One thing, I heard at once, thought was brilliant, but then never again, was the idea of allowing SALT deductions up to a certain amount, I think it was $100k. I think that would be a very good idea. I think that would get them pretty much all of the benefit of eliminating SALT, but also keep from hurting the little guys.
It only takes 24 GOP no votes to stop the GOP in the House.
And I dont understand the 10 of the 21 youre trying to convey.
You said that are 34 Republican House members from CA,IL,NY,NJ. Thirteen of those voted against the bill, leaving 21 who voted for the Bill. Of those 21, 10 could have voted against the bill, and is still would have passed.
My main point was that if any of those 21 (from CA,IL,NY or NJ, and voted for the bill), really thought they would not be reelected, based upon voting for the bill, they were a number of 'no votes' available to them.
The Democrats are right this time. The GOP will lose the House in 2018 because of this stupid tax increase on the middle class bill.
You are only looking at one side of the equation. There will be many times more Democrats who are going to get larger than expected refunds, than there will be Republicans who see a tax increase. Once these Democrats get these larger than expected refunds, some of them may figure out that their party lied to them, and the cuts didn't go only to the rich.
I think the Republicans will lose a few seats, but not too many. This tax cut is going to solidify Trumps gains in the rust belt. And, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few, long held Democrat seats, switch over.
There are 34 Republican House members from CA, NY, NJ and IL.
All of them that voted yes are in deep trouble.There are 34 Republican House members from CA, NY, NJ and IL. All of them that voted yes are in deep trouble.
Even if every one of those seats (voted for the bill, from leftist State) is lost, the Republicans will still hold the House. More than 10 of the 21, who did not vote for the bill, could have voted against it, and it still would have passed. I think that's a pretty good indication that those 21 are too concerned about being reelected.
I think they are not too worried, because for every Republican voter in those states who see's his taxes rise, there will be 9 Democratic voter who will be surprised to see his taxes go down. So, if only a quarter of those Democratic voters, who receive a tax cut, rethinks voting Democrat? I think you can do the math.
Now that the standard has been set, that allegations alone, are enough to disqualify someone from running for the Senate, October is going to be a MUCH more exciting month. I'm personally starting a private fund for accusations against Romney. I might hit a few other RINO's if I can save a bit more.
It sure will be nice, now that all we need to do is make false accusations against anyone we don't agree with!
This story is base don "rumor", and "anonymous source's", while I agree, if the allegations are true, he should not be in the Senate, I have not seen one single piece of evidence that bears any of these allegations out.
First, there are holes in the 14 year old accusers story, such as the fact the mother came out and stated that she did not have a phone in her room. She claimed that the number she gave to Moore was a private number she had to her room. That is a central component of her accusation.
The recent accuser, who claims that Moore attempted to rape her, it looks like there is a pretty good chance that the signature in her yearbook is a not so good forgery.
Then we get to the abhorrent fact that he admits to dating teenagers when he was in his early 30's. The average age women get married now is 27, in the 70's it was 21, and in the South, it was even younger.
People are holding Moore to a social standard that has changed. Yes, a 32 year old dating a teenage high school graduate, today, would be against social mor, mainly because there are plenty of available women for marriage.
In 1977, Roy Moore had just graduated law school, after serving in the military, and graduating from West Point. He was 32, and single, and looking for a relationship, whom should he date? Women of that period, particularly in the South, married straight out of high school, or waited to marry their sweethearts after graduating college.
The available pool of marriageable women consisted of those leaving high school unmarried. This is why the women who Moore admits to dating, have said that their mothers approved of the relationship. Put in today's contexts, that in itself would be abhorrent! Also, the stories told by those 18 and 19 year olds that I do believe he likely dated, completely goes against the nature of the stories told by the younger, much less reliable accusations.
I find it beyond repugnant that people are not allowing Moore the right to defend himself. What are we going to do next October, when I guarantee that at least 20 Republicans are going to have similar accusations against them? Heck, I'm personally saving money to make sure one is thrown at Romney myself!!
There are 2 things that scream out to me that the signature is a fake.
