GOP on taxes: Cut rates, brackets -- but what about the deficit?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans are planning a massive overhaul of the nation's tax system next year, a heavy political lift that could ultimately affect families at every income level and businesses of every size.

Their goal is to simplify a complicated tax code that rewards wealthy people with smart accountants, and corporations that can easily shift profits — and jobs — overseas. It won't be easy. The last time it was done was 30 years ago.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., have vowed to pass a tax package that would not add to the budget deficit. The Washington term is "revenue neutral."

It means that for every tax cut there has to be a tax increase, creating winners and losers. Lawmakers would get some leeway if non-partisan congressional analysts project that a tax cut would increase economic growth, raising revenue without increasing taxes.

Nevertheless, passing a massive tax package will require some tough votes, politically.

Some key Republican senators want to share the political risk with Democrats. They argue that a tax overhaul must be bipartisan to be fully embraced by the public. They cite President Barack Obama's health law — which passed in 2010 without any Republican votes — as a major policy initiative that remains divisive.

Congressional Democrats say they are eager to have a say in overhauling the tax code. But McConnell, who faulted Democrats for acting unilaterally on health care, is laying the groundwork to pass a purely partisan bill.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/gop-on-taxes-cut-rates-brackets-but-what-about-the-deficit/ar-BBxwkTM?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=edgsp

[OldYallow]

1. We All Know Who Will Lose

Non billionaires

[RDANGELO]

2. They do this everytime they come into power.

Massive tax cuts to the benefit of the wealthy, ballooning the deficit, claiming that it wont effect the deficit because of economic growth. That rarely happens. The money will stay in the pockets of the very wealthy, or go into production overseas. We are due for another recession. A good dose of trickle down economics may be just the thing to kick it in.

[Cosmocat]

7. Right? It's like people were not around in 2001

The jackasses threw the sheeple one time 300 checks to give massive cuts to the rich and blow up a balanced budget.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. "Deficits don't matter"

(As long as a repig is in office)

"Deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

[Wounded Bear]

5. Yep, pretty much...

I expect them to start rising almost immediately.

[Igel]

6. Perspective's nice.

We pitched fits over budget deficits approaching $500 billion. That was above their peak, but they dropped off into the $200-to-300 billion range for a few years. These were unsustainable. That's what everybody said. Including the President.

TARP back in 2008 increased the deficit when it was paid out under Bush and Obama, but this was a kind of artificial increase that distorted the deficit since it was paid back with a bit of interest. It's like loaning a friend $2000 and counting that as expense, and then counting the $2020 paid back as income. It's neither, really. Just when TARP was paid out it seemed to increase the deficit, when it was back it seemed to decrease the deficit. It should be subtracted both from expense and income, since it remained an asset. It's not done because the government's run using cash accounting, but also because it reduces the horrible Bush deficit he incurred after he left office and increases the resulting deficit under Obama. In other words, it makes the bad guy look less bad and the good guy look less good, that that's contrary to current political practice. (Yes, it does mean that to some extent we're dealing with fake news, but it's *our* fake news.)

However, many agree that deficits (up to a point) don't matter:

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-10-14/obama-administration-budget-deficit-increases-to-587b

Note the key bits: Lew, Obama's Treasury pick, "sustainable level," this deficit still shows " fiscal discipline", " about 3 percent of the size of the economy, a level many economists say is bearable."

$560 billion is okay. $300 billion is unsustainable irresponsibility. We heard this mantra start in February 2009. Now that January 2017 is approaching, it's time to flip the script and say "deficits bad" again. (In interests of full accuracy, there's much to be said for large deficit spending when the economy is in the dumpster, but when we're nearly at full employment, unless new increased deficit spending pulls people back into the work force it probably won't be a good thing.)

What Trump will do Trump will do. But if we start of with no sense perspective, forgetting the last 15 years' history, we're unlikely to suddenly acquire it.

[Wounded Bear]

4. "It means that for every tax cut there has to be a tax increase"...not really

It only means that to Dems. To Repubs "revenue neutral" means for every tax cut there has to be a benefit cut.

It's how they roll.

[kimbutgar]

8. Deficits only matter when Democrats are in charge

It is another bs thing that rethugs drag out to fool their gullible supporters. They are going to explode our deficit with their tax cuts. And on Fox and the other Reich wing media it will be deficits don't matter. Tickle down works!!! While our economy collapses and the federal government under the king of bankrupt bankrupts our country leading to a major nullification of the constitution.

[coolbreeze77]

9. They talk about deficits but spend too much money when they have power. They talk about

how much they love American but support russia's puppet. They talk about the military but never won a modern war.