Why Rand will vote FOR the tax-cut bill

[Matt Collins]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...d-step-up.html

[r3volution 3.0]

One of the fundamental problems in Washington is the attitude that the money that people make belongs to the government. That’s why you hear arguments about how much a tax cut “costs,” or big government advocates disingenuously and breathlessly complaining about the people who pay taxes getting a tax cut.
I believe it is the other way around. Our default position should be that the money you earn belongs to you, and government has to justify why it should take it from you.

Sounds just like Ron.

Anyway, I'm not very excited about the tax cut.

I'm never very excited about tax cuts unless they come with spending cuts (spending being the true burden).

That said, there's nothing wrong with supporting this.

....especially for Rand, who we all know wants massive spending cuts.

...contra, say, almost every other GOPer, who'd be fine with punting on spending forever and doing politically easier tax cuts instead.

[TheTexan]

Sounds just like Ron.

Anyway, I'm not very excited about the tax cut.

I'm never very excited about tax cuts unless they come with spending cuts (spending being the true burden).

That said, there's nothing wrong with supporting this.

....especially for Rand, who we all know wants massive spending cuts.

...contra, say, almost every other GOPer, who'd be fine with punting on spending forever and doing politically easier tax cuts instead.

It's fine to cut taxes without cutting spending. The federal government can just finance it with debt. As long as noone ever has to pay back the debt, then everyone wins

[EBounding]

One way to look at it is that tax cuts make it somewhat more likely there will be spending cuts in the future. I think the prospect of raising taxes is much more poisonous politically than cutting spending.

I just hope Rand can vote for it without drowning to death from his own lungs.

[Zippyjuan]

One way to look at it is that tax cuts make it somewhat more likely there will be spending cuts in the future. I think the prospect of raising taxes is much more poisonous politically than cutting spending.

I just hope Rand can vote for it without drowning to death from his own lungs.

The Bush and Reagan tax cuts did not lead to any cuts in spending. They only added to the debt. Nor did they spur the economy or add jobs or raise incomes. The money to pay for these tax cuts will come from the government borrowing money. Spending cuts should come before, not after, tax cuts. But budget cuts are more difficult politically than tax cuts.

[TheTexan]

The Bush and Reagan tax cuts did not lead to any cuts in spending. They only added to the debt. Nor did they spur the economy or add jobs or raise incomes. The money to pay for these tax cuts will come from the government borrowing money. Spending cuts should come before, not after, tax cuts. But budget cuts are more difficult politically than tax cuts.

What's wrong with government borrowing money?

Without government debt, the USD wouldn't even exist.

[timosman]

What's wrong with government borrowing money?

Without government debt, the USD wouldn't even exist.

Who are we borrowing from? A printing press?

[TheTexan]

Who are we borrowing from? A printing press?

Borrowing from the computer that creates treasures

[Krugminator2]

Nor did they spur the economy or add jobs or raise incomes. The money to pay for these tax cuts will come from the government borrowing money.

The 1980s and 90s marked the greatest period of wealth creation in human history. It seems pretty likely that lowering the top rate from 70 to 28 played at least some role in that. The tax cuts were good policy and worked.

The Bush tax cuts went into effect between 2002 and 2004. I am not sure why you think tax cuts didn't spur the economy. There was a massive bubble during that time. People forget the economy boomed during the middle part of Bush's presidency.

[Zippyjuan]

The 1980s and 90s marked the greatest period of wealth creation in human history. It seems pretty likely that lowering the top rate from 70 to 28 played at least some role in that. The tax cuts were good policy and worked.

The Bush tax cuts went into effect between 2002 and 2004. I am not sure why you think tax cuts didn't spur the economy. There was a massive bubble during that time. People forget the economy boomed during the middle part of Bush's presidency.

The economy was average following the Bush tax cuts- not above average. GDP growth rate actually went down. Reagan tax cuts were followed within a couple years with what was at the time the highest tax INCREASES (because they were concerned about the rising deficit from the cuts).

[Krugminator2]

The economy was average following the Bush tax cuts- not above average. GDP growth rate actually went down. Reagan tax cuts were followed within a couple years with what was at the time the highest tax INCREASES (because they were concerned about the rising deficit from the cuts).

Marginal rates are what matter. Reagan lowered the top rate from 70% to 50% then to 28%.

