Senate Republicans trim tax bill to secure needed votes - Polidicks

Oh the fucking hypocrisy. Inhoffe has been running TV ads saying "I don't support this" and yet, he fucking voted for it. I hate everything about this state and this country.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52940994]I mostly voted for Democrat-NPL and Libertarian in local elections. Voted Trump on the main platform because of gun rights. Either way, ya' can always bugout in the woods when things goto shit.[/QUOTE] Speaking from the perspective of someone who cares quite a lot about gun rights but also doesn't like getting continuously fucked by the Republican party and their ilk [I][U][B]Please stop letting them use guns to exploit you[/B][/U][/I] I know the Dems have an incredibly shitty track record with gun rights but the solution is not just keep voting Republican and hoping for the best. By letting gun rights be your major deciding factor you're playing right in to the scumbag tactics that the Republican party has been using to screw over you and every other American for the last sixtyodd years When you vote based entirely on gun rights, [I]you are being used[/I]

Its incredible. You are beginning to have a corrupted shithole just like Russia at this point.

Yeah, you're not getting high odds on [URL="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d7ykxx/us-power-will-decline-under-trump-says-futurist-who-predicted-soviet-collapse"]this[/URL] not coming true... Good friend of mine just moved to the States because the job marked is much better there... He, his wife and their kids are fucked if this goes through. [I]Fuck the GOP so incredibly hard with a goddamn cactus[/I].

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;52942328]Its incredible. You are beginning to have a corrupted shithole just like Russia at this point.[/QUOTE] 'beginning'

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;52942328]Its incredible. You are beginning to have a corrupted shithole just like Russia at this point.[/QUOTE] Ah, fuck it, we've been corrupted a long time. A [I]long[/I] fucking time. Shit, the Cold War was just a 45 year long dickwaving contest built on money and nuclear bombs. Democrats, Republicans, 95% of Washington is run on corporate money anyways. Burn this goddamn country down.

[QUOTE=Zeos;52941806]People think he has charisma? From day 0 he's always spoken like an absolute moron with a poor grasp of his native language. He speaks like someone with a legitimate issue and can never complete a proper coherent thought.[/QUOTE] That's why I told someone that he can't be the Antichrist. He is only charismatic to the cult, while the rest of the country is wondering what the fuck is wrong with this person. [QUOTE=torres;52942418]Yeah, you're not getting high odds on [URL="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d7ykxx/us-power-will-decline-under-trump-says-futurist-who-predicted-soviet-collapse"]this[/URL] not coming true... Good friend of mine just moved to the States because the job marked is much better there... He, his wife and their kids are fucked if this goes through. [I]Fuck the GOP so incredibly hard with a goddamn cactus[/I].[/QUOTE] Not with a cactus. Something more painful for what they are doing. Hopefully 2018 and 2020 causes a massive blue hurricane and the Democrats gets power again.

yo who else wants to just start a general strike?

I'm I reading up on the tax plan wrong? Looking at this image the taxes will be lower then they were before for low income and middle class people. [img]http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/TaxCutsAndJobsAct.jpg[/img] [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-tax-plan/story?id=51522631[/url] But analysts say it's going to cost people more for people making less then 75k.

[QUOTE=dark soul;52942760]I'm I reading up on the tax plan wrong? Looking at this image the taxes will be lower then they were before for low income and middle class people. [img]http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/TaxCutsAndJobsAct.jpg[/img] [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-tax-plan/story?id=51522631[/url] But analysts say it's going to cost people more for people making less then 75k.[/QUOTE] IIRC it's due to massive changes to the deductions available to them

[QUOTE=dark soul;52942760]I'm I reading up on the tax plan wrong? Looking at this image the taxes will be lower then they were before for low income and middle class people. [IMG]http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/TaxCutsAndJobsAct.jpg[/IMG] [URL]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-tax-plan/story?id=51522631[/URL] But analysts say it's going to cost people more for people making less then 75k.[/QUOTE] According to the Tax Policy Center, all quintiles will be receiving tax breaks. The whole thing about people having their taxes being raised is based on the assumption that congress will let the tax cuts expire in 2027.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942803]According to the Tax Policy Center, all quintiles will be receiving tax breaks. The whole thing about people having their taxes being raised is based on the assumption that congress will let the tax cuts expire in 2027.[/QUOTE] How will you pay for the cuts in the first place? Are we to just add between 1-2 trillion dollars to the deficit for a tax cut that economists say probably won't impact the American economy? Not only that, but deductibles are getting significantly worse for people below six digits. This is just going to hurt the American people and partisan lackeys like you try and justify it, sickening.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52942850]How will you pay for the cuts in the first place? Are we to just add between 1-2 trillion dollars to the deficit for a tax cut that economists say probably won't impact the American economy? Not only that, but deductibles are getting significantly worse for people below six digits. This is just going to hurt the American people and partisan lackeys like you try and justify it, sickening.[/QUOTE] It seems that they aren't going to be paid for. The plan will almost certainly raise deficits, though I do think the whole focus on that $1 trillion is a little stupid when we're looking at ~$84 trillion in deficits from just social security and medicare in the next 30 years, according to the CBO.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942856]It seems that they aren't going to be paid for. The plan will almost certainly raise deficits, though I do think the whole focus on that $1 trillion is a little stupid when we're looking at ~$84 trillion in deficits from just social security and medicare in the next 30 years, according to the CBO.[/QUOTE] Well since we're already in a deficit, whats another 1 trillion gonna hurt amiright guys? Its only fiscally conservative to add more deficit when you're already in deficit by cutting revenue.

