It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate passes tax reform bill

page: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: texasgirl

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Aazadan

Source?


The national debt was 18 trillion when Obama left office, it's now 21 trillion.



No, it wasn't. The national debt when Obama left office was $19.57 trillion. Fiscal Year 2017 was $20.244 trillion. That's not even $1 trillion increase. The national debt actually grew more slowly under Trump than it did under Obama.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

If you want to talk FYs, we can say that...

Carter increased the debt by 43% (4 years!)
Reagan increased the debt by 186%
Bush H.W. increased the debt by 54% (4 years!)
Clinton increased the debt by 32%
Bush W. increased the debt by 91%
Obama increased the debt by 81%.

Absolute numbers of course favor the debt raiser further down the line.




posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
All the changes have been being talked about all week. They were no surprise. Fail. You got lied to bro.

And let's not pretend any Democrats were gonna vote yea even if they re-read the entire bill. A few of them may vote yes on the reconciled bill, because they know their talking points are false and at that point if it's about to come law anyway it'll be politically beneficial to them to get on the record supporting a beneficial tax bill, even if it does prove them to be liars for opposing it now.


I know they weren't going to vote for it, I wanted to see the reform fail.


Yes I'm aware of that. You still got lied to. They all knew what the changes were. They purposefully misled you to think some phantom changes got snuck in that they were unaware of. That's a straight up lie. Don't be ok with being lied to as long as the lies suit your agenda.

Oh okay, so what does this change say:


You appear to have ignored my response to this on the previous page. Any thoughts on how you were misled by your elected representatives and the media?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

You made an erroneous statement about the debt $ when Obama left office and I corrected you.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Actually, the Dow never hit 19,000 until Trump was elected. It remained essentially flat for most of Obama's administration. Since the election, it has steadily climbed upward.

The stock market prices are an indication of business confidence in a bright future. It shows that under Trump, businesses think the future economy is bright.

TheRedneck

He wasn't in office yet so he didn't do # to impact it until he was.

It doesn't matter one whit whether it was after the election. It was down slightly to 17,888.28 the day after the election.

You are completely and utterly wrong that the DJIA was flat during Obama's terms.


That's actually not true. It's well-known the market factors future expectations in. Once Trump was elected and the initial plunge occurred because investors had to get out of things they thought would be smart moves in a Clinton administration, they made a bunch of moves in anticipation of Trump's agenda, especially given that Republicans controlled Congress too. You're wrong.

Just so we're clear, you're saying the DJIA is not reflective of actual policy, but rather of speculative accomplishments. This is what you are 'disagreeing' with, that by virtue of being elected - not anything related to actual policy - Trump had something to do with the DJIA rising from 17888 to 19,804.72.

You are engaging in wild speculation. This is how the stock market looked under Obama:


The numbers are all correct.
The fact that the DJIA rose during Obama's terms is without question.
The trend was a little flat from mid-2015 to mid-2016, then passed 18,000 before the 2016 election, though fell below after before recovering.


Just to be clear, I'm not saying the entire rise is due to him. But obviously his election had some impact on the market, unless the 800+ point plunge was Obama's fault. Once you acknowledge he can cause losses before he's president, you must admit he can cause gains. And again, it's well-known that the market does consider the future in what it's doing. Watch a few "after the bell" shows. No matter which network you watch them on, they will explain why the market did xyz that day. The explanations are always because of some news revelation about something that's going to happen in the future ie a merger, a split, a law change, etc. Liberal and conservative economists acknowledge this. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude some of the market gain between election day and inauguration day had to do with the fact that investors expected good things to happen in the future under Trump and the policies he promised to enact (tax changes, axing regulations, etc).

I realize that doesn't fit your preferred narrative but it's established fact about how the stock market works. It's high school economics.

I'm not acknowledging that the election impacted it.

It's not reasonable to assume that, unless you surrender the notion that economics is a pseudoscience.

Remember, the shopping season is right after the election. The DJIA closed at 19,152.14 on Black Friday 2016.


It absolutely is reasonable, since economists on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that the market usually goes up and down based on investor expectations of the future. It's taught in economics classes. You're wrong.

Oh okay, so you believe economists.

Economists such as the ones who say we should tax carbon to combat global warming. Laughable.

You know, one of my degrees dabbled pretty deeply in economics; it became apparent by even in the upper courses that their ideas were based on nonsense and wishful thinking, not just simplification for the lower courses. Their models depend on people being perfectly rational, and we have a plethora of examples both of that being wrong and economists failing repeatedly.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: texasgirl
a reply to: Greven

You made an erroneous statement about the debt $ when Obama left office and I corrected you.

I certainly didn't.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Actually, the Dow never hit 19,000 until Trump was elected. It remained essentially flat for most of Obama's administration. Since the election, it has steadily climbed upward.

The stock market prices are an indication of business confidence in a bright future. It shows that under Trump, businesses think the future economy is bright.

TheRedneck

He wasn't in office yet so he didn't do # to impact it until he was.

It doesn't matter one whit whether it was after the election. It was down slightly to 17,888.28 the day after the election.

