Posted on 06/29/2018 6:38:34 PM PDT by Libloather
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on Friday said he wanted to further lower the corporate tax rate, from 21 percent to 20 percent, as part of a second round of tax cuts later this year.
Trump, in an interview with Fox News to mark the six-month anniversary of the $1.5 trillion tax cut law Republicans passed last year, said other parts of the new tax plan would be tailored to the middle class.
“One of the things we’re thinking about is bringing the 21 percent down to 20 and for the most part, the rest of it will go right to the middle class,” Trump said. “It’s a great stimulus.”
Trump said the tax plan would be ready by October, “maybe a little sooner than that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Your wrong on that. Once the supreme court makes their decision on whether something is constitutional or not then it is or isn’t constitutional. That is the way our system has worked from the start.
So if the American people don’t like the supreme courts decision they have two means of changing it. The amendment process, or bring another case and hope the supreme court reverses their decision.
The supreme court has already ruled that Social Security, mediare, etc. is constitutional. You can believe there not but you can also believe that gravity isn’t real and they will both have the same effect, none.
Some of us conservatives want to save our country before it implodes from this deficit spending. If that means we need to raise revenues, than so be it. Let’s first balance the budget, then create a surplus, then start paying down the debt.
Added debt number came from here (January 21, ‘16 to June 27, 18): https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd_debttothepenny.htm
Wow, pretty aggressive on your part (the “f-word” and all!)...Mr. Trump’s financial supporters & voters get to examine his track record, and in this case I am just suggesting that President Trump should consider balancing a budget during his term as president (or at least start talking about a balanced budget). That isn’t asking a lot.
Your assertion that he has had a “massive impact on spending” has yet to be seen. Tax cuts & cut fraud/waste = yes. You are correct about Congress’ part in the budget, so Congress actually did the tax cut last year, not Mr. Trump? You see my point, Mr. Trump is the “leader” and the executive branch needs to propose a balanced budget at some point. (His initial proposals so far have not been close to balancing). Let’s hope he is angling for “popular” tax cuts during his 1st term and after he is reelected is planning on the “heavy lifting/unpopular” spending cuts.
That’s rubbish.
What makes something “Constitutional” is the fact that it is consistant with the Constitution, not whatever the Supreme Court decides.
The Supreme Court, as with any court, can (and does) get it wrong. The remedy for a corrupt court is to elect a POTUS and senators who will appoint non-corrupt justices.
A non-corrupt Supreme Court Justice is one whose opinions and rulings uphold the constitution as written or amended. That is their job, period.
A Supreme Court Justice may believe the Constitution is wrong, but however strongly they may believe that, if they make a ruling in conflict with the Constitution, that is a corruption known as “legislating from the bench” and that Justice is violating his oath to uphold the Constitution.
The remedy for that can be impeachment, but a more practical remedy is to elect a President and Senators who have promised to appoint non corrupt Justices, and exclude nominees who legislate from the bench.
The Constitution spells out the limitations of government authority, and therefore the Judicial Branch’s charge to uphold the Constitution is the last bastion against an over reaching and tyrannical government
Our highest priority as voters should be to elect Presidents and Senators who understand the importance of appointing Justices who will uphold the constitution - our liberty and right to self-govern depend on it!
We can’t simply say the law is whatever nine men say it is. The law is the constitution, and those nine men must respect that, or be replaced.
The whole purpose of the Constitution was to place limits on the power of the central government in order to ensure that we remain a self- governing people. To the extent that the government has exceeded those constitutional limits, the government is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the Judicial branch has failed its duty to hold the other two branches accountable.
All of the problems we have, including debt, stem from government excesses in violation of constitutional limits, which the Supreme Court should have deemed unconstitutional, but did not.
I notice you didn't mention spending.
Could that be because the spending is popular with his base?
What do you think the promise not to touch entitlements represents?
I share your frustration but also find it telling that you rely on the Constitution/strong man on a horse/Daddy model to restrain spending rather than the will of the electorate.
I don't think that's healthy in the long run.
“I notice you didn’t mention spending.”
Well, I did mention regulatory reform - which dramatically affects the spending side, and draining the swamp, which will have a profound impact on crony capital lobby based monopolies, subsidies and favoritism. And judicial reform is the key to limiting the size and scope of government to only roles enumerated in the constitution. If the constitutional limits on the size of government were enforced, the government would be something on the order of 1/20th the size it is. Don’t you agree that would have a profound effect on government spending?
