$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Person Man]

Then they'll have to pay them more, won't they?

Hahahahaha, good one. Somehow I'm not seeing a public university finding more money for grad students, especially non-STEM ones.

I'm not going to make a big deal out of this because there are people far worse off than me, but yeah, this would royally screw me over too.

I know
"Honk if I am paying for your new Pickup Truck"
would make an excellent bumper sticker!

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty good news, but Johnson is a hack, so I'm sure he'll find a way to support it in the end. He did the same song and dance with skinny repeal.

[Dr. Arch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty good news, but Johnson is a hack, so I'm sure he'll find a way to support it in the end. He did the same song and dance with skinny repeal.

[The Other Castro]

People to watch:

-Johnson
-Collins
-McCain
-Murkowski

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

People to watch:

-Johnson
-Collins
-McCain
-Murkowski

Also, the deficit Hawks: Paul, Corker, potentially Lankford

[IceSpear]

People to watch:

-Johnson
-Collins
-McCain
-Murkowski

Also, the deficit Hawks: Paul, Corker, potentially Lankford

What about Flake?

[Matty]

Castro and dwarves, what percent change does the house have votes for tomorrow?

Looks like there will be at least 15 no's

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

People to watch:

-Johnson
-Collins
-McCain
-Murkowski

Also, the deficit Hawks: Paul, Corker, potentially Lankford

What about Flake?

Flake has no spine, sorry.

[IceSpear]

People to watch:

-Johnson
-Collins
-McCain
-Murkowski

Also, the deficit Hawks: Paul, Corker, potentially Lankford

What about Flake?

Flake has no spine, sorry.

Based on what? He wrote that book knowing it would put a giant target on his back, and has been the only Republican to endorse Jones. He also has nothing to lose anymore.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Matt fuller puts o/u on 15 republican no votes

They can only afford 22

Predictt has it .45 that it doesn't pass house Tmw

Fivethirtyeight.com said mid-20s when you combine the NY/NJ Republicans that voted no on the budget resolution with Tuesday Group members that were against OCare repeal.

Not that I think there'll be 25 that vote against it, of course. But I would take the over on 15.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

People to watch:

-Johnson
-Collins
-McCain
-Murkowski

Also, the deficit Hawks: Paul, Corker, potentially Lankford

What about Flake?

Flake has no spine, sorry.

Based on what? He wrote that book knowing it would put a giant target on his back, and has been the only Republican to endorse Jones. He also has nothing to lose anymore.

He's only voted against Trump on disaster relief, continuing resolutions, and Iran Sanctions: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/jeff-flake/

[mvd10]

People to watch:

-Johnson
-Collins
-McCain
-Murkowski

Also, the deficit Hawks: Paul, Corker, potentially Lankford

What about Flake?

Flake has no spine, sorry.

Based on what? He wrote that book knowing it would put a giant target on his back, and has been the only Republican to endorse Jones. He also has nothing to lose anymore.

The problem is that Flake probably actually supports this bill. This is a generic supply-side Republican bill. Why would a Reagan/Goldwater conservative oppose this? Most of the deficit alarmism by movement conservatives during the Obama years was fake anyway (as these conservatives all voted for the Bush tax cuts and medicare expansion). Flake's problems with Trump are Trump's unorthodox positions on trade, immigration and perhaps social security/medicare. Why would he then oppose a tax bill that is the epitome of what the Republican establishment wants on tax reform?

[IceSpear]

People to watch:

-Johnson
-Collins
-McCain
-Murkowski

Also, the deficit Hawks: Paul, Corker, potentially Lankford

What about Flake?

Flake has no spine, sorry.

Based on what? He wrote that book knowing it would put a giant target on his back, and has been the only Republican to endorse Jones. He also has nothing to lose anymore.

The problem is that Flake probably actually supports this bill. This is a generic supply-side Republican bill. Why would a Reagan/Goldwater conservative oppose this? Most of the deficit alarmism by movement conservatives during the Obama years was fake anyway (as these conservatives all voted for the Bush tax cuts and Medicare expansion).

Yeah, most of it was fake, but Flake has a reputation for actually being one of the few principled deficit hawks even when he was in the House during the Bush administration.  The fact that he now has nothing to lose and may want to stick it to Trump is a bonus.

[SoLongAtlas]

Johnson just came out against the bill. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/democrats-furious-over-new-gop-attempt-to-gut-obamacare/2017/11/15/fdc382f8-ca23-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html

[Matty]

Johnson is probably doing this for optics and then will come back in fold like last time

[MasterJedi]

Johnson is probably doing this for optics and then will come back in fold like last time

He has no spine, plus he’s not even a businessman. Married a rich women and her dad gave him his business that sold exclusively to him to occupy him. He’ll happily vote for it in the end.

[The Other Castro]

Castro and dwarves, what percent change does the house have votes for tomorrow?

Looks like there will be at least 15 no's

It should be fine in the House, the Senate will be trouble.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Then they'll have to pay them more, won't they?

Hahahahaha, good one. Somehow I'm not seeing a public university finding more money for grad students, especially non-STEM ones.

So you're saying universities have been overpaying their grad student assistants since they could have gotten them for less?  Doubtful.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Then they'll have to pay them more, won't they?

Hahahahaha, good one. Somehow I'm not seeing a public university finding more money for grad students, especially non-STEM ones.

So you're saying universities have been overpaying their grad student assistants since they could have gotten them for less?  Doubtful.

You have way too much faith in muh free market working like an Econ 101 textbook pretends it does.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

To Summarize the view of the Senate:

Solidly Opposed: The 45 Dem Senators who signed the tax reform demand letter

Likely Opposed:
Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp - they didn't sign the letter and have said they have an open mind regarding the legislation, but they are strong supporters of ObamaCare and I really don't think they'd vote to overturn the mandate - however, I can't rule out the silm possibility that if Republicans have 50 votes without them, one of them would vote yes anyway because "My vote wouldn't change the outcome and I want to show bipartisanship so I can get re-elected."

Paul - he voted against the framework, and his preferred amendments were rejected overwhelmingly. There's a small chance he eventually succumbs to party loyalty, as he did vote for Skinny Repeal. But it's highly unlikely.

Lean Opposed: Corker - deficit hawk - but will he actually have a spine? We'll see.

Toss-Up: Collins, Murkowski - Strong opponents of the ObamaCare repeal bills - but is mandate repeal alone a dealbreaker for them? We'll see. Both do generally support cutting taxes.

Lean Support: Lankford - he's said he'll vote against it "if it increases the deficit too much" - but didn't define what too much meant. He's a reliable vote for leadership, so the odds are he gets to yes, but we'll see.

Johnson - Said he can't support it right now, but he also said he wants to get to Yes. Odds are he'll find a way to vote yes eventually.

Likely Support:
Flake - Might want to show opposition to Trump, but also probably supports the intent of this bill. Probably only votes No if there are 51 votes against regardless of what he does.

McCain - Voted against Skinny Repeal and opposed Graham-Cassidy, but he is a strong supporter of the tax cut portions of this bill, and his opposition to repeal was based more on the process of passage rather than the substance of the bill. I doubt mandate repeal alone would be a dealbreaker to him. But it's not impossible.

Safe Support: Other 44 GOP Senators

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why the hell does Rand Paul have to be so ideological . He ruined a great bill, with his demands OCare mandate be repealed.

[Dr. Arch]

Republicans might just fail at this too.


lol

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why the hell does Rand Paul have to be so ideological . He ruined a great bill, with his demands OCare mandate be repealed.

Moments like this make you envious of John Boehner, who probably much prefers golf, wine and smoking himself to death than trying to ponder that question, be it about Paul, Cruz, Jim Jordan or anyone else.

Only problem is we cannot resign ourselves out of having to deal with the consequences of this mess.

For Rand Paul, it is rather obvious. You just have to look at his father. His father never dropped out in 2008 or 2012 and never endorsed the final nominee either time. His father built up a movement around being a stick in the mud and refusing to settle for anything less than complete satisfaction. In other words, the classic Libertarian folly.

Rand Paul is more conservative but the mindset is the same. He didn't go up there to make deals or pass anyone's agenda. He is there to advance his agenda that gov't needs to be dismantled. Anything that falls short of that objective is to be voted against 100%. If the bill fails, he gets to be on TV a lot. If the bill fails, he doesn't get called out like McCain and Collins, because he is "more conservative", it is everyone else that it is a fault because they are weak kneed or Rino's. There is a positive feedback loop that puts him at the center of attention, and the dreadful political consequences if it fails and the GOP loses one or both chamber, merely gives him a chance to grand stand about "Republicans lost because they abandoned their principles/didn't keep their promises". Ironically, the Republicans would have failed to keep their promises, because he was too principled, but that doesn't matter, but that won't stop him from in his mind, riding this all the way to the Presidency.

The question you shouldn't be asking is why is Rand Paul so damn ideological, the question you should be asking is why do all the political incentives align to encourage him to do so? Why doesn't the talk radio call him out like Collins and Murkowski and McCain.

The answer is simple. Rand Paul is not some lone fringe nut, he is a symptom, a product of a deeper problem at the root of movement conservatism, that always encourages this and rewards it when it is for the sake of ideological purity, but condemns and eviscerates those like Collins and Murkowski. They were more traditionalist, focused on their constituencies and reality on the ground in the sense that they felt "this will cause rural hospitals to shut down, not so good for my very rural state". That was an unacceptable betrayal, but Paul's "This doesn't throw enough people out to die on the street" approach is perfectly acceptable because it is in touch with the textbook theoretical thinking that pervades think tanks and the greedy, self-centered thinking of Republican donors.

Dereich once told me that Trump being nominated was like a tree trunk being shoved down your throat. In a way that analogy works perfectly for this situation, except it is the movement conservative agenda in place of the tree trunk. Republicans are only allowed to complain if they feel the tree should be bigger.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As promised, with the mandate repeal now being included, I withdraw my endorsement of the Senate Bill and urge all Senators to oppose it.

Just what the hell did you think was going to happen with a tax cut? They were going to try to do this anyways -- now they're just being more open with it.

I swear token moderates jizz over tax cuts without realizing... cutting taxes means you either have to cut from somewhere (health care), or you add a lot to the deficit.

I think Republicans need to find some new economic message other than tax cuts to nowhere. It really has become the equivalent of Smoot-Hawley, at this point. By that I mean, that it has no economic benefit in the current day and has substantial negative consequences.