The 2017 General Salma Hayek discussion thread...Part 3!!!

[Kutnupe14]

Like I said, Trump did a great job of selling.
US House Speaker Paul Ryan deletes $1.50 tax cut gain tweet - BBC News

$1.50/ week shouldn’t thrill too many people.

Especially when they disappear, as the corporate tax cuts chug along. If we hit a recession, which we are overdue for, and they coincide with the expiration of the tax cuts, man, that will put a LOT of people in a bind.

 

[HubertGummer]

Like I said, Trump did a great job of selling.
US House Speaker Paul Ryan deletes $1.50 tax cut gain tweet - BBC News

$1.50/ week shouldn’t thrill too many people.

Just saw the recent tax cut on my check this week and it was much bigger than $1.50. You guys can bash Trump and his tax plan all you want but extra money is extra money.

 

[KLB]

Especially when they disappear, as the corporate tax cuts chug along. If we hit a recession, which we are overdue for, and they coincide with the expiration of the tax cuts, man, that will put a LOT of people in a bind.

So they should not cut taxes because at some point Congress will decide to increase them again?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So they should not cut taxes because at some point Congress will decide to increase them again?

No, they should treat the individual citizen better than they treat multi-national companies. Had the cuts been reversed, and the individual tax cut was permanent, with the company tax cut, temporary, from year to year. Citizens spend their money domestically; companies not so much. At the point when it becomes more profitable for them to leave, they're gone.... and they're gone will still reaping the benefits of those permanent tax cuts. What is their incentive to stay now? Patriotism?

 

[Dr.Midnight]

No, they should treat the individual citizen better than they treat multi-national companies. Had the cuts been reversed, and the individual tax cut was permanent, with the company tax cut, temporary, from year to year. Citizens spend their money domestically; companies not so much. At the point when it becomes more profitable for them to leave, they're gone.... and they're gone will still reaping the benefits of those permanent tax cuts. What is their incentive to stay now? Patriotism?

Call this in the White House. They've effed up everything they've touched so far on the economy.

 

[BugI02]

Just saw the recent tax cut on my check this week and it was much bigger than $1.50. You guys can bash Trump and his tax plan all you want but extra money is extra money.

But ... but ... the people who actually pay taxes got a break while the ... less gainfully employed, shall we say ... got nothing. Not fair! :stampy footie:

 

[Kutnupe14]

Just saw the recent tax cut on my check this week and it was much bigger than $1.50. You guys can bash Trump and his tax plan all you want but extra money is extra money.

Yeah, in a bubble. If the Fed increases interest rates, that extra $1.50 won't seem like such the windfall. That retraction by the Dow the other day? Yeah, that's anticipation that rates will probably hike sometime this year.

 

[KLB]

No, they should treat the individual citizen better than they treat multi-national companies. Had the cuts been reversed, and the individual tax cut was permanent, with the company tax cut, temporary, from year to year. Citizens spend their money domestically; companies not so much. At the point when it becomes more profitable for them to leave, they're gone.... and they're gone will still reaping the benefits of those permanent tax cuts. What is their incentive to stay now? Patriotism?

Well, chalk that up to the games they play on Capital Hill. To make them permanent they would have needed some Democratic votes, and we know that wasn't happening.

Yeah, in a bubble. If the Fed increases interest rates, that extra $1.50 won't seem like such the windfall. That retraction by the Dow the other day? Yeah, that's anticipation that rates will probably hike sometime this year.

Where is the correlation? Interest rates were going up with or without a tax cut.

 

[HubertGummer]

Yeah, in a bubble. If the Fed increases interest rates, that extra $1.50 won't seem like such the windfall. That retraction by the Dow the other day? Yeah, that's anticipation that rates will probably hike sometime this year.

Interest rates are bound to go up when the economy recovers. They've been held down since the housing crash. My point was that the tax break I just saw on my check was bigger than anything I got when O was in office. I just don't see how the left can convince the populous that keeping more of their hard earned money is a bad thing.

 

[jamil]

I’m disappointed it had to get done the way it got done, but that’s the way it could get done.

Now that the tax cuts are in place, I think there can be more pressure applied to progressives to keep them in place. If they’re temporary for businesses, there is much less political cost, because most people won’t care if it’s not coming directly out of their pockets. But democrats would be more reluctant to increase taxes on people who will notice the difference and care about it.

 

[jamil]

Interest rates are bound to go up when the economy recovers. They've been held down since the housing crash. My point was that the tax break I just saw on my check was bigger than anything I got when O was in office. I just don't see how the left can convince the populous that keeping more of their hard earned money is a bad thing.

I saw where Trump’s approval rating is at the highert point. Near 50. People see the what democrats say, then look at their paychecks and paychecks and see how much **** democrats are full of. The political cost of spreading hyperbole all the time is the the faith people lose in you when what’s real becomes noticeable.

Claiming they’re just breadcrumbs had to be one of the politically stupidest counters to the tax plan. It implies that tax cuts are good, and Trump’s plan doesn’t go far enough. All the while you whine on about what a bad idea lowering everyone’s taxes is. Way to go dip****s. You exposed yourselves.

And cherry-picking the $1.50 to say the tax cut wasn’t that much will possibly work for the people whose paychecks are handouts for which they pay no taxes. But to the average joe who’s seeing 1.5-2.5% increase, no matter his politics, again, he’s going to notice the **** with which democrats are filled.

 

[jamil]

The point I forgot to make, there is plenty of political fodder in the Trump administration which is real. This is stuff people can see is real right in front of them, for which people would experience the trueness of the criticisms. But you criticize him for things which aren’t true and you risk the tremendous political cost of not being trusted by normal people to tell the truth. At that point you only have the support of ideological zealots.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The point I forgot to make, there is plenty of political fodder in the Trump administration which is real. This is stuff people can see is real right in front of them, for which people would experience the trueness of the criticisms. But you criticize him for things which aren’t true and you risk the tremendous political cost of not being trusted by normal people to tell the truth. At that point you only have the support of ideological zealots.

That doesn't not appear to be true. At least it didn't hold true for the last administration.

 

[Fargo]

That doesn't not appear to be true. At least it didn't hold true for the last administration.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "normal people". I sometimes wonder if you even acknowledge that Obama was elected and reelected by "normal people" to the highest office in the land...

 

[Kutnupe14]

I suppose it depends on your definition of "normal people". I sometimes wonder if you even acknowledge that Obama was elected and reelected by "normal people" to the highest office in the land...

I made no consideration of what "normal people" are, as when considering the sum of voters, that doesn't make a difference; so there's nothing to acknowledge.

 

[Fargo]

I made no consideration of what "normal people" are, as when considering the sum of voters, that doesn't make a difference; so there's nothing to acknowledge.

Was Jamil not referring explicitly to "normal people"?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Was Jamil not referring explicitly to "normal people"?

Which is an undefined term. If it's subjective, then it's not worthy of consideration to reach a conclusion.

 

[Fargo]

Which is an undefined term. If it's subjective, then it's not worthy of consideration to reach a conclusion.

Yet you bolded it and replied within the context Jamil used it.

I would love it if you guys defined your terms, hence my first premise:

I suppose it depends on your definition of "normal people"

 

[BugI02]

That doesn't not appear to be true. At least it didn't hold true for the last administration.

butObama?

 

[printcraft]

Yet you bolded it and replied within the context Jamil used it.

I would love it if you guys defined your terms, hence my first premise:

No, that doesn't leave any room for twisting and dodging when they get pinned to the mat.