• 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!

House Republican: my donors told me to pass the tax bill “or don’t ever call me again”

Not sure the op is describing the GOP tax plan accurately. Sure he parrots what the Dems are saying, but analysis from other sources have differing conclusions, one of which is that middle class would get a sizable tax break. Wasn't the Dems claims recently given 4 pinocchios?

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
eohrnberger said:
Not sure the op is describing the GOP tax plan accurately. Sure he parrots what the Dems are saying, but analysis from other sources have differing conclusions, one of which is that middle class would get a sizable tax break. Wasn't the Dems claims recently given 4 pinocchios?

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Maybe i've got an overly pessimistic view of the tax plan.

But let's look at the political process here. How i expect the political process to work is that politicians come up with policies that represent the interests of their constituents, politicians who then run for office. People then choose to donate money toward politicians who are promoting policies that they support.

What i'm reading into this statement is that House Republicans are stuck in a conflict between what is good for their constituents and what is good for their donors, and they're claiming it's a no-brainer that they have to do what the donors want. I reject the implications of that, House Republicans should be free to vote their conscience and represent their constituents who, if i understand correctly, seem concerned about public debt.
 
eohrnberger said:
Not sure the op is describing the GOP tax plan accurately. Sure he parrots what the Dems are saying, but analysis from other sources have differing conclusions, one of which is that middle class would get a sizable tax break. Wasn't the Dems claims recently given 4 pinocchios?

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Of course, you choose to only believe that one. In the end, most middle class and working class Americans (many Trump voters) will get a very small tax cut.

You won't notice because as long as the rich are taken care of, you cheer.
 
Absentglare said:
Maybe i've got an overly pessimistic view of the tax plan.

But let's look at the political process here. How i expect the political process to work is that politicians come up with policies that represent the interests of their constituents, politicians who then run for office. People then choose to donate money toward politicians who are promoting policies that they support.

What i'm reading into this statement is that House Republicans are stuck in a conflict between what is good for their constituents and what is good for their donors, and they're claiming it's a no-brainer that they have to do what the donors want. I reject the implications of that, House Republicans should be free to vote their conscience and represent their constituents who, if i understand correctly, seem concerned about public debt.
Click to expand...

Not much here to argue about, in that I too support the idea that elected congress members should vote for the public policy that is in the best interests of their constituents and from their good conscience, and not for what their donors want, which are more often than not large corporations or the heads of large corporations.
 
joG said:
You aren’t serious, are you? Of course you donate to parties that don’t want to do, what you want and give them cash, when they have broken their promises.
Click to expand...

Lol...so, now the Republicans are honorable for trying to keep their promise to the 1%. :lamo
 
Absentglare said:
Maybe i've got an overly pessimistic view of the tax plan.

But let's look at the political process here. How i expect the political process to work is that politicians come up with policies that represent the interests of their constituents, politicians who then run for office. People then choose to donate money toward politicians who are promoting policies that they support.

What i'm reading into this statement is that House Republicans are stuck in a conflict between what is good for their constituents and what is good for their donors, and they're claiming it's a no-brainer that they have to do what the donors want. I reject the implications of that, House Republicans should be free to vote their conscience and represent their constituents who, if i understand correctly, seem concerned about public debt.
Click to expand...

Yes. You have that exactly right. A rep should do what his voters want, not what his donors demand he do. The former is politics; the latter, bribery and Quid pro Quo.
 
rocket88 said:
Of course, you choose to only believe that one. In the end, most middle class and working class Americans (many Trump voters) will get a very small tax cut.

You won't notice because as long as the rich are taken care of, you cheer.
Click to expand...

Well, there you are flat out wrong.

I AM one of the middle class, and yes, I'd like to see a tax cut, I'd also like to see middle class wage growth, as its been far too stagnant for far too long, while the cost of most everything has gone up.

But I'm not someone who's cheering for punitive tax theft for those who've made good decisions and have worked hard to get to where they are. I have no animosity nor jealousy for those who are generally considered as 'successful'.

I know all too well that growing the economy is the key to a better economic outlook and potential for everyone, as I also know that punitive taxation and regulation isn't how you go about doing that, as the JFK and Regan tax cuts pretty well demonstrate.
 
eohrnberger said:
Well, there you are flat out wrong.

I AM one of the middle class, and yes, I'd like to see a tax cut, I'd also like to see middle class wage growth, as its been far too stagnant for far too long, while the cost of most everything has gone up.

But I'm not someone who's cheering for punitive tax theft for those who've made good decisions and have worked hard to get to where they are. I have no animosity nor jealousy for those who are generally considered as 'successful'.

I know all too well that growing the economy is the key to a better economic outlook and potential for everyone, as I also know that punitive taxation and regulation isn't how you go about doing that, as the JFK and Regan tax cuts pretty well demonstrate.
Click to expand...

So when your taxes don't go down, how will you react?

No one is saying "punish the rich" but I do think that they are the last ones who need a big tax cut.
 
rocket88 said:
So when your taxes don't go down, how will you react?
Click to expand...

Probably pissed and disappointed. Who wouldn't be?

No one is saying "punish the rich" but I do think that they are the last ones who need a big tax cut.
Click to expand...

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

If the top 1% are paying nearly 1/2 of the federal income taxes, is that enough of 'their fair share' yet? Recall I said punitive taxation, and yes, I think this counts as that.

What we really need to do is to make government cheaper, more effective and more efficient.

"Wastebook" report singles out $30B in federal spending

Seems that government is just too big, too cumbersome, to be effective and efficient. I vote to help it slim down, by reducing its spending. Of course, once addicted to the government dole, no one who's on it is going to like being kicked off of it. Going to take some brave congressmen to do that, and frankly, I'm not sure its even possible from the political survival perspective, which only indicates how bad the problem already is.
 
rocket88 said:
So when your taxes don't go down, how will you react?

No one is saying "punish the rich" but I do think that they are the last ones who need a big tax cut.
Click to expand...
You got that right.

This isn't the worst republican bill. Granted, by all accounts, it balloons the deficit and hooks up rich people, again. Why can't the Democrats win the fight for the little guy. They won't. They should be better politicians. This bill will pass. Tushay Republicans. Shame on you Democrats.


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
eohrnberger said:
Probably pissed and disappointed. Who wouldn't be?



Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

If the top 1% are paying nearly 1/2 of the federal income taxes, is that enough of 'their fair share' yet? Recall I said punitive taxation, and yes, I think this counts as that.

What we really need to do is to make government cheaper, more effective and more efficient.

"Wastebook" report singles out $30B in federal spending

Seems that government is just too big, too cumbersome, to be effective and efficient. I vote to help it slim down, by reducing its spending. Of course, once addicted to the government dole, no one who's on it is going to like being kicked off of it. Going to take some brave congressmen to do that, and frankly, I'm not sure its even possible from the political survival perspective, which only indicates how bad the problem already is.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

:agree: Another problem that should be tackled is the cost of running a campaign these days, IMO! When each candidate for POTUS, as an example, is spending over One Billion Dollars on a campaign when most of us already know exactly who they are, there just has to be a better way of doing things! Eisenhower was never elected to any political office before being elected POTUS, and he is still considered one of our best Presidents by a lot of people. Just sayin...
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

:agree: Another problem that should be tackled is the cost of running a campaign these days, IMO! When each candidate for POTUS, as an example, is spending over One Billion Dollars on a campaign when most of us already know exactly who they are, there just has to be a better way of doing things! Eisenhower was never elected to any political office before being elected POTUS, and he is still considered one of our best Presidents by a lot of people. Just sayin...
Click to expand...

Yeah, 2 years of campaigning is too long, I think as well. Well before the general, I get the feeling that everyone is sick of it, and pretty much tunes it out.
 
faithful_servant said:
Vocal donors. The ones who are committed to backing the ideals of their community with finances. You want to paint them as buying influence, but the truth most likely is that they want what's best for their community and are willing to step up to the line with the finances to back up that belief. By the idiotic standards of the OP, every politician who ever accepted a campaign contribution is corrupt.
Click to expand...

Having known a great many of those donors, I can tell you that this is plain horse-****. They want what's best for them, and screw everybody else.
 
eohrnberger said:
Probably pissed and disappointed. Who wouldn't be?



Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

If the top 1% are paying nearly 1/2 of the federal income taxes, is that enough of 'their fair share' yet? Recall I said punitive taxation, and yes, I think this counts as that.

What we really need to do is to make government cheaper, more effective and more efficient.

"Wastebook" report singles out $30B in federal spending

Seems that government is just too big, too cumbersome, to be effective and efficient. I vote to help it slim down, by reducing its spending. Of course, once addicted to the government dole, no one who's on it is going to like being kicked off of it. Going to take some brave congressmen to do that, and frankly, I'm not sure its even possible from the political survival perspective, which only indicates how bad the problem already is.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the top 1% also make 46% of the income. Paying almost 50% of the income taxes collected is a little deceiving without that bit of background info.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Having known a great many of those donors, I can tell you that this is plain horse-****. They want what's best for them, and screw everybody else.
Click to expand...

Remember you're talking to people who still believe in trickle down economic theory.
 
Absentglare said:
WHAT?!?

You think you can claim that House Republicans, who have a majority of the house, have constituencies which are all "representative" of the top 1%, based on nothing other than your appeal to ignorance fallacy?

And you expect other people to believe that?
Click to expand...

I never said anything even close to that... You want to hate Reps. and this is just your way of twisting facts to justify your hate.
 
Grand Mal said:
That how you read it? What I read was donors telling congressmen that they better vote a certain way or they'd not get any more donations. Let's look at the quote...

@RepChrisCollins (R-NY) on tax reform: "My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don’t ever call me again.'"

Does that tell you that every politician who accepts a donation is corrupt? Maybe you can point out to me the part you're claiming is 'idiot standards'.
How about this, every politician who suits his vote on a bill to placate his highest donors is corrupt, and maybe ought to be considered criminal.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that donations equate to influence buying. Donations are also one of the ways in which the People can support certain issues. They are most likely telling him that this is an issue which is critical to them and pulling their support of him is how they are telling that this is an action which they want to see happen.
 
faithful_servant said:
You're assuming that donations equate to influence buying. Donations are also one of the ways in which the People can support certain issues. They are most likely telling him that this is an issue which is critical to them and pulling their support of him is how they are telling that this is an action which they want to see happen.
Click to expand...

But the point is, does the congresscritter vote according to how the money wants him to? That's the problem with influencial money in politics. It's by nature self-serving where the politician should be serving the needs of his constuents.
 
faithful_servant said:
I never said anything even close to that... You want to hate Reps. and this is just your way of twisting facts to justify your hate.
Click to expand...

You claimed that the 1% are reflected in his constituency. While it's possible for a rep of a super rich district to be such a case, that is laughably unrealistic, as you would need 99 that wildly violate the standard set by your wishful thinking in order to produce just one that does.
 
faithful_servant said:
So actually representing the desires of your constituents is now corruption... It was dumb ideas like this the made me change from Dem. to Rep.
Click to expand...

Only if dollar bills are constituents.
 
Consider this.

The stock market has been doing well for years and setting records under Obama. The problem was understood that Wall Street is doing well but ordinary people are not.

So, what's the Republican solution? Give corporations a tax cut?

Huh? So the people who are dong really well are going to get a tax break??!

Does Apple need a tax break? Does Google need a tax break? If Google gets more money will they share it with all their employees like Santa Clause?

Now consider this: If you cut money from the government what happens? People think that the government takes money and takes it somewhere and burns it. No, government spends your tax money. They buy stuff from American workers. They employ Americans. When you cut government spending the economy loses government spending. When you give that same money to corporations, the can use it to hire foreign workers in foreing countries. They can park it in bank accounts. Or they could just gamble it on the stock market.

Republicans simply don't understand economics.

The components of GDP are:

Personal Consumption Expenditures plus Business Investment plus Government Spending plus (Exports minus Imports).


Now that you know what the components are, it's easy to calculate a country's gross domestic product using this standard formula: C + I + G + (X-M).
Click to expand...

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-gdp-definition-of-gross-domestic-product-3306038
 
shagg said:
To be fair, the top 1% also make 46% of the income. Paying almost 50% of the income taxes collected is a little deceiving without that bit of background info.
Click to expand...

That's fair.

If there is some middle class tax relief and some middle class wage growth, it would have an impact on that distribution, wouldn't it?
 
eohrnberger said:
That's fair.

If there is some middle class tax relief and some middle class wage growth, it would have an impact on that distribution, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

If you owned a business and got a tax break, would you give your employees raises? Of course not. You pay your employees the market rate. If there is a lot of competition for employees then you raise salaries to be competitive.

But there's no shortage of low skill workers.

Also, if the government has less money they cut jobs which reduces salaries. Most of the unemployment problem during the recession was because of lost government jobs. I'm sure you must know some people who work for federal, state or local government.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
If you owned a business and got a tax break, would you give your employees raises? Of course not. You pay your employees the market rate. If there is a lot of competition for employees then you raise salaries to be competitive.

But there's no shortage of low skill workers.
Click to expand...

Quite true.

  • So why is the political left so insistent on importing more low skill workers all the time via refugees, DACA, and illegal immigration amnesty?
  • Why is the political left against any measures enforcing existing immigration laws?
  • Why are some of the political left supporting open borders policies, which would only draw more illegal alien low skilled workers?
  • Why is the political left in support of sactuary cities and states, which would only draw more illegal alien low skilled workers?
Also, if the government has less money they cut jobs which reduces salaries. Most of the unemployment problem during the recession was because of lost government jobs. I'm sure you must know some people who work for federal, state or local government.
Click to expand...

How is this any different than a form of crony capitalism or welfare?

Part of the problem with a government job is that its nearly impossible to fire someone from them, for one, and its nearly impossible to get work done with the strong public sector unions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom