Tax Reform

Tax Bill Passes Congress—Are You Dead Yet???

Another day of cartoonish outrage in Washington.

|

Pinterest

If you didn't die after the U.S. pulled out of the Paris climate accord and you didn't die after the courts suspended President Trump's travel ban, or you were bummed about losing the opportunity to die when Republicans couldn't seal the deal on a healthcare bill, you have one more chance. Some critics of the tax bill that just passed Congress and is expected to be signed into law today say this is the policy that might end your life.

"Kill the bill, don't kill us!" protesters chanted on the Senate floor last night.

The hyperbole, as usual, is disconnected from reality. The tax reform bill is a "conventional Republican tax plan," as Peter Suderman wrote yesterday, "with all the predictable problems and benefits."

The left-leaning Tax Policy Center estimates that 80 percent of taxpayers will see a cut next year. (The numbers change abruptly in 2027, when much of the tax bill expires.) Hardly tales from the crypt. But that hasn't stopped the apocalyptic rhetoric.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) called the bill a "bank heist," conflating the private pockets of Americans with the "national treasury" (which might as well be a box with a $20 trillion IOU in it):

Here's Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.):

Well, it's nice to see Democrats say they care about the debt again (and illuminating to see Republicans stop caring about the debt, for anyone who still believed their old rhetoric on the subject).

But it's not just Democrats with bad takes.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), often a swing vote, claims that media coverage of her support of the tax bill was "sexist," as if Republican males who backed the tax bill were treated any less unfairly in much of the media.

And this round-up wouldn't be complete without mentioning the mini-meltdown by Rosie O'Donnell, the president's favorite celebrity:

Russia/Trump conspiracy theorist Louise Mensch, of all people, stepped in to warn Rosie that this would be bribery, a federal crime. Rosie disagreed.

NEXT: The Happy Lover of Liberty ...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “A tax bill is a moral statement.”

    Unlike any of the legislation Blumenthal supports.

    1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

      This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

    2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

      This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

    3. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here,….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. Lighten up, Ro-ro-ro-rosie.

    1. She can eat a cat turd along with Hihny.

      1. Hihn was around recently, wasn’t he. I thought I heard the sounds of dead threads being pounded against the floors and walls of the Halls of Forgotten Inanities.

          1. A broken clock is still right twice a day.

              1. They do. However, when a border agent asks you if you have any weapons, DO NOT respond “well words can cut like a knife”. It doesn’t bode well.

        1. He sucks the fun out of life

  3. Democrats are so upset about the deficit now that they’re willing to cut spending!

    Oh wait, no they’re not. I guess the alternative is 100% taxation? That appears to be the Democrat response. Frankly, that appears to be many Republicans response too so I guess this is bipartisan rejection of spending reductions, ever, in perpetuity.

    1. They’re really only calling for a 12 percent tax hike (to close the $440 billion projected deficit for FY2018 on $3.654 trillion in projected revenue and $4.094 trillion in projected spending.)

      Let’s see them run on that next fall. I think voters prefer deficits.

      1. … But you idiots aren’t supposed to.

        1. “But you idiots aren’t supposed to.”

          And Tony shows up dragging his strawman right on cue!

          1. Don’t talk about things you don’t understand, like words.

            1. Tony, you are stupid and weak. That you would attempt to disparage your betters (any non-progtard) is unacceptable. Now go drink your fucking Drano and end things once and for all. As a Christmas present for everyone.


      2. Let’s see them run on that next fall. I think voters prefer deficits.

        Yep, unfortunately. Although if that 12 percent is across the board it still won’t pay for entitlements.

  4. Was Rosie trying to publicly bribe Senators?

    1. Exactly.

      That’s liberal thinking for you. It’s wrong for other people to do it.

      1. It’s only wrong when russians do it, and only then when they do it with republicans.

    2. Damn, you beat me to it but it does appear to be a public attempt to bribe senators. Keep in mind this is tongue-in-cheek, I don’t think Rosie should actually be busted for it or anything but it’s pretty amusing to watch a rabid leftist attempt to buy their way to a victory.

      1. Rosie is dead serious about the bribe.
        She’s just dumb as dirt.

        1. LOL, she’s dumber than that. She actually thought that $2 million dollars is enough to buy a senator.

      2. “no shit
        2 million
        cash
        each”

        Doesn’t sound tongue in cheek to me. But I totally can see her squelch when they come knocking.

