I wonder if Majority Leader McConnell with extend the same courtesy he requested, and received in 2010, to delay the vote until an elected Senator is seated to replace an appointed Senator.
I had wondered the same thing, Ron. And you know, if roles were reversed, Sean, The Pill Popper, and all the minions would be screaming their lungs out and popping forehead veins. Instead, they will do what they do best and suppress the vote. Doug doesn’t stand a chance.
Behavior has consequences; e.g. Nan & Chuck ditched the meeting with Trump almost 2 weeks ago, before the AL election…. they should have considered the consequences, not that it would have mattered.
Your vermin leaders have stuck their feet in their mouths, again.
Meanwhile, Republican Congressmen and Trump are MAGA.
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Can you stay on topic? The answer to my question, if you have enough courage to reply, will be sent to IJ. If you fail to reply, we will assume you cannot stay on topic.
December 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Dave says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
11
15
Suppress the vote. That’s a good one.
Its called Hard Ball, boys. You’re just not used to the GOP executing the tactic as well as the Dems always do.
How can you say, “You’re just not used to the GOP executing the tactic as well as the Dems always do.” when they waited for Senator Brown to be seated prior to voting for the PPACA in the Senate?
And did it work for the republicans? No. The republicans aren’t as good at these games, as evident by Trump’s approval rating, and the media turning his tax plan into the antichrist even though it contains provisions that the public approves of. There are even links showing just that, go look them up, that the approval jumps to above 50% when they line item go over the provisions. The rhetoric about corporate taxes is what riles them up.
As for the PPACA, it should have been stopped by any means necessary. Engaging in tax cuts is entirely fair and different than engaging in a new entitlement program, one that forces people to buy insurance, and is obviously not doing it’s job.
December 15, 2017 at 6:53 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
5
5
Let’s do some history regarding the corporate tax rate and democrats, shall we?
“I was the president who urged it to be raised to 35 percent, but when I did it, it was precisely in the middle of OECD countries. It isn’t anymore,” ”
By the way, this is important to weigh when seeing if we are bleeding jobs due to a high corporate tax rate. Yes, rates have been higher, and lower, and we have done fine. When we were in the middle of the OECD rate. What is the rate now? (And effective doesn’t matter, corporations leave the country for lower rates, ergo a lower effective. It is better for them to pay the effective rate they do now with lower rates and bring back business) 25%, with many countries in Europe now having an 18% corporate tax rate. Again, the effective rate here doesn’t matter for what is brought in, what matters is how much are being kept out from higher actual rates.
Obama suggested 25% Trump is at 21%. Oooo. Oh my God.
We now have a marginal top rate of 37% suggested. A 2.6% difference. Ooo, deep cuts.
This is sheer ignorance.
Do you know how much it cuts my taxes?
It’s better than I thought, not just for me, but increasing the LPR, and that should be the goal.
I can now remove daycare from my AGI. Do you have any idea how useful this is for working women? Or rather, getting women back into the workforce? They are dramatically under represented by comparison to men during their child rearing years. You are simply wrong that we cannot get more women to work.
That removal from AGI as well as the child tax credits firmly places my taxes at $0 with her working. That’s an $8,000 dollar swing. She will then contribute to social security and Medicare taxes, and she will contribute to society.
Right now, before that passing, my typical year is almost $9k in taxes in taxes without her working and that’s even if I reduce my AGI with 401k contributions, which by the way, keeps money out of the market. This is what many dual earners do in order to get their wife back into the market, but not many can afford to throw $20k into a 401k if they have 3 kids. With my wife working and adding her income I will have to throw some at a 401k, but not nearly as much due to the child care being removed from the taxable income.
This will have a huge affect on the ability of women to work. Using the repatriation tax while lowering taxes is genius. It makes him able to do a large cut now and then have an offset until businesses do better and the LPR comes up.
You say that things haven’t worked in the past, this hasn’t been done in the past. There were always holes. With Reagan it was the corporate tax rate, forcing businesses to file under marginal rates. With Bill our corporate rate was too high, but the child taxes were expanded a good deal. Bush did a little more, but not enough in line with inflation, and Obama actually did the least to expand those credits in line with inflation. So we have had middle class suffering, corporations bleeding jobs, etc, and have never had a good fix like this. This is a great tax plan, and, making it temporary means he can do larger cuts for the other side, democrats will surely pass the other cuts again.
Trump is clever, I’m liking this guy more and more.
Now I want to see this done. Count my wife as one addition to the LPR next year.
December 16, 2017 at 12:03 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
Thanks bob! I doubt any of the opponents of the Tax Reform Act of 2017 would have read that on liberal websites. Clinton’s comment is on the net, but only brought up on liberal websites by discussion board participants who may be Independent, Conservative, or Libertarian.
December 18, 2017 at 9:37 am
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
5
Included in definition of a troll is this example:
“…uses online comment board to distract the discussion from a subject by introducing a meaningless example that is irrelevant to the main point being discussed, and does so multiple times, creating turmoil and wasting the time of those who reply to refute details and comments in the troll post.”
– abstracted from The Smarter Than Average Polar Bear Internet Dictionary.
December 18, 2017 at 4:14 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
“Thanks bob! I doubt any of the opponents of the Tax Reform Act of 2017 would have read that on liberal websites. Clinton’s comment is on the net, but only brought up on liberal websites by discussion board participants who may be Independent, Conservative, or Libertarian.”
I not only keep up to date on these matters, I profile them in my mind.
It’s why I get so dumbfounded when Ron profiles only one end, and it is so clearly in favor of democrats and against republicans, and yet calls everyone else a lemming.
My first reaction to Trump’s running was negative. My first reaction to his new tax plan was negative, then I changed my mind. My view point on Syria is still that he played fast and loose, and many of my more libertarian friends still believe that by the way. We don’t run the Trump line hook and sinker, and I’m getting fed up with hearing that (it’s a basic means of shaming people into his belief system).
My point here is that I hear Ron call people lemmings on the right, but it is so blatantly clear there are minimal lemmings on the right and that there is far too powerful of an indoctrination left unchecked on the left.
Not only did the left refuse to acknowledge that their insanity of calling out white supremacy where there was none as well as calling everyone shadowy new KKK neo Nazis was causing extreme events unlike any before, and refused to halt that I might add, the person who did it we are only thinking about what is good for the perpetrator apparently. Jail would do nothing for her, and he wants to rehabilitate her, not punish her after all.
Until the left starts to actually have consequence for their bull crap, we are going to see more ANTIFA, more violence, etc, yet Ron claims the right is the one absent in that process. They don’t hold standards. They are lemmings.
Yeah, just forget everything happening on college campuses which is barely being reported regarding the Fake News, and yes, they are fake news.
December 18, 2017 at 7:53 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
All good points, bob! That was an enlightening summary of the tactics of “independent” Ron and other liberals using attacks on opponents to try to discredit or blame them. I see eye to eye with many, but not all of Trump’s policies. The twittering / texting needs to continue, but tempered and thought out for specific wording that may be misconstrued or twisted by opponents.
December 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
I would love to see Ron show he has done something like this, and is this consistent, as what I am about to.
I have been consistent on this, and I have parameters. What did I say before and what have I said now? I have said again and again some type of a day care for all program. That is somewhat in effect now. Subtracting day care costs from AGI is a huge deal. This will increase the LPR. I was even willing to engage in spending to do this. But I’m a lemming, a typical righty whitey tighty right Ron? RIGHT? I am still ticked off at you, you tell me that my beliefs are completely conservative again why don’t you, and compare me to Agent why don’t you? I have had it with your side, they do this far too much. Back on topic:
Most importantly I said what would make me give this plan a thumbs up, and now that has occurred.
So for you Ron:
What would a good tax plan look like?
How would it encourage work?
What cut offs would you put in for spending to make sure that it was better for someone in the middle class to work than to receive the ability to live from the government?
How would you use the LPR and tax credits to get women to work? Or would you instead support spending for day care for all? Have you ever even thought about it like this?
What corporate tax rate would restrict business? How? Why?
What have you said was bad with Trump, and then changed your mind at second glance? How? Why?
I’m a lemming apparently though. For saying the plan was decent and not great naming why, and changing my mind when those parameters changed, and you, are not, because well, Raygun! Bush W! Obama! They are all the same! They are all bad! And you the great balancer say they are.
It’s basically self worship Ron. When you do it, it’s for different reasons, and by different methods than when I do. When I hold someone responsible or change my mind, or if I don’t, it’s because of logic and how things are. When you do it, it’s typically because of how things SHOULD be, if things were equal and fair.
“That remains to be seen. I see a decent tax plan, not a great one. While some of this has to do with the fact that they will not get support from democrats and do not have enough of a majority, I still have to be honest about the plan.
Really it needs more. More child tax credits or a daycare for all plan passed with it. One way or another, we need to get the LPR rate up for women. (side note, look at that, a conservative advocating for women, it apparently doesn’t happen *sarcasm*).”
December 14, 2017 at 3:59 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
8
10
As Barack Obama so famously stated, elections have consequences. You lost. The Republicans control both houses. They get to set the rules. Get used to it. The Dems did the same when Harry Reid led the Senate. Deal with it.
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
@bob; I agree with bob your posts after Agent’s.
However, currently, Dems are nearly all Socialists, and they have no intention whatsoever in non-partisanship acts to help achieve goals for US citizens. THAT is why current sentiment among Republicans/ Conservatives/ Libertarians is against the Dems having any say that will long-overdue progress. Dems SHOULD voice their opposition, but need to respect the rights of Republicans in charge per the Will of the People, and drop their ‘smarter than everyone else’ attitude (which contributed to putting them out of power).
More egregious are lies by Dems intending to block progress, such as tax reform. That should not be censored, but it should not be allowed to go unchallenged, nor should objections to such lies be blocked by liberals.
December 20, 2017 at 10:18 am
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
that will delay long overdue progress. bear culpa.
December 20, 2017 at 2:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“@bob; I agree with bob your posts after Agent’s.
However, currently, Dems are nearly all Socialists, and they have no intention whatsoever in non-partisanship acts to help achieve goals for US citizens.”
I agree with this, and emphasize “currently” and also that some republicans are not good.
“THAT is why current sentiment among Republicans/ Conservatives/ Libertarians is against the Dems having any say that will long-overdue progress.”
I understand this, and your last sentence makes it acceptable. The reason being: You mean to say you’re against democrats blocking republicans. Just say that. Throwing that line of we are in charge deal with it, is dangerous though. You should say: Look, what we want is good, just stop blocking this agenda. That limits it to now and not further debates later on, which they will then throw at you.
“Dems SHOULD voice their opposition, but need to respect the rights of Republicans in charge per the Will of the People, and drop their ‘smarter than everyone else’ attitude (which contributed to putting them out of power).”
I figured you probably meant this and I agree.
“More egregious are lies by Dems intending to block progress, such as tax reform.”
Oh I so agree with this one. I have been railing on Ron on this very issue.
“That should not be censored, but it should not be allowed to go unchallenged, nor should objections to such lies be blocked by liberals.”
Agreed.
December 20, 2017 at 5:28 pm
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
@bob; again, I agree, and will take your advice on more carefully wording of my posts. You saw some of my brief posts, with some errors / typos corrected… not so much due to ADHD as it is multi-tasking/ distractions early in the morning and at the end of the day; e.g. I omitted ‘delay’ before ‘progress’, then had to correct the post.
December 20, 2017 at 5:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
You’re amazing DNC. This is what I like about conservatives. They do this much more often when criticized. I probably went too far in my criticism but you still stomached it and sought self improvement.
Color me impressed. Also, don’t worry about it too much. My posts are quite poorly worded at times as well, especially when I’m ticked off by these liberal tactics. I need checks all the time too.
December 18, 2017 at 4:16 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
This is a dangerous statement.
Yes, elections bring change, but that doesn’t meant the other side should just disappear. If you run this risk, you run the risk of empowering republican corruption, or allowing any corruption in the field to take hold.
“They get to set the rules. Get used to it. The Dems did the same when Harry Reid led the Senate. Deal with it.”
This statement will lead to the mindset of shutting out good ideas and accepting any idea someone does because it is the same thing. I’m going to have to say this is why Ron doesn’t listen, he thinks this happens. Don’t give his argument credence.
You’re right, if you’re on the right side of the issue it works, and then when someone gets in on the wrong side, what happens?
Just deal with it?
I agree with everything else you said. I want the same things as you.
However, I will give no party the type of power as above simply because deal with it as a logic behind it.
It’s a bad idea.
December 20, 2017 at 3:13 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Bob, I hate to tell you this, but the party of Truman and Kennedy no longer exist. It was hijacked by the Progressive Socialist Democratic Party many years ago and the Blue Dogs who used to be part of the party were trounced when they voted for Obamacare after being intimidated, threatened by party leaders like Pelosi-Galore and Chucky Schmucky. Now, all we have left are the nasty Progressive Socialists who only hate and offer nothing good for the country. Thank goodness we have a strong President who stood up to them and the corrupt media and won a great victory.
December 20, 2017 at 5:37 pm
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@Agent; I think you’re getting too riled up by the bitterness / rhetoric of Pelosi and Schumer, and wasting time on them. They’re less relevant now that Republicans hold Congress and The White House. But they should be allowed to continue to shoot themselves in the foot with unsubstantiated objections.
December 28, 2017 at 5:49 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Dave, Despite the conniving of the FBI and them saying they needed an “insurance policy” if Trump won, it is all backfiring on them and several have been caught and will soon be gone. They accidentally drained the swamp which was them. Sure he is rough on them, but he is winning over the American People gradually. Even Republican leaders who have been RINO’s and critical of him for a year are now praising his leadership in the Tax bill. Maybe they will now get in line and realize he is right and do something to help.
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
1
7
Re-posted:
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Behavior has consequences; e.g. Nan & Chuck ditched the meeting with Trump almost 2 weeks ago, before the AL election…. they should have considered the consequences, not that it would have mattered.
Your vermin leaders have stuck their feet in their mouths, again.
Meanwhile, Republican Congressmen and Trump are MAGA.
Reply
How about this for a thought? Every single Democrat voted against Tax Reform and putting more money into the pockets of hard working Americans. This is a party of fear and loathing of our great President and have nothing at all to offer. No wonder they have lost most of the states legislatures and governorships and managed to lose the White House to a businessman who knows what is right for this country.
DNC, the fake news media and polls say this Tax Reform package is unpopular with the people and Trump has not gotten a bump in popularity. Wonder if they will poll again after people start seeing bigger pay checks.
Trump said he was surprised that the bill seemed to spur corporations to offer pay raises and bonuses. That was an unintended consequence which is great. Merry Christmas American People. You have the right guy in office.
After the Dems’ collective abusive treatment of Republicans in regard to the ACA, and lately in regard to Trump’s Election (recount of PA, WI, MI, and dispute of the validity of the Electoral College procedure) and disrespect of his campaign staff, all bets on similar goodwill are off on that. To adopt and modify a phrase uttered by Obama, behavioral patterns have consequences.
There is no need to allow the new Senator to be seated. The election of the replacement for Sessions is set for a January transition.
IOW, McConnell will say ‘go pound sand’ to Schumer, and Ryan will say the same to Pelois, as well they both should, given the meeting with Trump that they ditched, and the continuous, visceral rhetoric coming from those two Dem vermin.
As much as you want to fight the Tax Reform through desperate tactics, such as claiming hypocrisy on the right – due to a meaningless vote by Brown, you need to think through the long run implications of going on the record as opposed to tax cuts (“for the rich”). If/ When the US economy begins to thrive to a greater degree than it currently is, what will you use to defend your position? What will you say regarding the repatriation of capital from foreign sources, and investments in new ventures as a result?
Finally, two Republican holdouts are on board with TRA-17;
I am not fighting tax reform. Just pointing out the fact that it will most likely lead to increasing the debt. If you are OK with that, just say so.
Would the vote by Jones also not be meaningless since the Republicans will still hold the majority?
December 19, 2017 at 5:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
“Just pointing out the fact that it will most likely lead to increasing the debt”
And again you only look at one angle. I get $64,000 over 8 years of this, and I am by no means wealthy.
That is fair. If our spending is so out of control that you believe we should look at the debt first, and my shrinking income second (and by extension the middle classes ability to get into higher income thresholds, unimpeded by higher taxes putting them down a huge peg) then maybe you need to just admit you’re ok with taking the middle class and hosing them with taxes so long as the debt doesn’t go up.
The debt right now isn’t as much of a concern to me as incomes and survivability of the economy. When we get that chugging, we can figure out how much spending we can afford. The primary goal should be to get the economy going first, so we don’t need to spend as much to begin with. You assume that because taxes go down the debt must go up. This is not true.
Then when you argue what must be cut you act like the poor MUST be harmed. No, if they have the means to then provide for themselves, the remaining money to spend would be directed to those who need it, and if more people enter the workforce, there will be MORE money for those who truly need it at that point WITH spending reductions. As in no harm done.
This is what you leave out, as well as your liberal allies, and it is why conservatives call you “elitists” and it is why when you then call business republicans elitists as a retort, it just makes you look stupid on the matter. There is a meaning to that word that flies over your head.
I really wish I could teach you, but these things require a very good in person leader, like my boss.
I wouldn’t be like this without him, and it’s why I don’t allow mindsets like liberals to take hold shaming him and people like him.
What is my pipe dream? Did I ever predict that this bill would not pass and be signed? You can say that in 3 years if the anticipated growth has lead to a reduction in the debt. If the bill does pass and gets signed, and debt is still increasing in 2020, I would have been proven to be right.
Excerpted:
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The New York Federal Reserve on Friday raised its estimate of U.S. gross domestic product growth for the fourth quarter of 2017 closer to 4 percent, based on revisions of prior data that suggested stronger economic activities.
I’m sure you can find ways to refute Reuters reporting… I’m confident in your ability to construct a convoluted argument that implies this is a bad thing. Prove me right. Ready, steady, … GO!
PS I’m still not tired of winning. Bored? A little bit, but certainly not tired.
If that happens, and the debt starts decreasing, great. And I will applaud President Trump and the Republicans. If it doesn’t, I will be proven to be right.
Fair enough?
December 18, 2017 at 11:48 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Also, you never answered my question, “What is my pipe dream?”.
December 18, 2017 at 7:59 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Pipe dream; RINOs block tax reform until Jones is seated, and that block continues through RINOs efforts until Dems take control over one or both Chambers of Congress in 2019.
December 20, 2017 at 5:44 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Al, the National Association of Manufacturers were polled about the benefits of Tax Reform. 63% said they will increase capital spending, 57.9% will expand their business which includes hiring. Those are pretty solid numbers and completely debunks the leftists who say it won’t help and the economy would continue to stagnate.
December 18, 2017 at 4:27 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
“What is my pipe dream? Did I ever predict that this bill would not pass and be signed? You can say that in 3 years if the anticipated growth has lead to a reduction in the debt. If the bill does pass and gets signed, and debt is still increasing in 2020, I would have been proven to be right.”
I won’t answer the initial question, it isn’t mine to answer, however:
If the bill passes and debt still increases you will be proved right? No, you won’t. You’ve preemptively labeled all possible scenarios so that no matter what you will credit it to Trump, something you say we shouldn’t do. If a recession hits for example and the tax cuts emphasize debt at that time you wouldn’t be proven right. Or, if debt as a percent of GDP stayed flat or only increased minimally you still wouldn’t be proven right (as this is a pretty big tax cut compared to Obama, and Obama’s numbers did not go down, did they?) you’ve already mislead on this before, when for example you mentioned George W’s increased debt as if it was linked to the tax cuts, with very little review on the matter.
If we look at George W Bush we see that the debt to GDP was mostly flat. Even including the Iraq wars which were high cost and tax cuts. It was not until the one year of high spending that our debt went up as a percentage of GDP, and then we can see Obama increased taxes and still didn’t manage to start a trend down. You’ve been proven wrong due to each of the things I just pointed out. Especially when you compare when debt has gone down, as I first asked. Bill Clinton, was he president with anywhere near the tax rates from the 50’s to 70’s, the last time the debt went down long term? No. His tax rates are about half those years, and as a percent of GDP, he has years get to about 20%. This is proof that lower tax rates work.
bob; thanks again for the thorough treatise on the possibilities. I answered Ron’s question on his pipe dream. It seemed he implied waiting until Jones was seated in the Senate would be the non-hypocritical thing to do. That could only mean the one extra Dem vote in the Senate has meaning over the current Senate composition. But he well knows the rules of the transition process, yet opted to post here about ‘hypocrisy’. His is shameful behavior, if not downright childish, to call people out as hypocrites when the Senate situations are distinctly different.