But more to the point, if we can both agree that spending is the problem - whether funded by taxes or debt - then why do you care so much which it is?
Come again? I can maybe see savings for the regulated industries but government spending?
You might be able to cut a few bureaucrats but civilian federal payroll is an inconsequential part of a $4T budget.
If the constitutional limits on the size of government were enforced, the government would be something on the order of 1/20th the size it is.
And there would be a revolution and the U.S. would be no more. You can't believe that there would be support for a 95% reduction in government services, and without popular support the Constitution means nothing.
...if we can both agree that spending is the problem - whether funded by taxes or debt - then why do you care so much which it is?
One is sustainable, one isn't.
“One is sustainable, one isn’t.”
That’s simply not true. Neither method of funding the spending is sustainable when the spending itself is unsustainable - which it clearly is.
Tautology aside, I don't think they're equivalent methods.
Raising taxes to match the level of spending will force the voters to face a (painful) choice today. Pay more in taxes or accept a reduction in benefits.
Debt financing, which has been our history, let's us believe that we can spend whatever we want and have tax cuts, because the pain of too much debt is felt down the road.
Frankly, that's exactly what Trump and the Congress are doing. Surely you've seen the projections after the tax and spending bills?
You say Trump is working on a long term solution but I sure haven't seen any evidence of it.
“Surely you’ve seen the projections after the tax and spending bills?”
If you mean the “bipartisan” CBO projections, then - yes, I’ve seen them.
You seem like an intelligent guy, so I don’t need to remind you that when the “bipartisan” CBO scores a tax cut, the the first thing they do is pull a growth rate out of their ass. Then, based on that growth assumption, they project how many trillion $ deeper in debt we will be as a result of the idiotic tax cut.
Did I mention the CBO is “bipartisan”? /s
The deficit is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Until Congress shows a willingness to get spending under control, the deficit will go up regardless of revenue.
X NOT tired of WINNING
Politicians who don't want to make tough choices have been saying that for decades.
Of course you can have your tax cut buddy, and of course it won't cost you anything.
It will pay for itself with growth!!
The current federal debt is $21T.
The $21 T deficit is a result of out of control spending. The federal gubmint was collecting record revenue under Obama and yet the deficit increased each and every year. If revenue was the issue I would guess the deficit should have decreased, but it did not. When the Reagan and Bush tax cuts resulted in increased revenue coming into the treasury the spending increased faster than the revenue grew. Our deficit is a spending/budget discipline problem. Once it is shown that congress is capable of operating the gubmint with the revenue collected, things will get better. The past few years it has not even been close to doing so. The deficit will not improve until that happens regardless of the taxes we pay.
The same politicians who determine spending determine taxes.
There is a principle of balancing expenses and revenue. Why the bias towards more spending and less revenue?
Do you think it might be the fact that spending and tax cuts gets you re-elected and a focus on eating your broccoli doesn’t?
Tax cuts do not mean less revenue. The pattern for the last couple of tax cuts has been that revenues increase when taxes are cut. The increased revenue should be spent on paying the debt but that is never done. That is why the deficit keeps increasing.
Sure, because the economy continues to grow. The question is how much more would revenues have grown without the tax cut.
The problem is that expenses continue to grow because of the retirement of the baby boomers and overall growth of the population.
I'd love to believe that we could just cut taxes until all of our problems were solved, but I can't.
No, the question is why doesn’t Congress get a handle spending? We did not even have an income tax for a large portion of our history and the country was fine. You are free to send DC as much of your money as you wish. I am good with sending them as little as I can get away with.
This kind of BS is why I don’t want to send Uncle Sam anything I don’t have to. Maybe if the Congress could be bothered to get a handle on things like welfare things would be better.
Seriously?
Because the representatives who voted to cut benefits and services wouldn't be re-elected. No mystery.
I am good with sending them as little as I can get away with.
Good for you. As long as you don't want a military, Medicare and Social Security and can convince your fellow citizens to give those things up too, I applaud you.
Otherwise, you're whistling past the graveyard.
Like I said, There is absolutely nothing stopping you from sending as much as you want. Here is a link to help you with that.
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsfaq/faq_gifts_to_govt.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.