$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The 1980s tax cuts did create economic growth , and the reason for the deficits were not cause of the tax cuts but because of the spending increases .


Here look at the total tax revenue per year and look at the 1980s : https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 . It's clear that it was the increas in spending what caused the deficits not the tax cuts . Also the economy did grow from 1986 -1990 just look at the increase in revenue during those years .

Lastly on the increase in revenue over a decade :


In the 1980s revenue went up from 517 billion to  991 billion which is an increase of 91.68 percent

In 1990s revenue went up from 1.03 trillion to 1.82 trillion which is an increase of 79 percent , and even if you include 2000 numbers tax revenue went up by 97.08 percent .


That means despite the tech boom of the 1990s the increase of revenue was barely more then the increase in the 1980s and that is if you include the 2000 numbers .

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

The Bush Tax cuts were sold as an economic stimulus, which was obviously an epic fail.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

I didn't say they caused the recession, but the fact that we had the worst recession in 80 years when they mostly took effect meant that they were epic fail for an economic stimulus.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Moving Murkowski to Lean Support:

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"

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

Paul - he voted against the framework, and his preferred amendments were rejected overwhelmingly. Politico has said in at least one article that he appears to be open to the final legislation, the addition of ObamaCare appears to  have been a ploy to get his vote, and party pressure is a powerful tool. But I still expect him to vote No because he voted No on the framework.

Collins - Appeared to indicate on 11/19 CNN interview that her support would depend on passage of Alexander-Murray and a separate bill she wrote with Senator Nelson, and keeping the top rate at 39.6%, instead of lowering it to 38.5%.

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.

Flake - Might want to show opposition to Trump, and has raised real doubts about the eventual affect of the bill, but also probably supports the intent of this bill, and he did vote for all versions of ObamaCare Repeal.

Murkowski - Has come out in support of mandate repeal, and she usually supports cutting Taxes. But she was a thorn in the side of Senate R's during the ObamaCare repeal debate, says she has come to no final decision on the plan, and is still promoting Alexander-Murray heavily.

Likely Support:
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


Overall: 51 AGAINST, 49 SUPPORT

Don't be delusional....their going to pass it and the GOP will get BTFO

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that this steaming pile of sh**t is passing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It looks like most people's taxes are going from the current amount in 2027. Increases of thousands of dollars are common.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Quite possible Johnson votes no in committee tomorrow (Not that Johnson wants to kill the bill, but he would be willing to hold it hostage until they give him the tax breaks for sole proprietorships that he and his donors want). Johnson voting no would delay the process, not kill it...they'd just try again when they had a bill that met his concerns.

There's very little consequence for Johnson in voting no tomorrow: it will make McConnell mad and slow down the process, but the bill will still be alive and they could try again in a few days. Meanwhile, he almost certainly gets what he wants out of the new negotiations.

Obviously these Republicans saying they'd vote no are just using it as leverage to get something they want out of the bill and will vote yes in the end.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If enough Democrat Senators played the delay game regarding throwing votes in to send the bill back to committee, then we would have had a real shot at delaying the bill until McCain had to go back to Arizona continue his cancer treatments, which would have costed the Republicans a yes vote.

You do realize how underhanded the Democrats would have looked doing that, right?

And we should care about that...b/c?

Anyway too bad the Dems wussed out and stopped introducing those motions

I have always hated how Democrats are always the ones complaining about the other side doing dirty things. They need to stop the 'adult in the room' mentality and crush Republicans with Atwater and Rovian tactics.

Their Wall Street donors don't pay them to do that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

44 - 50.

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

Primary.

And don't make it a warnering like his 2014 general election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ah looking forward to when the rich pay 60% in taxes in 2021. This will boomerang right back on them.

LOL at the idea that the Democratic party would do that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Uh oh, collins refuses to say she will support final bill. Says she has to wait and see.

wow, is she changing her mind?

Who knows what will come out of conference?

A pile of sh**t.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I find the American idea that owning a $300k property makes you outside the 'middle class' pretty funny tbh.

I don't think you could even find a condo that cheap around here. Maybe a 250 square foot studio condo?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And we now know the Senate Dems/Indies: https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/house-vote-government-funding-bill-avert-federal-shutdown/story%3fid=51646361

Full list of members:

Republicans: Brady (TX), Nunes, Roskam, Black, Noem, Upton, Shimkus, Bishop (UT), Young (AK), Hatch, Thune, Cornyn, Portman, Scott, Toomey, Enzi, Murkowski

Democrats: Neal, Levin, Doggett, Castor (FL), Grijalva, Wyden, Cantwell, Stabenow, Menendez, Carper, Murray

Independent Socialist: Sanders

Dem-caucusing Senate conferees: Washington, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, NJ, Delaware, ... and token Michigan.

Anyone else think this is bad optics?

No one cares about that.