December 19, 2017 at 8:42 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I offered to credit and applaud President Trump and the Republicans if their projections are correct and I get no credit for that?
December 19, 2017 at 9:00 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I am NOT against tax cuts. However, I believe there should be cuts equal to the cost of the tax cuts. Then we can use the economic growth from the tax cuts to starting chipping away at the debt. I am still waiting for my fellow fiscal conservatives to speak up.
I find it hysterical that Republicans are against spending increases, yet, if you are running deficits and the debt is still increasing, and you have to borrow in order to cut taxes, that is increasing spending. You can spin it any way you want, that fact does not change.
December 19, 2017 at 9:02 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Correction: “…should be cuts in spending equal…”
December 19, 2017 at 1:41 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
“I offered to credit and applaud President Trump and the Republicans if their projections are correct and I get no credit for that?”
Just a few days ago you said we shouldn’t credit policies to debt, for presidents, and said both sides are equally guilty.
All sides are guilty and we shouldn’t blame presidents, except for when it is Reagan…And Trump…And George W, but then when Obama comes into it everyone is a hypocrite.
You also have labeled this due to who is president and one small section of the equation. You have not said “I will weigh it at the time to see if it is Trump’s fault” you have essentially said “I will be proven right that debt as a percent of GDP will go up due to these tax cuts”.
I’m very tired of your poor debate skills, which you seem to think everyone here is oblivious to and then mock others here like Polar who tracks you well and lectures you well.
This is also why I cut out recently. Polar is doing well enough of a job and I am tired of it.
However, he has evidently let you squeeze out with these absurd debate tactics and I will have no more of it. You contradict yourself every three seconds in favor of blasting one side of the spectrum, and you just recently told me I give too much credit to presidents when I said this tax plan would be good for the LPR and explained why, in tangible terms. You didn’t debunk my methodology, it was that I was some child giving too much credit to a president, but here you are doing it without metrics of weight.
So yes, you don’t get to say that, and if the debt goes up, you are not proven right solely by that metric.
Deal with it. If you don’t like weighing methodology, and would prefer to just blame a president (contrary to what you say you do) go ahead and do it. But I will call you out.
December 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Ron,
You have also taken part in what has demolished Trump’s approval rating by the by, on petty philosophical arguments of he shouldn’t be president due to the fact that he doesn’t act like one.
Let me ask you this: Assume Trump gets 3-4% growth going, and we start to see that this year, and GDP is finally going well, thus proving the liberal policies don’t work.
Why will he lose? Because of people like you focusing on moral arguments (which is true fascism) to dislodge political policy. Because of people like you, people who have bad policy are given power due to words.
Better quiz question:
A president who talks like Trump, with 5% growth, or a president who talks like Obama with 2.5% growth over 8 years?
Which one should we have and why?
Your attitude problem is the problem on that note.
It’s time to see if these things work. We don’t need an applause, you silly absurd childlike person (this is not Lady GaGa living for the applause). We need you to stop bashing the hell out of Trump, and contradicting yourself when it’s ok to blame him or credit him.
December 19, 2017 at 1:59 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Just a few days ago you said we shouldn’t credit policies to debt, for presidents, and said both sides are equally guilty.”
My apologies bob for not being more specific. I will give credit and applaud the legislation that President Trump and the Republicans passed. Is that better? We both know that if Democrats held the majority, this legislation would have never seen the light of day for President Trump to sign, no matter how good of deal maker he thinks he is.
“All sides are guilty and we shouldn’t blame presidents, except for when it is Reagan…And Trump…And George W, but then when Obama comes into it everyone is a hypocrite.”
I NEVER blamed any president for what occurred economically during their administrations. Only pointed out the end result. You are the one who needs to place blame. Unlike you, I am intelligent enough to understand the many dynamics involved in what leads to a successful or failed economy.
“So yes, you don’t get to say that, and if the debt goes up, you are not proven right solely by that metric.”
Actually I do because that is my biggest complaint about the legislation. That and giving money to people/corporations that don’t need it and will not use it to help the economy.
December 19, 2017 at 2:10 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“Let me ask you this: Assume Trump gets 3-4% growth going, and we start to see that this year, and GDP is finally going well, thus proving the liberal policies don’t work.
Why will he lose?” If that happens, the increased tax revenue will not pay for the tax cuts and the debt will increase. More importantly, I predict he will lose because Hillary Clinton is not running again which, in my opinion, will reduce the number of people who voted for him by at least 20%, the number of people I believe voted for him SOLELY because they did not want her as POTUS. Finally, many people, especially Independents like me, who were honestly willing to give him a fair chance, have been disenfranchised with his constant appealing to his core base and forgetting the rest of the country. I know you don’t see it that way, but, trust me, it’s true.
“Better quiz question:
A president who talks like Trump, with 5% growth, or a president who talks like Obama with 2.5% growth over 8 years?
Which one should we have and why?” I would first need to know what policies lead, and how they lead directly to the growth. If was reduced regulations that lead to more pollution, less protections for employees, and/or less competition in the marketplace, then I will take the 2.5% knowing there is more to being an American and a good human being than maximizing profit.
“It’s time to see if these things work. We don’t need an applause, you silly absurd childlike person (this is not Lady GaGa living for the applause). We need you to stop bashing the hell out of Trump, and contradicting yourself when it’s ok to blame him or credit him.”
I agree with you, outside of the insult. However, I will not stop holding him accountable for his flaws and expect you to start.
December 20, 2017 at 6:55 am
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
@Ron; you’re all over the place with your ideas, suggestions, predictions, accusations of hypocrisy, etc.
I’m glad it’s only a matter of about 7-8 hours until Paul RINO Ryan loudly and proudly slams down his gavel after reading aloud the final vote tally in the House. After TrumPresident signs the bill into law, you’ll only have about half the current number of things to whine about in regard to tax reform.
IF you want to speculate about increasing the Nat Debt, go ahead…. after you explain how the increased GDP growth of over 3% for 3 consecutive qtrs will not reduce most or all of the currently projected deficit sans such economic growth. Ready, steady, … GO!
December 20, 2017 at 10:27 am
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
@Ron; if you are NOT against tax cuts, and are against debt growth, that implies you are FOR a. spending cuts OR b. greater GDP growth, OR c. both.
For a., spending cuts, you must agree current Federal govt spending is excessive / wasteful, and that must be where spending must be cut. Say so, or deny it.
For b., greater GDP growth will be aided by repatriation of US capital from FOREIGN nations AND/OR from the US FEDERAL GOVT back to US citizens. Do you disagree with the use of EITHER source of newly invested capital? IF you disagree on one, but not the other, you must realize that stance reduces the new capital to invest and grow GDP… increasing the chance of ADDING debt in the future (i.e. not reducing the projected $1.5T debt over 10 years).
December 20, 2017 at 10:44 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
As I stated earlier, in case you missed it, I am for targeted tax cuts that are paid for with spending cuts.
I have been saying this for years. When will you get it?
However, if we need to borrow money to give tax breaks to people/corporations who do not NEED it, then you will increase the debt without the requisite return.
I have actually advocated for a one time amnesty on repatriated money, if it is directly spent on increasing jobs and wages. If a corporation is going to use to invest in automation, put it in the bank or give it to its investors, pay the taxes. We need to focus tax policy on creating jobs and increasing wages, no just a give away with our fingers crossed.
Here is another one. Just take some time to read with an open mind and not just disregard due to the source. This guy evens criticizes the 2009 Stimulus.
This is what you don’t get. If the GDP was 5 trillion smaller, there would be 5 trillion less to go to jobs and the middle class, in order to get what is supposedly 1.5 trillion in revenues. This is what I explained in my other post, in which I said lost government revenues do not equate to loss for the middle class, however, gains in revenues for the government nearly always reduce availability of economic conditions for the middle class. See below. If we really only lose $500 billion roughly as per below, and gain 5 trillion to the economy, you can give handouts of $500 billion more your route, or allow people to EARN part of $5 trillion. Our goal should not be to focus on temporary debt, however, it should be how much is available for all who participate in the economy, to grow the economy, and raise participation and reward.
Bernie would demolish this for many reasons. I can spell out exactly how and why, with removing people from the workforce, and creating a scenario in which it is better to keep your wife at home, and you will never get ahead. This is the problem with liberal ideas, and is why the ACA is a failure and terrible, and most of Obama’s policies. There is indeed a difference in method here republican to democrat, even though you say they are the same. They are not.
“Over the next decade, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would increase GDP by 2.86 percent over the current baseline forecasts, or an average of 0.29 percent per year. This means an increase of total GDP of approximately $5 trillion over the next decade, well exceeding the revenue lost by the plan.
Impact on Revenue
If fully implemented, the proposal would reduce federal revenue by $1.47 trillion over the next decade on a static basis (Figure 2) using a current law baseline. The plan would reduce individual income tax revenue, excluding the changes for noncorporate business tax filers, by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Tax revenue from the corporate income tax and from taxation of pass-through business income would fall by $617 billion. The remainder of the revenue loss would be due to the doubling of the estate tax exemption, resulting in a revenue loss of $72 billion.
On a dynamic basis, this plan would generate an additional $600 billion in revenues, reducing the cost of the plan over the next decade. The larger economy would boost wages and thus broaden both the income and payroll tax base. As a result, the federal government would see a smaller revenue loss from personal tax changes, of $494 billion. The reduction in tax revenue from business changes would also be smaller on a dynamic basis, at $565 billion. The corporate tax revenue loss would be most significant in the short term because of the temporary expensing provision for short-lived assets, which would encourage more investment and result in businesses taking larger deductions for capital investments in the first five years of the plan.”
December 20, 2017 at 5:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“I have actually advocated for a one time amnesty on repatriated money, if it is directly spent on increasing jobs and wages. ”
That does not make sense. Because then the next year, the money is not available to increase jobs or wages.
The repatriation is in fact to pay for other services short term. Not as a means to ensure corporations pay their fair share.
Your methodology is abhorrent.
The repatriation needs to be lucrative to get revenues now, the corporate rate needs to be brought down in line, also, mandating they create jobs or they don’t receive the credit also fails this test: Each year the extra capital may not be enough to hire more employees until they make a major move, which means it cannot be weighed as you did. The point is to leave extra capital, and to allow job growth. Not just one or the other.
You are foolish on how companies work. That’s the issue, and you shouldn’t lead your firm. There is a reason why I will be, and you never will.
December 20, 2017 at 5:10 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“However, if we need to borrow money to give tax breaks to people/corporations who do not NEED it, then you will increase the debt without the requisite return.”
Incorrect, and you also need to prove we need to borrow to do so. Again, that is what the repatriation pays for short term.
I gave a link already showing that even though it seems like a small amount per year of GDP growth, it is $5 trillion in the long run. For a $600 billion dollar worth of cut.
The economy and people can either get a part of $5 trillion dispersed, or a part of $600 billion.
The debt does not need to come up, if the middle class participates to get part of the $5 trillion. If the per capita GDP to income ratio remains equal, as in, $58,000 PPP, and the GDP is thusly $5 trillion higher, then the benefit will far exceed $600 billion.
You want to tax to receive revenues regardless of economic availability of funds. That is the issue, and when someone points this out, you then say it’s theory that tax cuts boost the economy. It most certainly is not.
I’ve given a number on this, with a link, you have not. You have stated your commentary as a matter of fact without evidence, because you believe it, and that’s the problem. You go off of absurd belief systems you never questioned, learned from school as a millennial (and again, you are this age) and you let rule you.
You’re a fool. When this turns out you are wrong and I show the numbers work precisely as this report said, you’re going to say “Bob, I was wrong”. And yeah, I’ll enjoy it, but that’s not why you need to say it.
I’m tired of your side refusing to grow up and acknowledge reality while accusing agent and polar of the same. They are VASTLY better researched than you, whiny kid.
December 20, 2017 at 5:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“However, if we need to borrow money to give tax breaks to people/corporations who do not NEED it, then you will increase the debt without the requisite return.”
Here we go:
Let’s say I hire employees, they bring in $30,000 per year, and I file as a C corp and only have say 40 employees. Let’s say that I grew initially from much less, hiring an employee every time I had enough funds, and I sold insurance.
And let’s say these guys sold business insurance.
Let’s say my revenues when I had 10 employees was enough to have about $50k left over after my own income and business expenses (most firms have less, I have seen P&L sheets). A tax cut of 10% would benefit me about $100k. Let’s say each employee costs me $45,000 per year, but I don’t know if they will be successful. They may do terrible, and it takes 1 year to see how well they do and if they will make it, before firing them to try someone else. A reduction in taxes that is immediate allows me another $100k per year, and to then throw say 5 agents at one field at once in 5 years, instead of throwing one at a time. They would build the business together, and would be much more successful. I’m no longer choosing between one or two each year, I saved the corporations money to hire a team of 5 who can assist each other. The chance of their success goes up, and I can then afford it. Or, I could hire at least 1 a year with the tax cut and not save it. The point is I can choose, and getting to 40 employees will be MUCH easier. Either way my corporation can grow faster in the times it needs it, or chug along when it doesn’t need to expand until we decide we have enough capital to take on a new risky endeavor.
Your method of only giving me a tax cut when I hire is far too restrictive, and leaves me with not nearly enough capital left over as I try to invest. It took us years to get the money to hire 5 new people back in the day. Even now hiring 5 new people would cost tons, and maybe we don’t want to, maybe we want to just build capital for now, and then use that to give out some in house loans for insurance we sell, which extra capital would also allow us to do that, and use that capital over time to invest into employees, or other things. You really have no clue how a business operates…Do you even talk to your owner, or anyone in charge of your business? Do you get to see your bottom line? Do you get to see when and why decisions are made to hire?
This is sheer ignorance Ron! You have no experience to speak on what you say, and never give examples that make any logical sense to a business man. That’s why those here who are (Agent) are completely at odds with you while you drone on to a business owner how a lower corporate tax rate won’t help business unless you do ignorant provisions, or won’t help jobs without ignorant provisions, and you tell the businesses what will help them, and keep them in line (the dishonest jerks they are) talking down to them the whole time, wondering why they call you a whiny turd that knows nothing. In the 50’s you would have got the point, but sadly my generation is a bunch of rebellious hooligans.
I’m mocking myself and you at the same time. There is no evidence whatsoever that a corporate tax rate would benefit any employees…Except for these 200,000.
(Looking at last years’ numbers) AT&T made $4,000,000,000 in PROFITS last year LESS $200,000,000 for these bonuses = $3,800,000,000 in PROFITS based on last year’s numbers.
Not sure how much the new tax plan had to do with them giving bonuses, especially since “Many AT&T workers already expected to receive 10 percent raises and $1,000 lump-sum back wages as a result of an agreement announced last week.”
Listen – it’s great their giving money to their employees and not stockholders, and I applaud them for that (certainly don’t applaud them for throttling old phones to make their customers buy newer devices, but that’s a different topic), but it seems like they already agreed to pay out the bonuses before they even knew if the new tax plan would actually get approved (or if you’re going to argue that they knew it would be approved, clearly they didn’t know the details because the House & Senate bills hadn’t been reconciled yet).
December 21, 2017 at 8:45 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Homonym error: “Listen – it’s great their giving” should be “they’re giving.” My bad.
December 15, 2017 at 9:11 pm
The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
@Ron; your question is now moot.
It’s only 96 hours away…
Tax Cuts For The Rich.
Tax Cuts for Evil Enterprises Making Obscene Profits.
ObamaCare penalty removed, leaving billions and billions without, ObamaCare.
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
1
7
re-posted:
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 10
Thumb down 20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
After the Dems’ collective abusive treatment of Republicans in regard to the ACA, and lately in regard to Trump’s Election (recount of PA, WI, MI, and dispute of the validity of the Electoral College procedure) and disrespect of his campaign staff, all bets on similar goodwill are off on that. To adopt and modify a phrase uttered by Obama, behavioral patterns have consequences.
There is no need to allow the new Senator to be seated. The election of the replacement for Sessions is set for a January transition.
IOW, McConnell will say ‘go pound sand’ to Schumer, and Ryan will say the same to Pelois, as well they both should, given the meeting with Trump that they ditched, and the continuous, visceral rhetoric coming from those two Dem vermin.
Reply
DNCs, With all these arguments on likes and dislikes on this Tax Plan, the thing that is being ignored is the 95 million working age adults sitting on the sideline because they could not find work during the abhorrent Obama economy. They have been drawing unemployment and numerous other entitlements for some time now and yes, it has led to the deficits in the Federal Budget. Seems to me that you put 15-20 million back to work, they will be taxpayers again instead of tax takers and the deficit reduced accordingly. This is not rocket science, but Progressives will never get it. They would rather continue to “Entitlement Society” that has gotten the country in such deep debt to the tune of $20 Trillion with $10 Trillion in just the last 8 years of Socialist Obama’s regime.
Psst; Ron, CaPlatitude; the article subject is the CHANGES to the House and Senate versions of their Tax Reform Bills which each passed a short while ago. Try very hard to stick to the subject in your initial replies instead of veering hard off course to an off topic comment. I thank you, and IJ staff will allow you to continue to post if you follow those simple guidelines.
Merry ChrisTAXmas to you, and to your rich friends who will benefit the most from “Republicans’ tax cuts for the rich”!
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
2
9
When your side has no power to stop the majority.
Elections have consequences.
You could hope that RINO Rubio holds his stance. But he will be advised of the long run effects on his career, and will ‘see the light and vote right’.
If you KNOW that I am not an Independent, what is your proof based on for whom, by name, I have voted in past elections?
Hint: It was NOT all Democrats or all Republicans.
December 19, 2017 at 12:43 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
The problem is the left leaning Independents like you Ron. You are never for the Conservative solution to problems and it is well known who you voted for twice in a row.
December 19, 2017 at 12:49 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
How many times do I need to advocate reductions in spending and taxes on the middle class (you know, those who drive the economy) for you to understand that I am a fiscal conservative? I do not want anyone’s taxes increasing, but not everyone needs a tax cut in order to get the economy booming again.
You complain, rightfully so, that Democrats like to tax and spend. What you fail to recognize is that Republicans, currently, like to borrow and spend.
I am against both because neither addresses spending in any meaningful way because it isn’t politically expedient.
December 20, 2017 at 1:47 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
“How many times do I need to advocate reductions in spending and taxes on the middle class (you know, those who drive the economy) for you to understand that I am a fiscal conservative? I do not want anyone’s taxes increasing, but not everyone needs a tax cut in order to get the economy booming again.
You complain, rightfully so, that Democrats like to tax and spend. What you fail to recognize is that Republicans, currently, like to borrow and spend.
I am against both because neither addresses spending in any meaningful way because it isn’t politically expedient.”
You got borrow and spend from high school courses, and yet again you prove you’re not 40. This was taught in my high school classes ending in the 2000’s, but was notably absent from my brother’s in the 90’s.
You are wrong. With Reagan he proposed the largest spending cuts of his time to go with tax cuts. The democrats controlled the congress, as you have said many times to defend Obama, then you always say the buck ends with the president, which you also say the president has no ability to affect things to vindicate Obama. You’re full of crap when you say this. You’re trying to get people to change their minds based on lies. This independent crap is a lie.
Reagan didn’t get the spending he wanted. When republicans had control during Bush W, their tax cuts did not increase the debt to GDP ratio until a recession hit. Not even the Iraq war shot it up. So Bush W was not a tax and borrow president. Republicans during Obama’s tenure tried to cut spending. Several times.
They have tried for 30 years to cut spending. You are wrong about republicans.
Also, you’re not advocating for tax cuts. Trump’s bill mainly cuts taxes for families, that’s the largest chunk of it, to get the LPR rate up. And you don’t want it passed due to debt concerns, and then back track and say both parties are to blame and you don’t advocate for higher taxes, you just won’t let the taxes go down for families, because you don’t want our corporate tax rate competitive, eh?
You twist your mind like a pretzel to get to your conclusions. Listen to those here like me and Polar who clearly out rank you in experience. I can tell Polar may even be moving toward a leadership position.
I AM. There is a reason my boss chose me and another here for that purpose. I will be leading our firm. What is your role and position in your company? I learned and was mentored by an amazing business owner.
You may say that doesn’t matter, but I have seen this, and compared it and contrasted it, this war against business by the left. I know for a fact that the corporate tax rate needs to be lowered, something you refuse to acknowledge.
I know for a fact the LPR can be raised with more child tax credits.