You didn't link to a chart of GDP growth. You linked to a 10 year moving average.

The four years following the Bush tax cuts had real GDP growth of 2.04%, 4.36%, 3.12%, and 3.03%. http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-gr.../table/by-year For perspective, there hasn't been a year over 3% real growth since.

That doesn't mean Bush tax cuts were the reason for the growth but it does mean you shouldn't so decisively state that the tax cuts had no effect.

One cannot be a fiscal conservative and then vote to add $2 trillion more to the debt. It is the same net effect as $2 trillion more in spending. .

That last sentence is factually wrong. A $2 trillion hike in government spending means more resources are diverted to the unproductive government sector. A tax cut doesn't divert any additional resource to the public sector. It is a wash. Instead of more taxes, it is paid for with more debt.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ur-national-s/

Rand Paul: Debt is biggest threat to our national security

Sen. Rand Paul says that the number one threat to U.S. national security is the country’s debt, but that a balance can be struck between cutting spending and adequately funding the military.

“There are people on our side, and I think they’re absolutely wrong — there are conservatives who are, ‘I’ll spend anything and I don’t care if it bankrupts the world, I’ll spend trillions of dollars, we’ve got to have it’ — that’s wrong,” the Kentucky Republican said Tuesday at the annual Wall Street Journal CEO Council gathering. “Because you will be a weaker country and you will be more vulnerable and I truly believe that the number one threat to our national security is our debt.”

Mr. Paul has carved out a less hawkish foreign policy perspective than many other potential GOP presidential contenders in 2016, but is also trying to shirk the isolationist label of some critics are trying to pin on him.

“What does separate me from some conservatives is I am not all in, everything, no matter what — I’m saying we spend what we can from what comes in,” he said. “We bring in 3 trillion dollars every year, we spend 3 trillion dollars. That’s very simple, [but] a very radical notion up here.”

He said everybody in the business world understands that they spend what comes in or if they borrow money, they borrow it on a “rational basis.”

Voting for the tax bill will add another couple $trillion. What is another couple $trillion? (and that is on top of the current budget deficits).

It isn't a "fiscally responsible" move.

If debt doesn't matter then spending doesn't matter.

[Zippyjuan]

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/36...e-gop-tax-bill

Poll: Majority of small businesses oppose GOP tax bill


A majority of small businesses in a new survey opposes the GOP tax plan.

A Public Policy Polling poll, released by Businesses for Responsible Tax Reform, a group opposed to the GOP tax bills, finds 51 percent of small businesses are against the plan. About one-third, 34 percent, support the GOP tax plan.

Slightly more than 50 percent of the small business owners surveyed think the GOP tax plan supports large corporations over small businesses.

A majority of small business owners also said the plan will benefit wealthy corporations the most.
The survey was conducted from Nov. 17 to 18 by the Democratic firm. It included responses from 794 small business owners.

Senate Republicans are rushing to pass their tax plan this week, after it was voted out of the Senate Finance Committee along party lines.

Republicans can lose only two GOP senators, if every Democrat votes no, if they want to get the legislation passed. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has announced his opposition to the plan.

Several GOP senators have raised concerns about the impact the tax plan could have on the deficit.

If the Senate passes its plan this week, Republicans will still need to work out a deal in conference committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate version and the House bill passed before Thanksgiving, and pass that final conference legislation.

[Zippyjuan]

Supporting the tax bill is moving away from Rand's stated goal of achieving a balanced budget.

(Rand did submit a balanced budget proposal a couple years ago- it assumed that tax revenues rose 26% during the time of his budget to be able to achieve the numbers by the final year).

[timosman]

Supporting the tax bill is moving away from Rand's stated goal of achieving a balanced budget.

The talented Mr. Zippy.

[specsaregood]

Supporting the tax bill is moving away from Rand's stated goal of achieving a balanced budget.

So you are saying that Randal is sacrificing is making a short term sacrifice away from his long term goal, in order to let me keep more of my money? I can live with that.

(Rand did submit a balanced budget proposal a couple years ago- it assumed that tax revenues rose 26% during the time of his budget to be able to achieve the numbers by the final year).

He has submitted many such proposals, over the course of many years. Fact is neither party wants any cuts and he seems to have realized it wont happen and decided that tax cuts are better than nothing. maybe it will help his supporters last a little bit longer or prepare for the collapse better.

[Zippyjuan]

So you are saying that Randal is sacrificing is making a short term sacrifice away from his long term goal, in order to let me keep more of my money? I can live with that.



He has submitted many such proposals, over the course of many years. Fact is neither party wants any cuts and he seems to have realized it wont happen and decided that tax cuts are better than nothing. maybe it will help his supporters last a little bit longer or prepare for the collapse better.

One cannot be a fiscal conservative and then vote to add $2 trillion more to the debt. It is the same net effect as $2 trillion more in spending. Will it put more money in your pocket? If you make under $70k a year, you will be paying more in taxes by the end of the time period. If you are a typical family of three, you will be paying more right away. (if the Obamacare provision passes, it also estimates that your health premiums will rise by at least ten percent).

[specsaregood]

One cannot be a fiscal conservative and then vote to add $2 trillion more to the debt. It is the same net effect as $2 trillion more in spending.

Sure you can. You can feel that keeping the govt from stealing as much money from its citizens is more important than continuing to fail at stopping drunken ticks from sucking the host dry. It's a grey world. Somebody is gonna eat that debt in the end no matter what he does.

Will it put more money in your pocket? If you make under $70k a year, you will be paying more in taxes by the end of the time period. If you are a typical family of three, you will be paying more right away. (if the Obamacare provision passes, it also estimates that your health premiums will rise by at least ten percent).

The numbers I've seen show me saving some money. Not a lot, but enough for a kick ass vacation or a boat or maybe even some more savings to stash away. I don't see my premiums going up any more than Obamacare already raised them.

[Zippyjuan]

Debt crowds out other borrowing- raising interest rates and the inflation rate. Cutting taxes does nothing about the bigger problem which is government spending. Ron Paul said he would love to get rid of the income tax but you have to deal with the spending problem first.

[devil21]

Rand says he will NOT vote for a spending bill that adds to the deficit.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...dds-to-deficit

[specsaregood]

Rand now says he will NOT vote for a tax bill that adds to the deficit.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...dds-to-deficit

uhm, that isn't what he said. HE wont vote for any spending bills that increase the deficit. he will vote for the tax bill as that is not a spending bill, but a matter of money collection (the opposite of spending generally)

[devil21]

uhm, that isn't what he said. HE wont vote for any spending bills that increase the deficit. he will vote for the tax bill as that is not a spending bill, but a matter of money collection (the opposite of spending generally)

Oh true, I guess I spaced on the tax/spending terms since the article jumps back and forth between spending and tax bill commentary. Though, I wouldn't at all surprised if Congress tried to bundle it all into one Christmas Eve bill.

[specsaregood]

Oh true, I guess I spaced on the tax/spending terms since the article jumps back and forth between spending and tax bill commentary. Though, I wouldn't at all surprised if Congress tried to bundle it all into one Christmas Eve bill.

I know plenty of haters have tried to paint Randal as a hypocrite since he has always been a budget hawk and he supports the tax bill which increases the deficit. But not really, its all about who's money it is. Randal thinks it is our money and we should keep more of it. The problem has always been spending and that's what he is voting against.

[Zippyjuan]

I know plenty of haters have tried to paint Randal as a hypocrite since he has always been a budget hawk and he supports the tax bill which increases the deficit. But not really, its all about who's money it is. Randal thinks it is our money and we should keep more of it. The problem has always been spending and that's what he is voting against.

So the deficit doesn't really matter. Only spending.

[oyarde]

Personally , I like the Oyarde tax plan .

[Valli6]

[eleganz]

I like Mick Mulvaney leading the budget team, I think they want to pass the tax bill and then tackle spending.

To be honest, Trump mouthed his way to an aggressive tax plan and he can mouth his way to lower spending.

[devil21]

I like Mick Mulvaney leading the budget team, I think they want to pass the tax bill and then tackle spending.

To be honest, Trump mouthed his way to an aggressive tax plan and he can mouth his way to lower spending.

LOL. How exactly do you think spending will be reduced while building up the bigliest military evar, followed by trillion dollar infrastructure packages? The name of the game right now, as the monetary order dies, is for the "connected" to steal every last dollar of value that isn't nailed down.