History will not forget the fiscal irresponsibility done yesterday

Herp derp how do u really know the globe is warming have u seen ice caps yourself

 

All tex can do is compare hypocrisy because he knows he is one. Guess they didn't train him guilt by tacit admission. They probably did but the benefit of the doubt makes him look less pathetic.

Aside from the Bush trillions, that extra trillion came from increasing entitlements to the poor and needy while they were jobless and couldn't afford their payments. The numbers are there for anyone who reads them or uses it for researching the economy through investing.

I got a comfortable enough life not to want riots or revolution, but let's privatize everything! School, security, retirement planning, healthcare (not that socialized insurance bs)....

All I need are myself, guns, God, and gold.

 

It looks to me that this bill will kill the middle class and those 1%ers will make off like bandits as they always do.

 

another perspective

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog...al-debate-reaches-a-new-low-with-the-tax-bill

The Quality Of Political Debate Reaches A New Low With The Tax Bill
December 03, 2017/ Francis Menton
As of today, the proposals of congressional Republicans to revise the tax code still have several steps to go before final enactment. The House and Senate versions of the bill have some substantial differences, summarized here. The news has been full of information on the various proposed provisions. You would think that this would be the good time for a serious national debate about what makes for good tax policy. You would be wrong.

Among some dozens of tweaks to the tax code in the new bills, a big one stands out: the reduction in the top tax rate on corporate income from 35% to 20%. That reduction is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill. Somehow the Republicans have the idea that such a reduction will make investing in the United States more attractive and lead to the creation of jobs and to increased economic activity. Is there anything to that idea?

Well, there is quite a bit of experience from other countries. I won't try to do a comprehensive review, but consider the case of Ireland. Ireland led the way among countries with big reductions in its corporate tax rate in the 1990s, thinking that that could lead to a surge of economic growth. If you are as old as I am, you will remember Ireland as a relatively poor country. In 1970, Ireland's GDP per capita was about half that of the U.S.: $12,000 of Ireland v. about $24,000 for the U.S. Starting about 1995, Ireland began dramatic cuts in its corporate tax rate, which went from 40% in 1995 all the way down to 12.5% in 2002, where it remains today. How did that work out? Today, the GDP of Ireland equals or exceeds that of the U.S., depending on what measure you look to. The St. Louis Fed has a figure for U.S. per capita GDP as of 3Q 2017 as $52,685. At Trading Economics they have a figure for Ireland for 2015 of $65, 249. Whoa! You are hard pressed to find any remaining pockets of poverty in Ireland today.

Is Ireland's current prosperity entirely attributable to its aggressive reductions in its corporate tax rate? Certainly not. There are way too many moving parts in economic policy to ever be able to attribute good or bad results to just one facet of policy. Also, Ireland's economy had begun rapid growth before its big cuts in the corporate tax rate. Perhaps its joining the EU in 1973 made a big contribution to its success, or maybe improvements in its education system. But there is substantial anecdotal evidence that Ireland's low corporate tax rate has induced many corporations to locate there and grow there. The prosperity has lifted the whole country, not just a wealthy few. U.S companies that have chosen Ireland as a main base for their European or international operations include Google, Facebook, and Apple, as well as many large pharmaceutical companies. I don't think this is a coincidence. From Tim Worstall in Forbes, December 2015:

Ireland must actually be getting something right in its economic policy. And that thing they're getting right is exactly what we should all be doing too. Low tax rates on capital and corporate income, make up the revenue differences through higher taxation of consumption. No, not because we just want to stick it to the people and not the plutocrats, but because that's the efficient way to model a tax system. That efficiency being obvious in the manner that it produces these startling growth rates.

Anyway, based on the experience of Ireland and other countries, the idea that lowering corporate tax rates can improve economic growth and prosperity for everyone is certainly not a fringe position. is there a good argument to the contrary? Possibly, but not one that you can get from the current debate going on in the United States. Tyler O'Neil at PJ Media on December 2 has compiled a roundup of arguments from the progressive side opposing the Republican tax reform. A few samples:

• Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek and Vanity Fair in a December 2 tweet: "America died tonight. Economic suicide adopted to feed the insatiable greed of donors, who have been refusing to dole out $ to GOP until they got their tax cuts. Voters fooled by propaganda and tribal hatred."
• Comedian and actor Patton Oswalt in a December 2 tweet: "Is there any going back after this Tax Bill Scam? To America? Does it matter now if Trump is impeached? There's no America now. Not the one we knew. Sorry, feeling real despair this morning."
• Economic analyst Bruce Bartlett (who actually worked in the Treasury in the George H.W. Bush administration) on MSNBC on December 2: "It really defies comprehension. . . . Maybe they think that the poor have it so easy that they need to have to pay more taxes to force them to go out and work more. . . . It's really akin to rape."
• Liberal blogger Bill Palmer: "Millions of Americans died tonight. . . . So did the careers of every one of these psychotic drooling animals in the Republican Party who voted for it. This was mass murder."

And don't forget the evergreen Paul Krugman (not included in O'Neil's roundup), from November 27, "The Biggest Tax Scam in History": "The bill Republican leaders are trying to ram through this week without hearings, without time for even a basic analysis of its likely economic impact, is the biggest tax scam in history. It’s such a big scam that it’s not even clear who’s being scammed — middle-class taxpayers, people who care about budget deficits, or both."

Meanwhile, there's no doubt what the U.S. financial markets think about this prospective tax reform. The stock market has been on a tear, interrupted with brief sharp declines each time the tax bills have seemed to stumble. There's nothing terribly complicated about this. A dollar of earnings remaining after a 35% tax bite suddenly becomes $1.23 when the tax bite is reduced to 20%. Of course the stock market should go up 20% or so. Raising capital for a business has just become dramatically cheaper.

We're about to get a real world test of whose got the better of economic policy. I'm betting on an excellent 2018 for the U.S. economy.
​

 

1. Column claims wanting substantive debate. Okay, good.
2. Doesn't mention unprecedented rush and sloppiness of Congress, greatly stifling debate, even hiding the bill from opponents and constituents. Doesn't mention lobbyists having more access than half of the Senate. Okay, um.
3. Quotes Patton Oswald and a "liberal blogger" as part of oversimplification of his opponents. Okay, no.

Otherwise, yes Ireland is interesting and they've had some extreme short-term boom-bust cycles that warrant careful study.

EDIT: Ireland's economy is in the top 50, nationally ranked, but still dwarfed in complexity and size by California alone. Their rapid boom/busts are seen, I believe, as linked directly to lack of diversification. Meanwhile, one might want to look at the UK, where they're finally rolling back their big corporate tax cuts, after those cuts failed to deliver anything to the actual citizens of the UK. Cheers.

 

Chuck Grassley says that if you're not rich, it's because you're wasting your money on women and booze.

 

No, not "literally," at least not if you want to be honest.

About 68%...

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

 

I personally blame him for the ridiculous deficits the last 2 years of Bush because he was part of the Democrats who controlled the power of the purse and decided to start spending money like a drunk 15 year old girl with her father's credit card. That ridiculous spending continued unchecked as he took office and was only slowed down once he lost control of congress.

 

So you blame him as if he were president even though he wasn't. Good to know how deep your intellectual dishonesty goes.

 

Considering thatt the GOP intentionally did not schedule any debate or hearings around this bill , mostly because it's a disaster that they were embarrassed and had to pass at midnight without anybody knowing what's in it - whose fault is that?

Is the lack of debate the fault of the people INTENTIONALLY NOT ALLOWING DEBATE and trying to railroad a bill through congress using procedural gimmicks? Or the people INTENTIONALLY ASKING FOR A DEBATE?

We had real world tests of these economic policies in Kansas and other red states and the results have been nothing short of an absolute cluster****.

We have experimented with this "cut taxes for the rich" thing again and again and the results are always awful (unless you are already rich, in which case, they are fine)

 

Ireland's GDP is artificially high due to its popularity as a tax inversion haven (for California based companies, in many cases) - which is why its unemployment is higher than most of the US despite nominally high growth.

Of course, everybody could become a tax haven - why can't everybody win a race to the bottom?

 

I'm not sure you follow, which isn't something new for you, but the horribly fiscally irresponsible budgets started once Democrats took control of congress and only ended once they were thrown out. Those 2 horribly irresponsible budgets were supported by Obama and he continued it once he was in office until he no longer had the power to do so. If Obama had it his way, it would have continued.

Basically he was part of the problem, even if you can't see that due to tribalism.....or whatever other shortcoming is getting in the way.

 

So let me get this straight, the party of fiscal responsibility and family values is currently pushing through a tax plan that will throw the budget into wack, and electing a pedophile, and the Democrats are the ones calling them out on this? This is the darkest of all timelines.

 

There's no such thing as a party of fiscal responsibility. You have the party of fiscal irresponsibility and the party of ridiculous levels of fiscal irresponsibility.

Also, based on your comment I'm not sure you know what a "pedophile" actually is. You probably shouldn't use words if you don't know what they mean, it makes you look stupid.

 

Basically, you're such a biased partisan that you'll blame Democrats for everything, even when it is on the Republicans watch.

Gotcha.

 

Not taking sides here, but I think you should heed the words of BTG ^

If there is one person who knows a thing or two about looking stupid, its BTG.

 

Is Roy Moore not winning the Alabama race? I assumed that was locked up tight.

 

Yes, I'm such a "biased partisan" that I blame Democrats for their budgets while you are so impartial that you blame others for Democrats budgets. Brilliant.

Again, learn what words mean before using them. Doubling down on your own ignorance won't make it any better.

 

I get what you're saying (and can see you're still hurt from me calling you sophomoric), but that distinction between his attraction to girls under the age of consent and children is light and not worth noting. But I could see how someone as desperate as yourself stoops to invoking it to find an ounce of superiority in a lost fight. Again, I call you sophomoric because it fits.