GOP Tax Proposal To Hit MU Boosters

[warriorchick]

to add to that, 52% of Americans don't own stock.

They don't pay income tax, either.

[MUBurrow]

They don't pay income tax, either.

And this bill helps ensure they won't ever be able to.

[jesmu84]

guess we're just gonna have to read it to find out what's in it-'ey?  wait, where have i heard that one before

I don't understand this whataboutism.

So because it happened before (and I'm sure you didn't like it then), you're okay with it happening this time? Even if you support the tax proposal, shouldn't you (or anyone) have the same stance now as then?

[Pakuni]

Well, this keeps getting better:

The Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional scorekeeper for tax bills, estimates that the Senate tax bill could generate enough growth to create nearly $408 billion in new revenue over a decade. But even with that additional revenue, the bill would still add an estimated $1 trillion to deficits.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

the stock market seems to like it...anyone's 401k down this year?  i think the dow is up about 30% since last nov. 4.  doubt it would be up 10% if the alternative occured-oh well eyn'er?

Gee, ya think?  You think shoving massive gobs of borrowed cash to corporations -- whose CEO's overwhelming say they won't use it to expand or create jobs--might cause valuations to go up?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

They don't pay income tax, either.

Do you think this is a good tax bill?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

guess we're just gonna have to read it to find out what's in it-'ey?  wait, where have i heard that one before

You've distorted the quote even further than I typically see.  Here, perhaps read this: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/

[warriorchick]

Do you think this is a good tax bill?

No. I like some parts, but overall, I hope it doesn't pass.

[rocket surgeon]

I don't understand this whataboutism.

So because it happened before (and I'm sure you didn't like it then), you're okay with it happening this time? Even if you support the tax proposal, shouldn't you (or anyone) have the same stance now as then?

absolutely not-i still don't know enough about it to even have my own personal opinion(like or dislike)  just like many other things i have an opinion on, i don't think my congress people really care. yes, i do vote, but really? you have reached the office of...listen closely as our messages have recently changed.  this call may be recorded for training purposes,  press 1 for... blah blah

[jesmu84]

absolutely not-i still don't know enough about it to even have my own personal opinion(like or dislike)  just like many other things i have an opinion on, i don't think my congress people really care. yes, i do vote, but really? you have reached the office of...listen closely as our messages have recently changed.  this call may be recorded for training purposes,  press 1 for... blah blah

Thanks for the response

[MU82]

the stock market seems to like it...anyone's 401k down this year?  i think the dow is up about 30% since last nov. 4.  doubt it would be up 10% if the alternative occured-oh well eyn'er?

Yeah, rocket, the market has had an amazing rise since Trump was elected president - with the S&P 500 Index up 25.2% in that year+ a month.

And hey, that's only 4 points less than its gain during the same amount of time after the previous presidential election!

That's right. The S&P 500 Index went up 29.5% in the exact same number of days (387) after Obama was re-elected on Nov. 6, 2012.

Facts are fun, aye'nahey'na?!?!

Although I have a feeling that President Factless would take credit for the post-2012-election gain, too, if one of his aides told him about it.

(I used the calculator and DividendChannel.com; gain is with dividends reinvested. https://www.dividendchannel.com/drip-returns-calculator/)

[rocket surgeon]

Yeah, rocket, the market has had an amazing rise since Trump was elected president - with the S&P 500 Index up 25.2% in that year+ a month.

And hey, that's only 4 points less than its gain during the same amount of time after the previous presidential election!

That's right. The S&P 500 Index went up 29.5% in the exact same number of days (387) after Obama was re-elected on Nov. 6, 2012.

Facts are fun, aye'nahey'na?!?!

Although I have a feeling that President Factless would take credit for the post-2012-election gain, too, if one of his aides told him about it.

(I used the calculator and DividendChannel.com; gain is with dividends reinvested. https://www.dividendchannel.com/drip-returns-calculator/)

one of my portfolios-from 2012 to nov. 2016 shows 30% increase.

    nov. 2016-nov. 2017...ummm, 84% increase!!

    my brother in law who votes the other way is making a $hit ton of $$ i mean think buy a really really nice house money...in one year!  yes. i realize it's a long way to 2020-2024, but some of these gains can be realized in safer havens to lock in the gains if one is concerned about chill

[MU82]

one of my portfolios-from 2012 to nov. 2016 shows 30% increase.

    nov. 2016-nov. 2017...ummm, 84% increase!!

    my brother in law who votes the other way is making a $hit ton of $$ i mean think buy a really really nice house money...in one year!  yes. i realize it's a long way to 2020-2024, but some of these gains can be realized in safer havens to lock in the gains if one is concerned about chill

I'm not arguing about your portfolio or your brother-in-law's or what the market did over any 4-year period. I am merely presenting facts.

The current president and his supporters crow about how the stock market has done in the year+month since he was elected. And it has done great. It simply did better in the first year+month after his predecessor was re-elected.

That's math. It's a fact. A fact is a fact.

Maybe the Trump presidency will prove to be exactly what America needed and he will go on to be the best president ever to grab a wet cat. But that's all opinion.

Most economists believe a president - any president - has negligible effect on the stock market. They also believe Wall Street does not really represent how Main Street is doing financially, as most of the market's wealth goes to those who already had wealth.

I am certain that when this giveaway to billionaires is finalized, you and I will come out of it A-OK. We have some money. We'd come out A-OK either way.

But let's stick to facts about things like stock market gains when those facts are so readily available.

[mu03eng]

Heres the problem, partisanship...from both sides. Neither side actually has the right answer on stuff like tax reform, if they were compromising with each other we might get somewhere that is practically useful. However because we've entered this period of "if you're for it, I'm against it" and a lot of whataboutism we are getting only one sides ideas out and they tend to be more extreme because this environment gives power to the extremes of each party.

Don't know what the answer is, but burn it down and start over is sure feeling more and more relevant these days.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Heres the problem, partisanship...from both sides.

With all due respect mu03eng, I disagree.  I think the "both sides" argument is a cop-out.  Both sides certainly do not do, at least not whatsoever to the same degree.

Example: During the passage of the ACA, 188 amendments proposed by Republicans were adopted into the final bill.  During both the attempt to repeal and the current tax bill, 0 Democratic amendments have been included.  The final ACA had 25 days of debate on the floor.  There will be zero for the tax bill.

I disagree that both sides are (equally) to blame when it is clearly an asymmetrical issue.

[Pakuni]

With all due respect mu03eng, I disagree.  I think the "both sides" argument is a cop-out.  Both sides certainly do not do, at least not whatsoever to the same degree.

Example: During the passage of the ACA, 188 amendments proposed by Republicans were adopted into the final bill.  During both the attempt to repeal and the current tax bill, 0 Democratic amendments have been included.  The final ACA had 25 days of debate on the floor.  There will be zero for the tax bill.

I disagree that both sides are (equally) to blame when it is clearly an asymmetrical issue.

Exactly correct.
To say both sides are deeply flawed and bear some responsibility would be accurate. To say both sides are equally to blame for the state of Washington today is the kind whataboutism that mu03eng derides.
It's like comparing Al Franken to Roy Moore. Yeah, both are guilty of skeezy behavior toward females, but they're not the same.

[mu03eng]

With all due respect mu03eng, I disagree.  I think the "both sides" argument is a cop-out.  Both sides certainly do not do, at least not whatsoever to the same degree.

Example: During the passage of the ACA, 188 amendments proposed by Republicans were adopted into the final bill.  During both the attempt to repeal and the current tax bill, 0 Democratic amendments have been included.  The final ACA had 25 days of debate on the floor.  There will be zero for the tax bill.

I disagree that both sides are (equally) to blame when it is clearly an asymmetrical issue.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/16/luis-gutierrez/rep-gutierrez-says-hundreds-republican-amendments-/

[mu03eng]

Exactly correct.
To say both sides are deeply flawed and bear some responsibility would be accurate. To say both sides are equally to blame for the state of Washington today is the kind whataboutism that mu03eng derides.
It's like comparing Al Franken to Roy Moore. Yeah, both are guilty of skeezy behavior toward females, but they're not the same.

Care to point where I said the sides were equally to blame? Much like the Franken/Moore example.....both can be awful and inexcusable but I can also be madder about one then the other, we are capable as human beings of the complexity of thought. Saying "I'm bad but not as bad as them" is part of the whataboutism. Both parties are obstructive, partisan, and beholden to special interests...what degree that is true or who is worse is somewhat irrelevant.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Then there's this.
Maybe it needs to go in the Daily Dose of Doom Thread?


I’m a Depression historian. The GOP tax bill is straight out of 1929.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/30/im-a-depression-historian-the-gop-tax-bill-is-straight-out-of-1929/?utm_term=.16d5fdb8b50a

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Care to point where I said the sides were equally to blame? Much like the Franken/Moore example.....both can be awful and inexcusable but I can also be madder about one then the other, we are capable as human beings of the complexity of thought. Saying "I'm bad but not as bad as them" is part of the whataboutism. Both parties are obstructive, partisan, and beholden to special interests...what degree that is true or who is worse is somewhat irrelevant.

You did not explicitly say "they are equally to blame", I agree.  When you say "Heres the problem, partisanship...from both sides", however, it is easy to draw that conclusion.

And, again, I disagree with you that "what degree that is true or who is worse is somewhat irrelevant."  If it is 90-10, it is highly relevant IMO.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/16/luis-gutierrez/rep-gutierrez-says-hundreds-republican-amendments-/

Here is what I pulled from:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/21/us/health-care-amendments.html

[Spotcheck Billy]

They don't pay income tax, either.

I sure as hell do

[mu03eng]

Here is what I pulled from:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/21/us/health-care-amendments.html

I'm not disagreeing with the numbers, I'm just speaking pragmatically and certainly am not a parliamentarian. If those amendments were impactful to the legislation as opposed to "technical" in nature I'm 100% willing to conceded the point.

[jesmu84]

So much for the hard-line stance on not increasing deficit, eh?

[mu03eng]

So much for the hard-line stance on not increasing deficit, eh?

It's a convenient talking point when you want to say no to something....otherwise it's just inconvenient.