Florida State Seminoles

[Cletus]

I wonder where the average rust belt Trump voter falls on this chart?

[img2]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQAtIDrU8AASUNS.png[/img2]

[Tree]

Senator John Tester's response to the tax bill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnsXHBZaML0

[sardis]

First of all, the chart is misleading because the lower incomes do pay lower taxes under the new plan. They are also factoring benefits that may be cut back for them. Secondly, the poor pay less taxes than they ever have or that Europeans pay now. So spare us the fake outrage.

[Cletus]

First of all, the chart is misleading because the lower incomes do pay lower taxes under the new plan. They are also factoring benefits that may be cut back for them. Secondly, the poor pay less taxes than they ever have or that Europeans pay now. So spare us the fake outrage.

1) How is the chart misleading? It says "How Much Each Family or Taxpayer Gains or Loses" and you just said that they are factoring in lost benefits which amounts to money that some families or taxpayers will lose.

2) How is Europe relevant? Are the Trump voters with all this economic anxiety going to feel better when it's explained to them that, though their lives are getting harder and worse, they still pay less than Europeans.

[sardis]

There is a difference between taking money away from you that you've earned versus giving you less of someone else's money than you received previously.

[bluetick]

The only people who knew the full contents of the bill were a few GOP senators and several corporate lobbyists. Corker wasn't the only deficit hawk to sound off about the 1.5 trillion but he was the only one who put his vote where his mouth was.

So they took care of their benefactors bigly - step one - and later will come the reckoning of the massive deficit hole. Step two will be the republicans ensuing panic over said deficit hole and they'll naturally want to slash Medicare, Medicaid, ad Soc Security.

[sardis]

Just like the ACA bill was read before voted on.

The liberals added $14 Trillion of debt from 2009 through 2016 and they are now up in arms about another $1 trillion over 10 years.

Yes, the projected cost Medicare and SS needs to be cut. You can tax all the incomes above a million at 100% and still can't stop the deficits unless you cut into SS and Medicare.

[eCat]

I'm not happy about adding to the deficit but for any democrat that supported the Obama's administration in adding the amount of money they did as necessary for the country to complain about this is a hypocrite

I don't want this tax overhaul as I agree with those that says it favors the wealthy too much, but I also think its absurd to believe in a time where almost 50% of Americans do not pay in or are tax neutral those who fit in that category should get some major tax break. What democrats are wanting at this point is a transfer of wealth, not progressive taxation.

Now you want to help all Americans with job training, getting a college education, , health care, retirement - as a country we can talk about that. But if 50% of the country isn't able to contribute then its time to stop talking means based options and start talking basic entitlements for all Americans - and I believe and have believes for some time that means creating an environment for a living wage for any full time working American.

[Tree]

The only people who knew the full contents of the bill were a few GOP senators and several corporate lobbyists. Corker wasn't the only deficit hawk to sound off about the 1.5 trillion but he was the only one who put his vote where his mouth was.

So they took care of their benefactors bigly - step one - and later will come the reckoning of the massive deficit hole. Step two will be the republicans ensuing panic over said deficit hole and they'll naturally want to slash Medicare, Medicaid, ad Soc Security.

Exactly. It's standard GOP playbook to cause a problem, blame those mean old "libruls" for said problem, then proceed to "fix" the problem by privatizing, deregulating, and cutting programs that folks actually need, which only serves to take us further and further out onto the right wing. Meanwhile the Dems in Washington do little to fight back because they're getting paid too as the billionaires of course have their fingers in both pies, and the real victims are the American people who get F'ed in the A once again.

[crashcourse]

chart tells me that those who make 40K or more are all getting tax breaks

those who don't make 40K are mostly part of the entitlement group receiving foodstamps, earned income credit, variety of other forms of assistance

working America those getting over 40K gets the tax breaks

non working America or part time working America loses 20 dollars a paycheck (if paid q 2weeks) 10 years from now

--I'd love to see what those people making 10-20K a year also get from the govt ie health care food stamps welfare etc

just because your income for tax purposes is on 10-20 K doesn't mean your income is 10-20K

[Professor Tiger]

On this rare occasion, I agree with the liberals. Every time I hear a Republican call for "tax cuts" or "tax reform," I have learned by experience that the upper class will benefit, the middle class will not, and the deficit will roar. The trickle down advocates had statistics to back them up in the '80's, when the Reagan tax cuts really did boom the economy for everybody. But since then, trickle down tax cuts are ofer the past 3 decades in performing as advertised.

