BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

The problem is you're asking young healthy (AND generally less wealthy) people to subsidize older people. That makes no sense

---

Sure it does. That's what health insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick.

---

Obamacare set limits on the premiums for the old vs. young - I believe there can't be more than a 3:1 ratio even though the cost of insuring old people is much higher.

Healthy SHARE RISK WITH the sick - correct. But the poor (young) should not subsidize the wealthy (old). As a progressive, that should be offensive to you. It is literally taking money from your children/grandchildren - generational theft.

---

It's not offensive to me if I also expect to need those benefits when I'm older. I'm not dumb enough to think I'll be young and healthy forever.

Honestly, every argument I see from a conservative about health care makes me think they don't understand how insurance works.

I'd also point out that not all older people are wealthy. Now, if Republicans had ideas about offering more subsidies or coverage for poor people, I'd be happy to listen. I expect I'll be waiting a while.

---

Translating your statement: "People who disagree with me must be stupid or uninformed." Seriously?

I understand insurance. We just disagree about how to spread the insurance risk/cost. You want to put much more of the burden on the young and generally less wealthy. Not surprisingly, young people will choose not to pay for things they can't afford and/or don't need - which is why catastrophic/limited coverage policies should be an option. Obamacare's arbitrary limits on premiums - the 3:1 rule - was stupid. Older people should pay more (subject to the available subsidies). If you feel forcing young people to pay more is the right approach, why didn't you and other liberals: (i) point blank tell young people that they are going to pay more so that their parents/grandparents will pay less; and/or (ii) simply tax young people, based on their age, to make up the difference?

Yes, there are poor old people - but on the whole old people have more wealth/earnings than young. That is a fact. Not to mention that elderly people eventually qualify for social security and medicare (i.e., subsidies). Older people also have, by definition, a longer horizon of time to progress to a higher wage level, accumulate wealth and/or plan for higher healthcare premiums and expenses, My 18 year doesn't have those options.

---

I don't think that you understand insurance. Insurance is about pooling the risk of low probability/high cost events. Insuring likely events is just paying a middleman. The classic example is fire insurance.

In the case of medical insurance, if you only include the sick, and exclude the healthy, then there is no risk being shared, you're just paying a middleman.

Ironically, conservatives should be rooting for the success of the ACA as it IS the conservative market-based solution. It is conceived from conservative think tanks, and its failure I believe only increases the likelihood of adopting a single-payer system.

Regarding taxes, did this Republican plan just lower the value of my home?

dajo9 said:

---

Sebastabear's post was about deficits, so Obamacare is in no way similar. Obamacare reduced the debt by raising taxes on the wealthy.

---

That was the promise, and it was true during the initial years when taxes were collected and no exchanges were yet in place, but that is not true over time.

The CBO originally predicted a surplus. However, since passage, the CBO has repeatedly revised its originally optimistic prediction to show that Obamacare will increase, not decrease, the deficit.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/cbo-projections-indicate-obamacare-will-raise-deficits-by-131-billion/article/816288

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/obamacare-will-increase-federal-debt-not-reduce-it/

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

The problem is you're asking young healthy (AND generally less wealthy) people to subsidize older people. That makes no sense

---

Sure it does. That's what health insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick.

---

Obamacare set limits on the premiums for the old vs. young - I believe there can't be more than a 3:1 ratio even though the cost of insuring old people is much higher.

Healthy SHARE RISK WITH the sick - correct. But the poor (young) should not subsidize the wealthy (old). As a progressive, that should be offensive to you. It is literally taking money from your children/grandchildren - generational theft.

---

It's not offensive to me if I also expect to need those benefits when I'm older. I'm not dumb enough to think I'll be young and healthy forever.

Honestly, every argument I see from a conservative about health care makes me think they don't understand how insurance works.

I'd also point out that not all older people are wealthy. Now, if Republicans had ideas about offering more subsidies or coverage for poor people, I'd be happy to listen. I expect I'll be waiting a while.

---

Translating your statement: "People who disagree with me must be stupid or uninformed." Seriously?

