

(12-20-2017 08:28 PM)Old Blue 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.

It would have been nice for Republicans to have passed that in 2011. Of course you would have needed a President to sign it in to law. At that time one didn't exist.

No, but suppose they had passed it and forced Harry Reid and Obama to deal with it. It would at least have clarified some issue positions, and given republicans the high ground on those issues, which could very well have produced that republican president in 2012 instead of 2016. Considering that the 2012 candidate was a lot better than the 2016 one, that would have been an improvement.

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.

(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.

This!

There won't be one thing that Congressional Republicans or the President wants to accomplish that the Democrats won't squall and brand as "for the rich".......and the MSM will march lockstep right along with the mantra.

It is their playbook......oh yeah - call it racist as well.....

In those years that you mentioned the D's and the R's weren't at each others throats. With the help of the MSM the D's went into destroy mode. Everything the R's do today they will attack and guess who's carrying the banner? Yep, the Libturd press and media. They have become communistic in their agenda and since the D's hold the same idea there's no one to attack than the complete opposite of them, the R's.

Today the D's will attack policies that they have even brought up themselves before such as the foreign immigrant ban that OBlunder proposed and even the same fence that they're fighting today they gave speeches on how important it was and was needed. People who don't know the Demoncraptic history will just get mad at the Republicans for the things the Demons pushed before.

(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.

Yep.

I've said before that Republicans could come up with a pill that cures cancer and the leftists would complain about the out of work oncologists.

[quote='CG_Hawk06' pid='14916780' dateline='1513820478']
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.
[/quote

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall 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.

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Name an opposition party that has not had that as their single most important thing. Democrats with respect to GWB? NFW. Democrats now? NFW.

(12-20-2017 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall 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.

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Name an opposition party that has not had that as their single most important thing. Democrats with respect to GWB? NFW. Democrats now? NFW.

Exactly my point. Don't complain that Ds oppose what Rs are trying to do.

(12-20-2017 09:28 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall 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.

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Name an opposition party that has not had that as their single most important thing. Democrats with respect to GWB? NFW. Democrats now? NFW.

Exactly my point. Don't complain that Ds oppose what Rs are trying to do.

Republicans never had that as their ONLY thing.

(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 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..

If she's against it then it's gotta be good.

(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..

Dems love their hyperbole

(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

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  [quote='CG_Hawk06' pid='14916780' dateline='1513820478']
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.
[/quote

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Thanks for the groundbreaking news that a political party wants to oust the opposition from the White House.

That doesn't address the false accusations and labeling of racism, sexism, and utter vilification of anything NON-PRESIDENTIAL politicians do/say. What I was speaking of goes beyond whomever the president may be.

(12-20-2017 09:28 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 09:11 PM)dawgitall 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.

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Name an opposition party that has not had that as their single most important thing. Democrats with respect to GWB? NFW. Democrats now? NFW.

Exactly my point. Don't complain that Ds oppose what Rs are trying to do.

There's nothing wrong with opposing it. Hell, that's the foundation of political freedom our nation was founded on. What is blatantly wrong is the false labeling to fool the masses of ignorant voters. I'm not saying the GOP is innocent of this as a whole either, but by and large concerning socio-political topics it is a tool of the left's political machine to win office and subjugate their constituents hearts and minds.

(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

Personally, I don't believe her brain is in 2017. Likely frozen in a state of 2008 with all those plastic surgeries.

(12-20-2017 10:43 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  Personally, I don't believe her brain is in 2017. Likely frozen in a state of 2008 with all those plastic surgeries.

More like 1917 if she is still thinking about the CEA.

Pelosi is 77 years old. The skin on her face appears to be stretched out as thin as Joan Rivers. Her media-interviews are increasingly marked by brief episodes of stammering/babbling and non-sequiturs. I honestly wonder if her own staff or family is going to intervene.

(12-20-2017 10:55 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-20-2017 10:43 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  Personally, I don't believe her brain is in 2017. Likely frozen in a state of 2008 with all those plastic surgeries.

More like 1917 if she is still thinking about the CEA.

Pelosi is 77 years old. The skin on her face appears to be stretched out as thin as Joan Rivers. Her media-interviews are increasingly marked by brief episodes of stammering/babbling and non-sequiturs. I honestly wonder if her own staff or family is going to intervene.

No, they are all too addicted to power to risk giving it up.