• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP considers letting tax cuts for families expire sooner

There are reports that he is in rapid decline but yes we must remember that Congressional R's under current leadership have accomplished nothing all year, so why should we expect that this will happen?

Because they personally benefit from it. You can bet that to a person their vote has been bought by promises of high paying cushy jobs after leaving office.

The GOP has shown they do not have the country's best interests at heart.
 
If the party of no would play ball then they could make the tax cuts permanent helping everyone.
But the party of no is the party of no.

Question- what happened to the deficit hawks in the Republican party? he bill is a give away to Corp and wealthy.
 
If the party of no would play ball then they could make the tax cuts permanent helping everyone.
But the party of no is the party of no.

That would blow waaaay past the deficit limits imposed by reconciliation, so would be subject to filibuster.
 
There are so many things wrong with this bill. Just my opinion, they had to pass something politically, could not afford another loss, and who do they look after Corps and the wealthy.
If the bill is delayed by Rubio, Lee and Corker, it will never pass as it becomes 51-49 with Jones seated.
Rubio will fold, Lee is only "undecided." Collins is still on board. Murkowski got her ANWR drilling.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Rubio will fold, Lee is only "undecided." Collins is still on board. Murkowski got her ANWR drilling.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

He could very well fold, but he is also looking at his future career. If he gets this he can say he was helping lower income voter. I think he realizes this bill will not be viewed favorably by voters.
 
If you are self-employed then you pay a 15.3% federal "self-employment" tax (on the first $110K of gross income) in addition to federal (and possibly state) income taxes (on your AGI). You are wrong about the SALT deal - the combined deductions for state/local property, income and/or sales taxes cannot exceed $10K.

I would have to find it again I thought them made a change to one of them again.

Right but self employed also get a ton of deductions.
So he shouldn't be that bad off.
 
Question- what happened to the deficit hawks in the Republican party? he bill is a give away to Corp and wealthy.

Again tired old arguments do not make it true.
The fact is that our corporate rates are the highest in the world.

Hell Germany only has. 25% corporate rate.
It is time we got in line with everyone else.

Lowering the top marginal rate 2% is not a give away.
So you can stop the drama.
 
That would blow waaaay past the deficit limits imposed by reconciliation, so would be subject to filibuster.

Thanks for showing that liberals are the party of no.
 
As evidenced by the fact that the GOP has allowed no public hearings, debates, or Dem amendments to the bill?

You live in a partisan fantasy world, as usual.
I remember hearing once that "elections have consequences" those same people have now been religulated to the minority party. The country is not interested in their ideas. We are taking things in a new direction. Tax reform is probably the least objectionable thing the right has planned for the left.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Rubio received a modest increase for the CTC, will vote yes.
 
Because they personally benefit from it. You can bet that to a person their vote has been bought by promises of high paying cushy jobs after leaving office.

The GOP has shown they do not have the country's best interests at heart.

All of Washington has long shown that they dont have the best interests of the nation at heart.....in fact they so very often act like they barely care.
 
If the party of no would play ball then they could make the tax cuts permanent helping everyone.
But the party of no is the party of no.

They are simply playing by the Byrd Rule to allow use of reconciliation - the "Bush" tax rate cuts were also temporary yet "Obama" kept 98.6% of them - raising tax rates only for the top 1.4%.
 
Rubio will fold, Lee is only "undecided." Collins is still on board. Murkowski got her ANWR drilling.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

You were right. And Corkum voted for. That was a surprise unless he is planning a 2020 run?
 
You were right. And Corkum voted for. That was a surprise unless he is planning a 2020 run?

He could afford to be a protest vote if he still wants to quit after the term expires. But with McCain potentially gone, that's a less easy position to take.

But, really, the party unity line has basically kept these bills alive despite rather obvious flaws in both draft and in procedure.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
What a cute way to posture that he’s looking out for the middle class.

He will be using this when he runs in 2020.
Frankly, I'm glad he got them to budge. When Corker tried to start a maneuver, it completely backfired and Corker got nothing at all while his colleagues voted for it. Same thing happened with Rubio and Lee in the initial Senate bill. They got ignored...but didnt have the will to hold steady--because of the need for a "win" for a win's sake (a terrible way to legislate).

If you're going to pass a bad bill, I would rather it be as less bad as it's likely to get.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...-top-table-main_tax-plan-115pm:homepage/story


I recall R's stating that tax deduction would be extended at a later date.
This is one issue that will hang many R's running for election.
Town halls should be quite interesting

The tax cuts Trump promised at rally after rally that would go his faithful base at the expense of the rich are going instead to the rich at the expense of the faithful,
yet the faithful still believe. They will blame Mitch. They might blame Hillary.
 