        1. see her squelch

          EEWW!

          1. Rufus watches Exit to Eden every week just to get a fleeting glimpse of Rosie’s squelch.

            1. I don’t even want to parse that.

      3. “I don’t think Rosie should actually be busted for it or anything….”

        See, I think that every law bad or not should be duly enforced. It makes repealing the bad laws that much quicker when people like Rosie Old MacDonald get indicted for trying to bribe politicians.

  5. Russia/Trump conspiracy theorist Louise Mensch, of all people, stepped in to warn Rosie that this would be bribery, a federal crime. Rosie disagreed.

    Uh… based? Or something.

  6. Now, make me happy and cut spending. A lot. Not a reduction in spending growth, but less total spending.

    1. Never happen. Federal spending drives too much of our economy.

      1. Federal spending drives to many re-election campaigns. It does nothing for our economy.

        1. This seems like a trap. Please explain.

          1. It’s hard for many people to understand, but spending tax dollars does nothing for the economy because tax dollars are removed from the economy.

            Does it make sense now?

            1. That would only work if the budget were balanced. How does deficit spending work in this equation?

              1. It reduces the value of the dollar, for one, so is it really doing anyone any good to spend a ton of money that doesn’t exist when all it does is necessitate more deficit spending?

                And no, you can’t tax your way out of that kind of spiral.

                1. So then the consensus here would be that federal spending cuts would have no negative effect upon the economy? I’m not an economist, but that seems a bit counter-intuitive.

                  1. Federal spending cuts would have short term ‘negative effects’ as markets right themselves from the massive distortions they’re currently functioning under, but long-term it would be a very good thing. This is especially true once you realize that those market distortions are utterly unsustainable, so eventually they are going to crash and burn one way or another.

                    The laws of supply and demand can not be broken, but their effects can be put off.

                  2. There would be an immediate negative effect, but the long term effect would be a net benefit. Sort of like kicking a drinking habit.

                    1. I remember the great devastation of ’46. Cats were eating dogs. The earth’s magnetic field had reversed. Hell, even gravity was hanging on by a thread.

                  3. The part you are missing is that all the people who are employed by the federal government would be forced to enter the productive part of the economy, which would generate wealth rather than consume it.

                    1. I’m not sure that introducing a large amount of unproductive parasites into a productive environment will yield the results you’re looking for.

                    2. I know, but at least we can then treat them like the scum they are rather then have them protected by a union that is paid for with my money.

          2. “This seems like a trap. Please explain.”

            I will not explain. It is so self-evident it borders on axiomatic.

            But thanks to BYODB below.

            1. I mean ‘above’, hah!

            2. What a douchebag response.

              1. I think you’re a douche for being an economic moron.
                Lots of people here to converse with, have fun.

              2. Sounds like the response of a moron who doesn’t know what he’s talking about to me. They often become douchebags when cornered.

                1. Tony, stop interrupting. We’re very busy here. Don’t you have some Drano to drink?

          3. Eric, let’s say your business is building fences. You want to buy more fences to keep your inventory up so that you can make your customers happy, buy in bulk, all of that stuff. Government comes in and takes a bunch of your money, so you have a much harder time doing that. Then, with that money that government stole from you, they are now going to make running your business hell. They’re going to tell you how tall your fence can be, what paint you can use on your fence, where you can put your fences, that your gates need to be handicap accessible, that your fences must allow for wildlife to pass through, etc.

            So yeah, taxes are not only a drag on the economy, they are a drag on the economy twice over because the government takes your capital and then uses it to make your business less efficient.

            1. I get the taxes side of the equation Deven. But I’m talking about federal spending. You can’t tell me that entire sectors of our economy don’t rely on federal spending for their meal ticket. Am I missing something here?

              1. You’re missing that if a ‘sector of the economy’ requires federal spending to survive than it is a drag on the economy, not a bonus.

                1. True, at best prices are distorted, at worst, that sector doesn’t even really need to exist.

                2. It seems you are all talking economic theory. Yes, the government picking the winners and losers throws off the supply/demand curve, and creates market inefficiencies. But what would be the immediate impact of a massive reduction in federal spending?


