No you wouldn’t. You support a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut that is not offset by anything in regards to spending. You would not like to see the debt go down anymore than the President who said we can just default on it does.
If you did you would not support this without reductions in spending. Everything else (blaming in on Obama saying it won’t go down until someone else does something) is merely rationalizing you supporting this.
I’m just a realist. This is the situation on the ground. Three questions:
What are you willing to cut to balance the budget (with or without this bill)?
Who can we vote for to get it done?
Are those leaders credible when they say they’ll cut spending?
I’d start with defense and move on from there. Entitlement reform that makes sense, and probably a bunch of other areas.
I have no idea. We could start by not saying “well pretty much both teams suck so may as well just be cool with it.” We could also start by not electing someone who said “well we can just default on it” to the so called fiscally conservative party.
No. Which is why we need different leaders. A start would be refusing to vote for a Democrat or Republican as anyone who runs in those parties now has proven they can’t get it done.
I’ll campaign for you @h_factor . What ballot you on? Lmao.
Let me try a different way of phrasing. If this was a 1.5 trillion defense bill and the vast majority of the spending went to a few huge companies would you say “of course it went to them, they make most of the bombs. But hey look some soldiers got a small raise so all good.?”
I find it amusing that people can celebrate a company that required a massive infusion of taxpayer money to stay afloat recently now receives a massive tax cut and is fellated because they “gave” some workers a bit of money so they can say look at the good things that happen when you give us more and more.
All this being enacted by a President who is a billionaire and has his hand in a lot of business pies (which is all fine on face value) but won’t show his tax returns and says people like me need this cut to benefit them the most.
Hell the tax cut idea itself doesn’t even bother me much it’s the pure stench of corruption that basically comes out of your computer from it.
I wouldn’t have a chance my friend and neither would you.
Holy crap, this is so Russian. The only thing that could make it more Russian would be a phone call from the POTUS “asking” BoA to give a Christmas bonus for the “hard workers who deserve it”
This year has been very bizarre, never believed I would see so many typical Soviet/Russian political cliches and stunts in US politics…
Oh, and just to make sure the point is clear - Bank of America cleared almost $18 billion in net income last year (2016). Billion, with a B.
So, the very impressive one-time $145 million bonus that was (purportedly) enabled by this all-important tax cut could have been given out last year, and the hit to after-tax income for Bank of America would have been .00805 of the total.
I’m sincerely happy for the employees, I am. But just don’t try and feed me any horseshit that this money wasn’t available before and the employees deserves a big ole thank you for the tax cut making it possible. It’s a PR move worth the cost of doing (lobbying) business on tax reform.
It really is simple math. If a company pays less to the government they then have more to pay to their employees and also for expansion. I think we will see plenty of this at every level of business. And as I have stated and restated many times on this forum, the economy will only expand when business is doing well. Paying more to the government means having less to expand your business and also less pay increases and bonuses (to middle class workers) just like the one that Bank America is handing out. Someone tell these employees that tax cuts are is not a good thing.
I do love that phrase. And how interesting that it seems so many love the Mom and Pop corner store. They make money every year and employ 3 or 4 people. But if they grow that store into a chain they suddenly become evil according to the far left. I wonder at what point they become evil? They were good people when their business was grossing 300-k per year. Did they become evil when their company hit 1 million? 10 Million? 50 million? I wonder where the tipping point is for the far left wing-nuts?
But when they have cash on hand from paying less to the government, they don’t always do either one. Why?
I really do wish it were this simple. Yet “high tax” California has one of the largest economies in the world and tons of people living there. States who have flirted with low to no taxation like Kansas and Louisiana got their budgets in such massive messes and saw their growth lag behind other states.
And if no one pays taxes who bailed out Bank of America when those good old boys accidentally spend like drunken sailors? What law says a company has to pay their employees more with less taxes? What law says they have to expand?
Economics in an economy that is not solely market driven with a huge society and active government already does not behave this easy. Like most things moderation between taxation and no taxation problably yields the best results and the government does a ton of things it shouldn’t. But it simply isn’t as easy as lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations leads to prosperity for all. Historically this would be impossible to argue though the theory behind it makes sense in a vacuum.
I’d like this twice if I could. 100%, pure grain common sense. Well said.
I’ve been out of touch for about a month and I haven’t read much about the bill. That said, my wife (CPA and tax manager/personal finacial planner) and I werw talking about this earlier. She ran a projection for us and we will pay less. We make about $170k w/ 2 kids in Blue MD and would take the standard deduction now. Take that for what it’s worth.
It’s also kind of odd that people are upset that some if these big banks/companies are paying bonuses out. Ya, it’s a publicity stunt, so what? It’s money im employees pockets.
Not upset that they are paying bonuses, but it just perpetuates the myth that in order for companies to give bonuses, hire, or pay a decent wage they need a 3.5 billion dollar incentive to do so. Bank of America didn’t need a tax cut to do that. And why not more? Why not split the tax cut in half? Half to the company and half to the workers. Going to be looking at a bonus of lots more than 1,000.
But they are smart enough to realize that a small amount of giving pays off big time as more and more average joe workers think oh man if I want more money I have to make sure the government kisses the rings of the Uber wealthy and massive corporations who are already given all sorts of sweetheart deals. All of this convinces average joe factory worker that tax cuts for huge businesses benefit him more than a program targeted towards him and at a cheaper cost of his tax dollars.
Trickle down economic theory is absolutely a brilliant move by the connected and wealthy. They have convinced poor-middle class people that in order to be benefited a slight amount first the connected and wealthy must get a huge benefit.
Genius really
It’s not simply a PR stunt. It’s a quid pro quo.
I second this.
Well said.
Another great post that I don’t have much to add to, H!
If it’s so bad they can switch places with me. If it’s so bad why are you trying to be one of them?
Does part of this even playing field include government provided healthcare and free college?