Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Think about it Jake. Let’s say you are a democratic senator and you are being interviewed about this bill and you bring up the sunset. The interviewer asks you point blank. Would you vote to renew the cuts or let them expire in 7 years? What answer could you possibly give? You have to say you’d vote to keep them. If you say you’d let them expire, you’re not getting re-electedTough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budgetThe Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.
For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!
I'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?
The senate is supposed to work with a 60-40 vote forcing both parties to work together.That’s not true, there were plenty of Dems that tried to work with the republicans on this bill and they got frozen out. This could have been a bipartisan bill but it probably wouldn’t have gotten done by years end and it wouldn’t have included all the Republican pork. So they did it their way and continued the districtive practice of majority rules law making. It’s not how congress was designed to functionThen everybody could have voted to make them permanent.
The obstructionist commiecrats refused to do so, republicans couldn't do it by themselves under reconciliation because of senate rules.
.
The commiecrats wouldn't support ending the mandate, which allowed more tax cuts, or opening ANWR which also enhances revenue. What pork are you referring to.
BTW congress was designed to work with a majority vote, congresscritters created the rules, not the founders.
.
And you just named two of the biggest pieces of pork that got stuffed in this bill. I know you love it because it supports your agenda but just imagine the backlash when the Dems do the same thing back to you. It’s not a healthy way to legislate and conduct business
Think about it Jake. Let’s say you are a democratic senator and you are being interviewed about this bill and you bring up the sunset. The interviewer asks you point blank. Would you vote to renew the cuts or let them expire in 7 years? What answer could you possibly give? You have to say you’d vote to keep them. If you say you’d let them expire, you’re not getting re-electedTough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budgetThe Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.
For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!
I'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?
Did the founders give the senate the ability and responsibility to make those rules?The senate is supposed to work with a 60-40 vote forcing both parties to work together.That’s not true, there were plenty of Dems that tried to work with the republicans on this bill and they got frozen out. This could have been a bipartisan bill but it probably wouldn’t have gotten done by years end and it wouldn’t have included all the Republican pork. So they did it their way and continued the districtive practice of majority rules law making. It’s not how congress was designed to functionThen everybody could have voted to make them permanent.
The obstructionist commiecrats refused to do so, republicans couldn't do it by themselves under reconciliation because of senate rules.
.
The commiecrats wouldn't support ending the mandate, which allowed more tax cuts, or opening ANWR which also enhances revenue. What pork are you referring to.
BTW congress was designed to work with a majority vote, congresscritters created the rules, not the founders.
.
And you just named two of the biggest pieces of pork that got stuffed in this bill. I know you love it because it supports your agenda but just imagine the backlash when the Dems do the same thing back to you. It’s not a healthy way to legislate and conduct business
Like I said, the senate created those rules, not the founders. And getting rid of an unconstitutional direct tax and allowing energy development in an area that was designated for energy development from the inception of ANWR is not pork. And the commiecrats are the ones that are seeing payback for the crap they pulled with maobamacare and the porkulous stimulus BS. They set the rules, let them live with them.
.
Oh come on grow up. Dems are on Fox all the time. Ya know the largest cable news network in the country. Many anchors on CNN ask tough questions to Dems as well, but I don’t want to get into a debate about the media right nowThink about it Jake. Let’s say you are a democratic senator and you are being interviewed about this bill and you bring up the sunset. The interviewer asks you point blank. Would you vote to renew the cuts or let them expire in 7 years? What answer could you possibly give? You have to say you’d vote to keep them. If you say you’d let them expire, you’re not getting re-electedTough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budgetThe Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.
For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!
I'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?
The MSM would never ask such a question of a commiecrat.
.
Fallacy of false premise and false conclusion.The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?
Its a stupid argument, the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in what...yes corporations. A tax cut that benefits corporations therefore benefits the middle class.
Many people are still stupid enough to think that corporations actually pay taxes. Corporations cover the costs of doing business, including all associated taxes, in their pricing of goods and services. Their CONSUMERS pay the taxes for them.The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?
Did the founders give the senate the ability and responsibility to make those rules?The senate is supposed to work with a 60-40 vote forcing both parties to work together.That’s not true, there were plenty of Dems that tried to work with the republicans on this bill and they got frozen out. This could have been a bipartisan bill but it probably wouldn’t have gotten done by years end and it wouldn’t have included all the Republican pork. So they did it their way and continued the districtive practice of majority rules law making. It’s not how congress was designed to functionThe obstructionist commiecrats refused to do so, republicans couldn't do it by themselves under reconciliation because of senate rules.
.
The commiecrats wouldn't support ending the mandate, which allowed more tax cuts, or opening ANWR which also enhances revenue. What pork are you referring to.
BTW congress was designed to work with a majority vote, congresscritters created the rules, not the founders.
.
And you just named two of the biggest pieces of pork that got stuffed in this bill. I know you love it because it supports your agenda but just imagine the backlash when the Dems do the same thing back to you. It’s not a healthy way to legislate and conduct business
Like I said, the senate created those rules, not the founders. And getting rid of an unconstitutional direct tax and allowing energy development in an area that was designated for energy development from the inception of ANWR is not pork. And the commiecrats are the ones that are seeing payback for the crap they pulled with maobamacare and the porkulous stimulus BS. They set the rules, let them live with them.
.
And yes it is pork getting bundled in a tax cut bill. Those are different issues that should be handled by a specific vote. They fit the definition of pork. Trump even admitted it today. Said he didn’t want anybody talking about or focusing on the mandate being dropped because it would essentially blow up the ACA.
Your argument does not wash, because the question that can't be answered sufficiently for the electorate, "why did you do that in the first place?" No forgiveness, I think, will be the electorate's reaction.Think about it Jake. Let’s say you are a democratic senator and you are being interviewed about this bill and you bring up the sunset. The interviewer asks you point blank. Would you vote to renew the cuts or let them expire in 7 years? What answer could you possibly give? You have to say you’d vote to keep them. If you say you’d let them expire, you’re not getting re-electedTough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budgetThe Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.
For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!
I'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?
Oh come on grow up. Dems are on Fox all the time. Ya know the largest cable news network in the country. Many anchors on CNN ask tough questions to Dems as well, but I don’t want to get into a debate about the media right nowThink about it Jake. Let’s say you are a democratic senator and you are being interviewed about this bill and you bring up the sunset. The interviewer asks you point blank. Would you vote to renew the cuts or let them expire in 7 years? What answer could you possibly give? You have to say you’d vote to keep them. If you say you’d let them expire, you’re not getting re-electedTough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budgetI'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?
The MSM would never ask such a question of a commiecrat.
.
The Anwar provision benefits the entire nation.If it does not work "we" are in trouble. The last 8 years method does not work. We may find out this country is too far gone. 30 year dumb-down takes its toll. RW will say I told ya so.....
I don't like 2.9% last minute upper bracket cut. Seems?....well I'm not in that bracket.
Why did they need to slip that in? They had corporate rate at 20%
Anwar was to get the AK vote, Murcowsky. More lard. Why do you have to bribe?
Fallacy of idiotic statement.Fallacy of false premise and false conclusion.The logic behind their opposition to the tax plan (which I actually agree isn't a very good plan), is that it benefits the corporations more than the middle class. Money from the poor to the rich. The Corporate tax cuts being permanent and the individual tax cuts being temporary feeds that narrative... I just don't think it is a strong argument.I guess I do not understand the Dem's point of view here, I see no reason why a tax cut or tax hike should not be temporary since times and circumstances can change. Maybe those cuts won't be needed down the road. What s the Dem's logic here, what is their beef?
Its a stupid argument, the middle class has trillions of dollars invested in what...yes corporations. A tax cut that benefits corporations therefore benefits the middle class.
Spare me the spin, we both know exactly what both are despite your “justifications”Did the founders give the senate the ability and responsibility to make those rules?The senate is supposed to work with a 60-40 vote forcing both parties to work together.That’s not true, there were plenty of Dems that tried to work with the republicans on this bill and they got frozen out. This could have been a bipartisan bill but it probably wouldn’t have gotten done by years end and it wouldn’t have included all the Republican pork. So they did it their way and continued the districtive practice of majority rules law making. It’s not how congress was designed to function
The commiecrats wouldn't support ending the mandate, which allowed more tax cuts, or opening ANWR which also enhances revenue. What pork are you referring to.
BTW congress was designed to work with a majority vote, congresscritters created the rules, not the founders.
.
And you just named two of the biggest pieces of pork that got stuffed in this bill. I know you love it because it supports your agenda but just imagine the backlash when the Dems do the same thing back to you. It’s not a healthy way to legislate and conduct business
Like I said, the senate created those rules, not the founders. And getting rid of an unconstitutional direct tax and allowing energy development in an area that was designated for energy development from the inception of ANWR is not pork. And the commiecrats are the ones that are seeing payback for the crap they pulled with maobamacare and the porkulous stimulus BS. They set the rules, let them live with them.
.
And yes it is pork getting bundled in a tax cut bill. Those are different issues that should be handled by a specific vote. They fit the definition of pork. Trump even admitted it today. Said he didn’t want anybody talking about or focusing on the mandate being dropped because it would essentially blow up the ACA.
Is the mandate a tax? I believe that's exactly what Roberts called it, so it's appropriate to address it in a tax bill. Will ANWR raise tax revenue? Well yes, so it's appropriate to address it in a tax bill. Also the senate operated within their rules so just shut up about them.
.
The Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.
For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!
It’s a direct question, would you really not answer and pivot to that response? I could see that approach but I fucking hate it when congressmen don’t answer direct questions. It’s frustrating and transparent and I lose respect.Your argument does not wash, because the question that can't be answered sufficiently for the electorate, "why did you do that in the first place?" No forgiveness, I think, will be the electorate's reaction.Think about it Jake. Let’s say you are a democratic senator and you are being interviewed about this bill and you bring up the sunset. The interviewer asks you point blank. Would you vote to renew the cuts or let them expire in 7 years? What answer could you possibly give? You have to say you’d vote to keep them. If you say you’d let them expire, you’re not getting re-electedTough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budgetThe Left has got to stop using the Sunset argument to attack the new Tax bill. There are plenty of areas to attack regarding the bill but this one is a losing argument. I hear democratic congressmen using this talking point in every interview and all it takes is asking them the question, "Would you vote to repeal the individual tax cuts in 7 years?" Of course they aren't going to say yes. We know that Republicans aren't going to repeal them and I seriously doubt that dems would either. It would be political suicide.
For those of you who don't know what the sunset argument is... It is the talking point that the Corporate cuts are permanent and the individual tax cuts are temporary, up for a renewal vote after 7 years. Dems are playing the scenario that after 7 years, if the tax cuts aren't renewed by congress, then everybody's taxes will go up. I'm saying right now that is not realistic, nobody is not going to vote to renew, it is a losing argument. Move on to the next one!
I'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?
Tucker has a couple on his show each week. Had one from CA on tonight talking about DACAOh come on grow up. Dems are on Fox all the time. Ya know the largest cable news network in the country. Many anchors on CNN ask tough questions to Dems as well, but I don’t want to get into a debate about the media right nowThink about it Jake. Let’s say you are a democratic senator and you are being interviewed about this bill and you bring up the sunset. The interviewer asks you point blank. Would you vote to renew the cuts or let them expire in 7 years? What answer could you possibly give? You have to say you’d vote to keep them. If you say you’d let them expire, you’re not getting re-electedTough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budget
The MSM would never ask such a question of a commiecrat.
.
I see a lot of dem pundits, not so many dem politicians on Fox.
.
Who cares? You were answered that "You argument" just does not cut it. Raise the corporate tax until the balance is achieved.It’s a direct question, would you really not answer and pivot to that response? I could see that approach but I fucking hate it when congressmen don’t answer direct questions. It’s frustrating and transparent and I lose respect.Your argument does not wash, because the question that can't be answered sufficiently for the electorate, "why did you do that in the first place?" No forgiveness, I think, will be the electorate's reaction.Think about it Jake. Let’s say you are a democratic senator and you are being interviewed about this bill and you bring up the sunset. The interviewer asks you point blank. Would you vote to renew the cuts or let them expire in 7 years? What answer could you possibly give? You have to say you’d vote to keep them. If you say you’d let them expire, you’re not getting re-electedTough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.Because they took the partisan approach and passed the bill using reconciliation meaning they only needed majority votes to pass it. To do this they had to keep the deficit forecast under 1.5 trillion. Because of this they couldn’t make the individual cuts perminant as it would have pushed them over budgetI'm asking the question then, why didn't they make them permanent as well?
Tucker has a couple on his show each week. Had one from CA on tonight talking about DACAOh come on grow up. Dems are on Fox all the time. Ya know the largest cable news network in the country. Many anchors on CNN ask tough questions to Dems as well, but I don’t want to get into a debate about the media right nowThink about it Jake. Let’s say you are a democratic senator and you are being interviewed about this bill and you bring up the sunset. The interviewer asks you point blank. Would you vote to renew the cuts or let them expire in 7 years? What answer could you possibly give? You have to say you’d vote to keep them. If you say you’d let them expire, you’re not getting re-electedTough. The corporate tax % could be adjusted upwards until it reached the level for deficit forecast to make it legal.
The MSM would never ask such a question of a commiecrat.
.
I see a lot of dem pundits, not so many dem politicians on Fox.
.