I understand insurance. We just disagree about how to spread the insurance risk/cost. You want to put much more of the burden on the young and generally less wealthy. Not surprisingly, young people will choose not to pay for things they can't afford and/or don't need - which is why catastrophic/limited coverage policies should be an option. Obamacare's arbitrary limits on premiums - the 3:1 rule - was stupid. Older people should pay more (subject to the available subsidies). If you feel forcing young people to pay more is the right approach, why didn't you and other liberals: (i) point blank tell young people that they are going to pay more so that their parents/grandparents will pay less; and/or (ii) simply tax young people, based on their age, to make up the difference?

Yes, there are poor old people - but on the whole old people have more wealth/earnings than young. That is a fact. Not to mention that elderly people eventually qualify for social security and medicare (i.e., subsidies). Older people also have, by definition, a longer horizon of time to progress to a higher wage level, accumulate wealth and/or plan for higher healthcare premiums and expenses, My 18 year doesn't have those options.

---

I don't think that you understand insurance. Insurance is about pooling the risk of low probability/high cost events. Insuring likely events is just paying a middleman. The classic example is fire insurance.

In the case of medical insurance, if you only include the sick, and exclude the healthy, then there is no risk being shared, you're just paying a middleman.

Ironically, conservatives should be rooting for the success of the ACA as it IS the conservative market-based solution. It is conceived from conservative think tanks, and its failure I believe only increases the likelihood of adopting a single-payer system.

---

Yes - we know insurance pools risk. The question is how your allocate that risk via premiums - among the groups. Insurance companies operating in the real world - where there is not an arbitrary government imposed 3:1 premium maximum - offer different premiums to groups with different risk exposure. Private insurance companies have to tailor their premiums so that consumers actually want to buy their product - risk v. reward. To be blunt, how you pool the risk matters a lot.

If you live near a wilderness area or have a wood shingle roof (by analogy, an old person in the healthcare scenario), your fire ins. premiums will be higher than someone living in a big city (the young person). In order to garner favor with older people (who vote), the ACA asked young people to share/assume a disproportionate amount of the risk and subsidize old people (whether they were wealthy or poor). People won't buy insurance that they don't need or that is overpriced. How many people living outside flood zones buy flood insurance? How many people living outside CA by earthquake insurance? Why are life and disability policies dirt cheap for young people and really expensive for old.

The conundrum is preexisting conditions. If you crash your car, you can't buy insurance after the accident. But health insurance is now the exact opposite - society steps in for people who are uninsured. But you don't solve that problem by: (i) lying and telling people that everyone can be insured without premiums going up; or (ii) forcing/expecting young healthy people to agree to pay WAY more than they should based on the actuarial risk. Before Obamacare, about 41 million people were uninsured. Today the number is roughly 28 million. That is the clearest proof that government can't mandate that people act against their perceived interest.

As I posted earlier, if Obama and the dems were honest, they would have simply imposed a tax to subsidize the poor and those with pre-existing conditions. Of course, the couldn't have passed a bill by being honest, so they lied (promising everyone that they would save money) and came up with a convoluted system where the transfer payments were hidden or deferred.

Conservatives (some) liked ACA-type of approaches when enacted locally - in states where the actual costs have to be paid without deficit spending. A nationwide one size fits all approach makes no sense and, most importantly, doesn't have any real mechanism for cost controls. There are other conservative ideas - risk corridors, more competition across states, HSAs - that operate in tandem.

I'll ask you a rhetorical questions - why is it that progressive Californians who support the ACA and/or single payer haven't enacted universal coverage in CA?

Of course, the answer is because the costs are prohibitive and they don't want to actually pay for those things. They only like those things when someone else pays.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-first-fiscal-analysis-of-single-payer-1495475434-htmlstory.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24750/ca-dems-proposing-spending-1-billion-giving-health-hank-berrien

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Regarding taxes, did this Republican plan just lower the value of my home?

---

If you live in California, New York, and a few other states, and your house is (was) worth over $1M, then yes. At least until the Dems regain control (2018?) and increase the SALT and mortgage deductions.

You'd understand the world better if you stayed away from commentary put out by the Weakly Standard and IBD

dajo9 said:

---

You'd understand the world better if you stayed away from commentary put out by the Weakly Standard and IBD

---

Actually not true dajo. You would benefit by reading IBD. Daily they give the Market Pulse(confirmed buy, correction mode, etc), Institutions buying/selling, stocks reaching buy points, and on and on, along with an excellent business oriented/favored editorial page keeping its readers informed as to how business can further succeed. But then, just like I would react to a minutes watching of MSNBC, it would probably gag you a bit. Different folks, different strokes.

Took long enough for them to move this

dajo9 said:

---

You'd understand the world better if you stayed away from commentary put out by the Weakly Standard and IBD

---

I read those sources as well as many liberal ones, like Slate, the Atlantic, the Intercept, and CNN. I watch fox and msnbc/cnn. I read/watch points of view I disagree with. It makes me realize there is nuance and grey, where you see only black and white.

When I cite to a source (which you seldom do) and you dismiss the information because of where it came from - not because of the substance - you lose the argument. Think about it.

And for the record, both the Weekly Standard and IBD articles discussed CBO data - the "official" data that is the basis for policy making in DC.

https://apple.news/ApY1220fIRcuAmGHmIEWF_g

So when the lies that were told and sold to taxpayers become crystal clear, will Republicans be held accountable for jamming this piece of crap tax plan through Congress? They own this and it is abundantly clear that they are doing this for their donors and not for the people that they claim it's for. Corker didn't even read the damn thing before mysteriously changing his mind and suddenly supporting the tax plan. It could be that the Republican leadership offered him a provision which will give him millions of dollars in personal tax breaks. In addition, Trump also makes out like a bandit with this new provision. As more and more information is released about the tax plan, it will be interesting what other special interest parties stand to gain for this, "Great Christmas present for the people."

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/senator-bob-corker-said-he-hasnt-read-tax-bill-denies-changing-his-vote-exchange

http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-three-big-lies-about-trumps-tax-plan-750616

Pivoting to a non related point, how do you like this from Big Brother's playbook (it is difficult to believe this is happening to us):
"Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the Trump administration list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based." Washington Post

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
George Orwell, 1984

Can someone explain to me what it is meant that the Individual Income Tax cuts with expire in 7 years but the Corporate Tax cut will be permanent? Don't seem fair.

OBear073akaSMFan said:

---

Can someone explain to me what it is meant that the Individual Income Tax cuts with expire in 7 years but the Corporate Tax cut will be permanent? Don't seem fair.

---

"Fair" is another word on the list of words banned by the tRump Administration.

BearNIt said:

---

So when the lies that were told and sold to taxpayers become crystal clear, will Republicans be held accountable for jamming this piece of crap tax plan through Congress? They own this and it is abundantly clear that they are doing this for their donors and not for the people that they claim it's for. Corker didn't even read the damn thing before mysteriously changing his mind and suddenly supporting the tax plan. It could be that the Republican leadership offered him a provision which will give him millions of dollars in personal tax breaks. In addition, Trump also makes out like a bandit with this new provision. As more and more information is released about the tax plan, it will be interesting what other special interest parties stand to gain for this, "Great Christmas present for the people."

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/senator-bob-corker-said-he-hasnt-read-tax-bill-denies-changing-his-vote-exchange

http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-three-big-lies-about-trumps-tax-plan-750616

---

All reputable polling shows this bill is massively unpopular, so I don't think the general public is buying it this time. Republicans should be held accountable at the ballot box.

bearister said:

---

Pivoting to a non related point, how do you like this from Big Brother's playbook (it is difficult to believe this is happening to us):
"Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the Trump administration list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based." Washington Post

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
George Orwell, 1984

---

"Grab them by the *****" is allowed.

bearister said:

---

Pivoting to a non related point, how do you like this from Big Brother's playbook (it is difficult to believe this is happening to us):
"Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the Trump administration list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based." Washington Post

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
George Orwell, 1984

---

Where you upset when Obama banned words?

https://www.haaretz.com/news/obama-bans-terms-islam-and-jihad-from-u-s-security-document-1.909

It isn't Big Brother's playbook - its Obama's (though in fairness, I'm guessing lots of prior administrations did similar things).

Of course, for the left, it's only bad, dangerous and outrageous when Trump does it.

BearGoggles said:

---

bearister said:

---

Pivoting to a non related point, how do you like this from Big Brother's playbook (it is difficult to believe this is happening to us):
"Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the Trump administration list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based." Washington Post

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
George Orwell, 1984

---

Where you upset when Obama banned words?

https://www.haaretz.com/news/obama-bans-terms-islam-and-jihad-from-u-s-security-document-1.909

It isn't Big Brother's playbook - its Obama's (though in fairness, I'm guessing lots of prior administrations did similar things).

Of course, for the left, it's only bad, dangerous and outrageous when Trump does it.

---

It's disappointing and disingenuous that you equate those two. In one case it's part of a national security strategy with the target of the language change being terrorist and potential terrorists who use that language as a primary recruiting tool, while the current language change is targeted primarily at Americans for the purpose of misleading them.

and BearGoggles said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

The problem is you're asking young healthy (AND generally less wealthy) people to subsidize older people. That makes no sense

---

Sure it does. That's what health insurance is. The healthy subsidize the sick.

---

Obamacare set limits on the premiums for the old vs. young - I believe there can't be more than a 3:1 ratio even though the cost of insuring old people is much higher.

Healthy SHARE RISK WITH the sick - correct. But the poor (young) should not subsidize the wealthy (old). As a progressive, that should be offensive to you. It is literally taking money from your children/grandchildren - generational theft.

---

It's not offensive to me if I also expect to need those benefits when I'm older. I'm not dumb enough to think I'll be young and healthy forever.

Honestly, every argument I see from a conservative about health care makes me think they don't understand how insurance works.

I'd also point out that not all older people are wealthy. Now, if Republicans had ideas about offering more subsidies or coverage for poor people, I'd be happy to listen. I expect I'll be waiting a while.

---

Translating your statement: "People who disagree with me must be stupid or uninformed." Seriously?

I understand insurance. We just disagree about how to spread the insurance risk/cost. You want to put much more of the burden on the young and generally less wealthy. Not surprisingly, young people will choose not to pay for things they can't afford and/or don't need - which is why catastrophic/limited coverage policies should be an option. Obamacare's arbitrary limits on premiums - the 3:1 rule - was stupid. Older people should pay more (subject to the available subsidies). If you feel forcing young people to pay more is the right approach, why didn't you and other liberals: (i) point blank tell young people that they are going to pay more so that their parents/grandparents will pay less; and/or (ii) simply tax young people, based on their age, to make up the difference?

Yes, there are poor old people - but on the whole old people have more wealth/earnings than young. That is a fact. Not to mention that elderly people eventually qualify for social security and medicare (i.e., subsidies). Older people also have, by definition, a longer horizon of time to progress to a higher wage level, accumulate wealth and/or plan for higher healthcare premiums and expenses, My 18 year doesn't have those options.

---

I don't think that you understand insurance. Insurance is about pooling the risk of low probability/high cost events. Insuring likely events is just paying a middleman. The classic example is fire insurance.

In the case of medical insurance, if you only include the sick, and exclude the healthy, then there is no risk being shared, you're just paying a middleman.

Ironically, conservatives should be rooting for the success of the ACA as it IS the conservative market-based solution. It is conceived from conservative think tanks, and its failure I believe only increases the likelihood of adopting a single-payer system.

---

Yes - we know insurance pools risk. The question is how your allocate that risk via premiums - among the groups. Insurance companies operating in the real world - where there is not an arbitrary government imposed 3:1 premium maximum - offer different premiums to groups with different risk exposure. Private insurance companies have to tailor their premiums so that consumers actually want to buy their product - risk v. reward. To be blunt, how you pool the risk matters a lot.

It goes without saying that insurance pools risk, I was making the distinction that the insurance principle is most effective when it's addressing low probability/high cost risk, while expenses that are inevitable are only worth insuring if by doing so you mitigate the timing of those expenses (i.e. you incur them before you've had time to bank resources for them.)

More importantly, I think you miss a central intent of the ACA which is to compel participation (through increasing penalties that eventually approach or exceed the cost of participation), and which specifically does not intend to entice participation, which is the very free market failure it's attempting to overcome.

