$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I suppose you don't want to talk about how the economy was doing when the Bush tax cuts fully took effect circa 2008-2010.

This is at least the second time in the last couple weeks you have tried to connect the Bush tax cuts to the Financial Crisis. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because those are totally unrelated to each other. Stop.

Both parties share blame for the recession. But the Bush tax cuts, which are mostly irrelevant to this, ballooned the deficit. It is fiscally irresponsible to expend hundreds of billions of dollars on new foreign wars and simultaneously cut taxes heavily on the other end. What, is there a magic money tree?

I'm not defending the tax cuts -- they obviously were incredibly irresponsible and ideologically motivated. But the harm they caused and the harm the deregulation of the financial industry (which, you are right, both sides share blame for) caused are totally separate from each other. Anybody drawing a causal link between them is lacking basic economic literacy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, that is fine. I can accept that. But stop trying to suggest that the tax cuts somehow caused the recession because it makes you lose all credibility.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

If I am right, this is still a 51-49 match. Personally I wonder why Murkowski who voted nay in July she reversed her stance against ACA (individual mandate) or maybe what stuff from DC persuaded her to do this.

Wasn't Murkowski really opposed to Medicaid rollbacks, seeing as Alaska was a state where the Medicaid expansion was relatively popular? IIRC she was publicly against anything that would touch Medicaid but not against changes to the individual mandate or the exchanges.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

44 - 50.

Collins a yes, Carper and Warner no. Party lines otherwise.

Primary.

Yes, because if those two voted differently, the outcome of the vote would be totally different.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

What is Blunt doing voting for this thing? This is a complete virtue-signal.


If Democrats had voted for it, they wouldn't have been able to do this.

And Cotton too...

Is the reason Dems are voting against this that they don't want to vote yea on anything that will likely be on the final bill that gets passed? Or are they trying to deny Rubio any positive accomplishments before he makes an inevitable Presidential run in, like, 12 years?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Wait, this Cruz amendment might actually pass.

Is it going to be in the final bill? Do we know?

If it passes why wouldn't it be?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Wait, this Cruz amendment might actually pass.

Is it going to be in the final bill? Do we know?

If it passes why wouldn't it be?

Because of how this process votes. After all the other amendment votes are done, McConnell offers an amendment (the 'final' or 'manager's' amendment) which wipes away any previously passed amendments and replaces them with whatever he decides is in the bill.

Oh lol

Man this process is pretty terrible.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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.

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.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

If there were no filibusters we'd just keep going back and forth between ultraconservative periods, ultraprogressive periods, and stagnant periods.

Fine by me.

Our policies vs theres. I think will win that fight.

Did you forget 2010, 2014 and 2016, mate?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

If there were no filibusters we'd just keep going back and forth between ultraconservative periods, ultraprogressive periods, and stagnant periods.

Fine by me.

Our policies vs theres. I think will win that fight.

Did you forget 2010, 2014 and 2016, mate?

Terrible economy in 2010, gerrymandering in 2014 and 2016.

I don't think gerrymandering will be as much as a factor in 2020.

Gerrymandering is why we had massive losses in the Senate in 2014 and why we lost the Presidential race and had weak Senate gains in 2016?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

So much winning!

Congrats on your first win of the year 2017!

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Serious mode: I cannot wait for all those who are under tuition remission who get to see their taxable "income" go up because Reasons. So much losing for students! Terrible! You'll feel it when you get into college, Greedo, my boy!

Under the House plan my taxable income more than doubles. I'm going to get taxed on money that I don't earn that the school forces itself to pay to itself so that I can use its facilities. That's at least $2000 per year that a person in their mid 20s eating oatmeal every day because it's the cheapest food he can find will be paying to pay for the owner of Amazon to have a nice bathtub.

I'm not going to be surprised at all if that ends up in the final version of the bill that gets sent to the President.

I already called Cory Gardner earlier today and told him to expect me to knock on a lot of doors in 2020.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Do we have any idea who will actually be in the room for reconciliation on Monday? I'm planning on doing another round of phone calls on Monday but I want to make sure I'm not wasting my energy by calling people who will have no influence on the final product.