Originally Posted by Guest

This is nothing more but the same old Trickle Down Economics! Ronnie tried it, Bush tried it but perhaps the best example of what will actually happen is the State of Kansas! Gov Brownback's experiment was a disaster....

Trickle-down economics is a nightmare. Kansas proved it. - The Washington Post

COPUFF

Every time we have had a major tax cut, from JFK to Reagan to Clinton revenues to the government increased. Every single time. And every single time, Congress outspent the increase. We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. As soon as our representatives see that they can get their hands on extra money, they try to use it in a way to fool the voters into re-electing them.

The only thing that will really fix this situation is term limits. This is my solution.

One nine-year term for senators. One six-year term for representatives. Replace one-third of each house every three years. That gives us a combination of experience and new blood. No person can serve more than one term as representative, one term as senator and two terms as president in their lifetime. Time to put a stop to professional politicians. Return us to the citizen government "of the people and by the people" that our founders envisioned.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is nothing more but the same old Trickle Down Economics! Ronnie tried it, Bush tried it but perhaps the best example of what will actually happen is the State of Kansas! Gov Brownback's experiment was a disaster....

Trickle-down economics is a nightmare. Kansas proved it. - The Washington Post

COPUFF

Not enough information here from a biased source. Did revenues to the state incr4ease from the tax cuts? Did the state incr4ase spending or did they stay within their budget.

The fact is that you can take almost any subject and give limited information, and omitting information in order to make any point that you want.

The fact is that no one has rd this entire tax bill. It was written, like all bills by Congressional staffers who try to get in points that will help their boss get re-elected. The members are then given a synopsis of those little sections of the bill in order to promote their argument.

Members of the opposing party are also given a synopsis of the parts of the bill that their staffers, who pore over every little detail of the bill looking for points think will go over big with their constituents.

If you think that our government is anything other than a big show, you're either fooling yourself or naive.

All legislation is about getting re-elected. That why Peter King of New York will vote against it. In fact, he was probably given permission to vote against it by party leadership because they have enough votes and his constituents may not like what they are hearing.

Of course, what they are hearing may or may not have anything to do with what is actually in the bill or how it will affect them of the economy.

To summarize, we really don't know anything about these bills. The media doesn't know what is in them or what the effect will be. Your Representative and Senator really don't know what they are voting on. All of the work and all of the understanding is by non-elected staffers, most of whom only have actually written understand a small section of the bill.

This bill is 500 pages and many of them are more. There is no way that your elected representatives and possibly read entire 5,000 bills that are submitted each year. Even if they could they probably wouldn't understand much of them. Most bills are intentionally written to be complex and vague. The only ones who might actually understand this bill are tax accountants and tax lawyers and that's only once they've taken weeks or months to read it and study the possible implications.

It's all a game and a circus.

Originally Posted by Guest

Not enough information here from a biased source. Did revenues to the state incr4ease from the tax cuts? Did the state incr4ase spending or did they stay within their budget.

The fact is that you can take almost any subject and give limited information, and omitting information in order to make any point that you want.

The fact is that no one has rd this entire tax bill. It was written, like all bills by Congressional staffers who try to get in points that will help their boss get re-elected. The members are then given a synopsis of those little sections of the bill in order to promote their argument.

Members of the opposing party are also given a synopsis of the parts of the bill that their staffers, who pore over every little detail of the bill looking for points think will go over big with their constituents.

If you think that our government is anything other than a big show, you're either fooling yourself or naive.

All legislation is about getting re-elected. That why Peter King of New York will vote against it. In fact, he was probably given permission to vote against it by party leadership because they have enough votes and his constituents may not like what they are hearing.

Of course, what they are hearing may or may not have anything to do with what is actually in the bill or how it will affect them of the economy.

To summarize, we really don't know anything about these bills. The media doesn't know what is in them or what the effect will be. Your Representative and Senator really don't know what they are voting on. All of the work and all of the understanding is by non-elected staffers, most of whom only have actually written understand a small section of the bill.

This bill is 500 pages and many of them are more. There is no way that your elected representatives and possibly read entire 5,000 bills that are submitted each year. Even if they could they probably wouldn't understand much of them. Most bills are intentionally written to be complex and vague. The only ones who might actually understand this bill are tax accountants and tax lawyers and that's only once they've taken weeks or months to read it and study the possible implications.

It's all a game and a circus.

Very good Jim...we've disagreed before...but not now.

Allow me to add just one "minor" point...

"It's all a game and a circus" to steal as much as possible from the treasury leaving the citizens with the bill. EVERY man, woman, AND child..."owes" over $60,000 as "their share" of the government debt...which is REALLY money that was given to the wealthy through their corporations via government contracts and welfare payments to the poor.

...