Your primary complaint that the healthy are subsidizing the rest is exactly backwards when the healthy are allowed to go uninsured. The uninsured healthy represent unfunded risk that the rest of us subsidize when they inevitably become unhealthy, and typically these are expenses incurred at the very most expensive point in the healthcare chain. If you believe the problem is that premiums are too high for the healthy, then just get the rest of them to participate and premiums will go down for all.

(It's likely that mandated premium ratios are suboptimal, but I'm unfamiliar with how or where those prices are set and assume that some combination of actuarial analysis, state insurance commissioners, and insurance industry input are involved. I could be wrong, but if so, it doesn't seem an issue that is difficult to revise.)

If you live near a wilderness area or have a wood shingle roof (by analogy, an old person in the healthcare scenario), your fire ins. premiums will be higher than someone living in a big city (the young person). In order to garner favor with older people (who vote), the ACA asked young people to share/assume a disproportionate amount of the risk and subsidize old people (whether they were wealthy or poor). People won't buy insurance that they don't need or that is overpriced. How many people living outside flood zones buy flood insurance? How many people living outside CA by earthquake insurance? Why are life and disability policies dirt cheap for young people and really expensive for old.

Again this goes without saying, but of course rates should be tiered across risk profiles.

The conundrum is preexisting conditions. If you crash your car, you can't buy insurance after the accident. But health insurance is now the exact opposite - society steps in for people who are uninsured. But you don't solve that problem by: (i) lying and telling people that everyone can be insured without premiums going up; or (ii) forcing/expecting young healthy people to agree to pay WAY more than they should based on the actuarial risk. Before Obamacare, about 41 million people were uninsured. Today the number is roughly 28 million. That is the clearest proof that government can't mandate that people act against their perceived interest.

It seems to me that the most efficient solution to the problem of preexisting conditions is to require full participation. To do otherwise would require either some form of subsidization that you so oppose, or you'd have to do something like make it illegal to provide care to anyone without medical insurance. You might be able to defend that stance for those who could afford insurance but opted not to purchase, but that gets tougher when addressing those who can't afford it.

Also, your partisan offense to political deception is naive .

As I posted earlier, if Obama and the dems were honest, they would have simply imposed a tax to subsidize the poor and those with pre-existing conditions. Of course, the couldn't have passed a bill by being honest, so they lied (promising everyone that they would save money) and came up with a convoluted system where the transfer payments were hidden or deferred.

Conservatives (some) liked ACA-type of approaches when enacted locally - in states where the actual costs have to be paid without deficit spending. A nationwide one size fits all approach makes no sense and, most importantly, doesn't have any real mechanism for cost controls. There are other conservative ideas - risk corridors, more competition across states, HSAs - that operate in tandem.

Here again, I think you contradict yourself. On the one hand you assert that smaller local markets with reduced risk pools can be more efficient - which contradicts both theory and experience given that it's the smallest markets (with governments least likely to engage with the ACA) that are suffering the most trouble with their insurance markets. But then you simultaneously argue for competition across states. Which is it?

I'll ask you a rhetorical questions - why is it that progressive Californians who support the ACA and/or single payer haven't enacted universal coverage in CA?

Of course, the answer is because the costs are prohibitive and they don't want to actually pay for those things. They only like those things when someone else pays.

A couple of things here - when we speak of conservatism, and liberalism and what not, it's helpful to consider the historical context. The policies opposed by today's conservatives are often to the right of what conservatives promoted just within the last generation or so. The ACA is fundamentally the product of conservative think tanks, and is well to the right of what the Nixon administration proposed in the 70s. It was supposedly Ted Kennedy's biggest political regret that he didn't accept that deal.

As for who pays, ideally the amount one pays should scale with the amount one has benefited, so we'd expect those who've made the most to pay the most. When you break it out by state, it's the blue states that contribute the most to the federal coffers, and it's the blue states that have a deficit when you net it against federal spending in states. In terms you prefer, it's the blue states that subsidize the red states.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-first-fiscal-analysis-of-single-payer-1495475434-htmlstory.html

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24750/ca-dems-proposing-spending-1-billion-giving-health-hank-berrien

---

BearGoggles said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You'd understand the world better if you stayed away from commentary put out by the Weakly Standard and IBD

---

I read those sources as well as many liberal ones, like Slate, the Atlantic, the Intercept, and CNN. I watch fox and msnbc/cnn. I read/watch points of view I disagree with. It makes me realize there is nuance and grey, where you see only black and white.

When I cite to a source (which you seldom do) and you dismiss the information because of where it came from - not because of the substance - you lose the argument. Think about it.

And for the record, both the Weekly Standard and IBD articles discussed CBO data - the "official" data that is the basis for policy making in DC.

---

I have read all kinds of sources. I don't go back to sources that have repeatedly and willfully lied to me. Do you? That's why I won't click on your Weekly Standard link.

The IBD commentary takes CBO data and then applies there own assumptions / guesses about what will happen in the future to paint a drastic picture. Par for the course for IBD commentary. Keep in mind, while you are dismissing the implications of a tax increase in 10 years which is the clear result of the law in the tax bill being passed this week, you are at the same time hyping this IBD piece that makes conjecture about bad things that may happen multiple decades down the road.

You can claim you won the argument - I won't convince you otherwise. Still, you'd understand the world better if you stayed away from commentary put out by the Weakly Standard and IBD.

Anyone familiar w the app Read Across the Aisle? It lists a series of sources ranking them from left to right, then gives you feedback on your balance. If you start glowing red or blue you know you're in a bubble.

Republican's and Trumpito will wear this tax plan like a millstone around their necks as they campaign for the 2018 midterm election. House Republican's have said that they have no deal with Congresswoman Collins and will not vote to stabilize the ACA subsidies which she sold her vote in the senate for. Flake got a seat at the table on immigration reform, but no agreement of any substance as Republican's move forward on immigration. Finally, Corker got his real estate tax savings by selling his vote. So much for special interest as this tax plan serves the interest of many special interest entities in corporations. This tax plan is the first in a Republican plan to reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which Trumpito promised not to touch. Republicans will have all this to do in 2018 right before the midterm elections.

Watching Pence on his knees in front of Trump is laughable.

As a Republican House member from California, how do you explain your vote for the tax plan to your constituents on the elimination of SALT and mortgage deduction at $750,000.00. Will this affect the California real estate market going forward?

Some media outlets have talked about this as a political "win" for Trump and Republicans, but generally it's not a political win to pass highly unpopular legislation. It wasn't for Democrats with Obamacare (I would argue that the policy was helpful in the long run, but it was not great politics), and it isn't for Republicans now. Heck, this bill is less popular than Obamacare. It's less popular than when Reagan or Clinton RAISED taxes. It's quite an accomplishment.

EDIT: Just to back up my claims about popularity, here's a link.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-passing-the-tax-bill-help-the-gop-in-2018-probably-not/

The net popularity of this tax bill will be shown by voters in the next elections. If it works as proposed, there will be a lot of unhappy Dems. If it doesn't you will see a lot of unseated Repubs. The proof will be in the people's perception come next November.

Many posters may be surprised by how it plays out, myself included.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

The net popularity of this tax bill will be shown by voters in the next elections. If it works as proposed, there will be a lot of unhappy Dems. If it doesn't you will see a lot of unseated Repubs. The proof will be in the people's perception come next November.

Many posters may be surprised by how it plays out, myself included.

---

Possibly, but I think 2020 may reveal more. In 2018, many will still be unsure how their 2018 taxes will be affected, and it's also the height of the individual cuts, if I understand correctly. By 2020, those cuts will be reduced, and more people will have a full understanding of how the bill affected them.

Cuts are front loaded so most people should benefit short term. It's when the promised boom doesn't materialize and they go after entitlements with cuts expiring in the future that all will blow up. The good thing is all this will be reversed by simple majority-good precedent.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Cuts are front loaded so most people should benefit short term. It's when the promised boom doesn't materialize and they go after entitlements with cuts expiring in the future that all will blow up. The good thing is all this will be reversed by simple majority-good precedent.

