Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, December 02, 2017

While you were sleeping, Senate Republicans passed President Donald Trump's tax plan. And, in so doing, they gambled the entire 2018 election on it. The vote -- 51 to 49 -- was a party line one. (Tennessee GOP Sen. Bob Corker was the only rebel, voting "no" due to his unhappiness with the $1 trillion the bill is predicted to add to the deficit.) ... Obviously, when you rush a massive overhaul of the tax system through Congress, you are taking a risk. But there are even more warning signs for Republicans that reveal what a huge gamble they took in passing this bill. First is the fact that independent analysts have concluded that this bill would add roughly $1.4 trillion to the deficit, according to estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The second warning sign for Republicans on this tax bill is that the public doesn't like it much. A majority (52%) in a Quinnipiac University poll conducted in the middle of November disapproved of the plan, while just 25% approved. More than six in 10 surveyed said that wealthy people would benefit most from the tax plan while less than one in five (16%) said it will reduce their taxes.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Yeah, and everyone thought Trump was spending too little cash to win the WH.

Turns out he had an ace up his sleeve.

I wouldn't put it past those bastards to have another ace up their sleeve that makes this a done deal with little or no gambling at all.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-02 07:34 PM | Reply

Small businesses in my part of Texas are starting to react to how badly the GOP screwed them.

I don't think 2018 will be very pretty for Donald Trump and his running dogs. Another poster said that that anger is the first stage of grief....

He's wrong. Anger is the first step towards revenge.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-02 07:39 PM | Reply


It is too soon to tell what the effect of the tax bill will be upon the 2018 elections.

So far, the main opinions of the bill are being proffered by people who stay in day-to-day touch with the political process.

I suspect the majority of the voters won't find out about the true details of the tax bill until after the 2018 election. That's why there were some middle-class tax cuts, but they were temporary. Give the Congress critters a tax cut to run on, however temporary it may be.

Additionally, I suspect that a majority of the information about the tax bill will be gleaned from the campaign speeches and political ads, and that most folk will hear what they want to hear.

In summary, next summer is going to be interesting to watch....

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-02 08:33 PM | Reply

Politically, Dems have said all along they'd be happy to run against this tax plan.

The problem is that Republicans in Congress don't care about public opinion. No, seriously.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 09:48 PM | Reply

The problem is that Republicans in Congress don't care about public opinion. No, seriously.

Which should, IMO, instill fear, not confidence.

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-02 09:56 PM | Reply

@#4 ... Republicans in Congress don't care about public opinion ...

Yes and no.

Republicans seem to be falling into a pattern.

Care about public opinion during campaign season in order to get elected.

Once elected, ignore public opinion, i.e. those who elected them to office, and pay attention to wealthy donors.

This tax bill illustrates that nearly perfectly.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-02 10:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#6 |

www.drudge.com

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 10:04 PM | Reply

@#7

Yeah, I just saw your reference to the article.

I'm not sure I'm swallowing the premise of the article just yet.

My main reason - elections are decided, for the most part, by the center moderates and which way they decide to go. The article seems to focus upon those who are party-focused and how they don't seem to care about what those they elect do once in office.

Next summer is going to be interesting. And not at all in a happy sense of that word.

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-02 10:08 PM | Reply

= The article seems to focus upon those who are party-focused

Because that's who shows up at mid-term elections.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 10:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"while just 25% approved."

A further breakdown would show 5% are for it because they're making a killing, and the remaining 20% have no idea there is a tax bill, they just approve because it doesn't have "Obama" in the name.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-02 10:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Advertisement

Advertisement


@#9 ... Because that's who shows up at mid-term elections. ...

I suspect even you may agree that the 2018 election will not be your typical mid-term election. ;)

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-02 10:28 PM | Reply

Yeah, the article at the link goes into that; the projected tsunami of anti- Trump sentiment... which is another reason the GOP wanted to feed the Base more than they wanted to try to recruit moderate voters; to enhance their surest turn-out.

You know, the mostly under-educated voters that elected Trump.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 10:33 PM | Reply

"You know, the mostly under-educated voters that elected Trump."

If you live in a trailer park...you're probably not overly concerned with tax policy. It's just not something that's likely to affect you.

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-12-02 10:41 PM | Reply


@#12 ... the mostly under-educated voters ...

The Constitution places no education requirement on those who are eligible to vote. Neither should you.

So you (or Hillary) should not cast aspersions upon anyone who votes. Indeed, if there is anyone who should be chastised it is the person who sits out elections.

Everyone, repeat, everyone who is eligible to vote should vote. I was always taught that voting is not a privilege, it is a responsibility.

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-02 10:44 PM | Reply

#13

Thanks for the expert commentary.

- Neither should you.

Neither do I.

I just quote stats.

Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump

fivethirtyeight.com

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 10:52 PM | Reply

"It's just not something that's likely to affect you."

That's exactly what those in power what you to believe.

In truth, it'll affect those in trailer parks at a greater concentration.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-02 10:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So you (or Hillary) should not cast aspersions upon anyone who votes. Indeed, if there is anyone who should be chastised it is the person who sits out elections.

Everyone, repeat, everyone who is eligible to vote should vote. I was always taught that voting is not a privilege, it is a responsibility.

Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-02 10:44 PM | Reply

Unless you vote for the so called "wrong" candidate then they tar and feather you en mass. Oh how I know this one personally. WOW.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-02 10:52 PM | Reply

- the so called "wrong" candidate

She means the only candidate that could have, and almost did, keep Trump out of office.

Some people had higher priorities.... like the "party building" that Bernie told them they should have held off on this time.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 11:04 PM | Reply


@#15 #13

Thanks for the expert commentary.

I'm not sure you were replying to me because of the wrong message number and the reference to "expert commentary."

If the latter... why, Thank-You.

But more to the point of the discussion, yeah, you can cite all the stats you want.

But when you chastise those who vote, I fell that is a problem.

You quote stats, well let me quote some stats back at you...

If those who voted for candidate Obama had actually come out and voted for candidate Clinton, we would not have Pres trump.

So I'll repeat, do not chastise those who vote, chastise those who do not vote.

Your turn. :)

#19 | Posted by lamplighter at 2017-12-02 11:21 PM | Reply

fell -> feel

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-02 11:21 PM | Reply

- I'm not sure you were replying to me

I was being facetious to #13 the MythBomber. It was --- for tat.

- Your turn. :)

Pointing out the facts about voting patterns isn't meant to discourage voting. We need to be able to talk about the facts.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 11:29 PM | Reply


@#21 ... I was being facetious to #13 the MythBomber. It was --- for tat. ...

OK, but you probably should quote the messae you are replying to, and not the one after it, e.g.,

- Neither should you.

was what I wrote in #14, and not in the #13 you say you were replying to.

Jus' sayin', that's all.

But onward and upwards to the topic of discussion....


...Pointing out the facts about voting patterns isn't meant to discourage voting....

I didn't say you were discouraging voting, but I did say your messages were chastising voters. There's a difference.

You should be praising voters, regardless of who they vote for or the reasons they do so. They vote. They have carried out their civic responsibility.

It is those who sit at home on Election Day who should be chastised. For it is those (are those?) who have given us Pres Trump.

You talk of statistics, well then, you should know those stats.

#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-02 11:40 PM | Reply

- OK, but you probably should quote the messae you are replying to, and not the one after it, e.g.,

"#13
Thanks for the expert commentary.

Is how I replied to #13.

- I did say your messages were chastising voters.

They are facts in evidence of voter profiles. One would have to pretty assuming to assume they are "chastisement" of voters in general. Again, we need to be able to talk about the facts.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-02 11:44 PM | Reply


@#23 ... "#13
Thanks for the expert commentary.

Is how I replied to #13.

Yet you continue to ignore the part of my message noting that you cited

- Neither should you.

Why?

(is this really the conversation you want to have this Saturday evening? Soon to be Sunday morning?)

#24 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-02 11:54 PM | Reply

My post #15 was pretty clear, and I haven't ignored anything. But I've only been doing this here for a dozen or so years, God help me, so maybe I'm wrong.

And no, I don't waste any more time with this.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-03 12:24 AM | Reply

don't want to waste

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-03 12:25 AM | Reply


@#25 ...My post #15 was pretty clear, and I haven't ignored anything....

I do note that you still seem to be going to rather significant extents to avoid answering my simple question.

It's a shame, as it does lower the credibility of your comments here, in my eyes.

... And no, I don't want to waste any more time with this. ...

Then answer a simple question ---

when in your message #15 when you wrote "- Neither should you" why were you appearing to quote my message word for word, when you now say you weren't?

And as a bonus question, are you similarly lackadaisical in you quotes when you reference other sources in your messages?

But if you don't want to waste time to re-establish your credibility, that's OK by me. It is your credibility, and you can do with it what you choose.

