THANKS Obama for your contribution to the US drug epidemic
- Thread starter Herdfaninnoke
- Start date
Correct. You never argued when posters said raising the minimum wage to $15 would cause happy meals to double, that 99% of retail workers make minimum wage, that banks were forced to give bad loans, that the poor don't pay taxes, that the ACA would ruin America, that Mueller's investigation is a witch hunt, etc.
And on top of that you've admitted to voting for republican presidents something like 8 consecutive times.
But here you are now arguing that tax cuts won't cause people to turn to drugs.
It's called ideology. The fact you're not very vocal about it doesn't mean you're not knee deep in it.
that politico piece is pretty detailed - and long. they did their homework. and given that politico is left-leaning, i'm kind of surprised they printed that article at all.
a lot of folks need to answer for this. brennan knew how hezbollah was evolving and that exposing it would upset the iranian deal. the wall street journal is reporting that a former cia officer confirmed iran asked the obama admin to ease up on hezbollah so it wouldn't upset the nuclear deal, something a treasury official, katherine baeur, confirmed.
i'd like to know more about who in congress knew about this and aided them. especially the deals around fayad and obama's dealings with santos.
Last edited:
Country,
This clears up the bias reporting of the CBO piece you quote.
The Latest Tax Cut Lie: The Senate Bill Will Hurt The Poor
Tax Reform: The Senate tax bill would reduce income taxes for people at every income level — even those who don't pay taxes. That's the official conclusion of the Joint Committee on Taxation. So why are Monday's headlines screaming that the tax cuts would make the poor much worse off?
"Senate GOP tax bill hurts the poor more than originally thought, CBO finds." That's the headline in the Washington Post describing a Congressional Budget Office report released on Sunday.
The story claims that the "Republican tax plan gives substantial tax cuts and benefits to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year, while the nation's poorest would be worse off." Later, the Post story talks about the bill's "harsh impact on the poor."
No Hidden Agenda: Get News From A Pro-Free Market, Pro-Growth Perspective
This conveniently fits with the Democrats' evergreen talking point on tax cuts — that they benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. But is it true?
Not. At. All.
First of all, the CBO doesn't describe the Senate bill as being "harsh" to the poor. That's the spin put on by the reporter.
The report does, however, include a table that shows how the bill would affect federal revenues and spending by income group. And, indeed, it appears to indicate that those making less than $40,000 will take it on the chin, while those making more than $100,000 make out like bandits.
But note the word "spending" above. Since this is a tax-cut bill, why is "spending" part of the calculation at all?
That's in there because the CBO includes the spending impact of the Senate bill's repeal of ObamaCare's individual mandate.
And this is where things get really fishy.
As we've noted in this space, the much-hated ObamaCare mandate has been hugely ineffective in getting people to buy insurance. But the CBO nevertheless assumes that once the mandate is gone, millions of people will suddenly drop insurance — including millions of people who are currently getting health coverage for free through Medicaid. In fact, the CBO projects that 1 million would drop Medicaid coverage in 2019, and 5 million will do so by 2024.
(Note that the tax bill doesn't change Medicaid eligibility or ObamaCare subsidies one iota.)
Let's assume that the CBO is right — even though it strains credulity to the breaking point — and millions of people give up free or nearly free insurance once the mandate goes away.
Everyone gets a tax cut under the Senate bill. (Note: Data for 2027 assume all the tax cuts expire that year.)
The result would be that the government would pay less subsidy money to insurance companies. And state and federal Medicaid costs would decline. So yes, federal spending would go down, and those spending reductions would technically be concentrated in lower-income groups.
But to describe this as "harsh" treatment of the poor is to engage in blatant deception.
These are people who would have voluntarily chosen to go without insurance, and by doing so saved taxpayers money. That's hardly the same as cutting benefits.
When Republicans demanded a distribution table that looked only the impact of the tax cuts in their tax cut bill, the result was remarkably different.
What that table (shown nearby) indicates is that every income group will get tax relief — including those who don't pay taxes because of the bill's hike in refundable tax credits.
And, by the way, none of these tables accounts for the economic boost, the new jobs and the increased income that will result from the GOP's tax cuts.
Anyone want to claim the poor will be hurt by that?