1) Look at the last segment of the 'R' in Roy. In Moore's documented signature, the last segment of the R travels straight down after meeting up with the the beginning segments. In the signature in the year book, after making contact, the pen travels to the right for a bit, and then goes down. This completely changes the flow of writing the letter. Try it slowly, and you will see that I mean.
2) Most people, especially those who separate their initials from the rest of their name, will write their initial with added speed. You can see that in the documented signature in the second hump of the 'M' of Moore. See how the second hump of the M, the ink thins out, and the lines are very straight? That is because it was written in a quick flourish. The same hump in the yearbook signature shows a consistent level of ink, and the lines are bowed, this indicates the writer was going slowly.
The two above points are things that should remain consistent in his signature, and should not change, whether someone is writing a quick signature, or signing a legal document.
Kind of reminds me of when I was in high school. I went to a private school, but we played against all the public schools. When I was there, we were not very good at football (they have since won a couple of state championships), and we had a cheer when the other side would taunt us.
That's all right, that's OK - you're going to work for us someday!
Mid terms are right around the corner, wont take many crossover votes to pass it.
Agreed. Look at the battleground states on the 2018 Senate Map , the Democrats have 8 seats to defend, and the Republicans only 2. There are a lot of Democratic Senate seats, in deep red states, that are up in 2018. Add that to the fact that this is not about a social issue, and they can easily get a number of Democrats to vote for the bill.
I think it will be harder to get crossover votes in the House. But, with the majority in the House, they really won't be needed.
This sounds almost worthless. Damn these f@@@ing political hacks! We want real tax reduction - major cuts - and vast simplification. Im tired of having to waste five entire weekends with TurboTax every year just to pay the correct sum. Like is short
I can't itemize, it only takes me about an hour. Get rid of the deductions, so you don't need to itemize, and your taxes will be easy!
The answer to that question is well known - the signal for anthropogenic climate change, is increase warming in tropical mid-troposphere.
According to the 'climate change' theory, the real warming is not caused by CO2, it's by a positive feedback of increased water vapor. The CO2 is simply a trigger that starts the positive feedback.
So, if 'global warming' is occurring, we should see increased levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. But, since level of water vapor (humidity levels) constantly change, how do you get a constant measurement. There are places in the tropics that maintain a constant level of humidity. If the theory is correct, you should see this humidity move up into higher levels of the atmosphere.
So, the signature for man-made global warming, is warming in the tropics, it's in EVERY climate model, and is called the 'tropical mid-troposphere hotspot', and climatologists have been looking for it for decades, the problem is they haven't been able to find it, because it doesn't exist!
If you itemize, own a home, and live in a high tax state, you are going to be paying more in this bill because they already told us they are eliminating or limiting certain deductions.
The changes they want to pass into law will also have a devastating effect on the housing industry and real estate prices in many states (CA, NJ, NY, CT, etc.) That is why many mortgage and home building groups are opposing the bill.
Since a home is many families biggest asset, and a healthy real estate market insures economic growth, the bill will be poison pill to many.
I'm 48yrs old, and own my own home (made the final payment earlier this year). It's 3k sqft, 4/3.5, built in 2002, in Austin tx, and I purchased it 14 years ago for 250k. I think it's a travesty that home values are being artificially driven up in blue states. The tax and spend policies in those states create local inflation, which strangles the middle class.
I read an article in a British newspaper where the author was trying to determine why, when everything they heard was about how rich the northern States were, and how poor the southern States were, why were people moving from the north to the south? He went about looking at people in the same careers, and looked at their standards of living, and found out that while people in the north made a lot more money, people in the south had a much higher standard of living.
Yes, people can move, but when big problems occur, such as the housing bubble bursting, it effects everyone, not just the blue states that created it - and yes, there is another housing bubble building.
All the things that you mention are true, but in my perspective, I don't see that as being an overall bad thing. Right now the left has control of the blue States because there is more political clout with those wanting free handouts, maybe if that clout can be changed over to people demanding lower taxes at the state level, things will get better in those states.
Eventually there will be economic parity between the states, will it be what the blue states want, labor unions (higher wages), high taxes, high inflation, high cost of living, or what the red states want, right to work (lower wages), lower taxes, lower inflation, and low cost of living? My preference is for the later, and I believe this bill, in part, is attempt to move things in that direction.