This bill is good, and accomplishes all those goals, and your one gripe is again and again it will raise the debt. How do we cut taxes without raising debt Ron? Pass cuts with the taxes? A tax bill is not a spending bill!
So how do we do it in your delusional world? As a business owner I look at the government as it works, and I see changes how they have to work. You don’t. It’s philosophical hogwash, and you would get nothing done in government as I imagine you would as a business owner. Grow up kid. If you worked for me, I would fire you if you made business arguments the way you do your pathetic government social justice tar.
December 20, 2017 at 2:15 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“You got borrow and spend from high school courses, and yet again you prove you’re not 40.”
Wrong. I got it from paying attention and understanding where money comes from when you are in debt. If you have $0 in the bank and want to spend, where else do you get from?
“With Reagan he proposed the largest spending cuts of his time to go with tax cuts.” I know. This is why I have praised President Reagan as the best president during my lifetime. What more do you want from me?
“They have tried for 30 years to cut spending. You are wrong about republicans.”
And this is the main reason I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my lifetime. However, I have been disappointed in their ability to make them happen.
My concern is that they have not proposed any spending cuts to go with this bill. That, in my opinion, should come before tax cuts. Assuming they actually care about deficits and the debt.
“Also, you’re not advocating for tax cuts.”
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!! I have done so in multiple posts just in this thread. Just because I believe in more targeted cuts that will actually accomplish the goals laid out by President Trump and the Republicans, does not mean I have not advocated for such.
“You twist your mind like a pretzel to get to your conclusions. Listen to those here like me and Polar who clearly out rank you in experience.” How can you say this without KNOWING my experience? You have Been wrong about me since day 1 and have no interest in admitting that you are wrong. The only way to prove yourself to be right is to post my complete resume. Otherwise, knock this crap off, CHILD!!
“I AM. There is a reason my boss chose me and another here for that purpose. I will be leading our firm. What is your role and position in your company? I learned and was mentored by an amazing business owner.”
Why should I or anyone else believe you? You have lied so many times, that you could be President Trump or unemployed and living in your parents’ basement. Even later in this thread you stated you are a business owner. (As a business owner I look at the government as it works, and I see changes how they have to work.) Which is it, owner or an employee being groomed to lead the organization. Can’t be both.
“I know for a fact the LPR can be raised with more child tax credits.”
Of course in CAN be. Congratulations, you got something right.
“If you worked for me, I would fire you if you made business arguments the way you do your pathetic government social justice tar.”
The feeling is mutual. If you have to lie to make your case, you do not have a case.
December 16, 2017 at 12:10 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
I also forgot that ‘ALL’ Republican votes on ACA, opposing it, was another instance of meaningless, irrelevant votes.
Note that I quoted ‘ALL’, implying the existence of one ‘Republican’ voting in favor of the ACA is irrelevant to the point.
Note that I quoted ‘Republican’, implying it was really a RINO.
Bob, congratulations on your new title in your organization as an owner. Now, you can appreciate more what it takes and be responsible for your employees welfare. I am sure many of them will like their tax break from this bill to make their lives better. Cubicle dudes like Ron are just hoping to get a gold watch some day.
It is amazing what our great President has accomplished in his first year considering the forces lined up against him from the start. Progressives have lined up almost all the networks against him with their non stop hate, the FBI, NSA, IRS, CIA (Deep State) have tried to destroy him along with every Progressive Democrat and some RINO’s. I am very proud of him for having a titanium spine and he is the one smiling today. The leftists are crying in their beer.
He is not an owner, just being groomed for a leadership position by his boss.
December 21, 2017 at 10:40 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Ron, you have said many times that we don’t understand you and your positions and don’t answer like you want. I couldn’t care less. When Bob said he is a leader in his firm and a business owner, I believe him since he is 100% more credible than you and your merry little Progressive band. One thing is for sure, you will never be an owner of your firm and will be lucky you aren’t fired for your Progressive beliefs.
December 18, 2017 at 9:41 am
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
How is it woe is me? It is more like woe is the debt as it continues to increase.
I have already said that if this works as President Trump and the Republicans have projected, I will give them full credit and applaud their efforts. Is that not enough for you?
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@Ron; go on the (IJ comment board) record and define “if it works”. Ready, steady, …. GO!
December 20, 2017 at 8:36 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
“It works” means it will:
1. Pay for itself aka reduce the debt.
2. Create sustained 4%+ GDP growth
Let’s check back in October 2020 and see who was right.
December 20, 2017 at 5:41 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
““It works” means it will:
1. Pay for itself aka reduce the debt.
2. Create sustained 4%+ GDP growth
Let’s check back in October 2020 and see who was right.”
Bad metrics, as I pointed out many times. You will lose government revenues when you seek to make the economy the main provider for a living.
If it creates 3% GDP growth it is a win, so your two is absurd. Paying for itself should not be “reduce the debt”. Pay for itself should be: Total revenues available to the middle class increase. Your method reduces the total revenues whether government or economic to the middle class. If we get those revenues economically, spending can go down, unless democrats get in the way as they did with Reagan. When the economy grows by $5 trillion, and government revenues fall by $600 billion, we should be able to restructure spending, but democrats disallow it saying who will be harmed. They have done it every time. This isn’t new. And you miss it every time. How much smaller would the GDP have been in the absence of Reagan?
December 20, 2017 at 5:45 pm
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Okey, dokey; we’ll check back, at qtr ends.
But now, I have to refocus on the ‘replace’ issue since the mandate is ‘mandead’.
December 21, 2017 at 8:28 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“But now, I have to refocus on the ‘replace’ issue since the mandate is ‘mandead’.”
Goody. Here comes the adverse selection and associated premium and/or deductible increases.
December 14, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
8
4
Yogi,
How many words per minute can you type with your troll hands?
The analysis I seen was that my tax rate is heading south by 20%.
Happy New Year to me!
Now, make it better and loose that F’n crap of a health care policy and let me have my good stuff back.
Merry Christmas to all! Finally finding my Christmas Spirit this year.
FFA, nice to see things are coming back and have a President who puts America first and dedicated to helping Business and the Middle Class. The last 8 years have been hard to take and I know you were impacted negatively.
I made the decision to get into it when they were saying Full New Biz Commissions (15%). What they didn’t tell us is that full new biz commission were being cut to 5%. By the time that tid bit of info came out, I have over $4000 invested in training for my staff as well as advertising it. Along with all the other lies.
Ive never felt so betrayed by any politician. Says a lot for living in IL for over 50 years.
Be that as it is, great move on changing the enrollment date. All I am retaining is done and I am finally in the holiday spirit. Of course, none of my remaining clients had anything good to say about it. Higher Ded. Higher premiums. Higher OOP. and lets not forget the people that figured out that there is no stop loss. And the most often comment – Why do we have to go through this BS every year?
FFF, I am sure you were one of the citizens that believed that people could keep their doctor, keep their plan and would save an average of $2,500 annually for a family of four. Our former POTUS made 38 speeches around the country with the same line. Progressives lapped it up, Conservatives were skeptical. As it played out, it was the lie of the century. It put agents like you in the cross hairs for disgruntled customers.
Good luck to you on your P&C prospects. Hope you get them all and make at least 15% commission on all of them. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Here’s all I need to know about the Tax Bill: the official position of every large European government is against it, as is China. Seems they think it will help send investment dollars to America and away from their businesses.
Now ask yourself, which side is the mainstream media on, along with every single Democrat in Congress?
The Democratic members of the House and Senate who are against the country getting tax relief should all be sent to Venezuela on the next United flight.
Here’s all I need to know about the tax bill. Corporations will not be opening factories or adding more full-time positions with the money they save. Instead, they will be lining their stockholders pockets, and there will be no reinvestment back into hardworking Americans.
It burns me up that these wealthy inheritors are making decisions that have no guarantee of assisting me to work hard and earn an income to feed my family. I don’t want to go on government assistance. I don’t want to be sitting applying for jobs all day. I want to have a job, work hard, and put food on the table.
I’ve applied to everything from fast food, grocery stores, retail, gas stations, and the industry I came from for months. I’ve got a lot of work experience, and no criminal background. I’ve got full availability, but not so much as a call back. WHY!
Is it my age? Is it because I have over 15 years of experience in another industry on my resume? Is it because I’m overqualified? I just want a job! I’ll be there on time. I’ll work hard.
This tax bill should require these companies to contribute back to the workforce. Otherwise, it’s bonus season for corporate executives. I read that corporate holiday parties were getting extra funding this year. My family is skipping Christmas for the third year in a row. Try explaining why Santa is not bringing presents, again, to your kids.
LaidOff,
I feel for you and Christmas sans Santa. You are right and CEO’s are going to pocket the money. Gary Cohn found out first hand in a tragically hilarious video I have linked below. The president and his party are scamming us once again. More and more jobs are being automated, not created. This tax cut will lead to fewer jobs as companies will be able to invest more in automation, if they even invest anything at all into new incentives. The only reason a corporation would create a job is if demand dictates it. If hardworking Americans do not have money to spend on products, if Santa can’t deliver gifts to your children, there is no increase in demand. Hardworking Americans are the true job creators. We need to solve for increasing the velocity of money in this country and not stall it up in stockholder equity.
“Here’s all I need to know about the tax bill. Corporations will not be opening factories or adding more full-time positions with the money they save. Instead, they will be lining their stockholders pockets, and there will be no reinvestment back into hardworking Americans. ”
Incorrect, and you’ve provided no proof of this. The proof you will likely provide is a repatriation tax from the 2000’s, the weakness of it was that it was temporary and no cuts along side it. Of course they wouldn’t continue to invest here for a one year tax cut.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with business, and this is why you and democrats have no ability to help business. It’s a social justice argument. Nothing more.
Bob, why do I think Planet will find several lumps of coal in his stocking this year? Has he been told by his boss that he will not get a Christmas bonus because the boss wants all of the tax relief money for himself?
By the way, how is that Seattle income tax working out for the hard working families up there?
Bob, repatriate the offshore money at a low rate which will help balance the budget and then keep the corporate rate at 21% and we will see growth like we have never seen before. The Businessman President has been right all along. Progressives, not so much.
“Bob, repatriate the offshore money at a low rate which will help balance the budget and then keep the corporate rate at 21% and we will see growth like we have never seen before. The Businessman President has been right all along. Progressives, not so much”
I agree the repatriation was a good idea to use it for the temporary purposes. Your opposing ideologies though don’t think like that. I’m glad you said it, I haven’t yet on this board but I have in general. This, this is what you need to say to guys like Ron. That the repatriation is temporary funds. The lower corporate tax rate is to make sure there is long term incentive to be here, and even Clinton said we need a rate in the middle of the OCED which is precisely where we are now. Then you say the lower taxes for the middle class will raise the LPR with the child tax differences and ability to lower AGI with day care removed from AGI. You then ask what would a good tax plan look like, and how do these three items not accomplish what we want them to?
His reply will always be, Ron that is, that it raises the debt and republicans are this and that and democrats are this and that, and it will reveal he’s a liar about solutions.
Bob, how many times do you have to hand Ron his head before he gets the message about his former hero’s failures? I think you are up to at least a thousand times over the years. Hard to educate a hard headed Progressive, isn’t it? Brainwashing has been effective on him.
December 22, 2017 at 11:20 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Merry Christmas Agent!!
December 22, 2017 at 11:55 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
(sarcastically reposting what Bob said to Rosenblatt) No Merry Christmas to your fake Merry Christmas, and forget you. You’re not superior to Agent.
December 20, 2017 at 7:02 am
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Where is your proof of ‘lining their pockets without any re-investment’?
Santa certainly won’t be bringing presents to foreigners who now, temporarily, hold US investors capital. He’ll be collecting it in his sleigh to return it to the US under lower taxation under the TRA-17, which is in line with the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD.
Well, ok, this is ‘lining the pockets’ of a loyal workforce. But what will workers do with their additional take-home pay? They’ll probably spend some of it. The money they ‘bank’ can be used by companies taking out business expansion loans.
The ‘lining pockets’ claim is vague as to whose pockets will be lined.
Laid off, sorry for your unemployment situation. Have you tried a head hunter to help you find a job? With your experience, a job should be available. I see stories all the time that employers are having a tough time finding employees to fill the jobs they have available. I can only surmise you live in an area with not much going on.
Never been a big fan of Federal Tax Cuts. They usually only benefit Big Business (fortunate 500 companies), the extremely wealthy and people living in states without a State Income Tax long term. Over the past 30 years, anytime there’s been a Federal Tax Cut, the Feds reduce the amount of money provided to states for education, roads, healthcare, etc. Whereby the States raise State Income Tax to make up for the loss. Usually ends up being a wash at best.
I have never been a fan of Progressive taxation. The rich already pay a disproportionate share of the taxes paid in this country. They are also the job creators and entrepreneurs which make businesses great. The idea of this tax cut will benefit everyone in the long run. Look forward to the repatriation of all that money parked offshore ($3-4Trillion) for the past 8 years so it can be invested in America again. The reason it was parked offshore was that the corporations didn’t want the Progressives to abscond with it. Sorry Progressives, your agenda is now dead.
Hip, hip hooray for the House passing Tax Relief for the citizens of this great country despite all the howling, teeth knashing of the left who think the country can tax their way to prosperity. Get it through the Senate now and onto the President’s desk for signature. I wonder what the Democrats will say to their constituents when they hold their next town hall and explain their no vote to putting more money into the pockets of the citizens and businesses.
i bet they’ll talk about the actual plan then say they want to put money into the pockets of citizens and businesses, just not the 1% of citizens and businesses who refuse to promise they’ll actually increase jobs or wages
Confused, will you say the same thing when your check is bigger as a result of this cut? If you don’t want more money, just give it to charity.
December 20, 2017 at 3:13 pm
Ohio Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Agent, I haven’t seen much reinvesting into creating jobs in the US by the big companies. Talk by some, that they are not laying-off (but keeping steady workforce)is not creating jobs. I have seen some job creation by small businesses. Would like to see a tax credit for the business in lieu of a tax cut. The tax credit would be a condition on creating more domestic jobs. I’d like to see other contingencies to tax credit where by the majority of any tax credit has to be used for job creation so that it’s not pocketed by CEO’s/Managements already earning multi-millions.
Tax credits are also a good idea. We have been using them for years in Texas to bring jobs into this state from the higher taxed blue states. We also have no State Income tax which is a plus as well. The 21% tax on corporations will just spur more building and development of our industry and create even more jobs. Why do you think the worst and think companies will not expand? Is that Anti-Trump rhetoric like your Governor had when he tried and failed to win the Presidency?
December 20, 2017 at 4:02 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
I LOVE the idea of tax credits over a flat corporate tax reduction, basically telling Corporations “If you want this tax break we say will increase jobs, you only get it if you increase jobs. You won’t get it if you just increase dividends to stockholders and offer stock buybacks.”
This would force corporations to do the thing the tax plan is actually supposed to do: increase jobs.
Agent – I’m guessing he believes companies will not expand because that’s what CEO’s are saying.
— “14% of CEOs surveyed…said their companies plan to make large, immediate capital investments in the United States if the tax overhaul passes … declined to name the CEOs who participated in the poll [but] said it included “Trump supporters” and former members of the president’s now-defunct advisory
— 43% of CEOs polled in November by the Business Roundtable, said they plan to ramp up hiring over the next six months. That was despite rising confidence that the Republican tax plan would be enacted.
— The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council in November, only a few business leaders raised their hands when they were asked whether the tax plan would lead them to increase investment in the United States
December 21, 2017 at 4:49 pm
Ohio Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Hello Agent, I think of myself as a pragmatic not Anti-Trump (Even though I would have preferred two of the other Republican candidates and another Republican who didn’t run over Trump. [Kasich was not one of them] I’m not even a Republican but an Independent as neither Party representatives my beliefs enough to justify aligning with either. Negativity comes from watching politics (both Red and Blue) over the past 30+ years and seeing that most tax changes as well as other changes that have past haven’t provided any true benefit to me (They haven’t cause any real hardship either). Just don’t have a lot of faith in politicians. Too much bickering and not enough results.
Not a fan of the following:
Paying National Income to so that government can reallocate to other states. Feds need to stay out of collecting taxes to support roads (unless Federal Highways), schools, Medicaid, etc. If you’re going to lower the Federal Tax, then just collect enough to cover National Defense, Social Security and Medicare (or let the State take over Medicare) and the programs that are designed to keep citizens safe (Federal Aviation, Environmental, etc.). Let the states then increase their state income tax or state sales tax at the level of the federal cuts to handle state programs like Education, Medicaid, road/streets, police/fire, etc.
Referring to Social Security as an entitlement. It’s a tax that is taken from your pay with the expectation of getting it back later it life. I look at it as more of loan to the government where by they take my monies, invest it (keeping the investment profits) then paying it back in installments after age 67 until death. It’s my money. An entitlement is something you get for nothing.
Corporate Welfare and subsidizing Corporate Farmers as an incentive not to grow product or product. As a society we need to be more productive to grow as a nation.
Not a fan of the government getting involved with anything involving personal healthcare issues (i.e. health screen timelines, prescriptions, birth control, abortion, etc.). Individuals should be able to evaluate their own lives and make decision that are in their best interest. As long as the decision doesn’t cause physical hardship or the survival of those already breathing air of this fine planet, then people/government should mind their own business.
Not a fan of our election systems. Mainly hate that fact that people who run for national election 3-4 years before the election. With this, I want to see the exemption for Politian and political action groups to the No Call List gone. Ideally it would be great to have a button on my cable remote where I could just skip ads.
Not a fan of any of the news media. All are owned by corporations who promote their ownership interests. There’s no such thing as reporting stories without getting bias reporting from MSN, Fox, CNN, etc. (Walter Cronkite is probably vomiting in his grave).
Not a fan of all the sexual misconduct coming forward. Would you want to see your mother/father, sister/brother, wife/husband, daughter/son subjected to and/or treated badly with the expectation of shut up and put-up/deal with it? It’s all about respect for human dignity. If you don’t want yourself or family treated in this manner, they don’t do it.
Just realized that I’m ranting. So I’ll stop.
December 20, 2017 at 7:08 am
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
Your (OHIO AGENT) statement is an unsubstantiated generalization.
Wealthy people living in states without a state income tax are smarter than dolts who allow themselves to be taxed by Progressive Socialist Democrats who have driven many deep blue states into insolvency.
I praise the elimination of all but $10k of SALT, as it will shed greater light on those Progressive Socialist’s punitive taxation, wasteful spending, and, in some cases, fraud/ corruption. FOIA (as a verb) all Blue State Budget documents, to MAGA. I only regret the Republican Congress didn’t have the courage and fortitude to completely eliminate the SALT deduction on the FITX forms.
Ohio is a Republican held state. I can’t remember the last time there was a Democrat Governor or State House. You have a few northern counties that are blue. Just about all counties south of Akron are red. Reason for it’s sad shape is because it’s economy use to be driven by manufacturing. Many of those good paying manufacturing jobs have since moved overseas by US Companies that enjoy the profits reaped by employing overseas workers. Corporate America’s cost of employing overseas workers is less because of many of foreign countries have Universal Healthcare, government paid daycare, etc. that workers here have to pay for out of their wages.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not necessarily for all of these Government Paid Programs. I also don’t have the experience or knowledge (just like most in the White House and Congress) to fix things. What I do know is that giving corporate tax breaks (thinking Regan era) didn’t create jobs. Instead they created a much smaller pool of the super rich because many did not reinvest in the USA. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Bill Gates may be the wealthiest man in the world. But didn’t much of the income he earned come from manufacturing overseas while US workers manufacturing pay as remained reality flat since the late 1970s-mid 1980’s?
The reason why Ohio has been known as the rust belt for many years was Progressive rule. No incentives for employers to expand and hire and a heavy tax burden. American workers are the most productive in the world with the right leadership and economic incentives. Progressivism has never worked and will never work because it is anti-business and only creates dependence and despair. I hope Kasich will wake up someday soon.
For all the naysayers on what this tax bill is doing and the fear of what corporations will do in response to the tax cuts, AT&T, no small company announced today that they will be paying a $1,000 bonus to 200,000 employees because of the tax cut and will also be spending $1 billion on capital building and improvements. So much for them just padding the executives income. Progressive, you need to get on board and stop whining.
DNC’s, sunlight is the best disinfectant as we are seeing currently. The nasty Progressive Democrats are painting themselves into a corner and it will all come out with patience.
Ohio, I am afraid you are talking like a Libertarian. Libertarians are ok to a point until they get weird. Rand Paul had some good ideas here and there, but he couldn’t get any real traction during the primaries. He also should enroll in some self defense classes so his neighbor won’t beat him up.