The tax cuts Trump promised at rally after rally that would go his faithful base at the expense of the rich are going instead to the rich at the expense of the faithful,
yet the faithful still believe. They will blame Mitch. They might blame Hillary.

I think this along with Moore will be a game changer for Trump- less control over the Congress- less fear of Trumps base support -lowered support in the New years as the bill is torn apart.
And will make a difference in the 18 elections.
 
It raises taxes on millions of American families in order to pay for special tax breaks that the wealthy benefit from. It also raises the deficits and health insurance premiums.

It is not better than nothing.


Yes the Intention is the continued upward movement of wealth at the expense of the lower and middle-class.

Borrowing money with no Intention of ever paying it back is trumps business model and now tbe gop and cooperate American has bought Into it.

It's a take the money and run bill.

Your your nefarious motives trope may warm your partisan toes, but they are stereotyped and ignorant. No one is out to get the middle-class or raise taxes on millions; many, however, are out dismantle an economically inefficient system of corporate taxes and "special pleadings" that has needlessly hobbled potential US productivity and growth since WWII.

First, the core of the GOP-Trump plan is reduce corporate taxes because, as all economist know, its an economically harmful way of generating revenue. Both American and European economists are generally aware of that, the difference being that Europeans tend to listen more to the experts than do Americans - whose bottom line is usually "me hate rich people" and "what's in it for me"?

Ideally, there would be no corporate income tax (or capital) tax at all.

Second, capital flows from country to country, seeking the highest after-tax income. The world has reduced corporate income taxes, hence putting the US at a serious disadvantage on investments in new capital projects.

Third, it does not matter if stockholders reap the initial benefits (such as pension funds, retirement accounts, etc.) these benefits also accrue in the form of more investment and increases in worker productivity, and thus increasing wages.

Four, to the degree that the tax reform attempts to remove "special pleading" (deductions used as 'subsidies' to voting blocks) the greater is the efficiency of the tax system, and the greater efficiency gain to the economy. Deductions for home mortgage interest, children, state income tax, property tax, medical expenses, etc. ALL contribute to reduced productivity and growth by distorting the market, investiments and prices (home owner interest reduction being one of the worst offenders).

Five, the expiration of the individual tax cuts is likely a good thing. In eight to ten years the debt will have reached a crisis point (the 90 percent threshold) and demand a realistic and frugal government. Taxes, in some form, will (or should) be increased for everyone (not just the upper half of the income earners) and more efficient forms of taxation (e.g. consumption taxes or carbon taxes) considered.

In other words, Americans need weaned off their high progressive rate, high corporate tax system, and lavish deductions and shifted to the more economically efficient European models. The expiration of these cuts will FORCE the benighted US citizenry to face a reality they have dodged.
 
Last edited:
Remember when we had a decent president? Take this for instance... Back when Obama was trying to get Obamacare passed and there was a special election where republican Scott Brown won the race but wasn't seated yet.

"Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," the president told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview. "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."

link...

Oh ethics... we barely knew ye.
 
I remember hearing once that "elections have consequences" those same people have now been religulated to the minority party. The country is not interested in their ideas. We are taking things in a new direction.

The country hates this legislation.
 
Remember when we had a decent president? Take this for instance... Back when Obama was trying to get Obamacare passed and there was a special election where republican Scott Brown won the race but wasn't seated yet.
"Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," the president told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview. "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."

link...

Oh ethics... we barely knew ye.

Ethics is certainly a challenge, especially for posters who shamelessly parrot disingenuous morality tales. I have little tolerance for stupidity, and even less for dishonesty.

Obama's "ethics" lasted but a few days, and then he had no objection to Harry Reid jamming the Obamacare 2000 page bill through, a little more than month later, on Christmas Eve (morning BEFORE Brown was seated). The strategy, was developed in late November (to jam the bill into the shell of an old bill on the calendar). The final bill was up for consideration for several days, and then the vote taken.

David Broder, the late respected centrist for the Washington Post nailed it:

“Health Reform’s Stench of Victory.” Reid, he wrote, “reduced the negotiations to his own level of transactional morality. Incapable of summoning his colleagues to statesmanship, he made the deals look as crass and parochial as many of them were — encasing a historic achievement in a wrapping of payoff and patronage.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...re-through-the-senate/?utm_term=.1dd50ef13f4c

On ethics... we "barely knew" a myth, perpetrated by usual drones of unethical parroting.
 
Back
Top Bottom