                  1. It seems you are all talking economic theory. Yes, the government picking the winners and losers throws off the supply/demand curve, and creates market inefficiencies. But what would be the immediate impact of a massive reduction in federal spending?

                    It seems to me that your questions were related to economy theory, but now I’m seeing that you’re attempting to maneuver into a position where you can ignore economic theory because you really love redistribution and don’t want to hear that it has real and massive negative effects.

                    1. My decision to not engage, correct.

                    2. “It seems to me that your questions were related to economy theory, but now I’m seeing that you’re attempting to maneuver into a position where you can ignore economic theory because you really love redistribution and don’t want to hear that it has real and massive negative effects.”

                      Jesus Christ…where did you get that?

                      No Machiavellian agenda here. Seriously, I just see no scenario in which anyone at the federal level would be willing to accept the consequences of reduced spending.

                    3. No Machiavellian agenda here. Seriously, I just see no scenario in which anyone at the federal level would be willing to accept the consequences of reduced spending.

                      Which shows the difference between politicians and leaders. A leader does what is best overall, a politician does what is best for optics and power.

                      The scenario is where people are actually educated, especially in the realm of economics, and are able to see through the bullshit of the special interests. A tall order, but not impossible. Be a part of the solution, not the problem.


                    4. Seriously, I just see no scenario in which anyone at the federal level would be willing to accept the consequences of reduced spending.

                      Rather than describing the deductive way I came to my conclusion, I’ll simply agree with this statement and leave it at that.

                  2. Depends, in areas where there is a market need, very little would change. It may take a few months for people to set up their business, etc, but if there is a need and money to be made, it would be a fairly smooth transition.

                    The areas I could see a problem are the areas that were the domains of charity and the family before government, ie safety nets, drug wars, social security, etc. Removing those things would need to be done more gradually because it would require a cultural shift which takes much more time than the markets and could be devastating.

              2. If you could point out a sector that you believe relies fully on the the Federal Gov, and that would be cut at the same time, perhaps I could assuage some of your fears.

                I get what you’re saying, especially in monopoly situations where there is not the infrastructure to fill a vacuum if the Fed Gov were to just disappear. I’m just simply not seeing any doomsday scenarios past a very local level (say the subsidized plant gets shut down).

              3. Without government evil, those sectors would repurpose with the recaptured capital to produce things people actually want.

            2. Say the Gov wants to build a fence too. in the short term the fence building resources are static. Now you are in a bidding war with the GOV for supplies labor etc. you know the GOV is going to get thiers, then the politically connected get theirs, then you are able to purchase the left over supplies with everyone else. Gov & Friends take portions of the supply makeing the rest of the market bidding over scraps.

          4. Basic Bastiat here.

            That which is seen…monies and resources directed towards purely political aims and that which is not seen…the monies and resources that are of a necessity, diverted away from the aims of individuals.

            Reducing federal spending would indeed alter the economy, but only insofar as people redirect what would have been spent for political aims into fulfilling personal needs and wants.

            1. And if you wonder about the effect of eliminating all the deficit spending in addition to reducing non-deficit spending.

              A 500b deficit is less than 3% of GDP
              That difference would be more than made up in just a few years.

              1. I guarantee you that in a few years government spending will outpace that growth.

        2. Federal spending subtracts from the economy, taking money people wanted to spend on certain things, and spending it instead on things they didn’t want to buy. Some of the shifted spending does some good, but it’s automatically less than what it would have bought, if you measure human happiness by freedom.

      2. Of course. But the comeuppance is comeupping.

        1. You can comeupmenow or comeupmelater.

  7. Also, is that tweet my Rosie proof of an attempt to bribe a public official? Just curious.

    1. I would say it is. She obviously demonstrates intent by using words like promise and no shit 2 million each in cash.

    2. Sure reads like a quid pro quo bribe offer to me.

    3. The thing is, Rosie would never give a Republican a million dollars. What she would probably do is call the DA and set up a Republican with a fake bribe attempt, though.

      At the end of the day is was just more panicky hyperbole from an idiot has-been celebrity.