This clears up the bias reporting of the CBO piece you quote.
The Latest Tax Cut Lie: The Senate Bill Will Hurt The Poor
Tax Reform: The Senate tax bill would reduce income taxes for people at every income level — even those who don't pay taxes. That's the official conclusion of the Joint Committee on Taxation. So why are Monday's headlines screaming that the tax cuts would make the poor much worse off?
"Senate GOP tax bill hurts the poor more than originally thought, CBO finds." That's the headline in the Washington Post describing a Congressional Budget Office report released on Sunday.
The story claims that the "Republican tax plan gives substantial tax cuts and benefits to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year, while the nation's poorest would be worse off." Later, the Post story talks about the bill's "harsh impact on the poor."
No Hidden Agenda: Get News From A Pro-Free Market, Pro-Growth Perspective
This conveniently fits with the Democrats' evergreen talking point on tax cuts — that they benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. But is it true?
Not. At. All.
First of all, the CBO doesn't describe the Senate bill as being "harsh" to the poor. That's the spin put on by the reporter.
The report does, however, include a table that shows how the bill would affect federal revenues and spending by income group. And, indeed, it appears to indicate that those making less than $40,000 will take it on the chin, while those making more than $100,000 make out like bandits.
But note the word "spending" above. Since this is a tax-cut bill, why is "spending" part of the calculation at all?
That's in there because the CBO includes the spending impact of the Senate bill's repeal of ObamaCare's individual mandate.
And this is where things get really fishy.
As we've noted in this space, the much-hated ObamaCare mandate has been hugely ineffective in getting people to buy insurance. But the CBO nevertheless assumes that once the mandate is gone, millions of people will suddenly drop insurance — including millions of people who are currently getting health coverage for free through Medicaid. In fact, the CBO projects that 1 million would drop Medicaid coverage in 2019, and 5 million will do so by 2024.
(Note that the tax bill doesn't change Medicaid eligibility or ObamaCare subsidies one iota.)
Let's assume that the CBO is right — even though it strains credulity to the breaking point — and millions of people give up free or nearly free insurance once the mandate goes away.
Everyone gets a tax cut under the Senate bill. (Note: Data for 2027 assume all the tax cuts expire that year.)
The result would be that the government would pay less subsidy money to insurance companies. And state and federal Medicaid costs would decline. So yes, federal spending would go down, and those spending reductions would technically be concentrated in lower-income groups.
But to describe this as "harsh" treatment of the poor is to engage in blatant deception.
These are people who would have voluntarily chosen to go without insurance, and by doing so saved taxpayers money. That's hardly the same as cutting benefits.
When Republicans demanded a distribution table that looked only the impact of the tax cuts in their tax cut bill, the result was remarkably different.
What that table (shown nearby) indicates is that every income group will get tax relief — including those who don't pay taxes because of the bill's hike in refundable tax credits.
And, by the way, none of these tables accounts for the economic boost, the new jobs and the increased income that will result from the GOP's tax cuts.
Anyone want to claim the poor will be hurt by that?
What are you even talking about?
I'm not arguing it is going away. I confirmed that in my post above in this thread and brought this up on threads long before this one. You are correct the calculations are done on line 42. I stated that it was line 6 a, b, and c, where you add up the number of exemptions.
I was trying to clear up this comment you made...
"1) you can't just look at the brackets. People are losing the standard deduction on page 2 of the IRS forms, $4050 per dependent."
You either misstated with that comment or misunderstand the difference between the standard deduction and the personal exemption. I tried to clear it up with this...
"First off, (1) people are not losing their standard deduction. Their standard deduction is nearly doubling. What they are losing is their personal exemption."
Anyway...arguing that point is silly and amounts to semantics. I'm as guilty as you on that point. My apologies.
Country,
This clears up the bias reporting of the CBO piece you quote.
The Latest Tax Cut Lie: The Senate Bill Will Hurt The Poor
Tax Reform: The Senate tax bill would reduce income taxes for people at every income level — even those who don't pay taxes. That's the official conclusion of the Joint Committee on Taxation. So why are Monday's headlines screaming that the tax cuts would make the poor much worse off?
"Senate GOP tax bill hurts the poor more than originally thought, CBO finds." That's the headline in the Washington Post describing a Congressional Budget Office report released on Sunday.
