Donald Trump hailed with a tweet the Senate’s passage of the rushed and oopsied Republican tax plan, calling it “the biggest in history Tax Cut….”
Like most Republican claims about their wealth-redistribution plan, Il Duce‘s Always Be Selling marketing-speak is a lie. As a percentage of GDP (and sensible economists will choose that metric over raw dollars), Barack Obama cut taxes more twice:
…The Treasury Department released several iterations of a paper between 2006 and 2013 that measured the size of past tax cuts.
The Treasury reports found that, since 1968, three other tax cut bills have been bigger: Reagan’s 1981 cuts, and two bills passed by Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts. Between 1940 and 1967, when the data is less reliable, three tax cuts were larger, two of them after the war, when rates were lowered again.
The Treasury measured the sizes of tax cuts by looking at the revenue effects of the bills as a percentage of gross domestic product — in other words, how much federal revenue the bill cuts away as a portion of the economy. Reagan’s 1981 cut was 2.9% of GDP. Obama’s tax cut extensions in 2010 and 2012 were 1.3% and 1.8%, respectively [Sam Petulla and Tal Yellin, “The Biggest Tax Cut in History? Not Quite,” CNN, 2017.12.15].
Even if we count by raw dollars, Trump’s claim falls short. His tax plan will cost the federal government $1.5 trillion, or an average of $150 billion per year. According to Treasury, over the first four years of each plan, Obama’s 2010 tax cuts cost $205.8 billion a year and his 2013 tax cuts cost $320.6 billion a year.
If Trump wants an honest superlative, how about calling his dip in the punchbowl the most poorly timed tax cut in history?
“While it is not the largest tax cut ever, it is the most poorly timed giant tax cut in history,” said Leonard Burman, institute fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “The economy is near full employment and the national debt is at a postwar record and rising fast” [Petulla and Yellin, 2017.12.15].
Tax cuts can be a good way to stimulate the economy when growth is slowing down, by encouraging businesses and people to keep spending when their finances are growing tighter.
But the economy is in the midst of its longest postwar recovery on record, with an annual growth rate of 3.3 percent last quarter. The unemployment rate is down to 4.1 percent.
Economists often argue that during periods of growth like this, governments should be paring down debt, giving them more fiscal breathing room during the next recession.
“It’s always valuable to keep your powder dry, if you can, so you do have fiscal space if there is a downturn,” says former Fed governor Randall Kroszner, now a professor of economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business [Jim Zarroli, “Is This the Right Time for a Big Tax Cut?” NPR: All Things Considered, 2017.12.04].
Or perhaps we could call it one of the most regressive tax cuts in history?
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center agreed in a report released Monday that the bill would provide tax cuts for middle-income earners. Those with incomes between $49,000 and $86,000 would see an average tax cut of approximately $900, or 1.6 percent of their after-tax income.
But, according to the report, their wealthy counterparts will make out like bandits in comparison.
The think tank estimated Monday that Americans making $308,000 to $733,000 annually would see a cut of around $13,500, or 4.1 percent of their after-tax income. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans will see an average cut of $51,000, or 3.4 percent of their after-tax income.
Faring the worst under the plan, according to the report, are taxpayers with an income below $25,000. Those taxpayers will see an average cut of about $60, or 0.4 percent of their after-tax income [Evan Hendershot, “Thune, Noem Champion Tax Plan as It Moves Forward,” Mitchell Daily Republic, 2017.12.18].
And remember: folks at the lower end of the income scale will see their piddling, temporary tax cuts swamped by cuts to programs that make their lives better:
To make up for the massive increase in debt, the next steps will be deep cuts to programs that benefit North Dakota — Medicare, Social Security, crop insurance and other farm safety net programs that help grow our agricultural economy [Ryan Taylor and Karen Ehrens, “Tax Reform Will Hit ND Hard,” Grand Forks Herald, 2017.12.18].
Donald Trump’s only legislative victory this year is built on lies about the size, distribution, and duration of its benefits. Intelligent journalists must now redouble their efforts to track the real impacts of this bad tax plan on the American economy.
1.5T debt is assuming 1.9% GDP growth. Our historic average is 3%. We already have 3% now which we never had under Obama.
Which programs are being cut under this bill Cory?
Jason, the program cuts are not written in this bill; they are the likely result of the deficit pressure created by this bill.
The debt reduction you posit is not written into this bill; it is the somewhat less likely result of empirically disproven and almost universally rejected trickle-down economics.
If Republicans can include dubious economic growth projections in their scoring of the bill, we should also be able to include the impact of budget cuts driven by bigger deficits.