      1. It wouldn’t be the first time someone thought I was John, but fat bottom girls are definitely not my thing.

        1. You said it; you get to keep her.

          1. *puts gun to head*

            *doesn’t pull the trigger because he doesn’t want to be a gun murder statistic*

  8. Meh. Tomorrow’s debt is someone else’s problem. We all might as well make as much money as we can today, eh?

    1. You are correct that this has been American policy for just over 100 years now, so I wouldn’t expect it to change until the house of cards collapses. If it’s any consolation, the FedGov is working overtime to make that happen sooner. We can thank Bush and Obama by-and-large for this, although if you want to trace it back to it’s roots you’d be looking at guys like Wilson and Roosevelt.

      1. And Reagan. But mostly Bush and Obama.

        1. After Bush and Obama, it’s hard to quibble over any of the Presidents who came before since combined Bush and Obama spent more than every single last one of them combined. Or at least so I’m told.

      2. In the mean time it will be nice to keep more of my own money.

    2. Says the guy who thinks ripping the bandaid off of the ponzi scheme of the welfare state is a bad or avoidable thing.

    3. I’m old enough to remember the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing when the debt hit $1T. It was the end of the world!

      Except that it wasn’t.

      The debt means nothing as long as people buy bonds. Once people stop buying the debt then the shit will really hit the fan.

    4. Can’t we just cut the tax rate to 0 percent then, and quantitatively ease the economy with 4 trillion in new cash each year to support federal spending?

  9. Sorry, I can’t even read this article since the net neutrality repeal LITERALLY KILLED THE INTERNET

    1. Wait. What if we start a foundation to help NN supporters get free porn? Not through government spending or intervention but through donations. Maybe a telethon?

      1. I hear there are a bunch of Jerry’s kids that are needing exploiting

        1. Jerry (Butler)’s Kids

          1. Whatever happened to him after his porn career ended?

  10. It’s not bribery because if she actually had that money she’d spend it on victim studies graduate school tuition or something slightly less damaging to the country as a whole. So I guess we can take small comfort in that.

    1. also, it’s not bribery because she isn’t a soulless corporation. DUH

      1. soulless corpse?

  11. It’s not funny. After the House voted to pass the bill one of my co-workers literally collapsed and died and then a school bus outside blew-up for no apparent reason. They’re killing us! Who would have thought that a corporate tax cut meant to bring American taxes in line with the rest of the industrialized world would be so devastating.

    1. Didn’t that train derail in Washington in anticipation of the secret budget cuts the Republicans have planned?

  12. It would only be bribery if someone like the Koch Brothers made a similar offer.

    /Progtards

  13. Fuck you. Cut spending.

    Ed, if you think Democrats are engaging in hyperbole you should have seen libertarians here when Obama passed the stimulus package. As I recall, there were visions of Greek anarchists in the streets of Peoria, sincere admonitions to stockpile guns and gold bullion– presumably behind a moat, and dark hints that Obama was embarking on a communist plot to put you guys in Gulags run by Kenyans.

    I advocate for Social Security here Ed and I’m routinely advised to move to Cuba or Venezuela (depending on the day) and accused of personal responsibility for the Holomodor. I guess everyone freaks out a little.

    1. “Fuck you. Cut spending”

      Yes, that too. Of course, we know you too well to believe that is your credo.

      And speaking of hyperbole, how’s the rest of your comment?

      1. Don’t be mean. Without hyperbole, RJSP would have no idea what to think about things.

        1. For some reason, you never hear those Keynes lovers mention when exactly those huge ‘stimulus’ spending plans should be curtailed and rolled back past even what they were before RE: austerity. It’s almost like they use Keynes as an excuse while utterly ignoring Keynes.

          1. It’s almost like they use Keynes as an excuse while utterly ignoring Keynes.

            Noticed that, didja?

            1. Utterly ignoring Keynes at all times is the best option.

              1. Agreed, but they can’t even get a wrong theory right.

          2. Those plans need to be curtailed as soon as a D is no longer in office to buy votes get credit.

      2. Oh you can go back into the archives circa 2009 or 10 and see what the Legion of Doom here was predicting.

        1. BTW…what was your handle back then? Tulpa?

    2. Bush passed TARP. Obama just took the one time spending stimulus level and made it the new baseline.

      1. Oh, is that all? ^_-

  14. Does this mean they’re going to start screaming at the sky again? Because that’s always funny.

  15. “Fuck you. Cut spending.” and “I advocate for Social Security here”

    That. doesn’t. make. sense

    1. I suspect “Fuck you, Cut spending” is just a mocking of the libertarian battle cry.

      It is not his credo.

  16. If the Democrats want a wave next year they could use all the dead they can get.

  17. So O’Donnell is saying she will only not kill Americans if the bill fails?

  18. Are You Dead Yet???

    It’s only a matter of time.

  19. Any cut in taxes is the same as giving money to those who will pay less. That money has to come from somewhere. Somewhere like the poor. So what if the poor by definition have nothing to be taken? If the rich are getting more money then it must be being taken from the poor. There is no other explanation. Tax cuts are a wealth transfer from those who have no wealth to those who produce wealth. Letting people keep their own money is theft from those who have nothing to be stolen.

  20. The brazen heist happens every Friday, and the funds are flowing to the federal treasury, not out of it.

  21. Give me a fucking break reason. I don’t know if you know this, but this publication is not exactly known for its lackadaisical attitude to the things big government does to fuck peopl eover. At least not when a certain party has the White House.

      1. Go fuck your cousin Trumptard. Or leave her alone. She’s probably suffered enough.

        1. Give me a “RE!”

          “RE!”

          Give me a “TARD!”

          “TARD!”

          “RE!”

          “RE!”

          “TARD!”

          “TARD!”

          “What does it spell?”

          “TONY!”

        2. That escalated quickly

          1. We only missed the accusation of autism and our day would be complete

    1. Because letting people keep their own money is fucking them over. Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say, Dood.

      1. Kleptocrats are supposed to succeed despite the protestations of the people. But they have a whole cheerleading section in this country. All it takes is keeping people as fucking stupid as you.

        1. Because not taking is giving and not giving is taking.

          Therefore when people pay less of what they earn they are in fact stealing, right?

          Hence “Klepto” which is a prefix for theft.

          So when the rich have less taken from them they are in fact stealing from those who steal from them, right?

          Am I getting it?

          I’m really trying to be as smart as you, but it hurts my head.

          1. Tony can’t stand the idea of people getting government services they aren’t paying for. He told me so himself.

            1. Especially those who can amply afford it.

              Libertarianism:
              1) Government should spare no expense to protect the luxuries of the rich.
              2) Government shouldn’t spend a cent on the basic needs of the poor

              Now change the subject so you don’t have to confront this absurdity, as you guys always do.

              1. Libertarianism:
                1) Government should spare no expense to protect the luxuries of the rich. protect the property rights of everyone.
                2) Government shouldn’t spend a cent on the basic needs of the poor violate the property rights of anyone

                ftfy

                1. That’s the way! Pretend that property rights protection is equally valuable to people who have little or no property. And that in contrast, healthcare, food, and clean water are reserved for those who can afford it on the open market.


                  1. Pretend that property rights protection is equally valuable to people who have little or no property.

                    They are equally valuable. If someone has little to no property, why should they value private property less? Is the answer because ‘rights that don’t benefit them directly are valueless’? That’s it, isn’t it.

                    In Tony world, the only rights that count are the one’s he personally benefits from.

                    And that in contrast, healthcare, food, and clean water are reserved for those who can afford it on the open market.

                    Well, since this is how it has literally always been…and how it will always be…

                    Ignoring, of course, that two of those things anyone can do for themselves while the other is an expert service that must be provided by a 3rd party…

                    1. So it’s government for the rich, hunter-gatherer subsistence for the poor. Why don’t more people buy into your bullshit?


                    2. So it’s government for the rich, hunter-gatherer subsistence for the poor.

                      No, it’s equality under the law but you’re free to be as disingenuous about that as you want.

                      A government that doesn’t respect private property rights for the rich is one that doesn’t respect that right for the poor either. Let us not pretend that ‘the poor’ don’t own things, k?

                    3. The definition of being poor is not owning that many things. You might as well be saying that government’s job is to provide small mother-of-pearl spoons for the consumption of caviar, but food stamps is evil socialism.

                      The point is that the apparatus required to defend property rights is no less a taxpayer-funded social program than any other. You just “arbitrarily” don’t like the ones that benefit poor people more than rich people. It’s deranged, it’s psychotic, and it’s not remotely consistent to any principle of appropriate government action.

                    4. The definition of being poor is not owning that many things.

                      Depends on who you ask. If you have a billion dollars in assets and no income, you can go get welfare.

                  2. Pretend that property rights protection is equally valuable to people who have little or no property.

                    Property rights protection is even more valuable to those who have little, because what they have is that much more valuable to them.

                    And that in contrast, healthcare, food, and clean water are reserved for those who can afford it on the open market.

                    Yep. And when people can’t afford it, they can ask for help. Believe it or not, people actually do help. And they do so without force. It’s called charity. Is it perfect? No. But neither are government programs. Do they help everyone? No. But neither do government programs. Are they moral and consistent with voluntary action, property rights, non-aggression, and the use of force only in response to force? Yes. That cannot be said about government programs.

                    1. Social welfare and charity are in different categories. Nobody’s talking about charity except you, and you’re using it as an absurd hand-wave to justify your anti-human, pro-kleptocracy beliefs. Mentioning charity hurts your case rather than helping it, but you’re too stupid to know that.

                    2. Social welfare and charity are in different categories.

                      True. Social welfare is force, while charity is not.

                      Nobody’s talking about charity except you,

                      Depends on who you talk to.

                      and you’re using it as an absurd hand-wave to justify your anti-human, pro-kleptocracy beliefs.

                      Um, yeah. Because not wanting to have the government be an agent that uses its taxation power to transfer wealth is pro-kleptocracy. Sure. I don’t support the government taking from one group and giving to another, and I’m the one who supports theft. Got it.

                      Mentioning charity hurts your case rather than helping it, but you’re too stupid to know that.

                      Mentioning people helping people voluntarily vs being forced makes me look like a kleptocrat. I’m the thief because I don’t support thievery. And that makes me stupid.

                      Damn you’re smart.

                      It gives me a migraine headache
                      Sinking down to your level


                    3. Social welfare and charity are in different categories.

                      Could you explain how that’s true in any cogent way?

                    4. We all have skin in the game for social insurance programs. Read up on the concept of insurance if you don’t get how it works. Social insurance is the same concept except on a universal scale. Charity is a selective handout motivated by sympathy or a tax write-off, and it has never once demonstrated itself to be enough to maintain a civilized society.

                    5. Charity is a selective handout motivated by sympathy or a tax write-off, and it has never once demonstrated itself to be enough to maintain a civilized society.

                      We have charity.
                      Government handouts would be perfect.
                      QED Charity sucks

                  3. And that in contrast, healthcare, food, and clean water are reserved for those who can afford it on the open market.

                    Yay for government-supplied water!!”

                    “Father, tell us the story about the government cheese, pleeease?”

                    1. You are seriously using Flint to support a belief system of handing over public goods to the private sector?


                    2. You are seriously using Flint to support a belief system of handing over public goods to the private sector?

                      Since it was a government caused problem with the government water supply, it would be difficult not to see the argument. I see you were up to the challenge.

                2. I’m sure Tony wants the law applied fairly regardless of means

          2. No, Tony is upset that Republicans are stealing from the future instead of…the future and today? Nah, nevermind. He’s just an idiot.

        2. My current working hypothesis is that you’re Hihn during his lucid, medicated episodes.

          1. You know, I’ve never seen them together in the same half of the day.

  22. Ed and Scott are the kings of alt-text.

  23. After the last 16 years, a lot of people on the left just didn’t think that lower taxes and smaller government was a real possibility.

    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay outside their Overton window.

    LOL

    1. You don’t have to support trillions of dollars in new deficit spending just because Trump did it.

      1. And you don’t need to support higher taxation just because you don’t want to contribute to charity or volunteer your time, yet here you are…

      2. I don’t support spending.

        I support tax cuts.

        You don’t have to oppose a bill that cut $1.022 trillion in spending on entitlement programs just because Rand Paul opposed it either.

        P.S. Are we to understand that you now favor cutting trillions of dollars from the budget because you’re worried about the deficit?

        1. You don’t have to oppose a bill that cut $1.022 trillion in spending on entitlement programs just because Rand Paul opposed it either.

          This is Tony you’re talking to. He doesn’t care what Rand Paul thinks. You’re getting a little knee-jerk with this particular meme.

        2. I oppose cutting the social welfare state because I believe in having one. That’s true regardless of who’s in the White House. You presumably opposed massive increases in the deficit because you thought that was a problem when Obama was president.

          1. Full disclosure: I’ve been the recipient of a lot of social welfare. My daughter has some issues and at some point the machinery of the state stepped in to “help.”

            And it has been helpful. I can’t deny that having hundreds of thousands of other peoples’ dollars being showered on her in the form of various treatments has been helpful.

            You can shit on me for this all day long, as I’m sure you will. All I can say is two things. I’d be a fool to refuse, and if I did refuse I’d probably have been brought up on some criminal neglect charges. I didn’t have much of a choice.

            That said, I’d still rather have used voluntary charity. Charity which is lacking because it has been crowded out by the programs I was railroaded into using.


            1. “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

              ? Fr?d?ric Bastiat, The Law

              It doesn’t bother Tony that this was addressed around 1850.

              1. Sometimes having too few ideas is worse than having none at all.

              2. one of my favorite quotes

            2. Your daughter should be glad you’re a big fat hypocrite, then.

              1. Your daughter should be glad you’re a big fat hypocrite, then.

                Yes. She should. Because she has had better care than had I held fast to my principles.

                I would be richer too if I hadn’t failed to reply to a couple class actions.

                Progress, not perfection.

            3. You seriously think some random stranger would give you hundreds of thousands of dollars for your daughter’s needs? Think about that for a second. You think that would happen even without the fanciful “crowding out” hypothesis you’ve pulled from your ass?

              1. yes, and there is ample historical evidence to support it. To the same extent of monies extracted by force? probably not. But they would probably be used in a better way.

                1. Hundreds of thousands of dollars? You really believe that?

      3. “You don’t have to support trillions of dollars in new deficit spending just because Trump did it.”

        This son of a bitch is the reason strawmen are so expensive: He’s hoarded every one in the western world.

      4. Shove a plateful of mushy peas in your face, and then wash it down with the world’s biggest bag of dicks, Krugscum! HA-HA-HAAAAAAA!!

  24. I wonder what looks and snide remarks if the GOP would simply answer the debt questions with the truth. Which is that the tax bill doesn’t increase the debt a single dollar. Sure there’s a correlation to the debt, but no causation whatsoever. You might literally have the heads of some commentators explode from lack of comprehension. There are reasons to oppose this bill (I support it), but the debt isn’t really a good one.

  25. Am I dead yet? No, not yet. God bless Trump for the new tax plan. Curse the Demonrats who have become the enemy within and have no intention of helping American citizens.

    1. i guess not being able to deduct your alimony payments to your ex wives won’t be a hardship for you eh ?

  26. 99% of the dem’s opposition to the tax bill is “it favors the rich, kills the poor”. They hardly mention the bill’s effect on the deficit.

    What’s the major difference between this tax bill and the government individually handing out subsidies (which actually takes money out of taxpayer’s pockets) to favored industries? Why is one morally repugnant while the other is a necessary evil? A Hollywood production means a boost in the economy for a like half a year and won’t have much of an impact on the overall economy. Libs didn’t mind states and cities kissing Weinstenville’s rings and offering tax relief so they can have the privilege of shooting movies in their town?

    1. “Libs” are not part of this conversation. The Republicans who passed this bill didn’t let invite them to the table. So how about focus on the actual actors here?

      1. The democrats already knew the essential facts. This is merely a tax code overhaul, it only rearranges chairs in existing formation. The GOP rushed in some last minute additions. Obamacare canceled a bunch of viable plans and forced people to buy healthcare.

        The Libs have always reluctantly defended the bailouts as a necessary evil. That involved the government actually sending money to (failed) corporation. The taxpayer were never going to get their money back. So the question is worth asking. Tax cuts enable to people to keep more of their own money. That’s all. So why is that so much more morally objectionable than bailouts and subsidies?

        If Trump actually proposed spending cuts alongside this tax bill, he would have to celebrated as among the most fiscally responsible president in the modern era. He only got half right. It’s better than nothing.

      2. The democrats already knew the essential facts. This is merely a tax code overhaul, it only rearranges chairs in existing formation. The GOP rushed in some last minute additions. Obamacare canceled a bunch of viable plans and forced people to buy healthcare.