First Harding, then Reagan, then Dubya, now i45…buckle up, folks! A crash and reckoning are coming. Secure your retirements now because sooner than later this artificial bubble being created will burst and we’ll all be back in the 1930’s, 1987, or 2008 again. Who knows, maybe even worse. Oh, and that’s not rain falling on your head, middle class. It’s tinkle-down.
Agent, I know it’s really hard for you, but please stop with the personal insults and attacks. Some lessons you simply don’t learn, do you? Does it make you feel big when you put someone down? Making others look bad does not make you look good.
I believe in the Captialism model we had before Reagan destroyed it.
Right, Planet. We know you believed in the Jimmy Carter model which was so bad, we had double digit inflation, high taxes and no growth. His wonderful response to the energy crisis of the day was to turn the thermostat down and put on a sweater. He was finally relieved to know that he was replaced by Obama as the worst President in the history of this great country.
If you do not like the source and/or methodology, provide your own list based on facts, not opinions.
December 21, 2017 at 9:01 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Ron,
I don’t think your facts will get in the way of his beliefs and the Faux Newz narrative. We all know Presidents Carter and Obama are nowhere near the worst we have had. This list supports that notion. It also shows us Nixon and Dubya are closer to the bottom than are those Hannity and El Rushbo degrade all the time.
December 21, 2017 at 1:48 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Ah hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
“If you do not like the source and/or methodology, provide your own list based on facts, not opinions.”
So your methodology is valid so long as he doesn’t retort your historians methodology?
You just provided an opinion, you whiny kid!
And as for by the facts: People in Agent’s age group LIVED during Carter. They know how hard it was to live, and in the modern age, it was far worse than any other. I will go here to say that Agent is wrong Obama made life harder for the middle class than carter. When considering how families were taxed etc, my dad did remember it very well when he was alive, and he basically said no one tops this guy. No one. The gas rationing, he remembered that. The very little disposable income, he remembered that. I will say that Obama set things up to be terrible with jobs, but he didn’t also tax the hell out of the middle class like we did back in Carter’s era. He just taxed them fairly high, by not expanding the child tax credit.
If we go by metrics, the inflation and high tax rates during Carter are easily the biggest reasons why he was worse than Obama.
However, he’s not the worst president.
If we go by structures set up that cannot succeed, terrible over reach by the government, setting up EO’s as standard procedure for presidents: FDR wins the worst, and it is not even remotely a competition. His “depression” which history seems to have rewritten to say HAD to last like 10 years and FDR fixed, was a failure of his to recover. He failed. The depression was terrible, it lasted too long, he made Japanese imprisonment camps, had food destroyed when many were going hungry because he thought increasing it’s cost would help the economy (bull crap, it was obviously because he wanted a reliant middle class voting for him) he took control of media in totally new ways, he issued orders as president which he made possible for the first time that are dangerous, he set up programs that massively taxed even the middle class, and removed the chances we had of making a private method to retirement, but worked back then because of the average life expectancy (so didn’t forward think, and made an unsustainable program) there is no worse president than him, and yet your historians glorify him.
Also, if you want to see why not to trust academics on the matter, well, here’s why:
They are notoriously corrupt, notoriously support liberals, and are notoriously totalitarian, though you somehow missed that.
In this clip they explain due to bill c 16 laws (which liberals are trying to get here, which is why you need to STOP fearing Trump and be worried about what they will do when liberals beat Trump)
That this girl by proxy of presenting another opinion, opened up transgender students to violence. They then say what if someone who believed we should have white people here and reject other nationalities (they mean Muslim immigrants) would you present them? And what they mean here, is discussing how the religion of Islam is a danger to Western Society when weighing immigration. That is even more dangerous. The colleges are trying to end debate on reason for snowflake ideals, and even told her that classes are not for open debate, they told her essentially that teachers determine what is good, not students, and students are to follow. THIS Ron is what leads to Hitler type rule. When you indoctrinate the youth and tell them only one way is the right way, through the government, this is not the same thing as an individual through religion as I’m sure your ignorant mind twists it. Those people aren’t a threat. These people are.
This sounds off topic, but forgive me for not trusting your academic sources, who lean liberal as shown in multiple studies, and, who as we can see from ANTIFA explosions in graduates, have created a militant group, and thus must be militant themselves. This is not deniable. ANTIFA includes college professors Ron! If even ONE dean, supported by a group was revealed to be a true KKK person, integrating those ideals into college, you would question the ENTIRE school. Why do you not do this same thing every time ANTIFA is shown to be controlling multiple school systems? They are just not a threat eh? Nothing to worry about here! Just look at Trump and those hypocrite republicans!
You are beyond foolish. Look at what is occurring.
December 21, 2017 at 10:21 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
While it is great that AT&T and Wells Fargo are taking better care of their employees, I cannot help but find it interesting that they are both looking for favor from the DOJ.
Besides, increasing the minimum wage is not new for Wells Fargo. They did this twice before within the past 20 months. I believe they were probably going to do this anyway, but why not give President Trump credit to gain favor from the executive branch while under investigation?
It also looks like they are just catching up to their competitors.
Listen – it’s great they’re giving money to their employees and not stockholders, and I applaud them for that, but their employees already expected this to happen based on a prior agreement irrespective of the tax code.
Take it one step further and put aside the tax change piece for a second:
looking at last years’ numbers … AT&T made $4,000,000,000 in PROFITS last year LESS $200,000,000 for these bonuses = $3,800,000,000 in PROFITS based on last year’s numbers. Not exactly hurting for money, are they? I think they can stand to give away 5% of their profits to their employees and not feel any impact.
I’m sure there are companies who will give back to their employees solely because of the tax code change, and that’s great, and I hope that happens WAY more often than companies giving the funds to their stockholders.
Hilarious, Rosenblatt. Investors and companies have been excited ever since Trump was elected for the prospects of tax and regulation reform. They weren’t so excited to visit with Obama in the last years of his regime. Wonder why that was.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with companies giving bonuses to employees and paying dividends on their stock for the investors that buy stock. That is called the American Capitalist system. The employees are also going to be grateful to see larger checks soon and they have President Trump to thank for it.
” Investors and companies have been excited ever since Trump was elected for the prospects of tax and regulation reform.” Of course they were. They knew he would push to give them our money unconditionally.
“By the way, there is nothing wrong with companies giving bonuses to employees and paying dividends on their stock for the investors that buy stock.” You are absolutely correct. But that is not our objection. The objection id the taking on additional debt with no guarantee they will use the money to hire and/or increase wages. Some may, but I would bet anything that it will be less than 50%. Most will use the additional money to pump up stock prices.
You do not need to believe us for that to be true. Let’s see how this plays out.
Not surprisingly, you totally missed my point Agent. I’d state it again, but you’d just attack me, label me a word parser and make an argument that’s not actually about the point I’ve raised. So with that said, Merry Christmas and good day, sir.
Which means you view someone challenging you as a reason not to comment back, but you comment back all the time when you can prove him wrong.
There is no reason to end a common sense debate. With that, no Merry Christmas to your fake Merry Christmas, and forget you.
You’re not superior to Agent.
December 21, 2017 at 2:17 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Not surprisingly, you missed my point entirely and chose to spin left as usual.
How about you answering my question about why corporations were avoiding Obama like the plague because they knew they were getting taxed so heavily and had to deal with thousands of new regulations from several departments with the worst being the EPA. Why were they parking all that money offshore? Can you give me some more spin? Please do. Ready, set, go.
December 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
He did Agent. His answer and Ron’s was essentially of course the big bad corporations want to avoid taxes and harm the middle class.
They aren’t connecting the dots. They need you to do it for them, that’s why I said oh boo hoo, we lose $650 billion in government revenues, over ten years, and as a result we have an additional $5 trillion in the economy (by the way, that assumes extremely low growth as a result, if I recall, the link I gave was an average of .3% per year)
In the name of getting those corporations to pay their fair share, let’s destroy the ability for economic provision. That’s what happens, and they truly believe it doesn’t. They won’t answer my $5 trillion question because the answer is they think:
Bull crap. They think that won’t happen.
They think the rich will rob the poor (with no evidence, since we have not done this in modern history all at once as Trump is doing it, not even Reagan got the corporate tax rate cut) and the world will end.
Well, let’s find out. You seem to believe we survived Reagan and Obama’s spending, it’s time to watch and see.
December 21, 2017 at 3:10 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“How about you answering my question about why corporations were avoiding Obama…because…they were getting taxed so heavily and had to deal with thousands of new regulations…”
You already seem to have your answer, so I don’t need to reply.
December 21, 2017 at 1:59 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
An agreement announced last week, which was as a result of this tax plan. In my link it specifically says as a result of they decided to go ahead with it.
“I’m sure there are companies who will give back to their employees solely because of the tax code change, and that’s great, and I hope that happens WAY more often than companies giving the funds to their stockholders.”
Even if it was the majority we would still benefit. As per my other link the economy will by $5 trillion larger. Let’s say the wealthy get half, the poor get 2.5 trillion, and the government loses $650 billion, making the poor still about 1.9 trillion ahead.
You’re missing the point, I’m using these examples to show it is already beginning to happen, while you two nitwits try to shrug it off and find ways to do that (would never happen if the same announcement were made as a result of an Obama deal, and you two nitwits did the same with the Dell deals, and the Carrier deals). Also: Yes. Corporations have been preparing for Trump’s tax plan since he was inaugurated. I also have previously shown this. It is entirely possible that the raises since Trump won were to get that tax plan, and if I were a corporation I would do that. However, the middle class still benefit. When corporations want money they will do anything to get it, including increase wages.
I will ask you directly what I asked Ron: What is better, $5 trillion of economic expansion or $650 billion of government revenues?
And for that matter that means in 20 years it is 10 trillion more vs 1.3 trillion for the government.
Think long term. The rich are pretty good at creating capital and GDP is seems.
Would you rather the middle class try to get a piece of that $10 trillion pie competing to assist in creating it, or, compete to receive 1.3 trillion.
See, what you don’t realize is it’s precisely the skilled hard workers who fall out in that scenario. They will be needed to expand the economy like that. The 1.3 trillion receivers won’t. So basically the $60,000 – $120,000 income range as a family. This is why my income range has to be taxed. I wouldn’t need to be if there were others like me, and again, my taxes are coming down $8,000. So you need my $8,000 eh? With economic expansion we wouldn’t.
Choose: $10 trillion or government expansion of 1.3 trillion.
Just a moment ago each of these posts had likes that were not my own.
I have noticed this, now they have none. This means the likes are being removed.
I’ve noticed it’s typically when either agent or polar are around, so I’m taking a guess that these conservatives, or one that supports me, is being removed from the liking process, and I believe it’s you directly doing it (not automatic, as in manual).
I don’t want to have to take screen shots of before and after but I will.
I’m calling you out publicly on this matter, and I’ll have to I guess screen shot that too.
I do have one suspicion of how it could be your honest mistake. There is a possibility there are people from my firm liking my posts here, and they don’t realize it as they don’t know it is me (I do not talk about my posts here, and we don’t communicate about Insurance Journal). If that is the case, we are on the same network, and perhaps you are targeting my IP.
I assure you, I do not like my own posts. I never have. I never dislike alternate posts either. So if that’s the case you’re innocent, but stop removing my likes. It’s not ok.
December 21, 2017 at 3:07 pm
Andrew G. Simpson says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
FYI: Nobody at Insurance Journal likes, unlikes or removes likes of any posts.
December 25, 2017 at 12:19 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
I see you felt the need to defend yourself. Curious, and it makes me doubt you, oddly enough, as I know behavior well.
However, if I was wrong about that, you left something absent in that post Andrew, and that makes me doubt what you said.
No one from the staff, removes likes. What did you curiously leave absent?
The like was removed. So then it was automated removal? Why wouldn’t you simply say that, Andrew?
Perhaps because protecting yourself seemed more appropriate.
I will reiterate: I will start screen shotting, a few posts above had likes earlier on in that day, and then had zero, and I have noticed it happen several times.
So either you’re not aware it is happening, or it is automated, or you just lied here, and I’m only posting this as precaution to the last item. I will prove it. I don’t want to, but I will. It’s just not worth my time to screen shot every post.
So let’s fix that issue, whether it is automated or someone in your office. I don’t just say things like this when it isn’t happening, unlike others here.
December 21, 2017 at 2:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
In other words:
We are at about $20 trillion right now. In 20 years this is half the current economy. That is not small. If incomes per capita go up in line, you have a huge income increase for the middle class squandered to get minimal government revenues.
You guys have small minds, you are clueless as to how this works and why true conservatives are conservative.
Hey Andrew, I have noticed the same thing with Polar and my posts. You are still allowing leftists to hide comments by multiple dislikes by using multiple monikers and likes seem to disappear. Thought you had that problem solved some weeks ago by not allowing likes or dislikes to be shown.
December 21, 2017 at 4:07 pm
alexjonesisakook says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
NOBODY is using multiple monikers other than your pal Yogi (or whatever iteration he’s currently using), and there are NO BOTs downvoting conservative voices. This is getting into conspiracy theory territory.
December 21, 2017 at 2:35 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Also: No they weren’t, and only due to reading liberal spin do you believe this.
WAPO is desperately trying to say what won’t happen, but even their own list admits ATT alone will create 6,000 jobs.
“AT&T is committed to invest an additional $1 billion in the United States in 2018 if a tax bill with a permanent corporate tax rate of 21 percent is signed into law. Every $1 billion in capital invested in the telecom industry domestically creates about 7,000 U.S. jobs, research shows.””
I mean really they even highlighted the wrong part of Apple’s quote, because they are claiming that Trump’s tax plan will make more revenues go over seas (bull crap) and they ignored the ending part, let’s get it done now, and that tax reform is sorely needed. When he said it was sorely needed he meant no one would bring back revenues for a high rate here, it was insane. Clearly, when he said get it done, he meant pull down the rate, but WAPO highlighted one part that makes it appear a totally different way. The liberal spin that is pervasive out there is precisely why you two are idiots. You’ve got to stop falling for this. Then they separeated the part and made it a few lines, and DECREAESED THE FONT SIZE STATING (WHICH WAS INTENTIONAL I WONDER WHAT THE INTENT WAS GUYS? FAKE NEWS):
“When asked by NBC’s Lester Holt whether he expected Apple to use residuals to add more jobs, Cook said:
“Yeah, I do.”
““I believe that tax reform is sorely needed in this country. . . . The biggest issue with corporations is that if you earn money outside the United States, which most companies increasingly will . . . the only way you can bring it into the U.S. and invest is if you pay 40 percent [tax]. This is kind of a crazy thing to do, so what do people do? They don’t bring it to the United States. . . . In my view, it should have been fixed years ago, but let’s get it done now.” ”
Then Exxon, which they twist the wrong words too, they highlighted dividends and investments, as if to say look! Shareholder benefits! But I will break this down, they are looking to pay down DEBT and then have alternate options. If they have alternated options, it will only be due to lower taxes, ergo, lower taxes will lead to better outcomes long term:
“The first things that are being funded are our dividends and our investment program. And if there’s any cash left at that point given that the corporation does not want to hold large cash reserves, it’s at that point that we will look for what the next best thing is. And maybe if we have some debt maturing, we’ll pay that debt down.”
I guess alternatively we should allow them to pay down their debt slowly, that’s the sign of a healthy business environment.
I’ve already shown they are highlighting with an agenda, I don’t need to go over the rest, and you guys fall for this! Unbelievable given my knowledge level which surely by now you two realize is far beyond any typical conservative.
Bob – I will not respond to your shotgun arguments since responding to just a few will (1) cause me to write multiple posts which will obfuscate from the actual thing I said that started you on your rants and (2) you will blow a gasket and focus on the questions I didn’t answer as proof I’m ignoring what you’re saying.
I know both to be true as they’ve happened numerous times when we’ve exchanged words.
Now, if you would like to try and limit yourself to a few points to start, instead of dozens of arguments all at once, I will be glad to respond to you then.
I’ve asked you many times and will continue to ask for your respect on this simple point — please just take what I say at face value and stop telling me what I “REALLY” meant when I post things.
I’ve wished Agent a Merry Christmas in other threads and meant it each time, so just take it as I wrote it…with no sarcasm or ill will.
“Bob – I will not respond to your shotgun arguments since responding to just a few will (1) cause me to write multiple posts which will obfuscate from the actual thing I said that started you on your rants and (2) you will blow a gasket and focus on the questions I didn’t answer as proof I’m ignoring what you’re saying”
Incorrect. I don’t have time for this. You are complicating things by predicting my actions, which when I do to others you call inappropriate.
“Now, if you would like to try and limit yourself to a few points to start, instead of dozens of arguments all at once, I will be glad to respond to you then.”
That one post was one argument. Not dozens. I sometimes insert more, and then I pull back. It dealt with whether jobs were being created or not because of the corporate tax reduction.
“I’ve asked you many times and will continue to ask for your respect on this simple point — please just take what I say at face value and stop telling me what I “REALLY” meant when I post things. ”
What specifically in this post, which is in regards to my prior? I doubt you even know, because of this:
“I’ve wished Agent a Merry Christmas in other threads and meant it each time, so just take it as I wrote it…with no sarcasm or ill will.”
That’s not related to my above post. So you just did what you said I do, which you said I shouldn’t do and you will only reply if I don’t, but you just did! Shotgun I guess, when I do it, and something that should be taken seriously with you? Perhaps you should take what I say at face value. You clearly haven’t, I don’t have time to point out your talking point ignorance.
It’s not worth it.
December 28, 2017 at 5:40 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Merry Christmas from an Atheist is sarcastic and insulting.
December 21, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Bob, it is interesting that you are on the left coast and Rosenblatt is on the East(left) coast and there is a wide chasm in opinions as well as territory. Me, I am in the fly over middle who knows right from wrong.
Of course he is not going to answer you since he has already lost the argument. Progressives speak a different language and they are so invested with liberal language, they really are mixed up. By the way, there are two important dates of recent history we need to keep in mind. The first one is 11-8-16 and the other is 12-20-17. Those dates highlight the beginning of the recovery of this country from terrible leadership of Progressive Democrats.
I said I’d respond to Bob if he could limit his shotgun arguments to a few points to start and I am a man of my word.
December 21, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Rosenblatt, I thought you were a smart guy. Can’t respond to a 5 or more paragraph assault by Bob. Yes, he does drone on a bit long on some, but you would be wise to not get into it with him. Ron gave up some time ago after being basically destroyed by the logic he was facing.
December 22, 2017 at 9:55 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Agent – unless you’re going to contribute something to the debate, it would be great if you could not post with the sole intent of trying to stir up trouble.
December 25, 2017 at 12:28 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“I said I’d respond to Bob if he could limit his shotgun arguments to a few points to start and I am a man of my word.”
No, you’re a man about manipulating what you will reply to. You and Ron do it a lot.
I’m on to it, and I know what type of sleazy guys you are.
With me a Merry Christmas for you, if you want. But I’m smart enough to know most of what you say is for your image, nothing more.
You just did what you said you would respond to me if I didn’t do it.
That post was not shotgun. It was several examples of the same thing, to disprove another aspect of what you said I didn’t prove.
I ended up replying in several different posts to several things you said, and accused me of, in short ignorant comments, and to shorten this a lot the main one was this:
You said from my own link it proved it was a previously announced change, as if my own link proved they were already planning on it, yes, it was announced, the prior week, that it would go in affect only if the Trump tax cut went into play. You didn’t do your research and tried to make me look a fool.
That was a mistake Rosenblatt, and are you man enough to admit that comment was wrong? You were.
And agent is right, when people have debated me here they have been thoroughly been brought to task.
December 22, 2017 at 2:57 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just checked – you’re right, the 1st Amendment is still in play. In hindsight, I probably should have respected your rights and said “it would be great if you could not post with the sole intent of trying to stir up trouble” instead of demanding you stop posting and trying to stifle your free-speech rights. Sorry, not sorry.
Bob, it was interesting that even the Communist from Vermont, the very old Bernie admitting that 91% of the Middle Class would benefit from the tax cuts. Then, he complained that it should be permanent. Hey, let the economy take off and the country do well and there is not a politician in the country that would vote to take the cuts back. They would be tarred and feathered and rode out of town on a rail.