Oh, but wait—the Trump Tax does trigger program cuts via the 2010 Pay-Go law:
Jason, have you read anything saying Congress and the President will pass legislation circumventing the Pay-Go cuts?
Cory, Why are you assuming there will be deficits from the tax cut? Do you really think we are going to have a GDP growth of 1.9% or less going forward?
We are at 3% right now.
Also, Congress can do what they should have done this year and cut spending.
Every objective scoring of the Trump Tax has shown deficits resulting.
If we’re at 3% right now, why do we need government stimulus?
If if we need to cut spending, why didn’t the Republican President and Republican Congress do that this year?
Using 1.9% is not realistic. Have you looked at the Government revenues after tax cuts? Please look and tell me when the gross receipts went down after a tax cut.
A tax cut is not “Government” stimulus. It’s not the Government’s money to begin with.
Many Republicans are not happy the Republicans haven’t cut spending.
Jason, I think it is realistic, considering how soft the recovery has been with some of the lowest sustained interest rates in memory. Interest rates are pretty certain to rise as the stimulative effect of the tax cuts kicks in, and I believe they will put the brakes on the expansion that many expect to revert to that 3% mean. Here’s what Moody’s Analytics Mark Zandi has to say about it: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/moodys-chief-economist-republican-tax-plan-set-fail-170334541.html
Great link John T. It seems that most are in agreement that this dog won’t hunt. The only ones who think otherwise are the ones who shoot ducks on the set.
Run the tax calculators. The only people this new tax law hurts is the VERY wealthy. There isn’t a person commenting on this site that will have a negative effect other than those who do not work.
Take the Obama era for example. Between 2009 and 2016, GDP growth reached at or above 3% on a quarterly basis about eight times.
For the rest of the story read- http://fortune.com/2017/08/30/donald-trump-springfield-mo-3-gdp/
Economists believe GDP will be in the 2% range for the next three years.
Remember Obama inherited a freaking fiscal mess and Drumpf inherited a rather robust (all things considered) pony and blares he won the Kentucky Derby.
Mike,
Remember when economists said Obamacare wouldn’t raise the debt?
We all know that was a lie.
The economy grew at 2.3% in 2017. What happened to Trump’s promise to grow the economy at 3% or better? Where’s Jason? Where’s Oldsarge?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-us-economy-grew-23-percent-in-2017-as-growth-slowed-in-fourth-quarter/2018/01/26/ee7efb56-029a-11e8-bb03-722769454f82_story.html?utm_term=.e05aa85c7fb5
Darin,
What date did Trump use?
What is your projection for 2018?
Jason, without going all researcher on you, you are leaving out an amazing amount of context as to why the debt did grow, including wingnut obstruction and wingnut failure to provide government monies for high risk plans right before the 2016 election.
If it is any comfort to you, the wingnut plan to repeal and replace would cost trillions more in debt, as will Drumpf’s taxcuts for the koch bros.
How do you like yer sekret society in the FBI now that Fake Noise even agreed it was a joke?
Jason @1238. “ObamaCare decreases the deficit and debt with cost controlling provisions and taxes, but subsidies, protections, and healthcare spending may result in more debt over the long term if no further changes are made.” https://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-deficit-debt/
You know infamous Rep. Joe Wilson “you lie”, Jason? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/us/politics/joe-wilson-you-lie-obama-town-hall.html
“We all know…” pffsstt
Using projections for November and December, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the U.S. economy added 2.055 million jobs in 2017. That’s the lowest annual job growth since 2010.
Translation: the economy created more jobs under Barack Obama in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 than it did under Donald Trump in 2017.
Cory,
Can you post the stats for Black unemployment under Trump please?
Using projections? You do know projections are not a fact right?
Jason, can you point to a single specific policy Drumpf initiated to lower anybody’s unemployment? Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Deregulation Mike.
I know those projections are the only data we have right now. I identified them as projections to remind myself and readers to check BLS again in a couple months when we get final figures.
Jason, can you show me specific black Americans who got jobs from the lifting of specific regulations? Not fantasy, not theoretical wishes, but specific examples.
And…
…and…
…and according to the BLS black unemployment data, black unemployment went up in 2009 and 2010, then declined in all six remaining years of the Obama Presidency. In four of those six years, the average annual black unemployment rate decreased by more percentage points than it did in 2017.
Cory,
Mike didn’t specifically ask about black employment in his question when I answered with regulations. Why are you asking about a specific black person?
As for the rest of your post, It’s just opinions by Democrats.
The basic economic fact is deregulation decreases costs for businesses who then invest that capital in their business.
Jason, I’m responding directly to your theoretical, unevidenced assertion. “Basic economic fact” is code for “I read a couple paragraphs in an Ayn Rand pamphlet, so it must be true.”