... But I've only been doing this here for a dozen or so years, ...

Oh please. I've been participating in message board discussions since the 1970's. If that is your claim to credibility, you're a noob to me.

#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-03 01:46 AM | Reply


Got to hit the sack now.

Sorry for the typos in my comment. It's late, I'm too sleepy to correct them.

On the morrow, people...

#28 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-03 01:49 AM | Reply

Trump has a solid 32% following, who live in a fact free universe. Clinton won with 35% of eligible voters. The biggest danger during every election is Republican control of two third's of all States and their record of cheating.

#29 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-12-03 07:22 AM | Reply

"elections are decided, for the most part, by the center moderates and which way they decide to go"

By election time they'll have figured out who in their family doesn't have health care, who in their family can no longer afford to be educated, and who in their family has a small business that will be wounded.

#30 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-03 10:04 AM | Reply

The liberals didn't even meet with Trump to help with the tax bill. It's their fault.

#31 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-12-03 11:31 AM | Reply

If the Trump tax bill follows the standard Keynesian formula, it will be a legitimate tax cut designed to boost corporate and individual spending. I think it will work.

The way you liberals carry on reminds me of the dectective series, Columbo. His prey always made the mistake of taking him for stupid.

#32 | Posted by Ray at 2017-12-03 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

. His prey always made the mistake of taking him for stupid.

#32 | POSTED BY RAY

When it comes to the economy you've already proven it's a safe bet that you haven't a clue what you are talking about Mr 1400.

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-03 12:00 PM | Reply

#33 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

If you can remember that from ten years ago, then you won't forget what I'm saying now.

But, on the other hand, if I'm right, you'll forget it.

#34 | Posted by Ray at 2017-12-03 12:09 PM | Reply

"If the Trump tax bill follows the standard Keynesian formula, it will be a legitimate tax cut designed to boost corporate and individual spending. I think it will work."

Based on what? The corporate execs are saying it won't nudge them towards spending more. The historical record shows that no correlation exists between lower tax rates and economic growth. Did you determine that this will work while on a snipe hunt?

That aside, I doubt this will change the minds of any party loyalists.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-03 12:11 PM | Reply

But, on the other hand, if I'm right, you'll forget it.

Posted by Ray at 2017-12-03 12:09 PM | Reply

ROFLMMFAO Thank G-d I'm NOT a man. LMFAO

#36 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-03 12:24 PM | Reply

The historical record shows that no correlation exists between lower tax rates and economic growth. Did you determine that this will work while on a snipe hunt?
#35 | POSTED BY SULLY

You forget the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts. This time, I don't think it will be real economic growth. More like a continuation of the asset inflation produced by low interest rates. Statistically, it looks good. In politics, perception beats reality.

The corporate execs are saying it won't nudge them towards spending more.

At these low interest rates, it pays for them to keeep buying their own stocks.

That aside, I doubt this will change the minds of any party loyalists.

On that we can be positive. All Trump has to do is hold on to those who elected him.

#37 | Posted by Ray at 2017-12-03 12:35 PM | Reply

"You forget the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts. This time, I don't think it will be real economic growth. More like a continuation of the asset inflation produced by low interest rates. Statistically, it looks good. In politics, perception beats reality."

You can't just pick the data points that support what you're saying while ignoring the rest. But it seems like you don't really believe this will do any good either so whatever.

"At these low interest rates, it pays for them to keeep buying their own stocks."

Which isn't productive and won't increase individual spending either.

"All Trump has to do is hold on to those who elected him."

I was talking about 2018. GOP candidates running in bright red districts/states have nothing to worry about. Their drones will vote like drones. GOP candidates who have to carry swing voters might have a problem. Trump won because he carried just enough former Obama voters in key states. This tax bill certainly isn't going to help him do that again in 2020.

#38 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-03 12:46 PM | Reply

You forget the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts

You mean the ones that forced him to raise taxes a few years later to maintain a proper budget?

www.forbes.com

The first part of that path entails raising higher revenues. Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993.

Presidents facing the prospect that unending deficits will undo their economic legacies also cut spending in the only places that make a big difference, starting with defense. Reagan is remembered, again, for his defense buildup--but his big increases in Pentagon spending ended by 1985. Similarly, the first President Bush increased the military to fight the first Gulf War. But before he left office Pentagon spending was slowing sharply with the end of the Cold War, and Clinton followed by cashing in on the peace dividend.

It's funny how the only canonized saint of the right is only half followed, even when the exact same thing happens every time they go back to that doctrine.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2017-12-03 12:52 PM | Reply

This tax bill certainly isn't going to help him do that again in 2020.
#38 | POSTED BY SULLY

I see the tax cuts as a continuation of what kept Obama in office. They can't lower interest rates anymore and QE is no longer effective. We don't know if Trump will even run in 2020.

You can't just pick the data points that support what you're saying while ignoring the rest. But it seems like you don't really believe this will do any good either so whatever.

Business cycles age like humans. What works when the cycle is young, won't work when it is old. This cycle is old. All they can do now, is create an illusion of prosperity. It's in that sense, I mean it will work.

What's that movie? "Weekend at Bernies". If you haven't seen it, it's a classic.

#40 | Posted by Ray at 2017-12-03 01:06 PM | Reply

You mean the ones that forced him to raise taxes a few years later to maintain a proper budget?
#39 | POSTED BY JPW

Good points. It reminds me that Carter had to deal with a bad economy and the Arab embargo. Reagan had the good fortune to be president when the economy was recovering and the Soviet Union collapsed. Clinton also had a strong eonomy at his back when he raised taxes. So they had no negative impact.

It's funny how the only canonized saint of the right is only half followed, even when the exact same thing happens every time they go back to that doctrine.

Keynesian eoconomics is based on the belief that economies are driven by aggregate spending, whether it's consumer spending or government spending. That's what I think is the premise behind the Trump tax cuts (if they are in truth tax cuts). Deficits? Forget about it!

#41 | Posted by Ray at 2017-12-03 01:27 PM | Reply

"Keynesian eoconomics is based on the belief that economies are driven by aggregate spending, whether it's consumer spending or government spending. That's what I think is the premise behind the Trump tax cuts (if they are in truth tax cuts)."

The difference here is that the money is going to the few who already have money to spend. There is nothing to suggest this is Keynesian.

#42 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-12-03 03:01 PM | Reply

If the Trump tax bill follows the standard Keynesian formula, it will be a legitimate tax cut designed to boost corporate and individual spending. I think it will work.
The way you liberals carry on reminds me of the dectective series, Columbo. His prey always made the mistake of taking him for stupid.

#32 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2017-12-03 11:52 AM | FLAG:
Hey Dummy,
Ronald "red ink" Reagan PROVED "trickle down" economics doesn't work, as it never trickles down. Those traitors on the top keep it all.

If you believe Orange Adolf's and the alt-right snowflake's taxplan will work, you are even less intelligent than I originally thought.

Though since I doubt you ever had paid any federal income tax ever, since living in your moms basement doesn't pay well, I doubt it will effect your personal "income".

Though your mom's SS check may be significantly reduced or eliminated, so she may lose her house and you may be forced to live in a "street camper" or tent somewhere.

#43 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2017-12-03 05:27 PM | Reply

Trump's donors are among the most venal in creation. Since rational deliberation and debate have come to count for nothing in American politics, it is their money that talks, and therefore their support that he cares about.

It has become hard to remember a time when each new day's batch of tweets didn't make it harder for anyone who is neither certifiably deluded nor utterly loathsome to be fooled by Trump or to remain in denial about how awful he is.

The GOP must realize that whether they manage to legislate successfully matters less than legislating an extremely unpopular bill. And if they aren't morons, like Trump, they would also realize that tax reforms that are idiotic on their face, that will exacerbate poverty and inequality, harm workers and others in the so-called "middle class," and that will damage the public sphere while leaving only the rich better off, are not likely to put them in good stead with the voting public.

Schumer and Pelosi are holding out for three pieces of "bipartisan" legislation in exchange for cooperation in avoiding a government shutdown. They are demanding a bill to "fix" Obamacare, a bill to restore the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program, and a bill to extend the now expired health care program for children, SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program).

Public opinion and common decency are on their side, but there are Republicans in the House and Senate who could care less about such niceties. If Trump concedes anything to the Democrats, they will see to it that he will have a rebellion on his hands. Therefore, deal or not, Trump loses.

The beauty of this moment is that unless Pelosi and Schumer blunder spectacularly, by their own ineptitude or by rightwing Democrats and dillydallying liberals, Trump loses whether he makes a deal or not. Once Republican donors start deserting Trump's sinking ship like the rats they are, the Age of Trump will enter its terminal stage. (Andrew Levine)

#44 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-12-03 08:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

great thread.

--both parties are being equally destroyed.

#45 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-12-04 06:50 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort