- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If the tax bill is so great for everyone, why no hearings?
Posted on 12/19/17 at 4:51 pm to Papplesbeast
Posted on 12/19/17 at 4:51 pm to Papplesbeast
quote:Correct.
You don't think they're being genuine?
quote:They are losing their ability to piggyback pet projects onto the bill.
You think they're "losing" and can't handle it?
0
Posted on 12/19/17 at 4:53 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
Do you want more of your own money or not? If not, please forward that excess money to me. TIA
I don't want to have more of my own money by writing an IOU to the future. I wanted costed tax cuts that it's widely agreed are either covered by surplus or will grow the economy enough to pay for themselves.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 4:57 pm to Dead End
quote:The bill will increase the deficit, which means the government will have to collect more taxes (in the future) to pay off the debt, not less.
If the bill results in ONE (1) dollar LESS being confiscated by Fed Gov.....I am all for it
The bill only reduces the tax rate with the hope that economic growth will allow the government to collect more tax dollars than they currently do.
The bill is designed to do the exact opposite of what you are supporting it for.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 4:58 pm to fjlee90
quote:Ez fix here. Cut entitlements to poor people by 2 trillion and 1 dollar and we are all* ahead of where we were.
Why is it that I saw a thread a yesterday about some left wing cat saying that the bill could possibly cost $2 trillion
*well except those in NY, NJ and CA.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 4:59 pm to PointsInCase
quote:Cut spending. Duh.
The bill will increase the deficit, which means the government will have to collect more taxes (in the future) to pay off the debt, not less.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 5:01 pm to TBoy
quote:
No expert analysis
Not counting the countless experts that have weighed in already?
Posted on 12/19/17 at 5:02 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
The bill will increase the deficit
No, our spending increases the deficit.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 5:02 pm to TBoy
quote:
No expert analysis. No discussion of its practical effects. No scrutiny. Yet here we have Trumpists saying it's all unicorns and love. I don't buy it.
we need to pass it to know what is in it baw
Posted on 12/19/17 at 5:07 pm to Mephistopheles
quote:From a mathematical perspective, reducing taxes without reducing spending (i.e. increasing the deficit) is the same as increased spending without increasing taxes (i.e. increasing the deficit).
Do you want more of your own money or not? If not, please forward that excess money to me. TIA
The difference is that increased spending typically means the government will pump more money into things in the short term, whereas a reduction in taxes does not gurantee that the money will be pumped into anything in the near term (it could just be saved for later).
Posted on 12/19/17 at 5:08 pm to member12
quote:Both do.
No, our spending increases the deficit.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 5:10 pm to Crow Pie
quote:Neither Democrats or Republicans have done this for quite a while. It's wishful thinking at best that this will happen anytime soon. Meanwhile, what is the contingency plan? Keep lowering taxes and hope for 5% GDP growth every quarter?
Cut spending. Duh.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 5:38 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
Meanwhile, what is the contingency plan? Keep lowering taxes and hope for 5% GDP growth every quarter?
The plan has always been get the economy moving first then cut spending along with some entitlement reform. This has been the plan. It is easier to cut spending when the economy is growing at 4%. The cuts have to be deeper if the economy is only moving at the Obama era growth rate of 2%. This is a math equation. Faster growth makes spending cuts more feasible. You follow.
This post was edited on 12/19/17 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 12/19/17 at 5:40 pm to wareaglepete
And you bitched and moaned for months. Yet now it’s all good. Hypocrites
Posted on 12/19/17 at 5:42 pm to NorthGwinnett LSU
Did you hitch and moan for months? Yes you did
Posted on 12/19/17 at 5:55 pm to TBoy
I am sure that you asked the same questions and expressed the same concerns when they passed Obamacare.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 6:03 pm to frogtown
quote:This is the ideal scenario. My post was about the contingency plan.
The plan has always been get the economy moving first then cut spending along with some entitlement reform. This has been the plan. It is easier to cut spending when the economy is growing at 4%. The cuts have to be deeper if the economy is only moving at the Obama era growth rate of 2%. This is a math equation. Faster growth makes spending cuts more feasible. You follow?
Expecting 4% economic growth quarter after quarter is expecting something that has never happened before. There aren't many financial models that show us sustaining 4%. That is ludicrously high for a developed nation.
Let's suppose, more realistically, the economy does about 0.5-1.0 (on average) per quarter better than in "normal" growth periods. This would be a big increase and may not do much to help the elderly/disabled/super poor people in this country. At this point, is it politically possible to lower spending for SS, Medicaid/Medicare, or any of the agencies that don't get many discretionary funds? Perhaps defense could be cut a lot? It's just hard to believe huge cuts are politically possible, but no one really knows.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 6:37 pm to Papplesbeast
quote:
You think they're "losing"
yep. their positions were not being incorporated into the bill
Posted on 12/19/17 at 6:48 pm to PointsInCase
quote:
Expecting 4% economic growth quarter after quarter is expecting something that has never happened before. There aren't many financial models that show us sustaining 4%. That is ludicrously high for a developed nation.
Never said 4% was sustainable. After Reagan cut taxes in his first term we had 6 years, from 1983 to 1988, where GDP growth averaged 4.55% per year. That is what I am thinking about when I think about "growth after tax cuts". It might not be doable but that is what is in my head. I am fine with 2.5% to 3%. 2.5 to 3% growth solves some of our country's problems.
Don't believe anybody will cut SS or Medicare. That is suicide. Think the GOP will tackle entitlement reform when they attempt to balance the budget/cut spending. I totally believe they will both raise the retirement age on SS and raise FICA tax by a point. It solves the problem for a long time. It's coming IMO.
This post was edited on 12/19/17 at 6:50 pm
Posted on 12/20/17 at 9:49 am to TrueTiger
One of my close friends who is a super Anti-Trump Democrat called me this morning about tax structuring issues for 2018 since our financial incomes are relatively similar. I was stunned because he started talking about how good this tax cut was and he was really happy with this and the promise that Trump promised to restructure the US budget by cutting part of the bureaucracy.
I'm shocked by how someone who hates the Republican Party & especially Trump is now excited about Trump's Tax relief bill. In fact he even said he was very excited about the direction Trump was going right now.
Equally as stunned is that he didn't use any of the typical DNC talking points to blast the tax plan.
If this is any indication of how the American public is reacting to the tax plan then the Democrats have a lot to worry about in the 2018 mid-term elections.
I'm shocked by how someone who hates the Republican Party & especially Trump is now excited about Trump's Tax relief bill. In fact he even said he was very excited about the direction Trump was going right now.
Equally as stunned is that he didn't use any of the typical DNC talking points to blast the tax plan.
If this is any indication of how the American public is reacting to the tax plan then the Democrats have a lot to worry about in the 2018 mid-term elections.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News