Tax reform

#252
#252
hog88 said:
The last thing we want right now is a constitutional convention, the whole document would be up for change. There is another option to change the constitution that is far less risky.
Click to expand...

Republicans control 32 state legislatures. I think it’s more likely they find a couple states to come along for a CC vote than democrats pick up 20+ states.
 
#254
#254
To provide unnecessary tax cuts to Big Business and the wealthy, the GOP House tax plan would cut the following, according to Brookings:

"To prevent explosive growth in federal budget deficits and debt while cutting taxes, the Republican budget plan proposes a number of steps. First, forget about any spending increases where added spending is needed—no increases for infrastructure and none for the opioid crisis. What it does call for is massive spending cuts, mostly to programs that serve low- and moderate-income households:

$473 billion in Medicare spending;

$1.3 trillion in Medicaid, Affordable Care Act tax credits and cost sharing subsidies, and other health spending;

$653 billion in income security spending, a category that includes such items as SNAP (formerly food stamps), child nutrition, Supplemental Security Income (which provides income to poor old folks and people with disabilities), unemployment insurance, and other programs that serve people with low or moderate incomes;

$199 billion in education and social services, a category that includes grants and loans to help children from poor and moderate-income families afford college;

and $800 billion of cuts to the mélange of government programs known as ‘non-defense, discretionary’ spending — a new ‘magic asterisk’ that stands for cuts legislators are unwilling to name even in general terms.

So if you are elderly, poor, or otherwise dependent on the social safety net, the short-term news is bad enough. The future is worse. The population is aging and medical costs are rising. That means that the United States would have to pay more in taxes in the future than in the past simply to avoid reneging on basic commitments to the elderly, disabled, and poor. How much more? Even if one assumes that the proportion of income spent on government other than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid falls, total spending would claim about 2½ percent more of GDP than it has on the average for the past few decades, according to detailed analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. To avoid such tax increases, the nation will have to shred the nation’s web of protections for the elderly, poor, and people with disabilities.

This year’s Congressional budget resolution proposes to start doing just that. It proposes to undermine most of that web of protections. The exception is Social Security, on which the budget resolution is silent because law prohibits budget resolutions from changing Social Security. But silence cannot last, as revenues at current rates and accumulated reserves will sustain Social Security benefits only until about 2034.

So, the elderly, people with disabilities, and widows and surviving children who count on Medicare and Medicaid to cover most of their health bills should understand that today’s tax cuts heighten pressure to cut health benefits and much else. And they should recognize as well that tomorrow will require tax increases tomorrow just to sustain current Social Security benefits."

You gotta love Republicans--let's make the wealthy even wealthier and do so by taking money from programs that help the elderly and the poor and students, etc. What...a....group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#256
#256
armchair said:
To provide unnecessary tax cuts to Big Business and the wealthy, the GOP House tax plan would cut the following, according to Brookings:

"To prevent explosive growth in federal budget deficits and debt while cutting taxes, the Republican budget plan proposes a number of steps. First, forget about any spending increases where added spending is needed—no increases for infrastructure and none for the opioid crisis. What it does call for is massive spending cuts, mostly to programs that serve low- and moderate-income households:

$473 billion in Medicare spending;

$1.3 trillion in Medicaid, Affordable Care Act tax credits and cost sharing subsidies, and other health spending;

$653 billion in income security spending, a category that includes such items as SNAP (formerly food stamps), child nutrition, Supplemental Security Income (which provides income to poor old folks and people with disabilities), unemployment insurance, and other programs that serve people with low or moderate incomes;

$199 billion in education and social services, a category that includes grants and loans to help children from poor and moderate-income families afford college;

and $800 billion of cuts to the mélange of government programs known as ‘non-defense, discretionary’ spending — a new ‘magic asterisk’ that stands for cuts legislators are unwilling to name even in general terms.

So if you are elderly, poor, or otherwise dependent on the social safety net, the short-term news is bad enough. The future is worse. The population is aging and medical costs are rising. That means that the United States would have to pay more in taxes in the future than in the past simply to avoid reneging on basic commitments to the elderly, disabled, and poor. How much more? Even if one assumes that the proportion of income spent on government other than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid falls, total spending would claim about 2½ percent more of GDP than it has on the average for the past few decades, according to detailed analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. To avoid such tax increases, the nation will have to shred the nation’s web of protections for the elderly, poor, and people with disabilities.

This year’s Congressional budget resolution proposes to start doing just that. It proposes to undermine most of that web of protections. The exception is Social Security, on which the budget resolution is silent because law prohibits budget resolutions from changing Social Security. But silence cannot last, as revenues at current rates and accumulated reserves will sustain Social Security benefits only until about 2034.

So, the elderly, people with disabilities, and widows and surviving children who count on Medicare and Medicaid to cover most of their health bills should understand that today’s tax cuts heighten pressure to cut health benefits and much else. And they should recognize as well that tomorrow will require tax increases tomorrow just to sustain current Social Security benefits."

You gotta love Republicans--let's make the wealthy even wealthier and do so by taking money from programs that help the elderly and the poor and students, etc. What...a....group.
Click to expand...

so what you propose is to take the middle class. crap all over them. take away their ability to take care of themselves and put even more people on welfare.

people shouldnt be rewarded for being poor and never applying themselves. just like success should never be punished.
 
#257
#257
hog88 said:
The last thing we want right now is a constitutional convention, the whole document would be up for change. There is another option to change the constitution that is far less risky.
Click to expand...
OK, excuse my civics ignorance on this part, but why does an amendment to the constitution have to open the whole document? I wasn't talking about a constitutional convention, just a single amendment. It would probably be a change/addition to the 16th, and nothing more than that.
 
#258
#258
armchair said:
To provide unnecessary tax cuts to Big Business and the wealthy, the GOP House tax plan would cut the following, according to Brookings:

"To prevent explosive growth in federal budget deficits and debt while cutting taxes, the Republican budget plan proposes a number of steps. First, forget about any spending increases where added spending is needed—no increases for infrastructure and none for the opioid crisis. What it does call for is massive spending cuts, mostly to programs that serve low- and moderate-income households:

$473 billion in Medicare spending;

$1.3 trillion in Medicaid, Affordable Care Act tax credits and cost sharing subsidies, and other health spending;

$653 billion in income security spending, a category that includes such items as SNAP (formerly food stamps), child nutrition, Supplemental Security Income (which provides income to poor old folks and people with disabilities), unemployment insurance, and other programs that serve people with low or moderate incomes;

$199 billion in education and social services, a category that includes grants and loans to help children from poor and moderate-income families afford college;

and $800 billion of cuts to the mélange of government programs known as ‘non-defense, discretionary’ spending — a new ‘magic asterisk’ that stands for cuts legislators are unwilling to name even in general terms.

So if you are elderly, poor, or otherwise dependent on the social safety net, the short-term news is bad enough. The future is worse. The population is aging and medical costs are rising. That means that the United States would have to pay more in taxes in the future than in the past simply to avoid reneging on basic commitments to the elderly, disabled, and poor. How much more? Even if one assumes that the proportion of income spent on government other than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid falls, total spending would claim about 2½ percent more of GDP than it has on the average for the past few decades, according to detailed analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. To avoid such tax increases, the nation will have to shred the nation’s web of protections for the elderly, poor, and people with disabilities.

This year’s Congressional budget resolution proposes to start doing just that. It proposes to undermine most of that web of protections. The exception is Social Security, on which the budget resolution is silent because law prohibits budget resolutions from changing Social Security. But silence cannot last, as revenues at current rates and accumulated reserves will sustain Social Security benefits only until about 2034.

So, the elderly, people with disabilities, and widows and surviving children who count on Medicare and Medicaid to cover most of their health bills should understand that today’s tax cuts heighten pressure to cut health benefits and much else. And they should recognize as well that tomorrow will require tax increases tomorrow just to sustain current Social Security benefits."

You gotta love Republicans--let's make the wealthy even wealthier and do so by taking money from programs that help the elderly and the poor and students, etc. What...a....group.
Click to expand...
1. Why should welfare be a federal program?
2. Do you work?
 
#262
#262
The establishment will fight against tax reform tooth and nail. If Trump gets what he wants they will no longer have control of the situation. Economy talks and other issues walk. If he lowers taxes and creates a flourishing economy he becomes bulletproof. They will commit suicide before passing tax reform and they are well on their way.
 
#263
#263
SpaceCoastVol said:
OK, excuse my civics ignorance on this part, but why does an amendment to the constitution have to open the whole document? I wasn't talking about a constitutional convention, just a single amendment. It would probably be a change/addition to the 16th, and nothing more than that.
Click to expand...

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
 
#264
#264
distrovol said:
Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Click to expand...
The twenty five commas aside, I don't see where a constitutional convention opens the entire document to edit.
 
#265
#265
SpaceCoastVol said:
OK, excuse my civics ignorance on this part, but why does an amendment to the constitution have to open the whole document? I wasn't talking about a constitutional convention, just a single amendment. It would probably be a change/addition to the 16th, and nothing more than that.
Click to expand...

Then I misunderstood.
 
#268
#268
orangeluvr said:
:popcorn: :whistling: Living off the government is a lie and myth promoted by the right. In Tennessee 80% of the families receiving public assistance work, they are the working poor.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should move to TN .....you'd fit right in and your kids can get free lunches at school.....you can live in luxurious section 8 housing.... sit on your fat ass watching Oprah and eat Cheetos all day.
 
#269
#269
armchair said:
Republicans are FOS. Conservatives run around waving their arms hysterically about budget deficits and the debt, especially when the Democrats propose some program. But that concern is conveniently forgotten when the issue is giving the rich and Big Business some major unneeded tax breaks.
Click to expand...

Pay your fair share you disgusting Yankee varmit
 
#270
#270
SpaceCoastVol said:
The twenty five commas aside, I don't see where a constitutional convention opens the entire document to edit.
Click to expand...

It is not specifically prohibited, and the only time there has been a convention was the creation of the original document. I suppose the check would still be the ratification process. Likely and all or nothing deal.
 
#271
#271
armchair said:
To provide unnecessary tax cuts to Big Business and the wealthy, the GOP House tax plan would cut the following, according to Brookings:

"To prevent explosive growth in federal budget deficits and debt while cutting taxes, the Republican budget plan proposes a number of steps. First, forget about any spending increases where added spending is needed—no increases for infrastructure and none for the opioid crisis. What it does call for is massive spending cuts, mostly to programs that serve low- and moderate-income households:

$473 billion in Medicare spending;

$1.3 trillion in Medicaid, Affordable Care Act tax credits and cost sharing subsidies, and other health spending;

$653 billion in income security spending, a category that includes such items as SNAP (formerly food stamps), child nutrition, Supplemental Security Income (which provides income to poor old folks and people with disabilities), unemployment insurance, and other programs that serve people with low or moderate incomes;

$199 billion in education and social services, a category that includes grants and loans to help children from poor and moderate-income families afford college;

and $800 billion of cuts to the mélange of government programs known as ‘non-defense, discretionary’ spending — a new ‘magic asterisk’ that stands for cuts legislators are unwilling to name even in general terms.

So if you are elderly, poor, or otherwise dependent on the social safety net, the short-term news is bad enough. The future is worse. The population is aging and medical costs are rising. That means that the United States would have to pay more in taxes in the future than in the past simply to avoid reneging on basic commitments to the elderly, disabled, and poor. How much more? Even if one assumes that the proportion of income spent on government other than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid falls, total spending would claim about 2½ percent more of GDP than it has on the average for the past few decades, according to detailed analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. To avoid such tax increases, the nation will have to shred the nation’s web of protections for the elderly, poor, and people with disabilities.

This year’s Congressional budget resolution proposes to start doing just that. It proposes to undermine most of that web of protections. The exception is Social Security, on which the budget resolution is silent because law prohibits budget resolutions from changing Social Security. But silence cannot last, as revenues at current rates and accumulated reserves will sustain Social Security benefits only until about 2034.