My last link is exactly the BLS data you asked for. Now how about you give us data instead of your own theoretical assertions? Where are these newly employed black workers, and which regulations were removed that directly resulted in their employment?
Cory,
You don’t think it is true that deregulation leads to more business investment?
Weren’t you the one that said tax cuts would not lead to more business investment?
I’m not debating theory. I’m asking for facts. I used to be just like you: instead of engaging with reality as it is, I soothed my ego by thinking I had everything figured out with philosophy. Stop putting words together and show me data.
Or, allow me to argue with nothing but my theory that lying is bad and that a President who lies harms America’s reputation and influence. No evidence necessary; it’s my theory, and that’s all I need to prove I’m right, and anything you say is just an opinion.
That’s how your efforts at distraction sound, Jason.
I gave the data you asked for and put it in context: black unemployment decreased more in 2016 than in 2017. Now, you show me your data to back up your theoretical assertions.
Cory,
It dropped 1% in 2017. It was not below 7.9 in all of 2016. Your data supports me.
Deregulation is nonsense. Show me which deregulation lowered the unemployment numbers for Blacks.
Drumpf inherited a stock market at record highs and he claims it is because of him. He claimed credit for jobs created by Obama before Drumpf took office.
Jason, in the very first comment in this thread you wrote:
“1.5T debt is assuming 1.9% GDP growth. Our historic average is 3%. We already have 3% now which we never had under Obama.”
Would you care to revise your comments now that the 2017 GDP numbers under Trump are coming in at 2.3%?
Take the Obama era for example. Between 2009 and 2016, GDP growth reached at or above 3% on a quarterly basis about eight times.
3% growth was normal before the 2000s.
Darin,
2.3 is more than 1.9. Why would I revise my statement?
What do you think 2018’s will be after this tax cut?
“The basic economic fact is deregulation decreases costs for businesses who then invest that capital in their business.”
Which doesn’t guarantee a return for employees. Trickle down economics hasn’t worked for 100 years so acting like Trump’s tax cuts are going to do anything other than grow the divide more is laughable. And no, Trump hasn’t done much, if anything, for Black Unemployment. It has been on a steady decline since 2010 and claiming that he is responsible for that is completely untruthful. Deplorables are a worthless breed and they will ultimately screw themselves over all in the name of party politics.
Daniel,
Please explain in detail how tax cut’s don’t work?
Government doesn’t determine how much you are paid except for minimum wage. It is up to you how much you earn. You do know that people are losing their jobs and or hours in Seattle because of the $15 minimum wage right?
It’s not a 1 to 1 relationship. Just look at history for all the examples you need. As long as wages remain low, we subsidize corporate profits through welfare. I will not support giving corporations tax breaks with our money(SS and Medicare) in hopes of saving the middle class. It won’t work and the posturing being done by companies now is nothing more than that. Republicans love cheap labor and immigration. It’s the same reason why Trump pardoned one of the biggest violators of hiring illegal foreign and child labor. If you were right, the middle class wouldn’t have dwindled over the past 50 years.
Our money? It’s the not the Government’s money. Democrat’s love cheap labor. That’s why they have shipped jobs off to China and Mexico.
Do you think giving the richest 100 people 10k is going to spur more economic growth than giving the poorest 1000 people 1k? Which do you think will get the most spent?
Our money is right….they are just going to rob SS and Medicare to pay for this. Just like Trump claiming Mexico will pay for a wall we need to budget for? That’s makes a lot of sense. Our ag industry and SD is going to take a hit. On the plus side, Trump is growing populism around the world and will most likely destroy every foreign relationship we have. That will really help us out.
Trickle down isn’t really an economic theory and never has been. It’s that weird crossroads of econ and politics that led to something that doesn’t really describe any cohesive school of thought. It is true that, up until now, most economic incentives provided to businesses have typically gone to the business itself or as a dividend to shareholders, at least in the US. But then again, supply-side people never said it would be otherwise. They just argued that everyone benefits because the economy is stimulated this way. Problematically for the GOP, there is are precious few reputable economists who think the tax cuts would generate revenue.
Somebody better start to get a grip on what is happening. Brick and mortar shops are closing not only on main street in South Dakota, but also in the cities. Tourism is down with a loss of 40,000 jobs nationwide since trump. And now, this: Sturgis, we hardly knew ye. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/01/30/harley-davidson-kansas-city-plant-motorcycle-sales-fall/1078008001/
“Democrats…have shipped jobs off to China and Mexico.” (spews coffee). right, Jason! What is your problem? …with truth?