---

The front-loading of the cuts is the kind of thing you'd expect to help goose popularity in the short term, but instead it seems like people aren't buying it and do actually recognize the long-term negatives. The bill is amazingly unpopular for something with a broad short-term benefit for most people (albeit a much larger benefit for the wealthiest).

Perhaps a sign of a major political sea change taking place? I feel like for the last few decades people have mostly only cared about the short-term consequences. Those days may be coming to an end.

It's a continuing escalation of distrust in political leadership. Not exclusive to one party, but nobody no longer thinks Republicans have any interest in anybody but the rich. Trump was elected to bust this apart not kowtow to it.

A friend of mine who is a tax lawyer and VP of tax for an S&P 100 company, and a Republican though he voted for Hillary, stopped by the house yesterday.

He had spent the weekend reading the tax bill. His view is that it was incredibly poorly written, lazy, unclear and confusing. More substantively he felt it ceded too much power to the Executive Branch, in that too many of the technical details were punted to Executive agencies to define. The result of this is uncertainty for corporations as every 4 years a new President can come in and re-write the rules. He felt the tax bill guaranteed work for tax lawyers like himself. Financially, he is opposed to the huge deficits caused by the bill and would have supported revenue neutral corporate tax reform. He definitely supports resolving the issue of cash being trapped overseas.

This man is a fiscally responsible fiscal conservative. He has no home in the current Republican Party. He and I joke about how we look forward to a future when we can vote for different people again.

When Ralph Nader was asked how to turn the American economy around in 2008 when it crashed, he responded in part:

"The first thing you do is you get rid of corporate welfare. That's hundreds of billions of dollars a year. The second is you tax corporations so that they don't get away with no taxation. The Citizens for Tax Justice put out a report recently. They had 12 major corporations, like Honeywell, Verizon, General Electric, and in three years, Amy, they made $167 billionwith a "B" dollars in profit, paid zero tax, and got two-and-a-half billion dollars back from the Treasury. "

Thus tRump claiming one of the major purposes of the tax legislation is to lighten the tax burden on corporations to stimulate jobs is a deception. The big corporations have never paid taxes anyway. The purpose of the tax bill is to cut taxes on rich guys like tRump....and the working class voted for tRump and cut their own throats because he fueled their fear and racial animus.


http://time.com/5075076/koch-brothers-tax-bill-campaign/

Orrin Hatch and Mike Pence literally swallowed yesterday.

Ryan just deleted this:

dajo9 said:

---

A friend of mine who is a tax lawyer and VP of tax for an S&P 100 company, and a Republican though he voted for Hillary, stopped by the house yesterday.

He had spent the weekend reading the tax bill. His view is that it was incredibly poorly written, lazy, unclear and confusing. More substantively he felt it ceded too much power to the Executive Branch, in that too many of the technical details were punted to Executive agencies to define. The result of this is uncertainty for corporations as every 4 years a new President can come in and re-write the rules. He felt the tax bill guaranteed work for tax lawyers like himself. Financially, he is opposed to the huge deficits caused by the bill and would have supported revenue neutral corporate tax reform. He definitely supports resolving the issue of cash being trapped overseas.

This man is a fiscally responsible fiscal conservative. He has no home in the current Republican Party. He and I joke about how we look forward to a future when we can vote for different people again.

---

Again, even though you find no credence in my fiscal conservative/socially moderate stance, I feel I can agree with a lot of what you and your friend bemoan.

In lieu of ever getting a form of government (and I will describe that as Blue Dog Demo, Rino Republican) that satisfies me, I do not in any way approve of measures that overly benefit the 1%. Not at all. I would love a tax plan that benefits everyone in our society "heavily" that makes between $50K and $250K a year. Everyone else, forget it. Yes if that means taxing the top, and removing welfare from the bottom, so be it. The producers in our society should prevail. Why mean to the rich and poor as well? Because in the meantime the vast middle has been ignored. Education, infrastructure, and middle class growth and optimism have all suffered by the abuses of the rich and poor. There is only so much money to go around, and in the 50s and 60s California was in much, much better shape than it is today.

Gerrymandering of safe districts on both sides has created the hatred from each extreme. This is not what it was, and not what it should be.