[QUOTE=Durandal;52942868]Well since we're already in a deficit, whats another 1 trillion gonna hurt amiright guys? Its only fiscally conservative to add more deficit when you're already in deficit by cutting revenue.[/QUOTE] Listen, I'm not a fan of it. It's not something I like, but it's a little silly that people are pretending that $1 trillion more matters after the democrats did the exact same thing and we have $84 trillion more coming down the pipe. None of the people complaining about the $1 trillion actually care about deficit. It's just one more thing to attack about the bill.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942872]Listen, I'm not a fan of it. It's not something I like, but it's a little silly that people are pretending that $1 trillion more matters after the democrats did the exact same thing and we have $84 trillion more coming down the pipe. None of the people complaining about the $1 trillion actually care about deficit. It's just one more thing to attack about the bill.[/QUOTE] They bitch about the 1 trillion because its being passed by the party that whined relentlessly about the deficit under obama and any democrat really while claiming to be the fiscally responsible/conservative party that will NOT increase the deficit and try to manage the governments money better. Adding 1 trillion dollars to the deficit is the exact opposite of being fiscally responsible and is very hypocritical when you consider how much the republican party typically harps about our debt and deficit.

There's a difference between tax rate and tax burden. The amount to which taxes burden citizens is determined by income, purchasing power, and availability of government services- when any of those factors decrease, taxes are more harmful to the standard of living. In theory, if you cut taxes [I]and[/I] the government services they support, the burden remains consistent even if the rates decline. The Republicans claim they can do the above and still lower the tax burden because the free market will step in to provide the same services, do so more efficiently than the government, and sell them at a price which is lower than the savings ordinary families enjoy. This is an overly simplistic way of looking at things. Our market isn't "free" in the utopian Adam Smith sense. Even if private companies can provide, say, health care more efficiently than a government program, they exist in an environment of laws which favor big business and protect anti-consumer policies and which would allow the big medical companies to charge rates far higher than necessary, and rake in massive profits. Aspects of public services made popular by public initiatives wouldn't translate over to the private market if they're not profitable. Anti-discrimination against people with preexisting conditions, for example, is unprofitable, and in the absence of government regulation, would probably disappear entirely. The whole subject is extraordinarily complicated. Some people stand to benefit from the new tax plan, and a lot of people also stand to lose considerably.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52942850]How will you pay for the cuts in the first place? Are we to just add between 1-2 trillion dollars to the deficit for a tax cut that economists say probably won't impact the American economy?[/QUOTE] What do you mean won't affect the American economy? The market has been rallying since the election in anticipation of legislation like this getting passed. It spikes up every time news about tax reform getting closer breaks. [url]https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/30/us-stocks-dow-record-high-tax-reform-senate.html[/url] To be clear though, economy =/= individual wellbeing. The costs for people without some money in the market will likely outweigh the benefits.

honestly, on some sadistic level, I'm glad that that this went through. I've been waiting a long time for the rich to get eaten, this is just adding more fuel to the fire. patience isn't infinite, even among the most desperate of the lower class. this whole corrupt system can't support its own weight, but these assholes in DC keep piling more on. I'll be glad to see it bite every one of them in the ass.

[QUOTE=Durandal;52942875]They bitch about the 1 trillion because its being passed by the party that whined relentlessly about the deficit under obama and any democrat really while claiming to be the fiscally responsible/conservative party that will NOT increase the deficit and try to manage the governments money better. Adding 1 trillion dollars to the deficit is the exact opposite of being fiscally responsible and is very hypocritical when you consider how much the republican party typically harps about our debt and deficit.[/QUOTE] They're hypocrites, I agree completely, but that's a reason to critique the Republicans, not a reason to critique the bill. People seem to be getting those two confused.

[I]Exclusively[/I] Republicans wrote and passed this bill. They're not being confused because the two things are exactly linked. This bill might as well be titled 'The Republican Party's [Extremely Rushed, Entirely Unvetted, Wholly and Irredemably Reckless] Policy Act of 2017'. Stating that is, whether you like it or not, a legitimate qualm for people to have with this bill and is a legitimate criticism to level against it.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52942908][I]Exclusively[/I] Republicans passed the bill. They're not being confused because the two things are exactly linked.[/QUOTE] You are welcome to say that the Republicans are massive hypocrites when it comes to deficit reduction, and I would stand right along side you, in full agreement. They are. They're generally a bunch of spineless cowards who prefer to talk a big game for votes and then not do much of anything when they're given the power to do so. (The fact that they complained for years about Obamacare, and then had no replacement ready immediately upon winning the presidency is just about the best example of this possible.) With that said, them being hypocrites doesn't mean that the $1 trillion added deficit suddenly becomes a bigger deal than if they weren't being hypocrites. To say, "This bill is no good because it raises deficits," doesn't follow from, "Man, those Republicans are massive hypocrites."