Jason, man someone needs to put a lariat around you buddy. You are outta the chute. “deregulation leads to more business investment?” You want us to agree with you? Have you heard of Scott Pruitt, frmr MO AG(R. of course) elected to head RAGA and now EPA idiot? Look up RAGA. Powerful misuse of public horsepower on behalf of ” more business investment? ” https://money.howstuffworks.com/10-effects-of-deregulation.htm https://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/09/13148/gop-attorneys-general-held-private-meetings-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-exxon
my previous posts deal w financial deregulation debacles.
Jason,
You stated “We already have 3% now which we never had under Obama.”
We didn’t have 3% GDP growth in 2017 which you and Trump predicted would be the case. We had 2.3% GDP growth. The self described master deal maker and liar in chief touted his ability to grow the economy. That was the one thing he was supposed to know how to do very well.
You said we already have 3%, but you were incorrect. That is why I thought maybe you would want to correct your statement.
Could not have happened on a more appropriate day. “The Dow also had its biggest daily percentage decline since May 2017 and the day’s 1.37-percent fall was the second-biggest single-day drop since the election of Donald Trump, slated to give his first State of the Union speech later Tuesday” -363 today. Just a drop in the old bucket as this goes on.
One correction Leslie- Pruitt was AG of Chokelahoma, not MO. He spent his days in Chokelahoma suing the Obama administration over environmental regs.
trump tax plan is like his other plans, failures that will cost us dearly. We used to be a destination spot for international tourism, those days are now gone https://www.ustravel.org/press/spending-int%E2%80%99l-visitors-sharply-down-2017-us-gov-data-shows trump has the Un-Midas touch, unless it has to do with grifting.
Darin,
I was mistaken about the 3% gdp under Obama. I never pay attention to that number anyway. I pay more attention to the jobs number.
Can you link for me where Trump predicted the gdp would be 3% or more in 2017
Cory,
A President lying is bad. Obama lied about many things. The latest is he knew Hillary was using a home based server and lied and said he learned that from the media.
My question to you is are you going to inform your readers about the fisa memo that is going to come out?
Oh, Jason- Trump’s GDP puffery came during a Cabinet meeting on July 31 in which he boasted about an array of economic accomplishments since he took office.
Trump, July 31: “We have a GDP, on Friday — it got very little mention, although I guess in the business areas it did. But it got, I think, very little mention. 2.6 is a number that nobody thought they’d see for a long period of time. Remember, I was saying we will hit three at some point in the not-too-distant future, and everybody smiled and they laughed and they thought we’d be at one. And 2.6 is an unbelievable number, announced on Friday.”
No need to thank me.
Let me see, Carter Page was being surveilled because even the WH under Drumpf thought he was a Russian agent. Under the laws of this land, the FBI can seek a FISA warrant if the suspected suspect is suspected of being a foreign agent, especially one that is known to be employed by the bogus potus elect.
The memo in question was reportedly written by partisan hack Nunes who has been actively interfering in his own investigation of Drumpf, to aid Drumpf by sharing House Intel records with the WH.
This “bombshell” will be another smoking gun from Benghazi jacked up nothingburger. Wait and see.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
potifact rates Drumpf’s statements. Not good if you believe Drumpf is honest. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
I can tell when I’ve made my point: Jason tries to divert us to a totally different point.
Incorrect Cory. I can multi-task.
Mike,
You know what’s in the memo already?
Sorry, no smoking guns from Benghazi. Trey Howdy Gowdy is leaving Congress like 33 other kindred ineptituders.
Jason- https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/lawyer-drafted-nunes-memo-brutally-slapped-judge-order-ineptitude/
If you are pinning yer hopes on another inept right wing lawyer, you probably ought to call it a day. FBI calls memo misleading which is about all one ever gets from these “smoking guns” set to take Dems down. Face it, wingnuts are totally incompetent.
What would I hope for?
I am against Government corruption.
It appears you are not, and that is sad.
“With regard to the House Intelligence Committee’s memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy,” the spokesperson said.
Sounds like a dead Breitbart/ James O’Keefe videotape edit hatchet job.
What makes you think I’m for corruption? Drumpf is in no danger of indictment from Special Counsel. Watergate era rules pretty much prohibit a sitting potus from being indicted for any reason. The Counsel’s report will be filed and it will be up to Ass’t AG Rosenstein to release it or not, which seems to be the reason wingnuts are targeting Rosenstein, because he is honest enough to release the report wingnuts will want hidden from public view. If Drumpf can get rid of Rosenstein and replace him with a solid aid who promises to not release the report, Drumpf and his corrupt administration will claim vindication.
There is some speculation Gowdy might replace perjurer Sessions as AG and fire Rosenstein on his own.
“Democrat’s [sic] ship jobs off to Mexico”? No, corporations do, and by and large they are headed by Republicans and only their executives are in the million-dollar salary and perks ranges. They could reduce their costs by limiting executive salaries in the megamillions, and better equalize rank-and-file wages. THAT’S the money that goes back into our U.S. economy.
Need further proof of wingnut assault on working class workers- today an Amtrak train carrying 2oo wingnuts to a retreat in W Virginia slammed into a garbage truck, killing the driver and maybe one other.
RWR claims it was a kamikaze attack on wingnuts by the Deepstate.
Robin, to be fair, the corporate profit issue is where some of the line between parties blurs too much for me. Both seem to have their hands in that lucrative campaign contribution/quid pro quo cookie jar. NAFTA and TPP both touting “free trade” had little to do with FAIR trade practices. The idea of raising up emerging market’s manufacturing was code for exporting jobs to cheaper laborers and exporting manufacturing to countries that have lower costs from lax environmental regulation. That companies were allowed to “freely” leave the US, or allowed to “freely” import into the US from places that abuse/under-pay workers (by US standards) and pollute was as much the fault of my Democratic party as much as the distinguished opposition party. That blood on Democrat’s hands cost Clinton the rust belt and put Trump in the White House.
BTW, measuring a country’s “strength” by GDP is awful.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/01/are-we-measuring-the-economy-all-wrong.html
Drumpf’s companies are all basically overseas with sweatshop labor. Wingnuts have no right to complain about Dems on any subject until they clean up their own messes.
You can see by what is going on in DC with the Russia investigation just how seriously wingnuts take their responsibilities. Drumpf is still colluding with Russia. Nunes colluded with the WH to write memo damning the FBI and house wingnuts have shifted the Russia investigation into one trying to smear the FBI and Justice to get Drumpf off the hook.
I doubt that the heads of mega-corporations are both Dems and Repubs, o, I don’t have the stats, I don’t think anyone does, but by and large they are Republican-owned, operated, and payrolled.
Just look at the cast and crew Trump has accumulated to run the executive branch. Wall-Streeters, most of them, wealthy donors and crooks. And then there’s the head of Exxon, who’s more interested in oil deals than any hope of global peace.
And thanks to Citizens United, the Republicans BOUGHT the last election and they will again, and again, and again unless we learn to put some limits on donations from the wealthy and from corporations.
Here it is Mike. I guess Cory didn’t want to publish this corruption.
Here are 16 things the media do not want you to know about the Nunes memo:
The so-called Russian Dossier, the creation of Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele, is a political document — namely, opposition research, created for the Democrat National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Using what it knew was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, in October of 2016, the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to install a wiretap to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent — the Trump campaign, specifically Carter Page. This spying would last for a year.
It should be noted that the FISA court was set up to stop foreign terrorists. The fact that the FBI and DOJ would use this court to not only wiretap an American but to wiretap a presidential campaign belies belief. Why Obama’s FBI and DOJ used this court as opposed to a normal court is obvious. As you will see below, a normal court probably would have denied the wiretap.
Worse still, in the summer of 2016, Obama’s DOJ had already opened a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. The fact that nothing from that months-old partisan investigation was used to obtain the Page wiretap is revealing.
According to the Nunes memo, an “essential” part of the FISA wiretap application was the Steele dossier, which again is a partisan political document created for the Clinton campaign.
So essential was this partisan dossier, Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former-Deputy Director of the FBI, admitted in December that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without the dossier.
Not only did the FBI knowingly use a document from a partisan campaign to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the competing campaign, the FBI knew the dossier was mostly “salacious and unverified.” We know this because disgraced former-FBI Director James Comey told us so in June of 2017.
According to the Nunes memo, “Steele told [former FBI official Bruce] Ohr, he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.’”
Ohr, who was part of the FBI’s anti-Trump Russian investigation, was not only friendly with Steele, Ohr’s own wife worked with Steele at Fusion GPS doing opposition research (the dossier) against Trump for the Clinton campaign.
Despite a) knowing the dossier was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign b) knowing the dossier was “salacious and unverified” c) knowing Steele was desperate to destroy Trump d) the breathtaking conflict of interest in having an investigator’s own wife working on the dossier, the FBI still went to the FISA court to obtain permission to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent.
In order to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, all of the conflicts of interest above were withheld from the FISA court — an indefensible (and possibly illegal) lie of omission.
Even worse, in order to legitimize a warrant request based on a piece of partisan opposition research they knew was “salacious and unverified,” the FBI and DOJ used a media report to bolster the findings in the phony dossier. The FBI and DOJ told the court that the media report was independent verification of the dossier. But this was not true, and, according to the Nunes memo, the FBI and DOJ knew this was not true. The truth is that the phony dossier was the source of this media report.
Also hidden from the FISA court was the fact that the FBI obtained Steele as a source but had to fire him in October of 2016 when, in a bid to use his phony dossier to derail the Trump campaign, he leaked his information to the far-left Mother Jones.
Although the FBI and DOJ were willing participants in pushing a “salacious and unverified” narrative against a presidential candidate (primarily through media leaks), this was all hidden from congressional investigators. To begin with, for months, while under oath, Comey said he did not know where the dossier came from — meaning from the Clinton campaign. The Wall Street Journal explains:
We also know the FBI wasn’t straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators in a briefing on the dossier in January 2017. The FBI did not tell Congress about Mr. Steele’s connection to the Clinton campaign, and the House had to issue subpoenas for Fusion bank records to discover the truth. Nor did the FBI tell investigators that it continued receiving information from Mr. Steele and Fusion even after it had terminated him. The memo says the bureau’s intermediary was Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, incredibly, worked for Fusion.
All of this dishonesty occurred under Comey, the man our media now hold up as a living saint, a man so desperate to destroy Trump, he not only oversaw those committing the above abuses, he leaked classified information to the news media in order to see a Special Prosecutor appointed against Trump, which his pal, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, immediately did.
And finally…
16. Much of the “salacious and unverified” material in the dossier came from the Russians. In other words, those disgusting dossier lies about Trump’s personal behavior came from Russian operatives. So there is no question that it was the Clinton campaign, Democrats, Steele, the FBI, and DOJ who colluded with the Russians to rig a presidential election.
Yes, there was collusion with the Russians, and those in our government currently investigating Trump in the hopes of overturning a presidential election are the colluders.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/03/16-nunes-memo-bombshells-media-not-want-know/
Robin,
Please explain how it was bought?
You have yet to prove the major CEO’s and Directors are republican.
I can tell you the GE CEO was a democrat and shipped jobs off to China.
Yawn. Not even on topic. If you want a different topic, Jason, start your own blog.
And I don’t need to publish it, because there are hundreds of extremist, right-wing, fact-denying websites that will scratch that itch for you.
I can understand why you don’t want to discuss the Obama corruption. You don’t have a problem with Government Corruption. Sorry, but I do.
Back off, Jason. I talk about government corruption in South Dakota all the time. You just want to derail this discussion of the lies Trump told about his plutocrat-tax-cuts plan because those irrefutable facts make you mad. I’ll not be baited into wallowing in your propaganda. Don’t lie about me, and don’t derail my comment section.
Which lies were told about the tax cut?
See, Jason? You’re not even paying attention to the original topic. Read the headline, look at the data provided. Trump called his tax cuts the biggest in history. Obama’s tax cuts were bigger.
I feel no obligation to go running off to explore your red herrings when you won’t do me the courtesy of reading and acknowledging the simple facts I present.
Cory,
When did Obama give C corporations a tax break?
1. Obama extended Bush tax cuts. He didn’t have any of his own.
2. Your article is flat out wrong because it doesn’t talk about the C corporation tax cut.
They can project all they want but nothing is a fact until it happens.
The government will collect money it would never have gotten due to the repatriation of oversees revenue.
Btw, the nonpartisan tax policy center is not nonpartisan.
I forgot to mention that Trump gave a 100% tax cut to farmers who sell their grain to a coop? Did the idiots you quoted in your article take that into account? I knew about this in December.
So yes Cory, you posted lies.
Schedule F is the boss hoss. “”It is a clear potential advantage,” Neiffer said. “I always want to highlight the word ‘potential’ because the key is they have got to have taxable income. If they don’t have taxable income, this deduction is worth absolutely nothing.”” https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/world-policy/article/2018/01/10/new-tax-law-give-cooperatives-grain-2
“The qualified cooperative dividend was added late to the tax bill by Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who were trying to stave off a large tax increase for farmers who had relied on the prior Section 199 Domestic Production Activities Deduction. The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives had pushed for a change, arguing farmers who sell to cooperatives risked a $2 billion annual tax break if it went away and was not replaced with similar language. Chuck Conner, president and CEO of National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, warned against making changes to the new tax break that could end up raising taxes on farmers.”
From same source. Looks like it is on the same lines that Obama had already in place. New? Not hardly, just moving the deck chairs.
Ruh oh… Looks like trouble ahead Jason with the need for 60 votes in the senate, looks like it could be an issue with the government set to run out of loot here in a few days.
“Kami Capener, a spokeswoman for Sen. Hoeven, told DTN that the goal was to prevent cooperatives from being “unfairly treated” by the loss of the domestic-production deduction. “We are continuing to work with Sen. Thune and stakeholders to address any unintended impacts,” she said.
The problem with making a technical correction to the tax law is it now would require 60 votes in the Senate to make a change in the law. Much like Republicans refused to help Democrats make changes to the Affordable Care Act, Democrats may be unwilling to help Republicans make similar changes in the new tax law.
More details on the Section 199A changes can be found at: http://bit.ly/… ‘
Always remember, don’t count your beaver before you set your traps.
I’m OK with them not changing it. I’m going to go farm on the side if they don’t.
Here is more tax cut winning from the roypublicans for Americans https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2018/01/31/kimberly-clark-closing-two-plants-neenah/1082701001/
When the recession hits in full bore in late 2018 and 2019, we Americans may want to revisit this tax scam. There exists now only roypublicans and Americans. The parties are either in one camp or the other.
Jerry,
It’s not the same as the prior domestic production activities deduction. That deduction could never wipe out all of your income. And that was not put in place under Obama. It was enacted under Bush.
Jerry,
Please explain how it is a tax scam. Be specific.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-corporate/obama-urges-corporate-tax-cut-closing-loopholes-idUSTRE81K25N20120222
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/37/extend-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-lower-incomes/
Obama offered corporate tax rate reduction and wanted to close loopholes allowing corporations to be reimbursed for moving overseas to pay for the rate cut. Wingnuts, of course, said no way Jose. ( new tax bill allows corporate execs to deduct moving expenses, but not any workers that are forced to move)
Obama extended dumbass dubya cuts for 2 years then we had the fiscal showdown and Obama was able to extend cuts for upper middle class and lower taxpayers and ended them for the wealthiest.
Off shored coporate profit should be taxed at the 35% rate and then brought back home. Dumbass dubya gave corporations a chance to bring money home at a reduced rate if they used it to pay workers. They instead gave it to shareholders like tyoical vultures.
So it looks like Jason is full of prunes calling Cory a liar.
Mike,
Did Obama sign a C corporation tax cut bill? No.
Did Obama sign a 100% tax cut for farmers who sell their grain to coops? No.
Cory’s article is a lie and I proved it.
Jason
Attacking Democrats, Hillary, or President Obama is not going to save Trump from Mueller’s prosecution of him.
The U.S. prematurely met the debt ceiling and Trump will now have to borrow $1Trillion to keep the country running and to pay for those billionaire tax cuts. The $1 Trillion is a 84% higher than last year.
It’s called Making America Great Again.
When did Obama give C corporations a tax break?
This is the ? you asked. You did not say he had to sign anything. It is not Obama’s fault if the obstructionist Congress refused to work with him. Obama offered a top C rate @28% and 25% for manufacturers that kept jobs in America.
You move the goalposts to suit yer whimsy and I called you on it.
Jason, as usual you are full of IT!
Drumpf didn’t give anyone 100% tax cut for anything. The truth is it was an attempt by Marlboro Barbie and ND Sinator Hoeven to fix a deal to make sure farmers didn’t get a tax INCREASE.
Read about it here- https://libn.com/2018/01/18/tax-law-gives-unexpected-break-to-farmers-who-sell-to-co-ops/
The tax break was unexpected and congress is supposed to be working to straighten it out.
and Jason here is the first side-effect of the tax cut. where is the outrage?
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/news/economy/debt-limit-tax-cuts/index.html
Enacted by Bush, strengthened by Obama and shot in the arse by trump. Jason, Cory can take care of himself on this, but I already showed you that this tax scam is not ever gonna work. It has way too many loopholes in it that will require Americans to fix the problems roypublicans jammed in without debate. From me: “Kami Capener, a spokeswoman for Sen. Hoeven, told DTN that the goal was to prevent cooperatives from being “unfairly treated” by the loss of the domestic-production deduction. “We are continuing to work with Sen. Thune and stakeholders to address any unintended impacts,” she said.” Jason, this one line item shows that the whole thing was just to take away the reporting on the Russians and their corporate takeover.
Excellent link Mr. reitzel, yeah, that is gonna put us behind the 8 ball in a late 2018 recession and a full blown recession in 2019 until we put an American in charge of the country again.
With no safety nets, looks like roypublicans are gonna screw us again.
Mr. jerry, you need a T-shirt with a caricature of these Roy-publicans, whom you fear so much, bowling down a bald short guy wearing a libtard with a giant 8-ball. I can draw a picture for you if you wish, but I fear this T-shirt in your closet would keep you awake at night like the booga-booga man you fear.
Back atcha, Jason. Off the top of yer head, how many of Drumpf’s businesses has he repatriated from sweatshops overseas? Any ideas?
Tax cuts have nothing to do with how much the US spends. That’s why Obama racked up 10T in debt. The most by any President.
Jerry,
Please be specific and tell us how the tax cut is a scam?
the caricature would be trump. I only now see roypublicans=Russians. I am neither, I am American. To me, there are now just two classifications either you are a roypublican=Russian or you are an American, which are you Mr. grudznick?
1.50 per week increase for librarian with the tax scam according to this guy who is roypublican speaker of the house. An American cannot make this crap up https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/03/house-speaker-paul-ryans-costco-tax-cut-tweet-draws-taunts/303827002/
If a buck and a half is not a tax scam, then what is? How about this?
“The AMT, which increased Trump’s leaked 2005 tax bill from $5.3 million to $36.5 million, will be repealed.
The AMT, which increased Trump’s leaked 2005 tax bill from $5.3 million to $36.5 million, will be repealed.
REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
The alternative minimum tax (AMT), which was enacted in 1969 to “prevent taxpayers from escaping their fair share of tax liability through tax breaks,” would be eliminated.
Most of the people affected by the AMT earn over $500,000, according to Tax Policy Center. It is more likely to affect those who are married, have large families, or live in high-tax states.
Trump’s leaked tax bill from 2005 has been shown to have increased to $36.5 million from $5.3 million because of AMT.” Yowser, the big Russian himself will get one helluva payday on the backs of the American people’s hard work. Big payday for doing not a damn thing. SCAM
Jerry,
You think tax withholding is what your taxes are? lol. She getting more than a $1.50 a week tax break. That’s a fact.
As for the AMT, it was not repealed. It should be though.
You are zero for two now Jerry. You should probably quit while you are behind.
Funny, I show at least two for two and still winning!
Mr. jerry, if I may ask you directly, sir, do you see me as one of these roypublican creatures of which you blog about in your every blogging? I only ask as I don’t understand what it means and I don’t believe you understand that for which I stand.
Jason
2018-02-04 at 18:34
Tax cuts have nothing to do with how much the US spends. That’s why Obama racked up 10T in debt. The most by any President.
Oh Boy. Tax cuts directly affect debt and deficit spending. Something right wingers can’t get through their heads. You cut tax revenues you have less money to pay bills with. Are you with me so far? The less money you have from taxcuts the more money needs be borrowed to pay bills and interest on the debt.
If stoopid dumbass dubya had paid for two wars and prescription drugs with tax increases we would not have all the debt we have now. Notice I didn’t say Bush was solely responsible. The Potus is charged with paying America’s debt which cannot be done without massive increases in taxes. Which is why you don’t cut the damn things to begin with.
Mike,
Please link to me where it shows Congress decides how much to spend depending on the amount of revenue coming in?
Are you with me Mike? I said Congress will not spend less if less money comes in. I wish they would though.
You do know they have a printing press right?
As I said Mr. grudznick, there are now only two groups now, one is called roypublican=Russian loyalists and the other American. Which are you sir? I never thought that I would ever see a political party accuse the FBI and Justice Department of treason. So, what group are you in sir?
Here is a feller that will do quite well with the tax scam he voted for https://knownetworth.com/john-thunes-net-worth and here is another feller in the Senate that will gain biggly with the tax scam. Wonder why these two were so supportive of the scam?
What I wonder is how much NOem will be getting from the Koch brothers? All of the rest of the writers of the scam got a pretty healthy bump in their campaign funds. NOem is not running for congress, so I wonder how this will be injected into the campaign.
Mr. jerry, you may espouse that you think there are only two groups, but I disagree. I see 7 different groups, and it can vary from day to day. That does not include me, grudznick, who am in a group all my own regardless of the groups you see. The grudznick group (c).
Clean your spectacles then Mr. grudznick, they are smeared and blurry.
You sort people into two buckets, Mr. jerry, I see them with more shades and colors than your binary, libby thought process. I, sir, am an open minded fellow with a big picture view, despite my smeared spectacles.
No such thing as libby’s as there are no such thing as conservatives any longer. Clearly there are only two camps now. Roypublicans and Americans. Me I am an American, first and foremost. What I am seeing now is a group of outlaws that claim to put their party before country. These are elected officials along with the cadre they have appointed. There are no shades anymore, only clear statements of color. You are either roypublican=Russian supporters or you are American. I am the latter.
Here ya go Mr. grudznick, so you can see what a real roypublican looks and sounds like https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/holocaust-denier-running-for-congress-has-no-opponents-in-republican-primary/ar-BBIHA0p
Mr. jerry, I have a policy that was instituted by my old friend Lar, who tricked me into clicking on blue links that went to some child porn sites or some other hideous monstrosity. I do not click on blue links without a better description and the poster being qualified and of sound reputation. If Mr. H tells me your link is OK I may read it.