I’m not sure that a tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthy can be fairly and objectively considered “malevolent insanity.”
Blatant shameless sociopathic disregard for the well being of the majority of the United States?
Just plain despicable?
At this point, “malevolent insanity” is the least negative thing I can think of to describe the Republican party as embracing that isn’t whitewashing its behavior. “Insanity” implies at least a degree of mental imbalance instead of willful awfulness.
The Democratic donor class is also likely to oppose reversing the tax cuts on the corporations and ultra-rich once it has passed though. So I wouldn’t pin my hopes on 2020 if I were you.
Only this one has no sunset for the corps and ultra-rich, seems the Reps have learned their lessons from the Bush era and are counting (imho likely correctly) on the “centrist” Dems being too pusillanimous to undo tax-cuts that have already passed.
Lowering the corporate tax rate in exchange for the elimatation of special interest deductions I think actually fairly sound policy. As far as I can tell most of those were not eliminated, however. I think they are overestimating the potential for economic growth from that but it will probably attract more foreign investment. Reasonable people can disagree as to the impact of personal income tax cuts they are proposing.
More than that demonizing the character of people you disagree with on something as routine as tax policy is the reason why our politics are so toxic right now.
Hey. I have known sociopaths who I would gladly swap out my congressional reps for.
I haven’t known any (that I know of) sociopaths personally, and my representatives aren’t part of the cult of GLORIOUS CORPORATE DOMINATION, so I’m just going to be grateful for small mercies.
It doesn’t just do that though:
The wealthiest people in the country, who already have more than they could ever spend, are given further breaks and loopholes, while others starve in the streets.
It targets those with student debt, grad students in particular. This is directly undermining the future of the educated middle class.
It will massively cut Medicare (400 billion in the next 10 years) and other government healthcare services. This will put millions in danger and debt (and lead to the deaths of more than a few).
Will massively increase the deficit anyway (and proves the Republicans don’t give a single damn about lowering it except as a rhetorical device).
Well if they get rid of the deficit they can’t keep using it as a rhetorical device can they.
We’ll see as long as any corporate tax-rate is above 0 I don’t it is going to meaningfully reduce tax-evasion by major corporations such as Apple.
It may be my take is too Dutch however, but over here our civil service only tolerates the effort associated major tax-overhauls every 20 years or so. Hypothetically if our PM succeeded in passing something anywhere near like this that would consign us to tinkering at the margins of it for the next 20 odd years, which is a big reason for loophole messes, it is also completely unsatisfactory and would drain funding from nearly all social programmes.
Basically it would turn most elected government offices into poison pills for anyone (or at least anyone even vaguely progressive) unlucky enough to hold them for the foreseeable future. Of course if the civil service really disagrees with such political plans in the first place they’d probably sabotage or at the very least resort to bothering by the book to drag everything out.
Of course the US civil service works quite differently and on a far less secure tenure, which also has both pro’s and cons.
In hindsight it is probably a really good thing we didn’t take the FPTP system from the Canadians in our post-war reforms (though it was apparently briefly considered).
On the other hand given that in your system there is no need for bi or mutli party consensus that means there is no need for the majority party to really have to debate such issues and compromise with their detractors.
One party just passing everything while the other can do nothing but look on also doesn’t contribute to comradeship and mutual understanding.
Reminds me of my history lectures about my own country during the 1930’s. Dark political days indeed, even a brief return of the poll-tax.
As easy as it is to blame the American people for this, that’s not quite the case. The “tax scam bill” is deeply unpopular (hovering at about 25-30% approval) among the general population. It’s the Republican Party who has thrown all of its muscle behind committing to it.
Under normal circumstances, tying their names to a bill like this would be rejected out of hand for being political suicide, but these are far from normal circumstances. If there is anything you can blame the American people for, it’s that.
It also doesn’t solve nearly as many problems as you’d think. Currently, Justin Trudeau is actually the oldest of our three major party leaders (Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh are both still in their 30s, IIRC).
The problem is that it’s a tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthy (among other things, like cutting down the ACA and giving tax exemptions to one particular private school) at a time when income inequality is popularly seen as a major societal crisis and resentment towards the wealthy seems both very widespread and extremely well-justified. Add to that the fact that this bill so obviously doesn’t have a popular mandate, and it becomes very easy to see it as written by the wealthy, for the wealthy, without a hint of popular legitimacy.
I’m also still technically young enough to be one of the “kids” myself, if just barely, in that I should finally become eligible for the US Senate and our PM’s office sometime next year.
They seem to be counting on people’s short attention spans and hoping that 2018 will be an economic boom year in order to make the public forget about it or even credit their “tax scam” bill with said booming economy.
Well I agree it’s not a good bill. Most Republicans would vote for a ham sandwich if it cut taxes however and this bill is popular with Republican voters. I’d say Republicans would claim to derive legitimacy on the issue from their base and their belief everyone will love it once it boosts growth.
You could say the same for the ACA when it was originally passed.
The ACA was debated over a period of years, and Democrats compromised their own vision of the bill drastically to attempt to get bipartisan support.
It didn’t get nearly 500 pages of amendments added to it in pen and then voted on so soon afterwards that the other party had to raise a motion to delay the vote three days just so everyone could read it.
Yeah like I said ham sandwich. The process was better for the ACA but it was also a radical overhaul of the American medical insurance market. This is a pretty cut and dry tax cut.
Like I said I would argue with you that it was badly put together and seems like it won’t achieve what they want it too. I also it don’t think it makes the current yes votes demonic. Everyone calling for her blood now would have vigorously shook Susan Collins hand last week…
…Because she voted against something which this bill goes towards repealing anyways.
I can imagine a lot of people who are relying on the ACA to stay alive slowly beginning to think “if my elected officials want to kill me, why shouldn’t I return the favour”, which is not a good sentiment to have going around in a democracy.
I think that’s a little hyperbolic for reducing the fine for failing to purchase health insurance. It was only 95 dollars to begin with. Most health insurance plans cost more than that a month. I’m not convinced it will have the downward pressure on enrollment the CBO is predicting.
Considering how much of an impact the CBO is predicting (well in excess of 10 million people IIRC), even a fraction of that would still be pretty devastating.
I think it’s going to be the individual points within the bill that stick out the most: the tax cuts for multimillion dollar estates and private jet owners and the like. While it may seem like a "standard Republican tax cut*, the context in which it was drafted in (including after a decade of Republicans harping on the deficit and trying to rebrand itself as a part of fiscal conservatism) and those aforementioned salient points which have popped up make it seem like something truly, extraordinarily malevolent.
Rubbing salt on someone’s chest isn’t something you should do, but rubbing salt on someone’s chest while they’re dying of a sucking chest wound seems so much worse, even if it’s technically the same action.
While that is likely true and the fact that there was never a public option on Obamacare largely down to Joe Lieberman, the slashing of education funding in particular, as well as growing the deficit in such an irresponsible manner would actually be my chief concerns here. In addition to the fact that the so-called “trickle-down” economics simply don’t work as advertised since most ultra-wealthy people already have everything they want and another tax cut for them isn’t going to increase their personal spending and certainly not enough to the degree necessary to offset the impact of such tax cuts.
Of course I don’t rely on Obamacare, deeply flawed as it is in order to stay alive. Make something an existential fight and it changes the calculus.
The sheer size of this thing is also simply unprecedented. Of course the reconciliation process is still going to tinker with it a bit but I don’t think cutting education in order to encourage private-jet ownership is a particularly worthy goal, nor will it look good.
Ah, those devout family friendly guys, they really do love the little kids, don’t they?
In addition to their second families, mistresses and secret gay lovers.
And another thing, then: