Can anyone can show me where trickle down economics has worked? It did not work under Reagan, Bush, or G. W. Bush, why would it work under trump? Even CEOs are saying the extra money will go back to investors and automating, not into hiring more personnel or higher wages for workers.
Can anyone can show me where trickle down economics has worked? It did not work under Reagan, Bush, or G. W. Bush, why would it work under trump? Even CEOs are saying the extra money will go back to investors and automating, not into hiring more personnel or higher wages for workers.
Worked great during Reagan administration. Economy was great, and middle class flourished.
The center of the Senate GOP tax plan is large permanent cut to the tax rate paid by corporations. These would themselves overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, because the vast majority of their benefits would go to shareholders and capital. But Republicans face two challenges. The first is to sell this primarily as a middle class tax cut, so voters accept it. They do this by frontloading a bunch of preferences for the middle class along with cuts to individual rates across the board. The second challenge is to do this while simultaneously making the case that the plan would not balloon the deficit, to hold on to deficit-hawk senators, and because if it raises the deficit in the long term, procedurally it can’t pass by simple majority with only Republican votes. Republicans address this problem by ending all the middle class preferences and individual rate cuts after 2025.
Can anyone can show me where trickle down economics has worked? It did not work under Reagan, Bush, or G. W. Bush, why would it work under trump? Even CEOs are saying the extra money will go back to investors and automating, not into hiring more personnel or higher wages for workers.
Worked great during Reagan administration. Economy was great, and middle class flourished.
One thing I think you're forgetting about the Reagan era was that he increased government spending and that would have helped the economy. But as history shows time and again....trickle down economics shrinks the GDP.
Can anyone can show me where trickle down economics has worked? It did not work under Reagan, Bush, or G. W. Bush, why would it work under trump? Even CEOs are saying the extra money will go back to investors and automating, not into hiring more personnel or higher wages for workers.
Worked great during Reagan administration. Economy was great, and middle class flourished.
You actually are partially correct, short term, it worked well (paired with increased government spending) no denying that. Long term it has proven to be a complete disaster for this country and could possibly lead to the downfall of this country.
Can anyone can show me where trickle down economics has worked? It did not work under Reagan, Bush, or G. W. Bush, why would it work under trump? Even CEOs are saying the extra money will go back to investors and automating, not into hiring more personnel or higher wages for workers.
Worked great during Reagan administration. Economy was great, and middle class flourished.
You actually are partially correct, short term, it worked well (paired with increased government spending) no denying that. Long term it has proven to be a complete disaster for this country and could possibly lead to the downfall of this country.
And to sell the idea it only needs to work short term, even if the long term is a worse result.
So let's see, who are the people who might just possibly vote no? It seems dumb to continue calling people like Todd Young who are most certainly a yes, we need to start making calls to the people who have indicated they are on the fence and potentially swayable.
I've just emailed Bob Corker so I'm thinking Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and John McCain should be next. Ron Johnson seems like a faker who's been intending to vote yes all along based on his history so I'm not bothering with him. Maybe Jeff Flake since he's not running again.
Lankford, Corker, Young (who publicly seems more pliable than you think), and Flake/McCain are great ones.
The list is depressingly small now that I see it's recent population. Some others I expected to count on have recently said they'll pay for themselves.
Can anyone can show me where trickle down economics has worked? It did not work under Reagan, Bush, or G. W. Bush, why would it work under trump? Even CEOs are saying the extra money will go back to investors and automating, not into hiring more personnel or higher wages for workers.
Worked great during Reagan administration. Economy was great, and middle class flourished.
You actually are partially correct, short term, it worked well (paired with increased government spending) no denying that. Long term it has proven to be a complete disaster for this country and could possibly lead to the downfall of this country.
And to sell the idea it only needs to work short term, even if the long term is a worse result.
Well then dont even need to do that because they have tricked a large portion of the population to believe that this wealth gap that is a result of Reaganomics is perfectly natural and people just need to work harder to make up for it. It is easy to defend that long term problems when you convince people they aren't problems at all.
People making near the poverty line will be immediately affected, then the middle class years from now when they expire, only the upper 1% and corporations are getting a great deal.
Perhaps we need some pain to be inflicted for people to wake up and realize they're being fucked.
@Serraph105: In addition to them, target the deficit Hawks. They seem to know the growth projections are hogwash.
Deficits don't matter, as we've seen with every apologist in these forums who complained for 8 years and are now OK increasing over levels they deemed inexcusable. We're living in a world filled with hypocrites and idiots.
My understanding is that it penalizes people who live in states with high taxes - such as NJ, CA, NY, etc. You used to be able to deduct state and local taxes I believe, but this plan limits that. Not smart in my opinion as it will have far reaching consequences that they just arent thinking of.
My understanding is that it penalizes people who live in states with high taxes - such as NJ, CA, NY, etc. You used to be able to deduct state and local taxes I believe, but this plan limits that. Not smart in my opinion as it will have far reaching consequences that they just arent thinking of.
Well, you can rule Corker out. It looks like he's a 'yes' vote now.
Do you mean through the comittee or do you mean he fully intends to vote for it to actually pass the senate? I know I'm grasping for straws here, but still.
