$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Virginiá]

Yes, but the question in what areas most of the 1.5 trillion is coming from. If it is coming from Income/Dividends/Capital Gains then this tax plan would be fiscally irresponsible, but if its coming from cutting taxes on Businesses then it is not fiscally irresponsible as you will get that lost revenue back in economic growth.

That seems like a highly simplistic way to look at it. The size of the tax cuts matter, as does exactly where the cuts are. The expiration date(s) (if any) of the cuts also matter - If this plan sees cuts expire after 10 years, then that even goes against Paul Ryan's own excuses, that the expiration of Bush tax cuts gave businesses uncertainty of what the tax code would look like in the future and thus hampered investment, and that future tax cuts need to last longer to "spur growth."

Republicans have been pushing this supply side hooey for decades now and you guys are still leaning on "magic logic" to justify them because there is no clear evidence you can provide that these cuts will pay for themselves or juice the economy like you say. When in doubt, just say it'll pay for itself with growth and thus no one can argue with you because it'll happen far in the future.


Here is something else as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/

I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry, but you guys owe America more than what basically amounts to a "trust us, everything will work beautifully" explanation to justify 1.5 trillion dollars in tax cuts, of which the wealthy and need-nots stand to benefit greatly. America also deserves a tax bill this expensive that isn't rammed through party-line at breakneck speed.

[Virginiá]

Republicans say they can’t figure out how to not cut taxes for the rich

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/18/16496190/mnuchin-rule

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He really needs to stop saying things.

[Virginiá]

LOL

[Virginiá]

I love how the Republican logic on this devilish bill is "we need to pass this horribly unpopular bill now or we'll get destroyed in the midterms!"

They are either delusional or have resigned themselves to their fate in 2018 (AKA getting blown the **** out.)

At first glance, you would expect politicians to realize that passing an unpopular bill that is extremely easy for their political opponents to attack them on would lead to ruin in the midterms. However, I think we're looking at this wrong. Republicans know this bill isn't popular, and at least some of them probably know this bill won't lead to magic growth like they keep saying over and over again. Rather, what they all know is that this is a bill their donors want. This bill will pay back those conservative donors for all the money they have donated to Republican campaigns and thensome, and in order to keep getting donations, Congressional Republicans know they need to pass this.

So they know it's unpopular and likely to hurt them, but they think raking in enough campaign donations can stave off losing control of either chamber. It's very silly if you ask me. They should ask Democrats if money saved them in a bad political environment.

[Virginiá]

I'm glad theyre passing it. Only makes 2018 worse for them

Here is a slight historical question. Ignoring whether laws and legislation are good or bad for the people, when was the last time a party in power was significantly *helped* in a midterm by legislation they had passes in the years and months prior to the midterm elections?

Was it 2002, 1998?

I have a big book on historical mid term elections and I'm at work now but I'll come back this question later

I think regardless of what happens prior to the midterm, the best barometer to go by is the incumbent president's approval rating. Bill Clinton was super popular in 1998, and everything the GOP did only made him more so, and that lead to a good midterm for Democrats. Likewise, GWB was made exceptionally popular due to a rally-around-the-flag event and that made 2002 good for Republicans. I forget the exact numbers, but Clinton and GWB were sporting mid-high 60s in approvals going into their midterms.

Point being that if Trump still has awful approval ratings in October/November 2018, the GOP is going to get trounced.

[Virginiá]

THE REASON TRUMP HAS BEEN ABLE TO STACK THE FEDERAL BENCH WITH VERY CONSERVATIVE JUDGES IS BECAUSE HARRY REID, THE IDIOT THAT HE WAS, ENDED THE JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER.

Eh, given what we've seen from Republicans since Trump was elected, it is highly likely they would have gutted the filibuster once Democrats started slowing down judicial nominations. The only difference would then be that some of Trump's cabinet picks/etc would be different due to Dem opposition, but Trump would also have even more federal judicial vacancies to fill because we would have let Republicans block Obama nominees instead of getting rid of the filibuster to confirm them prior to Jan 2015.