If supply side tax cuts worked, we would have boomed under W, who enacted big tax cuts too. Instead, W left office with the economy teetering on a Depression. Next to Reagan, the best economic President in my lifetime was Clinton, by far, and he didn't do any big supply side tax cuts. The Sexual Assaulter in Chief even performed a modern day miracle by balancing the budget. Yes, I still miss the days when Republicans even talked about doing that.

[bluetick]

working America those getting over 40K gets the tax breaks

If it was a true middle class tax cut, the 40K-70k end of the chart would get the higher percentage of a break.

[10ac]

Corker is a butt hurt RINO who will vote against anything on Trump’s MAGA agenda.

[Professor Tiger]

How many of you leftists around here have Lauer locks installed on your office doors?

Be honest...

[Saint]

On this rare occasion, I agree with the liberals. Every time I hear a Republican call for "tax cuts" or "tax reform," I have learned by experience that the upper class will benefit, the middle class will not, and the deficit will roar. The trickle down advocates had statistics to back them up in the '80's, when the Reagan tax cuts really did boom the economy for everybody. But since then, trickle down tax cuts are ofer the past 3 decades in performing as advertised.

If supply side tax cuts worked, we would have boomed under W, who enacted big tax cuts too. Instead, W left office with the economy teetering on a Depression. Next to Reagan, the best economic President in my lifetime was Clinton, by far, and he didn't do any big supply side tax cuts. The Sexual Assaulter in Chief even performed a modern day miracle by balancing the budget. Yes, I still miss the days when Republicans even talked about doing that.

Clinton just presided over the last great venture capital explosion when the internet started. No president is going to do anything to convince the super rich bastards who run this country to let loose of their cash. It will take another major venture capital event for most of us to see any real headway.

Besides, you know how the political game works in this country. In a year, all the people will be outraged and vote in tons of Dems, who will then overturn all this shit the GOP is doing now. They'll have about a year or 2 before they start fucking up and things will reverse course again. In the meantime, those super rich bastards will keep getting richer.

[Professor Tiger]

Concur. The whole trickle down theory depends on the premise that the super rich will take their newfound billions from their tax cuts and reinvest it in their businesses which will create jobs for everybody else.

But instead, the super rich are just figuring out new ways to move their money and businesses overseas, get rid of as many workers as possible, and squeeze more and more out of the workers they haven’t figured out a way to get rid of yet.

[Tree]

On this rare occasion, I agree with the liberals. Every time I hear a Republican call for "tax cuts" or "tax reform," I have learned by experience that the upper class will benefit, the middle class will not, and the deficit will roar. The trickle down advocates had statistics to back them up in the '80's, when the Reagan tax cuts really did boom the economy for everybody. But since then, trickle down tax cuts are ofer the past 3 decades in performing as advertised.

If supply side tax cuts worked, we would have boomed under W, who enacted big tax cuts too. Instead, W left office with the economy teetering on a Depression. Next to Reagan, the best economic President in my lifetime was Clinton, by far, and he didn't do any big supply side tax cuts. The Sexual Assaulter in Chief even performed a modern day miracle by balancing the budget. Yes, I still miss the days when Republicans even talked about doing that.

Trickle down can work temporarily if your economy is stagnating, although its possible even that is no longer true in the reconfigured economy. Corporations are currently sitting on huge amounts of liquid and it is not creating any jobs. Tax cuts for the middle class and poor, on the other hand, who will actually spend all of it, will stimulate the economy forever. That means the super rich will have a little less money though so they won't allow it.

[eCat]

its a pay me now, pay me later type situation

sooner or later, some liberal will get smart enough to realize you can get elected in this country as soon as they get away from identity politics and solely talk about transferring wealth. I think Biden understood that but wasn't going to fight the Hillary election machine.

identity politics is a cancer to the democratic party.

I'm not saying a transference of wealth is the right solution but until both parties learn that in order to have the American dream you need about $90K a year and income stability for about 8 years and for most Americans that isn't achievable, they are going to be swimming against the current - and every year more people are going to demand that politicians give them a path to that dream.

[hedge]

"But instead, the super rich are just figuring out new ways to move their money and businesses overseas, get rid of as many workers as possible, and squeeze more and more out of the workers they haven’t figured out a way to get rid of yet."

So you are a Marxist after all...

[Saint]

Transference of wealth is an ongoing process in America. It's a machination of the free market, which is constantly under assault. The purity of capitalism is an ideal that never happens in real life because, well, people. You just hope there are some good people out there at the top of the private heap and in government.