So, the elderly, people with disabilities, and widows and surviving children who count on Medicare and Medicaid to cover most of their health bills should understand that today’s tax cuts heighten pressure to cut health benefits and much else. And they should recognize as well that tomorrow will require tax increases tomorrow just to sustain current Social Security benefits."

You gotta love Republicans--let's make the wealthy even wealthier and do so by taking money from programs that help the elderly and the poor and students, etc. What...a....group.
Click to expand...

Ever get a job from a poor person? Wealthy people create jobs.. Big busiiness were once small business usually from individual who saw a neeed in a market or had an idea that could transform society, as there business grows they hire more people.. it’s not that hard to understand
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#272
#272
Biopsyman said:
Ever get a job from a poor person? Wealthy people create jobs.. Big busiiness were once small business usually from individual who saw a neeed in a market or had an idea that could transform society, as there business grows they hire more people.. it’s not that hard to understand
Click to expand...


doesn't happen. Cutting taxes for the wealthy and businesses does not suddenly stimulate robust economic growth--that has been proven to be one of the many false assertions made by Republicans. Republicans always want to cut taxes and regulations--even when those tax revenues and regulations are sorely needed. Big businesses are already big--they've already succeeded--so cutting their tax rate (and the corporate tax is mostly about big businesses) isn't likely to do much more than put more money in the pockets of executives and investors. It's not going to help average Joes, many of whom work in the god-awful service sector.

The Koch Brothers have been obsessed with cutting taxes and regulations for years. Why? They are billionaires--they own the second biggest private company in America. Why exactly are they whining about government and taxes? If your company is big and successful, and you are rich, I'm at a loss to explain why you would feel aggrieved--and yet the Kochs do. And other rich conservatives like them. What: Life hasn't been fair for them? It is bizarre, nonsense. If corporations were the miracle-workers that you seem to believe they are, there wouldn't be a massive number of underpaid people in America. And let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of people who get laid off every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#274
#274
armchair said:
doesn't happen. Cutting taxes for the wealthy and businesses does not suddenly stimulate robust economic growth--that has been proven to be one of the many false assertions made by Republicans. Republicans always want to cut taxes and regulations--even when those tax revenues and regulations are sorely needed. Big businesses are already big--they've already succeeded--so cutting their tax rate (and the corporate tax is mostly about big businesses) isn't likely to do much more than put more money in the pockets of executives and investors. It's not going to help average Joes, many of whom work in the god-awful service sector.

The Koch Brothers have been obsessed with cutting taxes and regulations for years. Why? They are billionaires--they own the second biggest private company in America. Why exactly are they whining about government and taxes? If your company is big and successful, and you are rich, I'm at a loss to explain why you would feel aggrieved--and yet the Kochs do. And other rich conservatives like them. What: Life hasn't been fair for them? It is bizarre, nonsense. If corporations were the miracle-workers that you seem to believe they are, there wouldn't be a massive number of underpaid people in America. And let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of people who get laid off every year.
Click to expand...
People get laid off because businesses are moving operations overseas. Why? Lower taxes. You are an envious idiot
 
#275
#275
armchair said:
doesn't happen. Cutting taxes for the wealthy and businesses does not suddenly stimulate robust economic growth--that has been proven to be one of the many false assertions made by Republicans. Republicans always want to cut taxes and regulations--even when those tax revenues and regulations are sorely needed. Big businesses are already big--they've already succeeded--so cutting their tax rate (and the corporate tax is mostly about big businesses) isn't likely to do much more than put more money in the pockets of executives and investors. It's not going to help average Joes, many of whom work in the god-awful service sector.

The Koch Brothers have been obsessed with cutting taxes and regulations for years. Why? They are billionaires--they own the second biggest private company in America. Why exactly are they whining about government and taxes? If your company is big and successful, and you are rich, I'm at a loss to explain why you would feel aggrieved--and yet the Kochs do. And other rich conservatives like them. What: Life hasn't been fair for them? It is bizarre, nonsense. If corporations were the miracle-workers that you seem to believe they are, there wouldn't be a massive number of underpaid people in America. And let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of people who get laid off every year.
Click to expand...
Wealth is created by the individuals and by companies taking risk and building business not through government
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top