I wonder if Majority Leader McConnell with extend the same courtesy he requested, and received in 2010, to delay the vote until an elected Senator is seated to replace an appointed Senator.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/13/democrats-want-senate-republicans-to-wait-for-doug-jones-to-vote-on-the-tax-bill-good-luck-with-that/?utm_term=.7aa9c6d185ef
I had wondered the same thing, Ron. And you know, if roles were reversed, Sean, The Pill Popper, and all the minions would be screaming their lungs out and popping forehead veins. Instead, they will do what they do best and suppress the vote. Doug doesn’t stand a chance.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Kids, this is your brain after listening to a brain addicted to opiates. Any questions?
Yes. Who are you talking about?
Can you stay on topic? The answer to my question, if you have enough courage to reply, will be sent to IJ. If you fail to reply, we will assume you cannot stay on topic.
Suppress the vote. That’s a good one.
Its called Hard Ball, boys. You’re just not used to the GOP executing the tactic as well as the Dems always do.
How can you say, “You’re just not used to the GOP executing the tactic as well as the Dems always do.” when they waited for Senator Brown to be seated prior to voting for the PPACA in the Senate?
And did it work for the republicans? No. The republicans aren’t as good at these games, as evident by Trump’s approval rating, and the media turning his tax plan into the antichrist even though it contains provisions that the public approves of. There are even links showing just that, go look them up, that the approval jumps to above 50% when they line item go over the provisions. The rhetoric about corporate taxes is what riles them up.
As for the PPACA, it should have been stopped by any means necessary. Engaging in tax cuts is entirely fair and different than engaging in a new entitlement program, one that forces people to buy insurance, and is obviously not doing it’s job.
Let’s do some history regarding the corporate tax rate and democrats, shall we?
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/21/bill-clinton-supports-lower-corporate-tax-rate-says-reasoning-for-tpp-clear.html
Bill Clinton:
“I was the president who urged it to be raised to 35 percent, but when I did it, it was precisely in the middle of OECD countries. It isn’t anymore,” ”
By the way, this is important to weigh when seeing if we are bleeding jobs due to a high corporate tax rate. Yes, rates have been higher, and lower, and we have done fine. When we were in the middle of the OECD rate. What is the rate now? (And effective doesn’t matter, corporations leave the country for lower rates, ergo a lower effective. It is better for them to pay the effective rate they do now with lower rates and bring back business) 25%, with many countries in Europe now having an 18% corporate tax rate. Again, the effective rate here doesn’t matter for what is brought in, what matters is how much are being kept out from higher actual rates.
Obama suggested 25% Trump is at 21%. Oooo. Oh my God.
We now have a marginal top rate of 37% suggested. A 2.6% difference. Ooo, deep cuts.
This is sheer ignorance.
Do you know how much it cuts my taxes?
It’s better than I thought, not just for me, but increasing the LPR, and that should be the goal.
I can now remove daycare from my AGI. Do you have any idea how useful this is for working women? Or rather, getting women back into the workforce? They are dramatically under represented by comparison to men during their child rearing years. You are simply wrong that we cannot get more women to work.
That removal from AGI as well as the child tax credits firmly places my taxes at $0 with her working. That’s an $8,000 dollar swing. She will then contribute to social security and Medicare taxes, and she will contribute to society.
Right now, before that passing, my typical year is almost $9k in taxes in taxes without her working and that’s even if I reduce my AGI with 401k contributions, which by the way, keeps money out of the market. This is what many dual earners do in order to get their wife back into the market, but not many can afford to throw $20k into a 401k if they have 3 kids. With my wife working and adding her income I will have to throw some at a 401k, but not nearly as much due to the child care being removed from the taxable income.
This will have a huge affect on the ability of women to work. Using the repatriation tax while lowering taxes is genius. It makes him able to do a large cut now and then have an offset until businesses do better and the LPR comes up.
You say that things haven’t worked in the past, this hasn’t been done in the past. There were always holes. With Reagan it was the corporate tax rate, forcing businesses to file under marginal rates. With Bill our corporate rate was too high, but the child taxes were expanded a good deal. Bush did a little more, but not enough in line with inflation, and Obama actually did the least to expand those credits in line with inflation. So we have had middle class suffering, corporations bleeding jobs, etc, and have never had a good fix like this. This is a great tax plan, and, making it temporary means he can do larger cuts for the other side, democrats will surely pass the other cuts again.
Trump is clever, I’m liking this guy more and more.
Now I want to see this done. Count my wife as one addition to the LPR next year.
Thanks bob! I doubt any of the opponents of the Tax Reform Act of 2017 would have read that on liberal websites. Clinton’s comment is on the net, but only brought up on liberal websites by discussion board participants who may be Independent, Conservative, or Libertarian.
Included in definition of a troll is this example:
“…uses online comment board to distract the discussion from a subject by introducing a meaningless example that is irrelevant to the main point being discussed, and does so multiple times, creating turmoil and wasting the time of those who reply to refute details and comments in the troll post.”
– abstracted from The Smarter Than Average Polar Bear Internet Dictionary.
“Thanks bob! I doubt any of the opponents of the Tax Reform Act of 2017 would have read that on liberal websites. Clinton’s comment is on the net, but only brought up on liberal websites by discussion board participants who may be Independent, Conservative, or Libertarian.”
I not only keep up to date on these matters, I profile them in my mind.
It’s why I get so dumbfounded when Ron profiles only one end, and it is so clearly in favor of democrats and against republicans, and yet calls everyone else a lemming.
My first reaction to Trump’s running was negative. My first reaction to his new tax plan was negative, then I changed my mind. My view point on Syria is still that he played fast and loose, and many of my more libertarian friends still believe that by the way. We don’t run the Trump line hook and sinker, and I’m getting fed up with hearing that (it’s a basic means of shaming people into his belief system).
My point here is that I hear Ron call people lemmings on the right, but it is so blatantly clear there are minimal lemmings on the right and that there is far too powerful of an indoctrination left unchecked on the left.
Example and case in point:
Remember that scalping?
Well…
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/12/14/chicago-judge-gives-200-hours-community-service-to-woman-who-pleads-guilty-in-hate-crime
Not only did the left refuse to acknowledge that their insanity of calling out white supremacy where there was none as well as calling everyone shadowy new KKK neo Nazis was causing extreme events unlike any before, and refused to halt that I might add, the person who did it we are only thinking about what is good for the perpetrator apparently. Jail would do nothing for her, and he wants to rehabilitate her, not punish her after all.
Until the left starts to actually have consequence for their bull crap, we are going to see more ANTIFA, more violence, etc, yet Ron claims the right is the one absent in that process. They don’t hold standards. They are lemmings.
Yeah, just forget everything happening on college campuses which is barely being reported regarding the Fake News, and yes, they are fake news.
All good points, bob! That was an enlightening summary of the tactics of “independent” Ron and other liberals using attacks on opponents to try to discredit or blame them. I see eye to eye with many, but not all of Trump’s policies. The twittering / texting needs to continue, but tempered and thought out for specific wording that may be misconstrued or twisted by opponents.
I would love to see Ron show he has done something like this, and is this consistent, as what I am about to.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/11/13/470943.htm/?comments
I have been consistent on this, and I have parameters. What did I say before and what have I said now? I have said again and again some type of a day care for all program. That is somewhat in effect now. Subtracting day care costs from AGI is a huge deal. This will increase the LPR. I was even willing to engage in spending to do this. But I’m a lemming, a typical righty whitey tighty right Ron? RIGHT? I am still ticked off at you, you tell me that my beliefs are completely conservative again why don’t you, and compare me to Agent why don’t you? I have had it with your side, they do this far too much. Back on topic:
Most importantly I said what would make me give this plan a thumbs up, and now that has occurred.
So for you Ron:
What would a good tax plan look like?
How would it encourage work?
What cut offs would you put in for spending to make sure that it was better for someone in the middle class to work than to receive the ability to live from the government?
How would you use the LPR and tax credits to get women to work? Or would you instead support spending for day care for all? Have you ever even thought about it like this?
What corporate tax rate would restrict business? How? Why?
What have you said was bad with Trump, and then changed your mind at second glance? How? Why?
I’m a lemming apparently though. For saying the plan was decent and not great naming why, and changing my mind when those parameters changed, and you, are not, because well, Raygun! Bush W! Obama! They are all the same! They are all bad! And you the great balancer say they are.
It’s basically self worship Ron. When you do it, it’s for different reasons, and by different methods than when I do. When I hold someone responsible or change my mind, or if I don’t, it’s because of logic and how things are. When you do it, it’s typically because of how things SHOULD be, if things were equal and fair.
“That remains to be seen. I see a decent tax plan, not a great one. While some of this has to do with the fact that they will not get support from democrats and do not have enough of a majority, I still have to be honest about the plan.
Really it needs more. More child tax credits or a daycare for all plan passed with it. One way or another, we need to get the LPR rate up for women. (side note, look at that, a conservative advocating for women, it apparently doesn’t happen *sarcasm*).”
As Barack Obama so famously stated, elections have consequences. You lost. The Republicans control both houses. They get to set the rules. Get used to it. The Dems did the same when Harry Reid led the Senate. Deal with it.
Dave, Progressive Democrats would rather whine about it. Their agenda is toast now and they can’t stand it.
@bob; I agree with bob your posts after Agent’s.
However, currently, Dems are nearly all Socialists, and they have no intention whatsoever in non-partisanship acts to help achieve goals for US citizens. THAT is why current sentiment among Republicans/ Conservatives/ Libertarians is against the Dems having any say that will long-overdue progress. Dems SHOULD voice their opposition, but need to respect the rights of Republicans in charge per the Will of the People, and drop their ‘smarter than everyone else’ attitude (which contributed to putting them out of power).
More egregious are lies by Dems intending to block progress, such as tax reform. That should not be censored, but it should not be allowed to go unchallenged, nor should objections to such lies be blocked by liberals.
that will delay long overdue progress. bear culpa.
“@bob; I agree with bob your posts after Agent’s.
However, currently, Dems are nearly all Socialists, and they have no intention whatsoever in non-partisanship acts to help achieve goals for US citizens.”
I agree with this, and emphasize “currently” and also that some republicans are not good.
“THAT is why current sentiment among Republicans/ Conservatives/ Libertarians is against the Dems having any say that will long-overdue progress.”
I understand this, and your last sentence makes it acceptable. The reason being: You mean to say you’re against democrats blocking republicans. Just say that. Throwing that line of we are in charge deal with it, is dangerous though. You should say: Look, what we want is good, just stop blocking this agenda. That limits it to now and not further debates later on, which they will then throw at you.
“Dems SHOULD voice their opposition, but need to respect the rights of Republicans in charge per the Will of the People, and drop their ‘smarter than everyone else’ attitude (which contributed to putting them out of power).”
I figured you probably meant this and I agree.
“More egregious are lies by Dems intending to block progress, such as tax reform.”
Oh I so agree with this one. I have been railing on Ron on this very issue.
“That should not be censored, but it should not be allowed to go unchallenged, nor should objections to such lies be blocked by liberals.”
Agreed.
@bob; again, I agree, and will take your advice on more carefully wording of my posts. You saw some of my brief posts, with some errors / typos corrected… not so much due to ADHD as it is multi-tasking/ distractions early in the morning and at the end of the day; e.g. I omitted ‘delay’ before ‘progress’, then had to correct the post.
You’re amazing DNC. This is what I like about conservatives. They do this much more often when criticized. I probably went too far in my criticism but you still stomached it and sought self improvement.
Color me impressed. Also, don’t worry about it too much. My posts are quite poorly worded at times as well, especially when I’m ticked off by these liberal tactics. I need checks all the time too.
This is a dangerous statement.
Yes, elections bring change, but that doesn’t meant the other side should just disappear. If you run this risk, you run the risk of empowering republican corruption, or allowing any corruption in the field to take hold.
“They get to set the rules. Get used to it. The Dems did the same when Harry Reid led the Senate. Deal with it.”
This statement will lead to the mindset of shutting out good ideas and accepting any idea someone does because it is the same thing. I’m going to have to say this is why Ron doesn’t listen, he thinks this happens. Don’t give his argument credence.
You’re right, if you’re on the right side of the issue it works, and then when someone gets in on the wrong side, what happens?
Just deal with it?
I agree with everything else you said. I want the same things as you.
However, I will give no party the type of power as above simply because deal with it as a logic behind it.
It’s a bad idea.
Bob, I hate to tell you this, but the party of Truman and Kennedy no longer exist. It was hijacked by the Progressive Socialist Democratic Party many years ago and the Blue Dogs who used to be part of the party were trounced when they voted for Obamacare after being intimidated, threatened by party leaders like Pelosi-Galore and Chucky Schmucky. Now, all we have left are the nasty Progressive Socialists who only hate and offer nothing good for the country. Thank goodness we have a strong President who stood up to them and the corrupt media and won a great victory.
@Agent; I think you’re getting too riled up by the bitterness / rhetoric of Pelosi and Schumer, and wasting time on them. They’re less relevant now that Republicans hold Congress and The White House. But they should be allowed to continue to shoot themselves in the foot with unsubstantiated objections.
Dave, Despite the conniving of the FBI and them saying they needed an “insurance policy” if Trump won, it is all backfiring on them and several have been caught and will soon be gone. They accidentally drained the swamp which was them. Sure he is rough on them, but he is winning over the American People gradually. Even Republican leaders who have been RINO’s and critical of him for a year are now praising his leadership in the Tax bill. Maybe they will now get in line and realize he is right and do something to help.
Re-posted:
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Behavior has consequences; e.g. Nan & Chuck ditched the meeting with Trump almost 2 weeks ago, before the AL election…. they should have considered the consequences, not that it would have mattered.
Your vermin leaders have stuck their feet in their mouths, again.
Meanwhile, Republican Congressmen and Trump are MAGA.
Reply
How about this for a thought? Every single Democrat voted against Tax Reform and putting more money into the pockets of hard working Americans. This is a party of fear and loathing of our great President and have nothing at all to offer. No wonder they have lost most of the states legislatures and governorships and managed to lose the White House to a businessman who knows what is right for this country.
DNC, the fake news media and polls say this Tax Reform package is unpopular with the people and Trump has not gotten a bump in popularity. Wonder if they will poll again after people start seeing bigger pay checks.
Trump said he was surprised that the bill seemed to spur corporations to offer pay raises and bonuses. That was an unintended consequence which is great. Merry Christmas American People. You have the right guy in office.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Annnnd there’s the hypocrisy.
Learned so well from the Democrats. Again, deal with it. You lost!
Good one Dave. You hit the nail on the head.
Il politics Ron. Get used to it as it seems to be the norm now and the folks cant seem to break the cycle.
As much as you want to fight the Tax Reform through desperate tactics, such as claiming hypocrisy on the right – due to a meaningless vote by Brown, you need to think through the long run implications of going on the record as opposed to tax cuts (“for the rich”). If/ When the US economy begins to thrive to a greater degree than it currently is, what will you use to defend your position? What will you say regarding the repatriation of capital from foreign sources, and investments in new ventures as a result?
Finally, two Republican holdouts are on board with TRA-17;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/18/collins-lee-to-vote-in-favor-gop-tax-bill.html
I am not fighting tax reform. Just pointing out the fact that it will most likely lead to increasing the debt. If you are OK with that, just say so.
Would the vote by Jones also not be meaningless since the Republicans will still hold the majority?
“Just pointing out the fact that it will most likely lead to increasing the debt”
And again you only look at one angle. I get $64,000 over 8 years of this, and I am by no means wealthy.
That is fair. If our spending is so out of control that you believe we should look at the debt first, and my shrinking income second (and by extension the middle classes ability to get into higher income thresholds, unimpeded by higher taxes putting them down a huge peg) then maybe you need to just admit you’re ok with taking the middle class and hosing them with taxes so long as the debt doesn’t go up.
The debt right now isn’t as much of a concern to me as incomes and survivability of the economy. When we get that chugging, we can figure out how much spending we can afford. The primary goal should be to get the economy going first, so we don’t need to spend as much to begin with. You assume that because taxes go down the debt must go up. This is not true.
Then when you argue what must be cut you act like the poor MUST be harmed. No, if they have the means to then provide for themselves, the remaining money to spend would be directed to those who need it, and if more people enter the workforce, there will be MORE money for those who truly need it at that point WITH spending reductions. As in no harm done.
This is what you leave out, as well as your liberal allies, and it is why conservatives call you “elitists” and it is why when you then call business republicans elitists as a retort, it just makes you look stupid on the matter. There is a meaning to that word that flies over your head.
I really wish I could teach you, but these things require a very good in person leader, like my boss.
I wouldn’t be like this without him, and it’s why I don’t allow mindsets like liberals to take hold shaming him and people like him.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/12/20/handful-companies-promise-bonuses-pay-raises/971199001/
No evidence whatsoever right Ron?
A pay increase of $1.50 per hour, or, $3,000 a year full time in one case, or, 11%.
In others a $1,000 bonus, $1 billion in investments the first year, and $50 billion over the next 5 years.
This is part of why it will increase the GDP by $5 Trillion in 10 years. Do you still want your $600 billion in government revenues?
This is only on the first day.
And I’m sure down the line you will say “Trump shouldn’t get the credit” and “the debt is increasing too fast!”
To justify that tax cuts shouldn’t have been passed.
You’re full of crap.
@Ron: your pipe dream is coming to an abrupt end;
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/15/republicans-to-tweak-child-tax-credit-to-appease-marco-rubio-mike-lee.html
What is my pipe dream? Did I ever predict that this bill would not pass and be signed? You can say that in 3 years if the anticipated growth has lead to a reduction in the debt. If the bill does pass and gets signed, and debt is still increasing in 2020, I would have been proven to be right.
@Ron; spin this one to point to all the negatives of a (near) 4% GDP growth…
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-nyfed/n-y-fed-raises-u-s-fourth-quarter-gdp-growth-view-to-near-4-percent-idUSKBN1E9292?il=0
Excerpted:
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The New York Federal Reserve on Friday raised its estimate of U.S. gross domestic product growth for the fourth quarter of 2017 closer to 4 percent, based on revisions of prior data that suggested stronger economic activities.
I’m sure you can find ways to refute Reuters reporting… I’m confident in your ability to construct a convoluted argument that implies this is a bad thing. Prove me right. Ready, steady, … GO!
PS I’m still not tired of winning. Bored? A little bit, but certainly not tired.
If that happens, and the debt starts decreasing, great. And I will applaud President Trump and the Republicans. If it doesn’t, I will be proven to be right.
Fair enough?
Also, you never answered my question, “What is my pipe dream?”.
Pipe dream; RINOs block tax reform until Jones is seated, and that block continues through RINOs efforts until Dems take control over one or both Chambers of Congress in 2019.
Al, the National Association of Manufacturers were polled about the benefits of Tax Reform. 63% said they will increase capital spending, 57.9% will expand their business which includes hiring. Those are pretty solid numbers and completely debunks the leftists who say it won’t help and the economy would continue to stagnate.
“What is my pipe dream? Did I ever predict that this bill would not pass and be signed? You can say that in 3 years if the anticipated growth has lead to a reduction in the debt. If the bill does pass and gets signed, and debt is still increasing in 2020, I would have been proven to be right.”
I won’t answer the initial question, it isn’t mine to answer, however:
If the bill passes and debt still increases you will be proved right? No, you won’t. You’ve preemptively labeled all possible scenarios so that no matter what you will credit it to Trump, something you say we shouldn’t do. If a recession hits for example and the tax cuts emphasize debt at that time you wouldn’t be proven right. Or, if debt as a percent of GDP stayed flat or only increased minimally you still wouldn’t be proven right (as this is a pretty big tax cut compared to Obama, and Obama’s numbers did not go down, did they?) you’ve already mislead on this before, when for example you mentioned George W’s increased debt as if it was linked to the tax cuts, with very little review on the matter.
If we look at George W Bush we see that the debt to GDP was mostly flat. Even including the Iraq wars which were high cost and tax cuts. It was not until the one year of high spending that our debt went up as a percentage of GDP, and then we can see Obama increased taxes and still didn’t manage to start a trend down. You’ve been proven wrong due to each of the things I just pointed out. Especially when you compare when debt has gone down, as I first asked. Bill Clinton, was he president with anywhere near the tax rates from the 50’s to 70’s, the last time the debt went down long term? No. His tax rates are about half those years, and as a percent of GDP, he has years get to about 20%. This is proof that lower tax rates work.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
You don’t know how to compare and contrast outside of calling republicans hypocrites. Use data, and info, not philosophical reasoning.
bob; thanks again for the thorough treatise on the possibilities. I answered Ron’s question on his pipe dream. It seemed he implied waiting until Jones was seated in the Senate would be the non-hypocritical thing to do. That could only mean the one extra Dem vote in the Senate has meaning over the current Senate composition. But he well knows the rules of the transition process, yet opted to post here about ‘hypocrisy’. His is shameful behavior, if not downright childish, to call people out as hypocrites when the Senate situations are distinctly different.
I offered to credit and applaud President Trump and the Republicans if their projections are correct and I get no credit for that?
I am NOT against tax cuts. However, I believe there should be cuts equal to the cost of the tax cuts. Then we can use the economic growth from the tax cuts to starting chipping away at the debt. I am still waiting for my fellow fiscal conservatives to speak up.
I find it hysterical that Republicans are against spending increases, yet, if you are running deficits and the debt is still increasing, and you have to borrow in order to cut taxes, that is increasing spending. You can spin it any way you want, that fact does not change.
Correction: “…should be cuts in spending equal…”
“I offered to credit and applaud President Trump and the Republicans if their projections are correct and I get no credit for that?”
Just a few days ago you said we shouldn’t credit policies to debt, for presidents, and said both sides are equally guilty.
All sides are guilty and we shouldn’t blame presidents, except for when it is Reagan…And Trump…And George W, but then when Obama comes into it everyone is a hypocrite.
You also have labeled this due to who is president and one small section of the equation. You have not said “I will weigh it at the time to see if it is Trump’s fault” you have essentially said “I will be proven right that debt as a percent of GDP will go up due to these tax cuts”.
I’m very tired of your poor debate skills, which you seem to think everyone here is oblivious to and then mock others here like Polar who tracks you well and lectures you well.
This is also why I cut out recently. Polar is doing well enough of a job and I am tired of it.
However, he has evidently let you squeeze out with these absurd debate tactics and I will have no more of it. You contradict yourself every three seconds in favor of blasting one side of the spectrum, and you just recently told me I give too much credit to presidents when I said this tax plan would be good for the LPR and explained why, in tangible terms. You didn’t debunk my methodology, it was that I was some child giving too much credit to a president, but here you are doing it without metrics of weight.
So yes, you don’t get to say that, and if the debt goes up, you are not proven right solely by that metric.
Deal with it. If you don’t like weighing methodology, and would prefer to just blame a president (contrary to what you say you do) go ahead and do it. But I will call you out.
Ron,
You have also taken part in what has demolished Trump’s approval rating by the by, on petty philosophical arguments of he shouldn’t be president due to the fact that he doesn’t act like one.
Let me ask you this: Assume Trump gets 3-4% growth going, and we start to see that this year, and GDP is finally going well, thus proving the liberal policies don’t work.
Why will he lose? Because of people like you focusing on moral arguments (which is true fascism) to dislodge political policy. Because of people like you, people who have bad policy are given power due to words.
Better quiz question:
A president who talks like Trump, with 5% growth, or a president who talks like Obama with 2.5% growth over 8 years?
Which one should we have and why?
Your attitude problem is the problem on that note.
It’s time to see if these things work. We don’t need an applause, you silly absurd childlike person (this is not Lady GaGa living for the applause). We need you to stop bashing the hell out of Trump, and contradicting yourself when it’s ok to blame him or credit him.
“Just a few days ago you said we shouldn’t credit policies to debt, for presidents, and said both sides are equally guilty.”
My apologies bob for not being more specific. I will give credit and applaud the legislation that President Trump and the Republicans passed. Is that better? We both know that if Democrats held the majority, this legislation would have never seen the light of day for President Trump to sign, no matter how good of deal maker he thinks he is.
“All sides are guilty and we shouldn’t blame presidents, except for when it is Reagan…And Trump…And George W, but then when Obama comes into it everyone is a hypocrite.”
I NEVER blamed any president for what occurred economically during their administrations. Only pointed out the end result. You are the one who needs to place blame. Unlike you, I am intelligent enough to understand the many dynamics involved in what leads to a successful or failed economy.
“So yes, you don’t get to say that, and if the debt goes up, you are not proven right solely by that metric.”
Actually I do because that is my biggest complaint about the legislation. That and giving money to people/corporations that don’t need it and will not use it to help the economy.
“Let me ask you this: Assume Trump gets 3-4% growth going, and we start to see that this year, and GDP is finally going well, thus proving the liberal policies don’t work.
Why will he lose?” If that happens, the increased tax revenue will not pay for the tax cuts and the debt will increase. More importantly, I predict he will lose because Hillary Clinton is not running again which, in my opinion, will reduce the number of people who voted for him by at least 20%, the number of people I believe voted for him SOLELY because they did not want her as POTUS. Finally, many people, especially Independents like me, who were honestly willing to give him a fair chance, have been disenfranchised with his constant appealing to his core base and forgetting the rest of the country. I know you don’t see it that way, but, trust me, it’s true.
“Better quiz question:
A president who talks like Trump, with 5% growth, or a president who talks like Obama with 2.5% growth over 8 years?
Which one should we have and why?” I would first need to know what policies lead, and how they lead directly to the growth. If was reduced regulations that lead to more pollution, less protections for employees, and/or less competition in the marketplace, then I will take the 2.5% knowing there is more to being an American and a good human being than maximizing profit.
“It’s time to see if these things work. We don’t need an applause, you silly absurd childlike person (this is not Lady GaGa living for the applause). We need you to stop bashing the hell out of Trump, and contradicting yourself when it’s ok to blame him or credit him.”
I agree with you, outside of the insult. However, I will not stop holding him accountable for his flaws and expect you to start.
@Ron; you’re all over the place with your ideas, suggestions, predictions, accusations of hypocrisy, etc.
I’m glad it’s only a matter of about 7-8 hours until Paul RINO Ryan loudly and proudly slams down his gavel after reading aloud the final vote tally in the House. After TrumPresident signs the bill into law, you’ll only have about half the current number of things to whine about in regard to tax reform.
IF you want to speculate about increasing the Nat Debt, go ahead…. after you explain how the increased GDP growth of over 3% for 3 consecutive qtrs will not reduce most or all of the currently projected deficit sans such economic growth. Ready, steady, … GO!
@Ron; if you are NOT against tax cuts, and are against debt growth, that implies you are FOR a. spending cuts OR b. greater GDP growth, OR c. both.
For a., spending cuts, you must agree current Federal govt spending is excessive / wasteful, and that must be where spending must be cut. Say so, or deny it.
For b., greater GDP growth will be aided by repatriation of US capital from FOREIGN nations AND/OR from the US FEDERAL GOVT back to US citizens. Do you disagree with the use of EITHER source of newly invested capital? IF you disagree on one, but not the other, you must realize that stance reduces the new capital to invest and grow GDP… increasing the chance of ADDING debt in the future (i.e. not reducing the projected $1.5T debt over 10 years).
As I stated earlier, in case you missed it, I am for targeted tax cuts that are paid for with spending cuts.
I have been saying this for years. When will you get it?
However, if we need to borrow money to give tax breaks to people/corporations who do not NEED it, then you will increase the debt without the requisite return.
I have actually advocated for a one time amnesty on repatriated money, if it is directly spent on increasing jobs and wages. If a corporation is going to use to invest in automation, put it in the bank or give it to its investors, pay the taxes. We need to focus tax policy on creating jobs and increasing wages, no just a give away with our fingers crossed.
To support my position:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/19/investing/tax-plan-jobs-trump-ceo-yale-survey/index.html
Here is another one. Just take some time to read with an open mind and not just disregard due to the source. This guy evens criticizes the 2009 Stimulus.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/02/opinions/gop-tax-plan-brainless-sachs-opinion/index.html
Ron:
https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/
This is what you don’t get. If the GDP was 5 trillion smaller, there would be 5 trillion less to go to jobs and the middle class, in order to get what is supposedly 1.5 trillion in revenues. This is what I explained in my other post, in which I said lost government revenues do not equate to loss for the middle class, however, gains in revenues for the government nearly always reduce availability of economic conditions for the middle class. See below. If we really only lose $500 billion roughly as per below, and gain 5 trillion to the economy, you can give handouts of $500 billion more your route, or allow people to EARN part of $5 trillion. Our goal should not be to focus on temporary debt, however, it should be how much is available for all who participate in the economy, to grow the economy, and raise participation and reward.
Bernie would demolish this for many reasons. I can spell out exactly how and why, with removing people from the workforce, and creating a scenario in which it is better to keep your wife at home, and you will never get ahead. This is the problem with liberal ideas, and is why the ACA is a failure and terrible, and most of Obama’s policies. There is indeed a difference in method here republican to democrat, even though you say they are the same. They are not.
“Over the next decade, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would increase GDP by 2.86 percent over the current baseline forecasts, or an average of 0.29 percent per year. This means an increase of total GDP of approximately $5 trillion over the next decade, well exceeding the revenue lost by the plan.
Impact on Revenue
If fully implemented, the proposal would reduce federal revenue by $1.47 trillion over the next decade on a static basis (Figure 2) using a current law baseline. The plan would reduce individual income tax revenue, excluding the changes for noncorporate business tax filers, by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Tax revenue from the corporate income tax and from taxation of pass-through business income would fall by $617 billion. The remainder of the revenue loss would be due to the doubling of the estate tax exemption, resulting in a revenue loss of $72 billion.
On a dynamic basis, this plan would generate an additional $600 billion in revenues, reducing the cost of the plan over the next decade. The larger economy would boost wages and thus broaden both the income and payroll tax base. As a result, the federal government would see a smaller revenue loss from personal tax changes, of $494 billion. The reduction in tax revenue from business changes would also be smaller on a dynamic basis, at $565 billion. The corporate tax revenue loss would be most significant in the short term because of the temporary expensing provision for short-lived assets, which would encourage more investment and result in businesses taking larger deductions for capital investments in the first five years of the plan.”
“I have actually advocated for a one time amnesty on repatriated money, if it is directly spent on increasing jobs and wages. ”
That does not make sense. Because then the next year, the money is not available to increase jobs or wages.
The repatriation is in fact to pay for other services short term. Not as a means to ensure corporations pay their fair share.
Your methodology is abhorrent.
The repatriation needs to be lucrative to get revenues now, the corporate rate needs to be brought down in line, also, mandating they create jobs or they don’t receive the credit also fails this test: Each year the extra capital may not be enough to hire more employees until they make a major move, which means it cannot be weighed as you did. The point is to leave extra capital, and to allow job growth. Not just one or the other.
You are foolish on how companies work. That’s the issue, and you shouldn’t lead your firm. There is a reason why I will be, and you never will.
“However, if we need to borrow money to give tax breaks to people/corporations who do not NEED it, then you will increase the debt without the requisite return.”
Incorrect, and you also need to prove we need to borrow to do so. Again, that is what the repatriation pays for short term.
I gave a link already showing that even though it seems like a small amount per year of GDP growth, it is $5 trillion in the long run. For a $600 billion dollar worth of cut.
The economy and people can either get a part of $5 trillion dispersed, or a part of $600 billion.
The debt does not need to come up, if the middle class participates to get part of the $5 trillion. If the per capita GDP to income ratio remains equal, as in, $58,000 PPP, and the GDP is thusly $5 trillion higher, then the benefit will far exceed $600 billion.
You want to tax to receive revenues regardless of economic availability of funds. That is the issue, and when someone points this out, you then say it’s theory that tax cuts boost the economy. It most certainly is not.
I’ve given a number on this, with a link, you have not. You have stated your commentary as a matter of fact without evidence, because you believe it, and that’s the problem. You go off of absurd belief systems you never questioned, learned from school as a millennial (and again, you are this age) and you let rule you.
You’re a fool. When this turns out you are wrong and I show the numbers work precisely as this report said, you’re going to say “Bob, I was wrong”. And yeah, I’ll enjoy it, but that’s not why you need to say it.
I’m tired of your side refusing to grow up and acknowledge reality while accusing agent and polar of the same. They are VASTLY better researched than you, whiny kid.
“However, if we need to borrow money to give tax breaks to people/corporations who do not NEED it, then you will increase the debt without the requisite return.”
Here we go:
Let’s say I hire employees, they bring in $30,000 per year, and I file as a C corp and only have say 40 employees. Let’s say that I grew initially from much less, hiring an employee every time I had enough funds, and I sold insurance.
And let’s say these guys sold business insurance.
Let’s say my revenues when I had 10 employees was enough to have about $50k left over after my own income and business expenses (most firms have less, I have seen P&L sheets). A tax cut of 10% would benefit me about $100k. Let’s say each employee costs me $45,000 per year, but I don’t know if they will be successful. They may do terrible, and it takes 1 year to see how well they do and if they will make it, before firing them to try someone else. A reduction in taxes that is immediate allows me another $100k per year, and to then throw say 5 agents at one field at once in 5 years, instead of throwing one at a time. They would build the business together, and would be much more successful. I’m no longer choosing between one or two each year, I saved the corporations money to hire a team of 5 who can assist each other. The chance of their success goes up, and I can then afford it. Or, I could hire at least 1 a year with the tax cut and not save it. The point is I can choose, and getting to 40 employees will be MUCH easier. Either way my corporation can grow faster in the times it needs it, or chug along when it doesn’t need to expand until we decide we have enough capital to take on a new risky endeavor.
Your method of only giving me a tax cut when I hire is far too restrictive, and leaves me with not nearly enough capital left over as I try to invest. It took us years to get the money to hire 5 new people back in the day. Even now hiring 5 new people would cost tons, and maybe we don’t want to, maybe we want to just build capital for now, and then use that to give out some in house loans for insurance we sell, which extra capital would also allow us to do that, and use that capital over time to invest into employees, or other things. You really have no clue how a business operates…Do you even talk to your owner, or anyone in charge of your business? Do you get to see your bottom line? Do you get to see when and why decisions are made to hire?
This is sheer ignorance Ron! You have no experience to speak on what you say, and never give examples that make any logical sense to a business man. That’s why those here who are (Agent) are completely at odds with you while you drone on to a business owner how a lower corporate tax rate won’t help business unless you do ignorant provisions, or won’t help jobs without ignorant provisions, and you tell the businesses what will help them, and keep them in line (the dishonest jerks they are) talking down to them the whole time, wondering why they call you a whiny turd that knows nothing. In the 50’s you would have got the point, but sadly my generation is a bunch of rebellious hooligans.
Ron,
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html
Waiting for the applause…I think?
I’m mocking myself and you at the same time. There is no evidence whatsoever that a corporate tax rate would benefit any employees…Except for these 200,000.
(Looking at last years’ numbers) AT&T made $4,000,000,000 in PROFITS last year LESS $200,000,000 for these bonuses = $3,800,000,000 in PROFITS based on last year’s numbers.
Not sure how much the new tax plan had to do with them giving bonuses, especially since “Many AT&T workers already expected to receive 10 percent raises and $1,000 lump-sum back wages as a result of an agreement announced last week.”
Listen – it’s great their giving money to their employees and not stockholders, and I applaud them for that (certainly don’t applaud them for throttling old phones to make their customers buy newer devices, but that’s a different topic), but it seems like they already agreed to pay out the bonuses before they even knew if the new tax plan would actually get approved (or if you’re going to argue that they knew it would be approved, clearly they didn’t know the details because the House & Senate bills hadn’t been reconciled yet).
Homonym error: “Listen – it’s great their giving” should be “they’re giving.” My bad.
@Ron; your question is now moot.
It’s only 96 hours away…
Tax Cuts For The Rich.
Tax Cuts for Evil Enterprises Making Obscene Profits.
ObamaCare penalty removed, leaving billions and billions without, ObamaCare.
Did I mention Tax Cuts For The Rich?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5185023/GOP-tax-cut-bill-slashes-rates-kills-Obamacare-penalty.html
And Rubio & Lee are on board the Good Ship ‘Tax Cuts For GDP Growth’.
re-posted:
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 10
Thumb down 20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
After the Dems’ collective abusive treatment of Republicans in regard to the ACA, and lately in regard to Trump’s Election (recount of PA, WI, MI, and dispute of the validity of the Electoral College procedure) and disrespect of his campaign staff, all bets on similar goodwill are off on that. To adopt and modify a phrase uttered by Obama, behavioral patterns have consequences.
There is no need to allow the new Senator to be seated. The election of the replacement for Sessions is set for a January transition.
IOW, McConnell will say ‘go pound sand’ to Schumer, and Ryan will say the same to Pelois, as well they both should, given the meeting with Trump that they ditched, and the continuous, visceral rhetoric coming from those two Dem vermin.
Reply
DNCs, With all these arguments on likes and dislikes on this Tax Plan, the thing that is being ignored is the 95 million working age adults sitting on the sideline because they could not find work during the abhorrent Obama economy. They have been drawing unemployment and numerous other entitlements for some time now and yes, it has led to the deficits in the Federal Budget. Seems to me that you put 15-20 million back to work, they will be taxpayers again instead of tax takers and the deficit reduced accordingly. This is not rocket science, but Progressives will never get it. They would rather continue to “Entitlement Society” that has gotten the country in such deep debt to the tune of $20 Trillion with $10 Trillion in just the last 8 years of Socialist Obama’s regime.
Psst; Ron, CaPlatitude; the article subject is the CHANGES to the House and Senate versions of their Tax Reform Bills which each passed a short while ago. Try very hard to stick to the subject in your initial replies instead of veering hard off course to an off topic comment. I thank you, and IJ staff will allow you to continue to post if you follow those simple guidelines.
Merry ChrisTAXmas to you, and to your rich friends who will benefit the most from “Republicans’ tax cuts for the rich”!
Since when is voting on a bill not important or relevant to it becoming law?
When your side has no power to stop the majority.
Elections have consequences.
You could hope that RINO Rubio holds his stance. But he will be advised of the long run effects on his career, and will ‘see the light and vote right’.
What exactly is “my side”? Independents do not have a side. That is the problem with this country.
If you KNOW that I am not an Independent, what is your proof based on for whom, by name, I have voted in past elections?
Hint: It was NOT all Democrats or all Republicans.
The problem is the left leaning Independents like you Ron. You are never for the Conservative solution to problems and it is well known who you voted for twice in a row.
How many times do I need to advocate reductions in spending and taxes on the middle class (you know, those who drive the economy) for you to understand that I am a fiscal conservative? I do not want anyone’s taxes increasing, but not everyone needs a tax cut in order to get the economy booming again.
You complain, rightfully so, that Democrats like to tax and spend. What you fail to recognize is that Republicans, currently, like to borrow and spend.
I am against both because neither addresses spending in any meaningful way because it isn’t politically expedient.
“How many times do I need to advocate reductions in spending and taxes on the middle class (you know, those who drive the economy) for you to understand that I am a fiscal conservative? I do not want anyone’s taxes increasing, but not everyone needs a tax cut in order to get the economy booming again.
You complain, rightfully so, that Democrats like to tax and spend. What you fail to recognize is that Republicans, currently, like to borrow and spend.
I am against both because neither addresses spending in any meaningful way because it isn’t politically expedient.”
You got borrow and spend from high school courses, and yet again you prove you’re not 40. This was taught in my high school classes ending in the 2000’s, but was notably absent from my brother’s in the 90’s.
You are wrong. With Reagan he proposed the largest spending cuts of his time to go with tax cuts. The democrats controlled the congress, as you have said many times to defend Obama, then you always say the buck ends with the president, which you also say the president has no ability to affect things to vindicate Obama. You’re full of crap when you say this. You’re trying to get people to change their minds based on lies. This independent crap is a lie.
Reagan didn’t get the spending he wanted. When republicans had control during Bush W, their tax cuts did not increase the debt to GDP ratio until a recession hit. Not even the Iraq war shot it up. So Bush W was not a tax and borrow president. Republicans during Obama’s tenure tried to cut spending. Several times.
They have tried for 30 years to cut spending. You are wrong about republicans.
Also, you’re not advocating for tax cuts. Trump’s bill mainly cuts taxes for families, that’s the largest chunk of it, to get the LPR rate up. And you don’t want it passed due to debt concerns, and then back track and say both parties are to blame and you don’t advocate for higher taxes, you just won’t let the taxes go down for families, because you don’t want our corporate tax rate competitive, eh?
You twist your mind like a pretzel to get to your conclusions. Listen to those here like me and Polar who clearly out rank you in experience. I can tell Polar may even be moving toward a leadership position.
I AM. There is a reason my boss chose me and another here for that purpose. I will be leading our firm. What is your role and position in your company? I learned and was mentored by an amazing business owner.
You may say that doesn’t matter, but I have seen this, and compared it and contrasted it, this war against business by the left. I know for a fact that the corporate tax rate needs to be lowered, something you refuse to acknowledge.