        The Libs have always reluctantly defended the bailouts as a necessary evil. That involved the government actually sending money to (failed) corporation. The taxpayer were never going to get their money back. So the question is worth asking. Tax cuts enable to people to keep more of their own money. That’s all. So why is that so much more morally objectionable than bailouts and subsidies?

        If Trump actually proposed spending cuts alongside this tax bill, he would have to celebrated as among the most fiscally responsible president in the modern era. He only got half right. It’s better than nothing.

        1. It rearranged chairs to the tune of a 14% increase in profits for Goldman Sachs for doing nothing. (Well, buying politicians takes some effort I suppose.) Also to the tune of the Koch family’s useless offspring getting a bunch of free money they weren’t going to get before. (Same effort.)

  27. “That which doesn’t kill me . . . is good Republican legislation.”

  28. I hope Nancy Pelosi’s head explodes in any case.

  29. Eliminating the IRS and printing, not borrowing what’s needed, tied to no more government borrowing and to one term and out term limits would be better for everyone. In the end, if the middle class are dissatisfied then this is the end of the GOP. It’s all they have going for them.

  30. krayewski might not be living with all his marbles at the moment

  31. Trump being elected killed us.

    TPP pullout killed us.

    Gorsuch killed us.

    Lack of net neutrality killed us.

    Keeping more of our money killed us.

    Man, we’re awfully alive for having been killed so many times.

    1. Why don’t you ask a Puerto Rican how they feel. This tax bill fucks them on top of everything else. Did you know that?

  32. So most of the republicans who opposed the skinny ACA repeal also voted for the tax bill, which will repeal the individul mandate?

    I guess Obamacare could have been repealed earlier this year if Jeff Flake and some other holdouts got DACA protection and other forms of olive branch.

  33. So most of the republicans who opposed the skinny ACA repeal also voted for the tax bill, which will repeal the individul mandate?

    I guess Obamacare could have been repealed earlier this year if Jeff Flake and some other holdouts got DACA protection and other forms of olive branch.

  34. You missed the part where Rosie told Ben Shapiro to “suck my dick”.

    Best timeline ever!

  35. Debt increase of about $14 trillion during Bush 43’s and Obama’s 16 years and tracking on another $9 trillion the next 10 years bringing the debt to $29 trillion. So IF this non tax reform bill brings the debt to over $30 trillion the country collapses, the world ends and Trump is to blame. Sorry, but as a group the career politicians, fascist (minus Aryanism) oriented media and educators are difficult to admire, honor and/or vote for. I voted for Trump not because he was so hot but because his opponent would be much, much worse. I do admire his use of free speech despite the disapproval of most of the left and right media. We are in a new technological era, news control will not be the same.

  36. “Are You Dead Yet???”

    No, but I did see three Subarus and one Volvo with drivers apparently dead at the wheel today. I could hear NPR blaring from their radios as I passed them in traffic.

  37. Didn’t Rosie also promise to move to Canada if Trump were elected?

    1. You know, if Canada is really so damn nice, I’m not sure why they don’t all have houses there already. They have houses everywhere else already.

  38. Sheesh, the Lib Democrats act as if the Republicans got a Big Ass Gavel and taunted them with it as they walked down the avenue on their way to pass the legislation.

  39. It definitely shows where Congress thinks that the most important people are indeed the 1% instead of spreading the tax cuts around to the middle/lower class. All the tax breaks are for corps and real estate moguls instead of the other 99% of the country that could use tax relief a lot more.

    1. That would be true only if 80 percent of the country were corporations and real estate moguls.

    2. This another stupid argument that ultimately made me support the tax cuts. Those who pay the most in taxes naturally get most of the tax cut. It’s mathematically impossible to a cut without that being the case without giving the top earners no cut whatsoever. Which I know is really the point, but it’s hardly fair.

      1. I butchered that comment…sorry.

  40. A more cynical man might start to think that politicians only care about balancing the budget when it benefits them politically, but I know that’s some crazy conspiracy nonsense.

  41. No, but I may well be when they start cutting Medicaid to pay for their tax cuts. Or maybe I’ll live long enough to watch my son die because he can’t afford the medicine he needs to keep his blood flowing freely through his veins. What a stupid, short-sighted, cruel article.

  42. “Leaders think about the next generation; politicians only think about the next election.” Reason editors, it seems, see no further than their next paycheck.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.