EDIT mmm looked it up, he didn't get his needed solutions in the bill and he still voted it through. On the plus side (well, a plus if you are looking for any way for this thing to fail) Ted Cruz says he wants a solution that will effectively do the opposite of what Bob wants.
How can this pass? I mean really? How can our elected reps pass a bill that screws the VAST majority of their constituents. IF this passes we should vote all of them out of office. And I'm not kidding. This will have lasting consequences.
How can this pass? I mean really? How can our elected reps pass a bill that screws the VAST majority of their constituents. IF this passes we should vote all of them out of office. And I'm not kidding. This will have lasting consequences.
Because the vast majority pay no attention, believe the bullshit, and play party politics.
Hopefully the Republicans get voted out. It's clear to me they don't give a damn about the people.
How can this pass? I mean really? How can our elected reps pass a bill that screws the VAST majority of their constituents. IF this passes we should vote all of them out of office. And I'm not kidding. This will have lasting consequences.
Because the vast majority pay no attention, believe the bullshit, and play party politics.
Hopefully the Republicans get voted out. It's clear to me they don't give a damn about the people.
The brain washing is too strong, the republican voters literally have shit where their brains should be.
The negative response to raising taxes if this bill doesn't work out is astounding to me. Basically republicans are saying no to doing things differently if what they're currently trying doesn't work.
@horgen: and Senate term schedules. Not to mention that Democrat voting rates tend to be down in midterm years, and Bernie Or Bust folks are making it tough to make gains in the lower levels of government.
@horgen: and Senate term schedules. Not to mention that Democrat voting rates tend to be down in midterm years, and Bernie Or Bust folks are making it tough to make gains in the lower levels of government.
@horgen: Yeah, a lot of the Democrat voters complain about Republicans a lot, but then either don't vote or do something like write in a candidate "because they're all the same".
@Serraph105: Yeah, they know it's nonsense. They're just trying to provide political cover for themselves.
So, considering that they know it won't help the general public, what would be a deterrent for this group of republicans? Like, I get that there's nothing to be done at this point because they're still passing what is already an unpopular bill, but for the sake of hypotheticals what would make them think twice?
I'm drawing a blank, maybe the answer really is nothing. Can you, or anyone else, think of anything?
@Serraph105: Yeah, they know it's nonsense. They're just trying to provide political cover for themselves.
So, considering that they know it won't help the general public, what would be a deterrent for this group of republicans? Like, I get that there's nothing to be done at this point because they're still passing what is already an unpopular bill, but for the sake of hypotheticals what would make them think twice?
I'm drawing a blank, maybe the answer really is nothing. Can you, or anyone else, think of anything?
@Serraph105: Yeah, they know it's nonsense. They're just trying to provide political cover for themselves.
So, considering that they know it won't help the general public, what would be a deterrent for this group of republicans? Like, I get that there's nothing to be done at this point because they're still passing what is already an unpopular bill, but for the sake of hypotheticals what would make them think twice?
I'm drawing a blank, maybe the answer really is nothing. Can you, or anyone else, think of anything?
The driving force here is donor money. Donor money is primarily used to win campaigns, and that's still accomplished via getting the most votes.
In theory, a significant voter backlash (enough to cause them to lose their next elections) in their own districts away from the Republican party would do the trick, but I don't think there's enough time to A) generate that backlash (assuming it's even possible) and B) show them that such backlash exists. I don't think there's much hope for that scenario.
I think you have to hope that the two sides can't come to an agreement during reconciliation of the two bills. That the House demands additions that cause at least 3 senators to vote 'no', and the party ends up defeating itself due to warring factions of the "moderate" Senate members and the "Freedom Caucus" members of the House. The problem I see there is that the Senate members have largely already given in to the demands of the Freedom Caucus (ACA repeal included, deficit concerns cast aside, SALT inclusion).
@Serraph105: Yeah, they know it's nonsense. They're just trying to provide political cover for themselves.
So, considering that they know it won't help the general public, what would be a deterrent for this group of republicans? Like, I get that there's nothing to be done at this point because they're still passing what is already an unpopular bill, but for the sake of hypotheticals what would make them think twice?
I'm drawing a blank, maybe the answer really is nothing. Can you, or anyone else, think of anything?
Control the cash flow...
Yeah, that's the other method, but it's now constitutionally protected via Citizens United. That won't be stopped for a loooooong time.
@Serraph105: Yeah, they know it's nonsense. They're just trying to provide political cover for themselves.
So, considering that they know it won't help the general public, what would be a deterrent for this group of republicans? Like, I get that there's nothing to be done at this point because they're still passing what is already an unpopular bill, but for the sake of hypotheticals what would make them think twice?
I'm drawing a blank, maybe the answer really is nothing. Can you, or anyone else, think of anything?
Control the cash flow...
Yeah, that's the other method, but it's now constitutionally protected via Citizens United. That won't be stopped for a loooooong time.
Between Citizens United, Gerrymandering, polarization, and probably a few other things they really are broken aren't they?
@LJS9502_basic: Oh, yeah. If the threshold is gaining some house seats and maybe even a Senate seat or two then I agree that's not a huge obstacle. I thought you were referring to taking back the House and Senate which I think is pretty unlikely. My mistake.
Log in to comment