The story claims that the "Republican tax plan gives substantial tax cuts and benefits to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year, while the nation's poorest would be worse off." Later, the Post story talks about the bill's "harsh impact on the poor."
No Hidden Agenda: Get News From A Pro-Free Market, Pro-Growth Perspective
This conveniently fits with the Democrats' evergreen talking point on tax cuts — that they benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. But is it true?
Not. At. All.
First of all, the CBO doesn't describe the Senate bill as being "harsh" to the poor. That's the spin put on by the reporter.
The report does, however, include a table that shows how the bill would affect federal revenues and spending by income group. And, indeed, it appears to indicate that those making less than $40,000 will take it on the chin, while those making more than $100,000 make out like bandits.
But note the word "spending" above. Since this is a tax-cut bill, why is "spending" part of the calculation at all?
That's in there because the CBO includes the spending impact of the Senate bill's repeal of ObamaCare's individual mandate.
And this is where things get really fishy.
As we've noted in this space, the much-hated ObamaCare mandate has been hugely ineffective in getting people to buy insurance. But the CBO nevertheless assumes that once the mandate is gone, millions of people will suddenly drop insurance — including millions of people who are currently getting health coverage for free through Medicaid. In fact, the CBO projects that 1 million would drop Medicaid coverage in 2019, and 5 million will do so by 2024.
(Note that the tax bill doesn't change Medicaid eligibility or ObamaCare subsidies one iota.)
Let's assume that the CBO is right — even though it strains credulity to the breaking point — and millions of people give up free or nearly free insurance once the mandate goes away.
Everyone gets a tax cut under the Senate bill. (Note: Data for 2027 assume all the tax cuts expire that year.)
The result would be that the government would pay less subsidy money to insurance companies. And state and federal Medicaid costs would decline. So yes, federal spending would go down, and those spending reductions would technically be concentrated in lower-income groups.
But to describe this as "harsh" treatment of the poor is to engage in blatant deception.
These are people who would have voluntarily chosen to go without insurance, and by doing so saved taxpayers money. That's hardly the same as cutting benefits.
When Republicans demanded a distribution table that looked only the impact of the tax cuts in their tax cut bill, the result was remarkably different.
What that table (shown nearby) indicates is that every income group will get tax relief — including those who don't pay taxes because of the bill's hike in refundable tax credits.
And, by the way, none of these tables accounts for the economic boost, the new jobs and the increased income that will result from the GOP's tax cuts.
Anyone want to claim the poor will be hurt by that?
Thank you for posting. I was looking for articles to explain why this showed a change every year of the plan. I'm thinking...is there a scheduled phase out of the tax table or standard deduction increase that I've missed on the ton of articles I've read on this?
With the new standards he chart makes no sense anyway since the standard deduction is doubling a person wouldn't pay ANY tax on their first 12,000 so no way a person making less than 10k owe money
Exactly. I noticed the same thing. And if it were a married couple that amount is $24,000. So even without a child tax credit or any other deductions the only taxable portion would be $6000 at 10% or $600 of actual taxes for the $30,000 premise. When I compared that to the old plan they paid more. Add in children, with the doubling of the child tax credit (a direct dollar for dollar credit toward taxes) you're not only paying zero federal taxes (you still pay FICA) you're getting money back you never paid to begin with.
Over 80 percent of Americans will get a tax cut next year under the Republican tax bill, and only 5 percent will see a tax hike. But that’s not equal across all income groups. Among those in the bottom 20 percent of earners — taxpayers earning less than $25,400 — only half will see a tax break. Most others in this group will see no change.
Middle-income taxpayers will see an average tax change of less than $1,000, while the wealthy will see the largest tax breaks. The average member of the top 1 percent will get a tax break of $51,140.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/tax-bill-overview/?utm_term=.a2ee1cde2509
Middle-income taxpayers will see an average tax change of less than $1,000, while the wealthy will see the largest tax breaks. The average member of the top 1 percent will get a tax break of $51,140.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/tax-bill-overview/?utm_term=.a2ee1cde2509
So half will get more and most see no change. You know this doesnt help you right
Last edited:
Country,
This clears up the bias reporting of the CBO piece you quote.
The Latest Tax Cut Lie: The Senate Bill Will Hurt The Poor
Tax Reform: The Senate tax bill would reduce income taxes for people at every income level — even those who don't pay taxes. That's the official conclusion of the Joint Committee on Taxation. So why are Monday's headlines screaming that the tax cuts would make the poor much worse off?
"Senate GOP tax bill hurts the poor more than originally thought, CBO finds." That's the headline in the Washington Post describing a Congressional Budget Office report released on Sunday.
The story claims that the "Republican tax plan gives substantial tax cuts and benefits to Americans earning more than $100,000 a year, while the nation's poorest would be worse off." Later, the Post story talks about the bill's "harsh impact on the poor."
No Hidden Agenda: Get News From A Pro-Free Market, Pro-Growth Perspective
This conveniently fits with the Democrats' evergreen talking point on tax cuts — that they benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. But is it true?
Not. At. All.
First of all, the CBO doesn't describe the Senate bill as being "harsh" to the poor. That's the spin put on by the reporter.
The report does, however, include a table that shows how the bill would affect federal revenues and spending by income group. And, indeed, it appears to indicate that those making less than $40,000 will take it on the chin, while those making more than $100,000 make out like bandits.
But note the word "spending" above. Since this is a tax-cut bill, why is "spending" part of the calculation at all?
That's in there because the CBO includes the spending impact of the Senate bill's repeal of ObamaCare's individual mandate.
And this is where things get really fishy.
As we've noted in this space, the much-hated ObamaCare mandate has been hugely ineffective in getting people to buy insurance. But the CBO nevertheless assumes that once the mandate is gone, millions of people will suddenly drop insurance — including millions of people who are currently getting health coverage for free through Medicaid. In fact, the CBO projects that 1 million would drop Medicaid coverage in 2019, and 5 million will do so by 2024.
(Note that the tax bill doesn't change Medicaid eligibility or ObamaCare subsidies one iota.)
Let's assume that the CBO is right — even though it strains credulity to the breaking point — and millions of people give up free or nearly free insurance once the mandate goes away.
Everyone gets a tax cut under the Senate bill. (Note: Data for 2027 assume all the tax cuts expire that year.)
The result would be that the government would pay less subsidy money to insurance companies. And state and federal Medicaid costs would decline. So yes, federal spending would go down, and those spending reductions would technically be concentrated in lower-income groups.
But to describe this as "harsh" treatment of the poor is to engage in blatant deception.
These are people who would have voluntarily chosen to go without insurance, and by doing so saved taxpayers money. That's hardly the same as cutting benefits.
When Republicans demanded a distribution table that looked only the impact of the tax cuts in their tax cut bill, the result was remarkably different.
What that table (shown nearby) indicates is that every income group will get tax relief — including those who don't pay taxes because of the bill's hike in refundable tax credits.
And, by the way, none of these tables accounts for the economic boost, the new jobs and the increased income that will result from the GOP's tax cuts.
Anyone want to claim the poor will be hurt by that?
Yeah, the CBO is biased and lying.
GTFOH!
I didn’t state that the cbo was lying, rather what the cbo was staying was being misrepresented by reporters.
Read the article I think you’ll find it enlightening and give you more understanding of the new tax bill.
Ah...now I see what this is all about. It isn't punitive enough toward the rich for you.
What you don't see, or won't admit, is that tax cuts for the wealthy ARE punitive when looked at from the point of the nation's economic health. But you're like the rest of the cons, tax cuts first, country second, or somewhere down the line in priorities.
Won't see or won't admit?
From December 4th, the very first post I made on the tax plan...
"But Raoul brings up a point. If this does t grow the economy it will add to the deficit."
I can understand why you erroneously believe I won't see or admit it though. To borrow your phrasing...You're like the rest of the ideologues, see everything through the filter of ideology first, find out the truth about things somewhere down the line in priorities.
I for one thinks that this has a good chance to grow the economy and increase the tax revenue. Coupled with cutting some spending this could be good. I certainly won't be hoping against it like you will be in order to score some perceived political victory.
Now you do what it is that you do...believe that the last word equates to winning the argument. I'll allow you to have that victory...one that takes place only in your head.