You are completely and utterly wrong that the DJIA was flat during Obama's terms.


That's actually not true. It's well-known the market factors future expectations in. Once Trump was elected and the initial plunge occurred because investors had to get out of things they thought would be smart moves in a Clinton administration, they made a bunch of moves in anticipation of Trump's agenda, especially given that Republicans controlled Congress too. You're wrong.

Just so we're clear, you're saying the DJIA is not reflective of actual policy, but rather of speculative accomplishments. This is what you are 'disagreeing' with, that by virtue of being elected - not anything related to actual policy - Trump had something to do with the DJIA rising from 17888 to 19,804.72.

You are engaging in wild speculation. This is how the stock market looked under Obama:


The numbers are all correct.
The fact that the DJIA rose during Obama's terms is without question.
The trend was a little flat from mid-2015 to mid-2016, then passed 18,000 before the 2016 election, though fell below after before recovering.


Just to be clear, I'm not saying the entire rise is due to him. But obviously his election had some impact on the market, unless the 800+ point plunge was Obama's fault. Once you acknowledge he can cause losses before he's president, you must admit he can cause gains. And again, it's well-known that the market does consider the future in what it's doing. Watch a few "after the bell" shows. No matter which network you watch them on, they will explain why the market did xyz that day. The explanations are always because of some news revelation about something that's going to happen in the future ie a merger, a split, a law change, etc. Liberal and conservative economists acknowledge this. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude some of the market gain between election day and inauguration day had to do with the fact that investors expected good things to happen in the future under Trump and the policies he promised to enact (tax changes, axing regulations, etc).

I realize that doesn't fit your preferred narrative but it's established fact about how the stock market works. It's high school economics.

I'm not acknowledging that the election impacted it.

It's not reasonable to assume that, unless you surrender the notion that economics is a pseudoscience.

Remember, the shopping season is right after the election. The DJIA closed at 19,152.14 on Black Friday 2016.


It absolutely is reasonable, since economists on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that the market usually goes up and down based on investor expectations of the future. It's taught in economics classes. You're wrong.

Oh okay, so you believe economists.

Economists such as the ones who say we should tax carbon to combat global warming. Laughable.

You know, one of my degrees dabbled pretty deeply in economics; it became apparent by even in the upper courses that their ideas were based on nonsense and wishful thinking, not just simplification for the lower courses. Their models depend on people being perfectly rational, and we have a plethora of examples both of that being wrong and economists failing repeatedly.


If you have been formally educated on economics and you still don't understand that the market trends are based on what investors expect to happen in the future, you got ripped off by whatever school you attended. Let me ask you this. When you invest in something, are you not doing it because you expect it to do well in the future?

For sure economists have some wacky ideas, but the fact that investors invest based on future expectations is not one of them. You know it too, you're just so deep in this hole you've dug you can't admit you're wrong.
edit on 2 12 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: texasgirl
a reply to: Greven

You made an erroneous statement about the debt $ when Obama left office and I corrected you.

I certainly didn't.


You said the national debt was 18 trillion when Obama left office. Wrong. It was 19.5 trillion.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
All the changes have been being talked about all week. They were no surprise. Fail. You got lied to bro.

And let's not pretend any Democrats were gonna vote yea even if they re-read the entire bill. A few of them may vote yes on the reconciled bill, because they know their talking points are false and at that point if it's about to come law anyway it'll be politically beneficial to them to get on the record supporting a beneficial tax bill, even if it does prove them to be liars for opposing it now.


I know they weren't going to vote for it, I wanted to see the reform fail.


Yes I'm aware of that. You still got lied to. They all knew what the changes were. They purposefully misled you to think some phantom changes got snuck in that they were unaware of. That's a straight up lie. Don't be ok with being lied to as long as the lies suit your agenda.

Oh okay, so what does this change say:


You appear to have ignored my response to this on the previous page. Any thoughts on how you were misled by your elected representatives and the media?

Oh, do I need to respond to every post in the thread now? A good guess as to what that said.

The cut off words came from the Republicans' photocopying. The bill originated with them. That wasn't the only change, but one of many. Media had nothing to do with this at all - that image was taken from a Senator.

Also, my representatives are Republicans, so I would say they did indeed mislead.
They rushed the changes so quickly that they had to photocopy handwritten changes rather than type them up.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


ya, until you have another heart attack. I guess you can save your huge tax break just in case, so the rest of us don't have to pay for it..

and, I sure as hell hope your mom doesn't lose hers..



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: texasgirl

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: texasgirl
a reply to: Greven

You made an erroneous statement about the debt $ when Obama left office and I corrected you.

I certainly didn't.


You said the national debt was 18 trillion when Obama left office. Wrong. It was 19.5 trillion.

I most certainly did not.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: texasgirl

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: texasgirl
a reply to: Greven

You made an erroneous statement about the debt $ when Obama left office and I corrected you.

I certainly didn't.


You said the national debt was 18 trillion when Obama left office. Wrong. It was 19.5 trillion.

I most certainly did not.


You're right. I thought you were Azadan. My apologies!



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Might make for some interesting end of quarter window dressing/income deferral in the markets.

The capital gains tax has not changed for individuals, same maximum rates on net capital gain and qualified dividends, retaining the existing breakpoints between the 0%, 15%, and 20% breakpoints.

Obviously there are large corporate entities that might defer trading income till it was taxed at 25%.

Obama couldn't even buy a house without needing a mortgage modification (big sucking void in 2008 on the DJIA graph was from failed mortgage backed securities).



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785
All the changes have been being talked about all week. They were no surprise. Fail. You got lied to bro.

And let's not pretend any Democrats were gonna vote yea even if they re-read the entire bill. A few of them may vote yes on the reconciled bill, because they know their talking points are false and at that point if it's about to come law anyway it'll be politically beneficial to them to get on the record supporting a beneficial tax bill, even if it does prove them to be liars for opposing it now.


I know they weren't going to vote for it, I wanted to see the reform fail.


Yes I'm aware of that. You still got lied to. They all knew what the changes were. They purposefully misled you to think some phantom changes got snuck in that they were unaware of. That's a straight up lie. Don't be ok with being lied to as long as the lies suit your agenda.

Oh okay, so what does this change say:


You appear to have ignored my response to this on the previous page. Any thoughts on how you were misled by your elected representatives and the media?

Oh, do I need to respond to every post in the thread now? A good guess as to what that said.

The cut off words came from the Republicans' photocopying. The bill originated with them. That wasn't the only change, but one of many. Media had nothing to do with this at all - that image was taken from a Senator.

Also, my representatives are Republicans, so I would say they did indeed mislead.
They rushed the changes so quickly that they had to photocopy handwritten changes rather than type them up.


The media spread the false idea that some changes no one knew about were snuck in. That myth was invented by elected officials and passed on by the media to suckers like you. If your reps aren't Democrats, then it wasn't your elected officials that willfully lied to you. Regardless, the officials you chose to believe willfully misled you. I've demonstrated how you were misled. With my limited legal experience, none of which dealt with tax law, I was able to readily decipher that text. Anyone with marginal experience in tax language would have an even easier time. No one was scrambling to figure out what the changes were. That's a lie. It's a lie you fell for. The truth has now been explained to you in very simple terms. Do you embrace the truth or not?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
The average American is already benefiting from the new tax bill. At least those that have access to a 401k or similar retirement-type account (which according to google accounts for 70%+ of the working population).

Stock markets well up over the last few months -- baking in the passage of the tax bill.

Only those who have not been investing in themselves are losing out here.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


And what do we think of people who come to the US and don't speak the language? Their careers go nowhere and they have hard lives. If I'm going to immigrate somewhere I'm sure as hell not looking to be on par with an illegal immigrant.

We offer free education in English, government subsidies for the poor, in-state tuition, and special government programs that let them get small business loans where an ordinary American wouldn't stand a chance in Hades.

If they go nowhere with all that, it's their fault.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Deficit is not a big problem. The US arms bad people all over the world to fight Russia. The US is bound to have deficits. The US has more debt than its own GDP. No one makes a big deal out of it.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven


He wasn't in office yet so he didn't do # to impact it until he was.

It doesn't matter one whit whether it was after the election. It was down slightly to 17,888.28 the day after the election.

The Dow reflects FUTURE expectations. Those are only partially based on past performance.

The stock market is an investment vehicle. Stocks are traded to produce money in the future, typically within 1-5 years. Some retiree accounts may have longer goals, but they are still monitored for performance within that time frame.


You are completely and utterly wrong that the DJIA was flat during Obama's terms. Here's noted "left wing" Forbes:
Inside The Obama Stock Market's 235% Return - Forbes

Of course the market wasn't flat immediately following the crash. It was up 235% from an artificial floor. You (and they) are cherry-picking the lowest possible point to reference from.

Once it recovered to the 17,000-18,000 level, it remained essentially flat.

I'm sorry; since you brought up the stock market, I simply assumed you knew what it was and something about how it worked. My bad.


You are so wrong here that you are living in an alternate reality.

I suppose it seems that way to you.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: FatSoldier
Deficit is not a big problem. The US arms bad people all over the world to fight Russia. The US is bound to have deficits. The US has more debt than its own GDP. No one makes a big deal out of it.


Our deficit and debt is mostly driven by entitlement programs, not military spending. Please get informed. And no one makes a big deal out of it yet. There will come a point where we can't sustain this. Bad habits don't usually kill you instantly. That doesn't make them good habits. Over the long haul is where it impacts you.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


do you have stocks?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: eXia7
So... does that mean the government plans to cut wasteful spending?

I doubt it.


Haven't you been keeping up? This administration has already found gazillions of waste, fraud, and abuse, and lots of redundancy.

This administration is very focused on finding waste and redundancy.


Yeah we'll see.

It will be hard to convince me of anything considering I'm a traditional "conspiracy theorist", as in I don't believe in either side, and see the entire system as a sham.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join