I haven't seen anything from Republicans to suggest otherwise. They are tearing through anything that stands in their way. It's quite remarkable, actually. Republicans in the Reagan era have lost it.

[Virginiá]

By the same logic, wouldn't the Republicans have already gotten rid of the legislative filibuster at this point? I'm going to extend the rate benefit of the doubt to them in this case, although I think you are right in the rest of your post about how it's better to have 4 extra years of Obama appointments to the bench.

Not necessarily. Democrats/liberals lose out more with a legislative filibuster because many big things we want to do then take 60 votes. Meanwhile, big things conservatives want to do, like cutting taxes and spending on liberal stuff can be done with bare majorities. I'm sure conservatives have their own dreams that require 60 votes right now, but they get by pretty well with the status quo.

Also consider that even without a legislative filibuster, after Democrats go buck wild in their turn with a federal trifecta, and enact a slew of new social programs, Republicans would be hard-pressed to roll those back due to the inevitable backlash. It's very hard to take those things away once they are implemented, hence why Republicans would want to keep a filibuster to block them from ever being implemented in the first place.

[Virginiá]

I sincerely hope no one ever calls the Senate the "Greatest deliberative body in history," ever again.

Indeed. The way it has been used the past year is like a sick joke.

[Virginiá]

By the time the economic effects of this bill are felt, the Democrats will have already won the House, and will be promptly blamed for the inevitable financial downturn. It's all in the plan.

People almost always blame their woes on the party that controls the White House, at least in the way they vote, and especially in a case where the White House's party blatantly caused the tax changes.

[Virginiá]

To the people acting as if this will destroy the GOP: nobody will remember or care about this in a year. Just hope that Mueller indicts Trump a month before the midterms and the roughly 55% of the country that is remotely sane gives us a nice D wave.

I don't know about that. The SALT deduction removal could leave an opening for Democrats in dozens of suburban Republican-held districts. The tax changes on graduate programs could also have an impact on people current in college.

Americans don't always have goldfish memory for everything. Although it might depend on how Democrats integrate this into their strategy for the next 3 years.

[Virginiá]

could != likely

I am quite confident that Republicans will work out their differences. Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy is a big, big deal to them. Aside from blocking liberal policy, tax cuts for those who need them the least is pretty much the reason the Republican Party exists, at least so far as the people who actually control the party are concerned.

[Virginiá]

You know the reason GOP kept the individual rates temporary is that it allows them to pass it with 50 votes , and then even when the Democrats win there is no way Dems will let them expire , so they basically made the tax reform permanent with just 50 votes.

Not necessarily. I don't get why this idea is being pushed so hard. Look at the Children's Health Insurance Program, which at face value seems like a much harder thing to allow to expire, yet Republicans have basically done just that. Whether the tax changes expire or not probably depends on how much power Republicans hold in Washington when that time comes. If they are in the minority and do not control the White House, it's easy to see the rates lapsing.

[Virginiá]

Most democrats would not let the tax cuts on the Middle Class Expire. Democrats from the Bernie Wing sure, but their not taking over the party.

But you are practically acting like taxes just can't ever be raised again, even though this is hardly raising them outright, considering the cuts were temporary to begin with. If Democrats want to deliver on something beneficial to the middle class that requires the extra revenue, they can easily rebut arguments against allowing temporary cuts to lapse.

This article laid out a case for why Democrats may want to just let certain things expire and get rid of/mitigate the unpopular parts of the tax changes - namely those that benefit corporations/wealthy people, while raising taxes further on them:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-reform-bill-democrats-2017-11

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who knows what they end up doing, but I think you are seriously overestimating how likely it is that these cuts are just automatically made permanent/re-upped upon expiration. Again, it will likely come down to how much influence Republicans have at that point in time.