81–90 of 123 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The elimination of the State and Local Tax deductions will be huge for California and New York.
They weren't eliminated, but ended up capping them at $10k.
For those who didn't watch the proceedings, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQAYbwpU8AELZa0.jpg was one of the actual pages of the bill, quite literally handwritten scribbled margin notes.
Source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They weren't eliminated, but ended up capping them at $10k.
see, you read the senate bill that was proposed yesterday. the current bill that passed, afaict, eliminated SALT completely.
The Senate tax bill will include my SALT amendment to allow taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 for state and local property taxes.
https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/936647024417615872
But as others have pointed out, this still can change as it goes to reconciliation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This bill doesn't fundamentally change very much besides the corporate tax rate, so the explosive reaction seems unnecessary. You aren't going to get a million people in the street because their tax bill went up, or down, several hundred dollars, which is what this amounts to for most people.
It changes a lot more than that. Although we don't know precisely what, because the House and Senate bills need to be reconciled (or the House will just pass the Senate bill) and the Senate bill was literally written on the floor tonight. Nobody has done a serious analysis of its effects. What we do know suggests that it will increase the uninsured rate substantially, increase the deficit dramatically, and trigger au…
If people choose to drop insurance because they aren't mandated to buy it, then it is on them
increase the deficit dramatically
certainly true
trigger automatic cuts to Medicare
This is the only reason I'm replying, because there is no way that it will happen. No one wants cuts, and it would be political poison. Claiming it is fear mongering (not you, but the people using it to attack the bill).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It changes a lot more than that. Although we don't know precisely what, because the House and Senate bills need to be reconciled (or the House will just pass the Senate bill) and the Senate bill was literally written on the floor tonight. Nobody has done a serious analysis of its effects. What we do know suggests that it will increase the uninsured rate substantially, increase the deficit dramatically, and trigger au…
increase the uninsured rate substantially If people choose to drop insurance because they aren't mandated to buy it, then it is on them increase the deficit dramatically certainly true trigger automatic cuts to Medicare This is the only reason I'm replying, because there is no way that it will happen. No one wants cuts, and it would be political poison. Claiming it is fear mongering (not you, but the people using it…
As for the uninsured rate, eliminating the mandate will not only cause people to voluntarily drop insurance but also involuntarily push people out of insurance due to the resulting increase in premiums. That's what happens when you kick out one of the legs of a three-legged stool.
The law making process is so clearly broken. I see this as a contributing factor to the long gradual decline of the role of the USA in the world. The reemergence of China should be engendering a positive spirit of lifting the game, not a money grabbing exercise. If you can’t make evidence based laws for the people then society will be warped into some dysfunctional dystopian end game.
To a large extent, the broken parts of US politics stem from the lack of actual written rules. Many things that should be codified are actually "gentlemen's agreements", where people agree to act in good faith. Today's show on the Senate floor was the logical conclusion of an entire political party deciding to break every aspect of that unstated agreement,
We should work together on getting rid of the ancient and manipulated election system and revamp it with a modern proportional representative system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is dumb. Of course people can protest. Nobody's questioning that. However, this victim mindset where everything process is "unfair" and elections are "fundamentally broken" is not healthy.
You. Just. Questioned it. That's what you posted. Telling people not to criticize and somehow just wait around stewing in silence until election day is idiotic. To boot, the remainder of your critique is also off base. The electoral college is broken. And redistricting, gerrymandering, and voter suppression are incredibly "unfair". These aren't petty quibbles, these are truths. Federal courts have established that vo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elections in which the majority of voters voted against the current President, as well as for the opposition party in Congress. US politics is fundamentally broken because the majority does not get its way, nor does the party getting the lion's share of votes get a say in major policy.
US politics was intentionally designed such that the majority doesn't get its way. It's the single major innovation in liberal political philosophy in the past 500 years. Saying "it's not democratic!" isn't a useful comment. We know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Following your logic, China is better off because instead of having one party protesting but failing to reject a law promoted by the elections-winning other party, it's just better to have one single party control everything. Sorry but I find this just mindblowing.
The person you replied to does not say that China's political system is better in any way, simply that if such a system (single party authoritarian government) can out develop the US then there must be some serious improvements to be had for the US's democratic system. In other words, if China can give their people what they want without fair elections or due process or freedom from corruption then our democratic sys…
The "they" cannot be referring the people of China, or the majority because China is just not a democracy.
This is the main difference between a country which holds free elections every 4 years, and a single-party country.