I know for a fact the LPR can be raised with more child tax credits.
This bill is good, and accomplishes all those goals, and your one gripe is again and again it will raise the debt. How do we cut taxes without raising debt Ron? Pass cuts with the taxes? A tax bill is not a spending bill!
So how do we do it in your delusional world? As a business owner I look at the government as it works, and I see changes how they have to work. You don’t. It’s philosophical hogwash, and you would get nothing done in government as I imagine you would as a business owner. Grow up kid. If you worked for me, I would fire you if you made business arguments the way you do your pathetic government social justice tar.
“You got borrow and spend from high school courses, and yet again you prove you’re not 40.”
Wrong. I got it from paying attention and understanding where money comes from when you are in debt. If you have $0 in the bank and want to spend, where else do you get from?
“With Reagan he proposed the largest spending cuts of his time to go with tax cuts.” I know. This is why I have praised President Reagan as the best president during my lifetime. What more do you want from me?
“They have tried for 30 years to cut spending. You are wrong about republicans.”
And this is the main reason I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my lifetime. However, I have been disappointed in their ability to make them happen.
My concern is that they have not proposed any spending cuts to go with this bill. That, in my opinion, should come before tax cuts. Assuming they actually care about deficits and the debt.
“Also, you’re not advocating for tax cuts.”
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!! I have done so in multiple posts just in this thread. Just because I believe in more targeted cuts that will actually accomplish the goals laid out by President Trump and the Republicans, does not mean I have not advocated for such.
“You twist your mind like a pretzel to get to your conclusions. Listen to those here like me and Polar who clearly out rank you in experience.” How can you say this without KNOWING my experience? You have Been wrong about me since day 1 and have no interest in admitting that you are wrong. The only way to prove yourself to be right is to post my complete resume. Otherwise, knock this crap off, CHILD!!
“I AM. There is a reason my boss chose me and another here for that purpose. I will be leading our firm. What is your role and position in your company? I learned and was mentored by an amazing business owner.”
Why should I or anyone else believe you? You have lied so many times, that you could be President Trump or unemployed and living in your parents’ basement. Even later in this thread you stated you are a business owner. (As a business owner I look at the government as it works, and I see changes how they have to work.) Which is it, owner or an employee being groomed to lead the organization. Can’t be both.
“I know for a fact the LPR can be raised with more child tax credits.”
Of course in CAN be. Congratulations, you got something right.
“If you worked for me, I would fire you if you made business arguments the way you do your pathetic government social justice tar.”
The feeling is mutual. If you have to lie to make your case, you do not have a case.
I also forgot that ‘ALL’ Republican votes on ACA, opposing it, was another instance of meaningless, irrelevant votes.
Note that I quoted ‘ALL’, implying the existence of one ‘Republican’ voting in favor of the ACA is irrelevant to the point.
Note that I quoted ‘Republican’, implying it was really a RINO.
Bob, congratulations on your new title in your organization as an owner. Now, you can appreciate more what it takes and be responsible for your employees welfare. I am sure many of them will like their tax break from this bill to make their lives better. Cubicle dudes like Ron are just hoping to get a gold watch some day.
It is amazing what our great President has accomplished in his first year considering the forces lined up against him from the start. Progressives have lined up almost all the networks against him with their non stop hate, the FBI, NSA, IRS, CIA (Deep State) have tried to destroy him along with every Progressive Democrat and some RINO’s. I am very proud of him for having a titanium spine and he is the one smiling today. The leftists are crying in their beer.
Agent,
He is not an owner, just being groomed for a leadership position by his boss.
Ron, you have said many times that we don’t understand you and your positions and don’t answer like you want. I couldn’t care less. When Bob said he is a leader in his firm and a business owner, I believe him since he is 100% more credible than you and your merry little Progressive band. One thing is for sure, you will never be an owner of your firm and will be lucky you aren’t fired for your Progressive beliefs.
Since when have you posted a non-troll comment?
Be patient Ron. We may get that critical vote as early as today and have it on the President’s desk for signature. Woe is you.
How is it woe is me? It is more like woe is the debt as it continues to increase.
I have already said that if this works as President Trump and the Republicans have projected, I will give them full credit and applaud their efforts. Is that not enough for you?
@Ron; go on the (IJ comment board) record and define “if it works”. Ready, steady, …. GO!
“It works” means it will:
1. Pay for itself aka reduce the debt.
2. Create sustained 4%+ GDP growth
Let’s check back in October 2020 and see who was right.
““It works” means it will:
1. Pay for itself aka reduce the debt.
2. Create sustained 4%+ GDP growth
Let’s check back in October 2020 and see who was right.”
Bad metrics, as I pointed out many times. You will lose government revenues when you seek to make the economy the main provider for a living.
If it creates 3% GDP growth it is a win, so your two is absurd. Paying for itself should not be “reduce the debt”. Pay for itself should be: Total revenues available to the middle class increase. Your method reduces the total revenues whether government or economic to the middle class. If we get those revenues economically, spending can go down, unless democrats get in the way as they did with Reagan. When the economy grows by $5 trillion, and government revenues fall by $600 billion, we should be able to restructure spending, but democrats disallow it saying who will be harmed. They have done it every time. This isn’t new. And you miss it every time. How much smaller would the GDP have been in the absence of Reagan?
Okey, dokey; we’ll check back, at qtr ends.
But now, I have to refocus on the ‘replace’ issue since the mandate is ‘mandead’.
“But now, I have to refocus on the ‘replace’ issue since the mandate is ‘mandead’.”
Goody. Here comes the adverse selection and associated premium and/or deductible increases.
Yogi,
How many words per minute can you type with your troll hands?
None. Trick question. I have paws.
The analysis I seen was that my tax rate is heading south by 20%.
Happy New Year to me!
Now, make it better and loose that F’n crap of a health care policy and let me have my good stuff back.
Merry Christmas to all! Finally finding my Christmas Spirit this year.
FFA, nice to see things are coming back and have a President who puts America first and dedicated to helping Business and the Middle Class. The last 8 years have been hard to take and I know you were impacted negatively.
Doug,
I would replace FFA with Bob.
FFA is reasonable and rational far more often than not.
Agreed.
Doug, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA.
I made the decision to get into it when they were saying Full New Biz Commissions (15%). What they didn’t tell us is that full new biz commission were being cut to 5%. By the time that tid bit of info came out, I have over $4000 invested in training for my staff as well as advertising it. Along with all the other lies.
Ive never felt so betrayed by any politician. Says a lot for living in IL for over 50 years.
Be that as it is, great move on changing the enrollment date. All I am retaining is done and I am finally in the holiday spirit. Of course, none of my remaining clients had anything good to say about it. Higher Ded. Higher premiums. Higher OOP. and lets not forget the people that figured out that there is no stop loss. And the most often comment – Why do we have to go through this BS every year?
FFF, I am sure you were one of the citizens that believed that people could keep their doctor, keep their plan and would save an average of $2,500 annually for a family of four. Our former POTUS made 38 speeches around the country with the same line. Progressives lapped it up, Conservatives were skeptical. As it played out, it was the lie of the century. It put agents like you in the cross hairs for disgruntled customers.
Good luck to you on your P&C prospects. Hope you get them all and make at least 15% commission on all of them. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Here’s all I need to know about the Tax Bill: the official position of every large European government is against it, as is China. Seems they think it will help send investment dollars to America and away from their businesses.
Now ask yourself, which side is the mainstream media on, along with every single Democrat in Congress?
The Democratic members of the House and Senate who are against the country getting tax relief should all be sent to Venezuela on the next United flight.
Here’s all I need to know about the tax bill. Corporations will not be opening factories or adding more full-time positions with the money they save. Instead, they will be lining their stockholders pockets, and there will be no reinvestment back into hardworking Americans.
It burns me up that these wealthy inheritors are making decisions that have no guarantee of assisting me to work hard and earn an income to feed my family. I don’t want to go on government assistance. I don’t want to be sitting applying for jobs all day. I want to have a job, work hard, and put food on the table.
I’ve applied to everything from fast food, grocery stores, retail, gas stations, and the industry I came from for months. I’ve got a lot of work experience, and no criminal background. I’ve got full availability, but not so much as a call back. WHY!
Is it my age? Is it because I have over 15 years of experience in another industry on my resume? Is it because I’m overqualified? I just want a job! I’ll be there on time. I’ll work hard.
This tax bill should require these companies to contribute back to the workforce. Otherwise, it’s bonus season for corporate executives. I read that corporate holiday parties were getting extra funding this year. My family is skipping Christmas for the third year in a row. Try explaining why Santa is not bringing presents, again, to your kids.
LaidOff,
I feel for you and Christmas sans Santa. You are right and CEO’s are going to pocket the money. Gary Cohn found out first hand in a tragically hilarious video I have linked below. The president and his party are scamming us once again. More and more jobs are being automated, not created. This tax cut will lead to fewer jobs as companies will be able to invest more in automation, if they even invest anything at all into new incentives. The only reason a corporation would create a job is if demand dictates it. If hardworking Americans do not have money to spend on products, if Santa can’t deliver gifts to your children, there is no increase in demand. Hardworking Americans are the true job creators. We need to solve for increasing the velocity of money in this country and not stall it up in stockholder equity.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/15/16653698/ceos-investment-tax-reform
“Here’s all I need to know about the tax bill. Corporations will not be opening factories or adding more full-time positions with the money they save. Instead, they will be lining their stockholders pockets, and there will be no reinvestment back into hardworking Americans. ”
Incorrect, and you’ve provided no proof of this. The proof you will likely provide is a repatriation tax from the 2000’s, the weakness of it was that it was temporary and no cuts along side it. Of course they wouldn’t continue to invest here for a one year tax cut.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with business, and this is why you and democrats have no ability to help business. It’s a social justice argument. Nothing more.
Bob, why do I think Planet will find several lumps of coal in his stocking this year? Has he been told by his boss that he will not get a Christmas bonus because the boss wants all of the tax relief money for himself?
By the way, how is that Seattle income tax working out for the hard working families up there?
Bob, repatriate the offshore money at a low rate which will help balance the budget and then keep the corporate rate at 21% and we will see growth like we have never seen before. The Businessman President has been right all along. Progressives, not so much.
“Bob, repatriate the offshore money at a low rate which will help balance the budget and then keep the corporate rate at 21% and we will see growth like we have never seen before. The Businessman President has been right all along. Progressives, not so much”
I agree the repatriation was a good idea to use it for the temporary purposes. Your opposing ideologies though don’t think like that. I’m glad you said it, I haven’t yet on this board but I have in general. This, this is what you need to say to guys like Ron. That the repatriation is temporary funds. The lower corporate tax rate is to make sure there is long term incentive to be here, and even Clinton said we need a rate in the middle of the OCED which is precisely where we are now. Then you say the lower taxes for the middle class will raise the LPR with the child tax differences and ability to lower AGI with day care removed from AGI. You then ask what would a good tax plan look like, and how do these three items not accomplish what we want them to?
His reply will always be, Ron that is, that it raises the debt and republicans are this and that and democrats are this and that, and it will reveal he’s a liar about solutions.
Bob, how many times do you have to hand Ron his head before he gets the message about his former hero’s failures? I think you are up to at least a thousand times over the years. Hard to educate a hard headed Progressive, isn’t it? Brainwashing has been effective on him.
Merry Christmas Agent!!
(sarcastically reposting what Bob said to Rosenblatt) No Merry Christmas to your fake Merry Christmas, and forget you. You’re not superior to Agent.
Where is your proof of ‘lining their pockets without any re-investment’?
Santa certainly won’t be bringing presents to foreigners who now, temporarily, hold US investors capital. He’ll be collecting it in his sleigh to return it to the US under lower taxation under the TRA-17, which is in line with the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD.
How do you prove a prediction?
Like this: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/12/20/gop-tax-bill-at-t-boeing-among-corporations-rewarding-employees.html
Well, ok, this is ‘lining the pockets’ of a loyal workforce. But what will workers do with their additional take-home pay? They’ll probably spend some of it. The money they ‘bank’ can be used by companies taking out business expansion loans.
The ‘lining pockets’ claim is vague as to whose pockets will be lined.
Laid off, sorry for your unemployment situation. Have you tried a head hunter to help you find a job? With your experience, a job should be available. I see stories all the time that employers are having a tough time finding employees to fill the jobs they have available. I can only surmise you live in an area with not much going on.
Never been a big fan of Federal Tax Cuts. They usually only benefit Big Business (fortunate 500 companies), the extremely wealthy and people living in states without a State Income Tax long term. Over the past 30 years, anytime there’s been a Federal Tax Cut, the Feds reduce the amount of money provided to states for education, roads, healthcare, etc. Whereby the States raise State Income Tax to make up for the loss. Usually ends up being a wash at best.
I have never been a fan of Progressive taxation. The rich already pay a disproportionate share of the taxes paid in this country. They are also the job creators and entrepreneurs which make businesses great. The idea of this tax cut will benefit everyone in the long run. Look forward to the repatriation of all that money parked offshore ($3-4Trillion) for the past 8 years so it can be invested in America again. The reason it was parked offshore was that the corporations didn’t want the Progressives to abscond with it. Sorry Progressives, your agenda is now dead.
Hip, hip hooray for the House passing Tax Relief for the citizens of this great country despite all the howling, teeth knashing of the left who think the country can tax their way to prosperity. Get it through the Senate now and onto the President’s desk for signature. I wonder what the Democrats will say to their constituents when they hold their next town hall and explain their no vote to putting more money into the pockets of the citizens and businesses.
i bet they’ll talk about the actual plan then say they want to put money into the pockets of citizens and businesses, just not the 1% of citizens and businesses who refuse to promise they’ll actually increase jobs or wages
Confused, will you say the same thing when your check is bigger as a result of this cut? If you don’t want more money, just give it to charity.
Agent, I haven’t seen much reinvesting into creating jobs in the US by the big companies. Talk by some, that they are not laying-off (but keeping steady workforce)is not creating jobs. I have seen some job creation by small businesses. Would like to see a tax credit for the business in lieu of a tax cut. The tax credit would be a condition on creating more domestic jobs. I’d like to see other contingencies to tax credit where by the majority of any tax credit has to be used for job creation so that it’s not pocketed by CEO’s/Managements already earning multi-millions.
Tax credits are also a good idea. We have been using them for years in Texas to bring jobs into this state from the higher taxed blue states. We also have no State Income tax which is a plus as well. The 21% tax on corporations will just spur more building and development of our industry and create even more jobs. Why do you think the worst and think companies will not expand? Is that Anti-Trump rhetoric like your Governor had when he tried and failed to win the Presidency?
I LOVE the idea of tax credits over a flat corporate tax reduction, basically telling Corporations “If you want this tax break we say will increase jobs, you only get it if you increase jobs. You won’t get it if you just increase dividends to stockholders and offer stock buybacks.”
This would force corporations to do the thing the tax plan is actually supposed to do: increase jobs.
Agent – I’m guessing he believes companies will not expand because that’s what CEO’s are saying.
— “14% of CEOs surveyed…said their companies plan to make large, immediate capital investments in the United States if the tax overhaul passes … declined to name the CEOs who participated in the poll [but] said it included “Trump supporters” and former members of the president’s now-defunct advisory
— 43% of CEOs polled in November by the Business Roundtable, said they plan to ramp up hiring over the next six months. That was despite rising confidence that the Republican tax plan would be enacted.
— The Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council in November, only a few business leaders raised their hands when they were asked whether the tax plan would lead them to increase investment in the United States
Hello Agent, I think of myself as a pragmatic not Anti-Trump (Even though I would have preferred two of the other Republican candidates and another Republican who didn’t run over Trump. [Kasich was not one of them] I’m not even a Republican but an Independent as neither Party representatives my beliefs enough to justify aligning with either. Negativity comes from watching politics (both Red and Blue) over the past 30+ years and seeing that most tax changes as well as other changes that have past haven’t provided any true benefit to me (They haven’t cause any real hardship either). Just don’t have a lot of faith in politicians. Too much bickering and not enough results.
Not a fan of the following:
Paying National Income to so that government can reallocate to other states. Feds need to stay out of collecting taxes to support roads (unless Federal Highways), schools, Medicaid, etc. If you’re going to lower the Federal Tax, then just collect enough to cover National Defense, Social Security and Medicare (or let the State take over Medicare) and the programs that are designed to keep citizens safe (Federal Aviation, Environmental, etc.). Let the states then increase their state income tax or state sales tax at the level of the federal cuts to handle state programs like Education, Medicaid, road/streets, police/fire, etc.
Referring to Social Security as an entitlement. It’s a tax that is taken from your pay with the expectation of getting it back later it life. I look at it as more of loan to the government where by they take my monies, invest it (keeping the investment profits) then paying it back in installments after age 67 until death. It’s my money. An entitlement is something you get for nothing.
Corporate Welfare and subsidizing Corporate Farmers as an incentive not to grow product or product. As a society we need to be more productive to grow as a nation.
Not a fan of the government getting involved with anything involving personal healthcare issues (i.e. health screen timelines, prescriptions, birth control, abortion, etc.). Individuals should be able to evaluate their own lives and make decision that are in their best interest. As long as the decision doesn’t cause physical hardship or the survival of those already breathing air of this fine planet, then people/government should mind their own business.
Not a fan of our election systems. Mainly hate that fact that people who run for national election 3-4 years before the election. With this, I want to see the exemption for Politian and political action groups to the No Call List gone. Ideally it would be great to have a button on my cable remote where I could just skip ads.
Not a fan of any of the news media. All are owned by corporations who promote their ownership interests. There’s no such thing as reporting stories without getting bias reporting from MSN, Fox, CNN, etc. (Walter Cronkite is probably vomiting in his grave).
Not a fan of all the sexual misconduct coming forward. Would you want to see your mother/father, sister/brother, wife/husband, daughter/son subjected to and/or treated badly with the expectation of shut up and put-up/deal with it? It’s all about respect for human dignity. If you don’t want yourself or family treated in this manner, they don’t do it.
Just realized that I’m ranting. So I’ll stop.
Your (OHIO AGENT) statement is an unsubstantiated generalization.
Wealthy people living in states without a state income tax are smarter than dolts who allow themselves to be taxed by Progressive Socialist Democrats who have driven many deep blue states into insolvency.
I praise the elimination of all but $10k of SALT, as it will shed greater light on those Progressive Socialist’s punitive taxation, wasteful spending, and, in some cases, fraud/ corruption. FOIA (as a verb) all Blue State Budget documents, to MAGA. I only regret the Republican Congress didn’t have the courage and fortitude to completely eliminate the SALT deduction on the FITX forms.
Review the current troubles in Connecticut and Illinois to get a first hand look at Progressivism at its worst.
Ohio is a Republican held state. I can’t remember the last time there was a Democrat Governor or State House. You have a few northern counties that are blue. Just about all counties south of Akron are red. Reason for it’s sad shape is because it’s economy use to be driven by manufacturing. Many of those good paying manufacturing jobs have since moved overseas by US Companies that enjoy the profits reaped by employing overseas workers. Corporate America’s cost of employing overseas workers is less because of many of foreign countries have Universal Healthcare, government paid daycare, etc. that workers here have to pay for out of their wages.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not necessarily for all of these Government Paid Programs. I also don’t have the experience or knowledge (just like most in the White House and Congress) to fix things. What I do know is that giving corporate tax breaks (thinking Regan era) didn’t create jobs. Instead they created a much smaller pool of the super rich because many did not reinvest in the USA. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Bill Gates may be the wealthiest man in the world. But didn’t much of the income he earned come from manufacturing overseas while US workers manufacturing pay as remained reality flat since the late 1970s-mid 1980’s?
The reason why Ohio has been known as the rust belt for many years was Progressive rule. No incentives for employers to expand and hire and a heavy tax burden. American workers are the most productive in the world with the right leadership and economic incentives. Progressivism has never worked and will never work because it is anti-business and only creates dependence and despair. I hope Kasich will wake up someday soon.
For all the naysayers on what this tax bill is doing and the fear of what corporations will do in response to the tax cuts, AT&T, no small company announced today that they will be paying a $1,000 bonus to 200,000 employees because of the tax cut and will also be spending $1 billion on capital building and improvements. So much for them just padding the executives income. Progressive, you need to get on board and stop whining.
Agent, I just read that AT&T announced layoffs of thousands day after they announced bonus. Smells fishy!
DNC’s, sunlight is the best disinfectant as we are seeing currently. The nasty Progressive Democrats are painting themselves into a corner and it will all come out with patience.
Ohio, I am afraid you are talking like a Libertarian. Libertarians are ok to a point until they get weird. Rand Paul had some good ideas here and there, but he couldn’t get any real traction during the primaries. He also should enroll in some self defense classes so his neighbor won’t beat him up.
First Harding, then Reagan, then Dubya, now i45…buckle up, folks! A crash and reckoning are coming. Secure your retirements now because sooner than later this artificial bubble being created will burst and we’ll all be back in the 1930’s, 1987, or 2008 again. Who knows, maybe even worse. Oh, and that’s not rain falling on your head, middle class. It’s tinkle-down.
Communist talking points are not a winning formula in today’s society, Planetburo.
Agent, I know it’s really hard for you, but please stop with the personal insults and attacks. Some lessons you simply don’t learn, do you? Does it make you feel big when you put someone down? Making others look bad does not make you look good.
I believe in the Captialism model we had before Reagan destroyed it.
Right, Planet. We know you believed in the Jimmy Carter model which was so bad, we had double digit inflation, high taxes and no growth. His wonderful response to the energy crisis of the day was to turn the thermostat down and put on a sweater. He was finally relieved to know that he was replaced by Obama as the worst President in the history of this great country.
“He was finally relieved to know that he was replaced by Obama as the worst President in the history of this great country.”
Or, maybe not.
http://time.com/4674300/cspan-presidents-rank-2017/
If you do not like the source and/or methodology, provide your own list based on facts, not opinions.
Ron,
I don’t think your facts will get in the way of his beliefs and the Faux Newz narrative. We all know Presidents Carter and Obama are nowhere near the worst we have had. This list supports that notion. It also shows us Nixon and Dubya are closer to the bottom than are those Hannity and El Rushbo degrade all the time.
Ah hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
“If you do not like the source and/or methodology, provide your own list based on facts, not opinions.”
So your methodology is valid so long as he doesn’t retort your historians methodology?
You just provided an opinion, you whiny kid!
And as for by the facts: People in Agent’s age group LIVED during Carter. They know how hard it was to live, and in the modern age, it was far worse than any other. I will go here to say that Agent is wrong Obama made life harder for the middle class than carter. When considering how families were taxed etc, my dad did remember it very well when he was alive, and he basically said no one tops this guy. No one. The gas rationing, he remembered that. The very little disposable income, he remembered that. I will say that Obama set things up to be terrible with jobs, but he didn’t also tax the hell out of the middle class like we did back in Carter’s era. He just taxed them fairly high, by not expanding the child tax credit.
If we go by metrics, the inflation and high tax rates during Carter are easily the biggest reasons why he was worse than Obama.
However, he’s not the worst president.
If we go by structures set up that cannot succeed, terrible over reach by the government, setting up EO’s as standard procedure for presidents: FDR wins the worst, and it is not even remotely a competition. His “depression” which history seems to have rewritten to say HAD to last like 10 years and FDR fixed, was a failure of his to recover. He failed. The depression was terrible, it lasted too long, he made Japanese imprisonment camps, had food destroyed when many were going hungry because he thought increasing it’s cost would help the economy (bull crap, it was obviously because he wanted a reliant middle class voting for him) he took control of media in totally new ways, he issued orders as president which he made possible for the first time that are dangerous, he set up programs that massively taxed even the middle class, and removed the chances we had of making a private method to retirement, but worked back then because of the average life expectancy (so didn’t forward think, and made an unsustainable program) there is no worse president than him, and yet your historians glorify him.
Also, if you want to see why not to trust academics on the matter, well, here’s why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YdFlKaJv4g
They are notoriously corrupt, notoriously support liberals, and are notoriously totalitarian, though you somehow missed that.
In this clip they explain due to bill c 16 laws (which liberals are trying to get here, which is why you need to STOP fearing Trump and be worried about what they will do when liberals beat Trump)
That this girl by proxy of presenting another opinion, opened up transgender students to violence. They then say what if someone who believed we should have white people here and reject other nationalities (they mean Muslim immigrants) would you present them? And what they mean here, is discussing how the religion of Islam is a danger to Western Society when weighing immigration. That is even more dangerous. The colleges are trying to end debate on reason for snowflake ideals, and even told her that classes are not for open debate, they told her essentially that teachers determine what is good, not students, and students are to follow. THIS Ron is what leads to Hitler type rule. When you indoctrinate the youth and tell them only one way is the right way, through the government, this is not the same thing as an individual through religion as I’m sure your ignorant mind twists it. Those people aren’t a threat. These people are.
This sounds off topic, but forgive me for not trusting your academic sources, who lean liberal as shown in multiple studies, and, who as we can see from ANTIFA explosions in graduates, have created a militant group, and thus must be militant themselves. This is not deniable. ANTIFA includes college professors Ron! If even ONE dean, supported by a group was revealed to be a true KKK person, integrating those ideals into college, you would question the ENTIRE school. Why do you not do this same thing every time ANTIFA is shown to be controlling multiple school systems? They are just not a threat eh? Nothing to worry about here! Just look at Trump and those hypocrite republicans!
You are beyond foolish. Look at what is occurring.
While it is great that AT&T and Wells Fargo are taking better care of their employees, I cannot help but find it interesting that they are both looking for favor from the DOJ.
Besides, increasing the minimum wage is not new for Wells Fargo. They did this twice before within the past 20 months. I believe they were probably going to do this anyway, but why not give President Trump credit to gain favor from the executive branch while under investigation?
It also looks like they are just catching up to their competitors.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/banking/bank-watch-blog/article124788804.html
“I believe they were probably going to do this anyway”
You are not alone. In fact, from bob’s link on AT&T: “Many AT&T workers already expected to receive 10 percent raises and $1,000 lump-sum back wages as a result of an agreement announced last week.” https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html
Listen – it’s great they’re giving money to their employees and not stockholders, and I applaud them for that, but their employees already expected this to happen based on a prior agreement irrespective of the tax code.
Take it one step further and put aside the tax change piece for a second:
looking at last years’ numbers … AT&T made $4,000,000,000 in PROFITS last year LESS $200,000,000 for these bonuses = $3,800,000,000 in PROFITS based on last year’s numbers. Not exactly hurting for money, are they? I think they can stand to give away 5% of their profits to their employees and not feel any impact.
I’m sure there are companies who will give back to their employees solely because of the tax code change, and that’s great, and I hope that happens WAY more often than companies giving the funds to their stockholders.
Hilarious, Rosenblatt. Investors and companies have been excited ever since Trump was elected for the prospects of tax and regulation reform. They weren’t so excited to visit with Obama in the last years of his regime. Wonder why that was.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with companies giving bonuses to employees and paying dividends on their stock for the investors that buy stock. That is called the American Capitalist system. The employees are also going to be grateful to see larger checks soon and they have President Trump to thank for it.
” Investors and companies have been excited ever since Trump was elected for the prospects of tax and regulation reform.” Of course they were. They knew he would push to give them our money unconditionally.
“By the way, there is nothing wrong with companies giving bonuses to employees and paying dividends on their stock for the investors that buy stock.” You are absolutely correct. But that is not our objection. The objection id the taking on additional debt with no guarantee they will use the money to hire and/or increase wages. Some may, but I would bet anything that it will be less than 50%. Most will use the additional money to pump up stock prices.
You do not need to believe us for that to be true. Let’s see how this plays out.
Not surprisingly, you totally missed my point Agent. I’d state it again, but you’d just attack me, label me a word parser and make an argument that’s not actually about the point I’ve raised. So with that said, Merry Christmas and good day, sir.
Which means you view someone challenging you as a reason not to comment back, but you comment back all the time when you can prove him wrong.
There is no reason to end a common sense debate. With that, no Merry Christmas to your fake Merry Christmas, and forget you.
You’re not superior to Agent.
Not surprisingly, you missed my point entirely and chose to spin left as usual.
How about you answering my question about why corporations were avoiding Obama like the plague because they knew they were getting taxed so heavily and had to deal with thousands of new regulations from several departments with the worst being the EPA. Why were they parking all that money offshore? Can you give me some more spin? Please do. Ready, set, go.
He did Agent. His answer and Ron’s was essentially of course the big bad corporations want to avoid taxes and harm the middle class.
They aren’t connecting the dots. They need you to do it for them, that’s why I said oh boo hoo, we lose $650 billion in government revenues, over ten years, and as a result we have an additional $5 trillion in the economy (by the way, that assumes extremely low growth as a result, if I recall, the link I gave was an average of .3% per year)
In the name of getting those corporations to pay their fair share, let’s destroy the ability for economic provision. That’s what happens, and they truly believe it doesn’t. They won’t answer my $5 trillion question because the answer is they think:
Bull crap. They think that won’t happen.
They think the rich will rob the poor (with no evidence, since we have not done this in modern history all at once as Trump is doing it, not even Reagan got the corporate tax rate cut) and the world will end.
Well, let’s find out. You seem to believe we survived Reagan and Obama’s spending, it’s time to watch and see.
“How about you answering my question about why corporations were avoiding Obama…because…they were getting taxed so heavily and had to deal with thousands of new regulations…”
You already seem to have your answer, so I don’t need to reply.
An agreement announced last week, which was as a result of this tax plan. In my link it specifically says as a result of they decided to go ahead with it.
“I’m sure there are companies who will give back to their employees solely because of the tax code change, and that’s great, and I hope that happens WAY more often than companies giving the funds to their stockholders.”
Even if it was the majority we would still benefit. As per my other link the economy will by $5 trillion larger. Let’s say the wealthy get half, the poor get 2.5 trillion, and the government loses $650 billion, making the poor still about 1.9 trillion ahead.
You’re missing the point, I’m using these examples to show it is already beginning to happen, while you two nitwits try to shrug it off and find ways to do that (would never happen if the same announcement were made as a result of an Obama deal, and you two nitwits did the same with the Dell deals, and the Carrier deals). Also: Yes. Corporations have been preparing for Trump’s tax plan since he was inaugurated. I also have previously shown this. It is entirely possible that the raises since Trump won were to get that tax plan, and if I were a corporation I would do that. However, the middle class still benefit. When corporations want money they will do anything to get it, including increase wages.
I will ask you directly what I asked Ron: What is better, $5 trillion of economic expansion or $650 billion of government revenues?
The study is already out. Choose one.
And for that matter that means in 20 years it is 10 trillion more vs 1.3 trillion for the government.
Think long term. The rich are pretty good at creating capital and GDP is seems.
Would you rather the middle class try to get a piece of that $10 trillion pie competing to assist in creating it, or, compete to receive 1.3 trillion.
See, what you don’t realize is it’s precisely the skilled hard workers who fall out in that scenario. They will be needed to expand the economy like that. The 1.3 trillion receivers won’t. So basically the $60,000 – $120,000 income range as a family. This is why my income range has to be taxed. I wouldn’t need to be if there were others like me, and again, my taxes are coming down $8,000. So you need my $8,000 eh? With economic expansion we wouldn’t.
Choose: $10 trillion or government expansion of 1.3 trillion.
Insurance journal staff:
Just a moment ago each of these posts had likes that were not my own.
I have noticed this, now they have none. This means the likes are being removed.
I’ve noticed it’s typically when either agent or polar are around, so I’m taking a guess that these conservatives, or one that supports me, is being removed from the liking process, and I believe it’s you directly doing it (not automatic, as in manual).
I don’t want to have to take screen shots of before and after but I will.
I’m calling you out publicly on this matter, and I’ll have to I guess screen shot that too.
I do have one suspicion of how it could be your honest mistake. There is a possibility there are people from my firm liking my posts here, and they don’t realize it as they don’t know it is me (I do not talk about my posts here, and we don’t communicate about Insurance Journal). If that is the case, we are on the same network, and perhaps you are targeting my IP.
I assure you, I do not like my own posts. I never have. I never dislike alternate posts either. So if that’s the case you’re innocent, but stop removing my likes. It’s not ok.
FYI: Nobody at Insurance Journal likes, unlikes or removes likes of any posts.
I see you felt the need to defend yourself. Curious, and it makes me doubt you, oddly enough, as I know behavior well.
However, if I was wrong about that, you left something absent in that post Andrew, and that makes me doubt what you said.
No one from the staff, removes likes. What did you curiously leave absent?
The like was removed. So then it was automated removal? Why wouldn’t you simply say that, Andrew?
Perhaps because protecting yourself seemed more appropriate.
I will reiterate: I will start screen shotting, a few posts above had likes earlier on in that day, and then had zero, and I have noticed it happen several times.
So either you’re not aware it is happening, or it is automated, or you just lied here, and I’m only posting this as precaution to the last item. I will prove it. I don’t want to, but I will. It’s just not worth my time to screen shot every post.
So let’s fix that issue, whether it is automated or someone in your office. I don’t just say things like this when it isn’t happening, unlike others here.
In other words:
We are at about $20 trillion right now. In 20 years this is half the current economy. That is not small. If incomes per capita go up in line, you have a huge income increase for the middle class squandered to get minimal government revenues.
You guys have small minds, you are clueless as to how this works and why true conservatives are conservative.
Hey Andrew, I have noticed the same thing with Polar and my posts. You are still allowing leftists to hide comments by multiple dislikes by using multiple monikers and likes seem to disappear. Thought you had that problem solved some weeks ago by not allowing likes or dislikes to be shown.
NOBODY is using multiple monikers other than your pal Yogi (or whatever iteration he’s currently using), and there are NO BOTs downvoting conservative voices. This is getting into conspiracy theory territory.
Also: No they weren’t, and only due to reading liberal spin do you believe this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/corporations-tax-cut-gop-tax-bill/?utm_term=.7c484ef7a6f4
WAPO is desperately trying to say what won’t happen, but even their own list admits ATT alone will create 6,000 jobs.
“AT&T is committed to invest an additional $1 billion in the United States in 2018 if a tax bill with a permanent corporate tax rate of 21 percent is signed into law. Every $1 billion in capital invested in the telecom industry domestically creates about 7,000 U.S. jobs, research shows.””
I mean really they even highlighted the wrong part of Apple’s quote, because they are claiming that Trump’s tax plan will make more revenues go over seas (bull crap) and they ignored the ending part, let’s get it done now, and that tax reform is sorely needed. When he said it was sorely needed he meant no one would bring back revenues for a high rate here, it was insane. Clearly, when he said get it done, he meant pull down the rate, but WAPO highlighted one part that makes it appear a totally different way. The liberal spin that is pervasive out there is precisely why you two are idiots. You’ve got to stop falling for this. Then they separeated the part and made it a few lines, and DECREAESED THE FONT SIZE STATING (WHICH WAS INTENTIONAL I WONDER WHAT THE INTENT WAS GUYS? FAKE NEWS):
“When asked by NBC’s Lester Holt whether he expected Apple to use residuals to add more jobs, Cook said:
“Yeah, I do.”
““I believe that tax reform is sorely needed in this country. . . . The biggest issue with corporations is that if you earn money outside the United States, which most companies increasingly will . . . the only way you can bring it into the U.S. and invest is if you pay 40 percent [tax]. This is kind of a crazy thing to do, so what do people do? They don’t bring it to the United States. . . . In my view, it should have been fixed years ago, but let’s get it done now.” ”
Then Exxon, which they twist the wrong words too, they highlighted dividends and investments, as if to say look! Shareholder benefits! But I will break this down, they are looking to pay down DEBT and then have alternate options. If they have alternated options, it will only be due to lower taxes, ergo, lower taxes will lead to better outcomes long term:
“The first things that are being funded are our dividends and our investment program. And if there’s any cash left at that point given that the corporation does not want to hold large cash reserves, it’s at that point that we will look for what the next best thing is. And maybe if we have some debt maturing, we’ll pay that debt down.”
I guess alternatively we should allow them to pay down their debt slowly, that’s the sign of a healthy business environment.
I’ve already shown they are highlighting with an agenda, I don’t need to go over the rest, and you guys fall for this! Unbelievable given my knowledge level which surely by now you two realize is far beyond any typical conservative.
Bob – I will not respond to your shotgun arguments since responding to just a few will (1) cause me to write multiple posts which will obfuscate from the actual thing I said that started you on your rants and (2) you will blow a gasket and focus on the questions I didn’t answer as proof I’m ignoring what you’re saying.
I know both to be true as they’ve happened numerous times when we’ve exchanged words.
Now, if you would like to try and limit yourself to a few points to start, instead of dozens of arguments all at once, I will be glad to respond to you then.
I’ve asked you many times and will continue to ask for your respect on this simple point — please just take what I say at face value and stop telling me what I “REALLY” meant when I post things.
I’ve wished Agent a Merry Christmas in other threads and meant it each time, so just take it as I wrote it…with no sarcasm or ill will.
“Bob – I will not respond to your shotgun arguments since responding to just a few will (1) cause me to write multiple posts which will obfuscate from the actual thing I said that started you on your rants and (2) you will blow a gasket and focus on the questions I didn’t answer as proof I’m ignoring what you’re saying”
Incorrect. I don’t have time for this. You are complicating things by predicting my actions, which when I do to others you call inappropriate.
“Now, if you would like to try and limit yourself to a few points to start, instead of dozens of arguments all at once, I will be glad to respond to you then.”
That one post was one argument. Not dozens. I sometimes insert more, and then I pull back. It dealt with whether jobs were being created or not because of the corporate tax reduction.
“I’ve asked you many times and will continue to ask for your respect on this simple point — please just take what I say at face value and stop telling me what I “REALLY” meant when I post things. ”
What specifically in this post, which is in regards to my prior? I doubt you even know, because of this:
“I’ve wished Agent a Merry Christmas in other threads and meant it each time, so just take it as I wrote it…with no sarcasm or ill will.”
That’s not related to my above post. So you just did what you said I do, which you said I shouldn’t do and you will only reply if I don’t, but you just did! Shotgun I guess, when I do it, and something that should be taken seriously with you? Perhaps you should take what I say at face value. You clearly haven’t, I don’t have time to point out your talking point ignorance.
It’s not worth it.
Merry Christmas from an Atheist is sarcastic and insulting.
Bob, it is interesting that you are on the left coast and Rosenblatt is on the East(left) coast and there is a wide chasm in opinions as well as territory. Me, I am in the fly over middle who knows right from wrong.
Of course he is not going to answer you since he has already lost the argument. Progressives speak a different language and they are so invested with liberal language, they really are mixed up. By the way, there are two important dates of recent history we need to keep in mind. The first one is 11-8-16 and the other is 12-20-17. Those dates highlight the beginning of the recovery of this country from terrible leadership of Progressive Democrats.
I said I’d respond to Bob if he could limit his shotgun arguments to a few points to start and I am a man of my word.
Rosenblatt, I thought you were a smart guy. Can’t respond to a 5 or more paragraph assault by Bob. Yes, he does drone on a bit long on some, but you would be wise to not get into it with him. Ron gave up some time ago after being basically destroyed by the logic he was facing.
Agent – unless you’re going to contribute something to the debate, it would be great if you could not post with the sole intent of trying to stir up trouble.
“I said I’d respond to Bob if he could limit his shotgun arguments to a few points to start and I am a man of my word.”
No, you’re a man about manipulating what you will reply to. You and Ron do it a lot.
I’m on to it, and I know what type of sleazy guys you are.
With me a Merry Christmas for you, if you want. But I’m smart enough to know most of what you say is for your image, nothing more.
You just did what you said you would respond to me if I didn’t do it.
That post was not shotgun. It was several examples of the same thing, to disprove another aspect of what you said I didn’t prove.
I ended up replying in several different posts to several things you said, and accused me of, in short ignorant comments, and to shorten this a lot the main one was this:
You said from my own link it proved it was a previously announced change, as if my own link proved they were already planning on it, yes, it was announced, the prior week, that it would go in affect only if the Trump tax cut went into play. You didn’t do your research and tried to make me look a fool.
That was a mistake Rosenblatt, and are you man enough to admit that comment was wrong? You were.
And agent is right, when people have debated me here they have been thoroughly been brought to task.
Just checked – you’re right, the 1st Amendment is still in play. In hindsight, I probably should have respected your rights and said “it would be great if you could not post with the sole intent of trying to stir up trouble” instead of demanding you stop posting and trying to stifle your free-speech rights. Sorry, not sorry.
Bob, it was interesting that even the Communist from Vermont, the very old Bernie admitting that 91% of the Middle Class would benefit from the tax cuts. Then, he complained that it should be permanent. Hey, let the economy take off and the country do well and there is not a politician in the country that would vote to take the cuts back. They would be tarred and feathered and rode out of town on a rail.