[quote=sgman91]With that said, them being hypocrites doesn't mean that the $1 trillion added deficit suddenly becomes a bigger deal than if they weren't being hypocrites. [/quote] Yes, we agree on that. Except that it does become a bigger deal and, yes, it absolutely does follow. It is one thing for a man to slap you. It is entirely another for a man to slap you, state 'nobody will believe you', and then get off scott-free - just as they stated they would. Context is important; so is intent. The brazen intent to deceive the american public at any cost [but to themselves] is something that should rightly be added to context in relation to this bill.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52942919]Yes, we agree on that. Except that it does become a bigger deal and, yes, it absolutely does follow. A man that shot a dog without thought is a lesser deal than a man who shot a dog to watch it suffer and lied about shooting it, lied about having a gun, lied about what the definition of 'shot' was and then got off without even so much as a warning. One is an isolated incident. The other is an indication of a systemic ongoing problem with a whole smattering of things. Context is important; so is intent.[/QUOTE] So I can support something when one side does it, oppose it when the other side does it, and defend myself by saying that the other side is bad, so therefore anything they do is bad also. Isn't that the definition of ideological nonsense?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942928]So I can support something when one side does it, oppose it when the other side does it, and defend myself by saying that the other side is bad, so therefore anything they do is bad also. Isn't that the definition of ideological nonsense?[/quote] No, what you're putting here as a characterization of what I wrote is ideological nonsense. [quote]Either you think raising the deficit is unacceptable or you think it isn't.[/QUOTE] Either you think it matters that they'll do it again while lying about doing it, lying about planning about it, lying about when they're going to do it, and all but shutting out any possible resistance against them doubling down on the known-bad-thing that they don't care was bad to begin with - or you don't. IOW either you think context matters - or you think everything is an isolated incident.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52942931]No, what you're putting here as a characterization of what I wrote is ideological nonsense. Either you think it matters that they'll do it again or you don't.[/QUOTE] What do you mean? The democrats do it. The republicans do it. Everyone does it. Personally, I oppose it whenever anyone does it, but it seems you only oppose it when the republicans do it.

[QUOTE=TWKUK;52942891]honestly, on some sadistic level, I'm glad that that this went through. I've been waiting a long time for the rich to get eaten, this is just adding more fuel to the fire. patience isn't infinite, even among the most desperate of the lower class. this whole corrupt system can't support its own weight, but these assholes in DC keep piling more on. I'll be glad to see it bite every one of them in the ass.[/QUOTE] I try not to think like this anymore, but sometimes I just slip back into 'fuck the world' mode. I still hold some hope things get better and a blue wave does happen an bring us back to sanity. I regret not voting Democrat now. I voted anything but rep/dem, because my convictions were too strong. I regret it all. Completely. I'm not going to make the same mistake again.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52942931]IOW either you think context matters - or you think everything is an isolated incident.[/QUOTE] I think legislation, not everything, stands on it's own, yes. The bill does what it does. You either like what it does or you don't. The people who wrote it doesn't change what the bill does.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942932]What do you mean? The democrats do it. The republicans do it. Everyone does it.[/quote] I'll put this as simply as I can: [B]No.[/B] [quote]Personally, I oppose it whenever anyone does it, but it seems you only oppose it when the republicans do it.[/QUOTE] It isn't about opposition to begin with. It's about recognizing bald-faced corruption that will continue because it wasn't stopped here. It's about calling out intents - which this bill spells out - and what those intents mean in broader looks at future legislation. I won't entertain your 'whataboutism'. This isn't about the Democrats. The Republican party literally owns all three branches of government. They own the entirety of this bill. They own its language, they own its votes, they are the sole owners and the only people responsible for said bill (unless we're counting their donors). The Democrats have zilch, nada, nothing at all to do with the discussion here and most importantly [I]have nothing to do with this tax bill[/I]. Isn't that what you were griping about to begin with - people 'adding on irrelevant points' because those 'aren't about what this bill is about'? [quote]The people who wrote it doesn't change what the bill does.[/quote] Yeah, it does, because this isn't a game of chess that's over in one move. This is a game of chess where one move pre-empts another. Edit: Also, this whole statement is simply preposterous. [quote]I think legislation, not everything, stands on it's own, yes.[/quote] No, it doesn't. It never has. It never will. It never could be made to. You couldn't [B]make it[/B] stand on its own if you were King of America. Fire whoever taught your civics course.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52942936]I'll put this as simply as I can: [B]No.[/B][/QUOTE] Wat? Are you saying democrats don't raise the deficit? [QUOTE]Yeah, it does, because this isn't a game of chess that's over in one move. This is a game of chess where one move pre-empts another. Edit: Also, this whole statement is simply preposterous. No, it doesn't. It never has. It never will. It never could be made to. You couldn't [B]make it[/B] stand on its own if you were King of America. Fire whoever taught your civics course.[/QUOTE] You made a lot of vague statements here. Can you clarify what move is, or could be, being preempted by this $1 trillion raising of the deficit?