Huge win for the Freedom Caucus on Obamacare 2.0

[JoeB131]

Until it finishes imploding

If it implodes, Biffenfuhrer is the guy who broke it.

Now, there is a way out of this for Trump. He sits down with Democratic Leaders, and works on compromises to get rid of the parts of ACA that don't work, like the unneeded mandates, allowing shopping for insurance across state lines.

But instead, he's told 30 fanatics that they can hold his entire legislative agenda hostage.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You think so? Trump wants to make up for tax cuts by taxing imports. that will piss off Walmart, the Koch brothers, the auto companies, and other manufacturers. OR, he could make up for the tax cuts by cutting out Billionaires loopholes. BAW HA HA HA!

Tariffs aren't part of a tax reform proposal. When he campaigned, he presented his tax plan and that's what people voted on. I imagine that's what he is going to put forward. And I don't have a problem with cutting certain loopholes. Hedge fund managers shouldn't be able to exploit a loophole to pay a fraction of what everybody else pays. That said, I don't believe in increasing capital gains taxes or corporate taxes, they should be lowered.

I don't understand "making up for tax cuts" when we know that cutting taxes increases revenues. That's something only an ignorant person would say. Every top marginal income tax cut of the past 100 years has resulted in increased tax revenue. The informational data is available for anyone to research for themselves. Taxpolicy.org has all the records from the Treasury Dept. and you can go look at any year back to the 1940s. This is a fact and not just something people say because they like tax cuts.

You might want to look at the disaster in Kansas under Brownback, and reconsider your position that decreases taxes increases revenue. Also, Louisianna. They are both on the verge of bankruptcy since the Tea Party took over.

 

[Boss]

You think so? Trump wants to make up for tax cuts by taxing imports. that will piss off Walmart, the Koch brothers, the auto companies, and other manufacturers. OR, he could make up for the tax cuts by cutting out Billionaires loopholes. BAW HA HA HA!

Tariffs aren't part of a tax reform proposal. When he campaigned, he presented his tax plan and that's what people voted on. I imagine that's what he is going to put forward. And I don't have a problem with cutting certain loopholes. Hedge fund managers shouldn't be able to exploit a loophole to pay a fraction of what everybody else pays. That said, I don't believe in increasing capital gains taxes or corporate taxes, they should be lowered.

I don't understand "making up for tax cuts" when we know that cutting taxes increases revenues. That's something only an ignorant person would say. Every top marginal income tax cut of the past 100 years has resulted in increased tax revenue. The informational data is available for anyone to research for themselves. Taxpolicy.org has all the records from the Treasury Dept. and you can go look at any year back to the 1940s. This is a fact and not just something people say because they like tax cuts.

You might want to look at the disaster in Kansas under Brownback, and reconsider your position that decreases taxes increases revenue. Also, Louisianna. They are both on the verge of bankruptcy since the Tea Party took over.

Yawn...

Every good lefty knows to run away from the argument by cherry picking a state or two, maybe a city, where Democrats have destroyed the economy and Republican measures to lower ridiculous tax rates have not worked. It's like drilling holes in the bottom of your boat, then jumping in someone else's boat and pointing your finger and saying... gee, look at those dummies letting their own boat sink!

Again, this isn't "my position" it's a fact... go to taxpolicy.org and look it up for yourself. Any time in the past 100 years where we lowered top marginal tax rates, it produced more tax revenue. We're not talking about cities or states already on the brink of failure. Once you've lost your tax base you can lower or raise tax rates all you want, it doesn't matter.

 

[Boss]

A small group of thirty fanatics prevented needed legislation from happening. (Unless you are willing to concede the ACA is just fine and leave it the **** alone).

Needed legislation? That's funny, not a single Democrat voted for this needed legislation. And isn't ACA "just fine"? It's supposed to be, it's what Obama and the Democrats wanted. Sounds to me like you're admitting here that it's a failure in NEED of reforms. That's odd.

If it implodes, Biffenfuhrer is the guy who broke it.

Really? By not touching it legislatively? What, did he look at it funny or grab it's *****? Not sure what the **** you're talking about here, I thought Obamacare was supposed to be the bee's knees... that what Nancy and Harry told us when they rammed it through before reading it. It's Obama's crowning achievement and now you say it's a disaster and it's somehow Trump's fault for not saving it from imploding.

You're not making any sense, guy.... must be living around all those toxic waste dumps?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Freedom Caucus wanted a bill that only the Freedom Caucus would vote for. That is how demented they are.

 

[rightwinger]

Gotta love the Freedom Caucus

They hate everything

 

[Boss]

The Freedom Caucus wanted a bill that only the Freedom Caucus would vote for. That is how demented they are.

That's a bit of a simplification. They wanted a clean repeal of Obamacare and then a debate on various replacement ideas. That's what they ran on, that's what they promised their constituents, that's what their constituents voted on. It's not "demented" it's doing what you promised to do if elected.

Here's why there was a failure... From the outset, the Freedom Caucus and Conservatives were completely left out of the process. Then they were told THIS is the bill, take it or leave it. THEN they were threatened if they didn't support it. It didn't have to go down like this but the Establishment continues to want to bully and intimidate Conservatives. They are now entrenched in the Trump administration... Trump, who ironically ran against the Establishment, is now in bed with the swamp critters.

 

[Avatar4321]

The lefties may all be dancing their victory dance and taking turns kicking Trump in the balls over the failure to "repeal and repair" Obamacare but this is a huge win for the Freedom Caucus. The 27 representatives stood firm on their word and refused to buckle to pressure from the establishment and Trump to pass something that was simply unacceptable.

This should signal to the White House that these people are going to have to be brought on board in the future if there is going to be any success in passing legislation. The Establishment GOP may have grabbed the ***** of Trump but they're still not going to be calling the shots. They're damn sure not going to bully and intimidate their way to victory like they thought they were going to do here.

Here's the thing: This idea that Obamacare is now going to be left to implode on it's own is silly. It's never going to do that and the Establishment GOP who is still hoping this will happen is going to be disappointed.... because that's never going to happen. It will lumber on in all it's glorious misery for years to come. It's now an entitlement and as we see, entitlements are hard to repeal. This is why they should've backed Ted Cruz when he stood on the floor and filibustered the initial funding for the roll out. Water under the bridge now, the pooch can't be unfucked.

With the realization that Obamacare is not going to collapse under it's own weight, there is a midterm election in 2018 and many of these Establishment goobs are going to face stiff primary challenges from true Conservatives. This will result in some lost seats to Democrats, maybe even loss of the House. But that's okay because the Establishment GOP has turned into simply a weak moderate wing of the Democrat party. Without support from the Freedom Caucus they are feckless and they are going to be left dangling in the wind answering questions on why they failed to repeal Obamacare as they promised to do.

There is still an outside chance of turning things around but it's going to take a major pivot on part of Trump and Establishment leadership and it's going to have to happen fairly quickly. This AHCA bill was a power play and it failed miserably. They now know they have a major problem and if they don't change the dynamics it's going to manifest into major losses in the midterms. Trump was right, it's going to be a bloodbath but not in the way he thought.

Yep, the Teabagger lunatics defeated Trumpcare - because it wasn't evil enough on old and poor people.

The Tea Party told you Obamacare would be a disaster also. Did you know that Lakookoo? They were dead spot on

He still thinks it's good for some reason.

I use the word think loosely

 

[Vandalshandle]

You think so? Trump wants to make up for tax cuts by taxing imports. that will piss off Walmart, the Koch brothers, the auto companies, and other manufacturers. OR, he could make up for the tax cuts by cutting out Billionaires loopholes. BAW HA HA HA!

Tariffs aren't part of a tax reform proposal. When he campaigned, he presented his tax plan and that's what people voted on. I imagine that's what he is going to put forward. And I don't have a problem with cutting certain loopholes. Hedge fund managers shouldn't be able to exploit a loophole to pay a fraction of what everybody else pays. That said, I don't believe in increasing capital gains taxes or corporate taxes, they should be lowered.

I don't understand "making up for tax cuts" when we know that cutting taxes increases revenues. That's something only an ignorant person would say. Every top marginal income tax cut of the past 100 years has resulted in increased tax revenue. The informational data is available for anyone to research for themselves. Taxpolicy.org has all the records from the Treasury Dept. and you can go look at any year back to the 1940s. This is a fact and not just something people say because they like tax cuts.

You might want to look at the disaster in Kansas under Brownback, and reconsider your position that decreases taxes increases revenue. Also, Louisianna. They are both on the verge of bankruptcy since the Tea Party took over.

Yawn...

Every good lefty knows to run away from the argument by cherry picking a state or two, maybe a city, where Democrats have destroyed the economy and Republican measures to lower ridiculous tax rates have not worked. It's like drilling holes in the bottom of your boat, then jumping in someone else's boat and pointing your finger and saying... gee, look at those dummies letting their own boat sink!

Again, this isn't "my position" it's a fact... go to taxpolicy.org and look it up for yourself. Any time in the past 100 years where we lowered top marginal tax rates, it produced more tax revenue. We're not talking about cities or states already on the brink of failure. Once you've lost your tax base you can lower or raise tax rates all you want, it doesn't matter.

Democrats ruined Kansas? Who would have known?

How Tea Party tax cuts are turning Kansas into a smoking ruin

Jindal didn't do the same thing to louisiana?

Landrieu blames Jindal for state budget mess in BGR address

If you call that "cherry picking", I reply that they are the only two states I know of where people were specifically elected to the governorship based on their promise to cut taxes in order to make industry prosper and create new jobs.

Both failed.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You think so? Trump wants to make up for tax cuts by taxing imports. that will piss off Walmart, the Koch brothers, the auto companies, and other manufacturers. OR, he could make up for the tax cuts by cutting out Billionaires loopholes. BAW HA HA HA!

Tariffs aren't part of a tax reform proposal. When he campaigned, he presented his tax plan and that's what people voted on. I imagine that's what he is going to put forward. And I don't have a problem with cutting certain loopholes. Hedge fund managers shouldn't be able to exploit a loophole to pay a fraction of what everybody else pays. That said, I don't believe in increasing capital gains taxes or corporate taxes, they should be lowered.

I don't understand "making up for tax cuts" when we know that cutting taxes increases revenues. That's something only an ignorant person would say. Every top marginal income tax cut of the past 100 years has resulted in increased tax revenue. The informational data is available for anyone to research for themselves. Taxpolicy.org has all the records from the Treasury Dept. and you can go look at any year back to the 1940s. This is a fact and not just something people say because they like tax cuts.

You might want to look at the disaster in Kansas under Brownback, and reconsider your position that decreases taxes increases revenue. Also, Louisianna. They are both on the verge of bankruptcy since the Tea Party took over.

Yawn...

Every good lefty knows to run away from the argument by cherry picking a state or two, maybe a city, where Democrats have destroyed the economy and Republican measures to lower ridiculous tax rates have not worked. It's like drilling holes in the bottom of your boat, then jumping in someone else's boat and pointing your finger and saying... gee, look at those dummies letting their own boat sink!

Again, this isn't "my position" it's a fact... go to taxpolicy.org and look it up for yourself. Any time in the past 100 years where we lowered top marginal tax rates, it produced more tax revenue. We're not talking about cities or states already on the brink of failure. Once you've lost your tax base you can lower or raise tax rates all you want, it doesn't matter.

Democrats ruined Kansas? Who would have known?

How Tea Party tax cuts are turning Kansas into a smoking ruin

Jindal didn't do the same thing to louisiana?

Landrieu blames Jindal for state budget mess in BGR address

If you call that "cherry picking", I reply that they are the only two states I know of where people were specifically elected to the governorship based on their promise to cut taxes in order to make industry prosper and create new jobs.

Both failed.

The flip side is California has the highest taxes in the nation....and is drowning in debt. You may want to check out Illinois also

 

[Vandalshandle]

You think so? Trump wants to make up for tax cuts by taxing imports. that will piss off Walmart, the Koch brothers, the auto companies, and other manufacturers. OR, he could make up for the tax cuts by cutting out Billionaires loopholes. BAW HA HA HA!

Tariffs aren't part of a tax reform proposal. When he campaigned, he presented his tax plan and that's what people voted on. I imagine that's what he is going to put forward. And I don't have a problem with cutting certain loopholes. Hedge fund managers shouldn't be able to exploit a loophole to pay a fraction of what everybody else pays. That said, I don't believe in increasing capital gains taxes or corporate taxes, they should be lowered.

I don't understand "making up for tax cuts" when we know that cutting taxes increases revenues. That's something only an ignorant person would say. Every top marginal income tax cut of the past 100 years has resulted in increased tax revenue. The informational data is available for anyone to research for themselves. Taxpolicy.org has all the records from the Treasury Dept. and you can go look at any year back to the 1940s. This is a fact and not just something people say because they like tax cuts.

You might want to look at the disaster in Kansas under Brownback, and reconsider your position that decreases taxes increases revenue. Also, Louisianna. They are both on the verge of bankruptcy since the Tea Party took over.

Yawn...

Every good lefty knows to run away from the argument by cherry picking a state or two, maybe a city, where Democrats have destroyed the economy and Republican measures to lower ridiculous tax rates have not worked. It's like drilling holes in the bottom of your boat, then jumping in someone else's boat and pointing your finger and saying... gee, look at those dummies letting their own boat sink!

Again, this isn't "my position" it's a fact... go to taxpolicy.org and look it up for yourself. Any time in the past 100 years where we lowered top marginal tax rates, it produced more tax revenue. We're not talking about cities or states already on the brink of failure. Once you've lost your tax base you can lower or raise tax rates all you want, it doesn't matter.

Democrats ruined Kansas? Who would have known?

How Tea Party tax cuts are turning Kansas into a smoking ruin

Jindal didn't do the same thing to louisiana?

Landrieu blames Jindal for state budget mess in BGR address

If you call that "cherry picking", I reply that they are the only two states I know of where people were specifically elected to the governorship based on their promise to cut taxes in order to make industry prosper and create new jobs.

Both failed.

The flip side is California has the highest taxes in the nation....and is drowning in debt. You may want to check out Illinois also

...and California has an economy that, if it were an independent country, would be the 7th largest economy in the world. That hardly sounds like a state that is having a hard time attracting jobs and industry.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Tariffs aren't part of a tax reform proposal. When he campaigned, he presented his tax plan and that's what people voted on. I imagine that's what he is going to put forward. And I don't have a problem with cutting certain loopholes. Hedge fund managers shouldn't be able to exploit a loophole to pay a fraction of what everybody else pays. That said, I don't believe in increasing capital gains taxes or corporate taxes, they should be lowered.

I don't understand "making up for tax cuts" when we know that cutting taxes increases revenues. That's something only an ignorant person would say. Every top marginal income tax cut of the past 100 years has resulted in increased tax revenue. The informational data is available for anyone to research for themselves. Taxpolicy.org has all the records from the Treasury Dept. and you can go look at any year back to the 1940s. This is a fact and not just something people say because they like tax cuts.

You might want to look at the disaster in Kansas under Brownback, and reconsider your position that decreases taxes increases revenue. Also, Louisianna. They are both on the verge of bankruptcy since the Tea Party took over.

Yawn...

Every good lefty knows to run away from the argument by cherry picking a state or two, maybe a city, where Democrats have destroyed the economy and Republican measures to lower ridiculous tax rates have not worked. It's like drilling holes in the bottom of your boat, then jumping in someone else's boat and pointing your finger and saying... gee, look at those dummies letting their own boat sink!

Again, this isn't "my position" it's a fact... go to taxpolicy.org and look it up for yourself. Any time in the past 100 years where we lowered top marginal tax rates, it produced more tax revenue. We're not talking about cities or states already on the brink of failure. Once you've lost your tax base you can lower or raise tax rates all you want, it doesn't matter.

Democrats ruined Kansas? Who would have known?

How Tea Party tax cuts are turning Kansas into a smoking ruin

Jindal didn't do the same thing to louisiana?

Landrieu blames Jindal for state budget mess in BGR address

If you call that "cherry picking", I reply that they are the only two states I know of where people were specifically elected to the governorship based on their promise to cut taxes in order to make industry prosper and create new jobs.

Both failed.

The flip side is California has the highest taxes in the nation....and is drowning in debt. You may want to check out Illinois also

...and California has an economy that, if it were an independent country, would be the 7th largest economy in the world. That hardly sounds like a state that is having a hard time attracting jobs and industry.

Drowning in debt is not a good economy. Eventually that debt will cause an implosion

 

[Vandalshandle]

More Tea Party tax cut disaster in Louisiana:

Jindal to leave next governor with budget mess

 

[Boss]

More Tea Party tax cut disaster in Louisiana:

Jindal to leave next governor with budget mess

Dumb shit libtards LOVE to do the Bait and Switch here! BUDGETS have ZERO to do with TAX RATES! They are two completely different arguments! Whenever someone raises the issue of lowering tax rates, you immediately want to lurch over and talk about budgets and budget deficits. That's flat out intellectual dishonesty.

I can point out that Reagan cut top marginal income tax rates dramatically and it resulted in a 75% increase in tax revenues... immediately, the libtard screeches that he tripled the national debt. But the DEBT had nothing to do with tax revenues. The tax revenues INCREASED by 75%.... spending was out of control because of a Democrat congress who refused to cut it. It wasn't because Reagan increased tax revenues by reducing top marginal tax rates.

 

[Vandalshandle]

More Tea Party tax cut disaster in Louisiana:

Jindal to leave next governor with budget mess

Dumb shit libtards LOVE to do the Bait and Switch here! BUDGETS have ZERO to do with TAX RATES! They are two completely different arguments! Whenever someone raises the issue of lowering tax rates, you immediately want to lurch over and talk about budgets and budget deficits. That's flat out intellectual dishonesty.

I can point out that Reagan cut top marginal income tax rates dramatically and it resulted in a 75% increase in tax revenues... immediately, the libtard screeches that he tripled the national debt. But the DEBT had nothing to do with tax revenues. The tax revenues INCREASED by 75%.... spending was out of control because of a Democrat congress who refused to cut it. It wasn't because Reagan increased tax revenues by reducing top marginal tax rates.

Budgets have zero to do with tax rates?

That is equivalent to saying, "Ignore income, when establishing spending in our household".

If that is how you run your finances, Boss, I am going to make an educated guess that you are seriously in debt.

 

[JoeB131]

Needed legislation? That's funny, not a single Democrat voted for this needed legislation. And isn't ACA "just fine"? It's supposed to be, it's what Obama and the Democrats wanted. Sounds to me like you're admitting here that it's a failure in NEED of reforms. That's odd.

Why should they vote for all the shit in this legislation to get the few good reforms? That's stupid.

Really? By not touching it legislatively? What, did he look at it funny or grab it's *****? Not sure what the **** you're talking about here, I thought Obamacare was supposed to be the bee's knees... that what Nancy and Harry told us when they rammed it through before reading it. It's Obama's crowning achievement and now you say it's a disaster and it's somehow Trump's fault for not saving it from imploding.

Again, Chief Running-Gag, ACA is just fine, until Biff's goons start screwing it up.

You know, kind of like how Clinton had FEMA running like a well-oiled machine, and then Baby Bush got a hold of it and the horse show guy did a heckuva job!

It breaks on Biffenfuhrer's watch, he broke it.

 

[JoeB131]

I can point out that Reagan cut top marginal income tax rates dramatically and it resulted in a 75% increase in tax revenues... immediately, the libtard screeches that he tripled the national debt. But the DEBT had nothing to do with tax revenues. The tax revenues INCREASED by 75%.... spending was out of control because of a Democrat congress who refused to cut it. It wasn't because Reagan increased tax revenues by reducing top marginal tax rates.

What you leave out is that the reason why Tax revenues increased was because Reagan had to agree to tax increases in the late 1980's because his tax cuts didn't produce the desired result.

 

[Boss]

More Tea Party tax cut disaster in Louisiana:

Jindal to leave next governor with budget mess

Dumb shit libtards LOVE to do the Bait and Switch here! BUDGETS have ZERO to do with TAX RATES! They are two completely different arguments! Whenever someone raises the issue of lowering tax rates, you immediately want to lurch over and talk about budgets and budget deficits. That's flat out intellectual dishonesty.

I can point out that Reagan cut top marginal income tax rates dramatically and it resulted in a 75% increase in tax revenues... immediately, the libtard screeches that he tripled the national debt. But the DEBT had nothing to do with tax revenues. The tax revenues INCREASED by 75%.... spending was out of control because of a Democrat congress who refused to cut it. It wasn't because Reagan increased tax revenues by reducing top marginal tax rates.

Budgets have zero to do with tax rates?

That is equivalent to saying, "Ignore income, when establishing spending in our household".

If that is how you run your finances, Boss, I am going to make an educated guess that you are seriously in debt.

I didn't say "ignore income when spending" did I?

Your INCOME has nothing to do with your SPENDING. Pointing to your overdrawn checking account is not an argument that your recent raise in pay was the cause of that! Your overdrawn checking account is a result of you spending money you didn't have. That doesn't have anything to do with how much you're making.

In case you din't realize it, our country has been spending more than it makes since Thomas Jefferson. Debts and deficits have nothing to do with taxes and tax revenues.... two completely different arguments. You want to conflate them because you don't want to admit the facts regarding tax cuts.

 

[Boss]

Again, Chief Running-Gag, ACA is just fine, until Biff's goons start screwing it up.

What did "Biff" (whoever the hell that is) do to Obamacare? Be specific!

 

[Boss]

What you leave out is that the reason why Tax revenues increased was because Reagan had to agree to tax increases in the late 1980's because his tax cuts didn't produce the desired result.

Nope. His tax cuts increased tax revenues 75%. He never "increased taxes" as you claim. He broadened the tax base, which was always part of his overall tax plan. Now, this did add taxpayers, especially in the wake of unprecedented job creation, but the data shows his initial tax cuts were already generating more tax revenue from the top marginal rate cuts.... not to mention the millions of new taxpaying jobs that were created.

And if you don't like the Reagan tax cuts as your example, feel free to examine the result of Kennedy's tax cuts in 1960 or Clinton's tax cuts in 1994.. or even Bush's tax cuts, although they didn't produce revenues immediately because he stupidly reduced tax rates across the board and middle/low income tax decreases don't produce any new tax revenues because middle/low income taxpayers don't generally create new jobs with their tax refunds. Still, after about 5 years, even the Bush tax cuts resulted in more tax revenue, in spite of an economic recession.