More than 400 millionaires tell Congress: Don’t cut our taxes

[jayjayj 571]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I don't think it's foolish to believe that our national debt has never gone down and can never go down again in the future. I'm not saying it's impossible. Something can be possible but still foolish. It is possible to survive jumping out of a plane without a parachute. It would still be foolish to do so.

 

I think it is foolish to believe that in the next 3 years it will (Or 7). I'm not talking about historical examples, I'm talking about right now. I don't see Trump accomplishing enough to do that. Especially when you consider the promises he claims he will be keeping (the wall as a major example of massive spending).

 

Yes he could do it but it would require not seeing major campaign promises through, and it would require a lot more legislative work to be done. Republicans have an even slimmer majority in the Senate now, and the past year has shown that the Republican party doesn't have the "party unity" required to move things along quickly. 

You weren't being anywhere near specific enough then.  I agree, it would have been very foolish of you to assert that it would be impossible for the national debt to go down in the future.  

 

Many of his campaign promises involve cutting spending.  Are you discounting those completely?  I agree that the Republicans don't have the unity right now to move things along quickly.  If the Republican party fails implement his promises that involve additional spending, then there will be less spending.  

[jayjayj 571]

18 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't think it's foolish to believe that our national debt has never gone down and can never go down again in the future. I'm not saying it's impossible. Something can be possible but still foolish. It is possible to survive jumping out of a plane without a parachute. It would still be foolish to do so.

 

I think it is foolish to believe that in the next 3 years it will (Or 7). I'm not talking about historical examples, I'm talking about right now. I don't see Trump accomplishing enough to do that. Especially when you consider the promises he claims he will be keeping (the wall as a major example of massive spending).

 

Yes he could do it but it would require not seeing major campaign promises through, and it would require a lot more legislative work to be done. Republicans have an even slimmer majority in the Senate now, and the past year has shown that the Republican party doesn't have the "party unity" required to move things along quickly. 

 

They have the same majority number now as they had when the new tax cut bill was passed a couple weeks ago.  

Edited December 13, 2017 by jayjayj

[bcking 3,157]

17 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

You weren't being anywhere near specific enough then.  I agree, it would have been very foolish of you to assert that it would be impossible for the national debt to go down in the future.  

 

Many of his campaign promises involve cutting spending.  Are you discounting those completely?  I agree that the Republicans don't have the unity right now to move things along quickly.  If the Republican party fails implement his promises that involve additional spending, then there will be less spending.  

Apologies then. Yes I never meant to suggest that is foolish to think that we will NEVER make our national debt go down. I was trying to be specific to our current scenario.

 

9 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

 

They have the same majority number now as they had when the new tax cut bill was passed a couple weeks ago.  

Do you mean the passed the bill with these numbers? They didn't have the same majority in the Senate, they had a 52-48 majority at the time. Their VOTE though was 51-49.

 

If the vote was held with the tally of 51-49, they would have had 50 vote for it (Corker still would have voted no), because I think we can all assume Doug Jones wouldn't have. Of course if it was 50-50 it still would have passed, because Pence would have broken the tie. But still you can't deny that creeping closer to 50-50 makes it harder for them to pass legislation.

Edited December 13, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,493]

11 minutes ago, bcking said:

Apologies then. Yes I never meant to suggest that is foolish to think that we will NEVER make our national debt go down. I was trying to be specific to our current scenario.

 

Do you mean the passed the bill with these numbers? They didn't have the same majority in the Senate, they had a 52-48 majority at the time. Their VOTE though was 51-49.

 

If the vote was held with the tally of 51-49, they would have had 50 vote for it (Corker still would have voted no), because I think we can all assume Doug Jones wouldn't have. Of course if it was 50-50 it still would have passed, because Pence would have broken the tie. But still you can't deny that creeping closer to 50-50 makes it harder for them to pass legislation.

By the way, I don't think the number actually changes until Jan. 3, 2018.

[jayjayj 571]

 

 

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

Apologies then. Yes I never meant to suggest that is foolish to think that we will NEVER make our national debt go down. I was trying to be specific to our current scenario.

 

Do you mean the passed the bill with these numbers? They didn't have the same majority in the Senate, they had a 52-48 majority at the time. Their VOTE though was 51-49.

 

If the vote was held with the tally of 51-49, they would have had 50 vote for it (Corker still would have voted no), because I think we can all assume Doug Jones wouldn't have. Of course if it was 50-50 it still would have passed, because Pence would have broken the tie. But still you can't deny that creeping closer to 50-50 makes it harder for them to pass legislation.

I don't know when Doug Jones will be seated, but as of today, the majority number is still the same.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

By the way, I don't think the number actually changes until Jan. 3, 2018.

Ya I realize that, that's why I didn't say "if the vote was held today". Obviously they still have the same numbers today. Of course the majority is the same today, and tomorrow etc... I didn't know the exact date, but I figured it was probably January.

 

If the vote was held with a 51-49 split it likely still would have passed, but would probably have required a tie breaking vote. Trying healthcare reform again will only get more difficult at this point. Not sure what is next on their agenda but if we assume that it will be a party-line issue, it will continue to be difficult because the Republicans aren't very unified right now.

[jayjayj 571]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Ya I realize that, that's why I didn't say "if the vote was held today". Obviously they still have the same numbers today. Of course the majority is the same today, and tomorrow etc... I didn't know the exact date, but I figured it was probably January.

 

If the vote was held with a 51-49 split it likely still would have passed, but would probably have required a tie breaking vote. Trying healthcare reform again will only get more difficult at this point. Not sure what is next on their agenda but if we assume that it will be a party-line issue, it will continue to be difficult because the Republicans aren't very unified right now.

I'd like to see education reform come up next.  Everyone should be able to get behind that issue.  Well, except the teacher's unions of course.  

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

I'd like to see education reform come up next.  Everyone should be able to get behind that issue.  Well, except the teacher's unions of course.  

I agree everyone should hopefully agree that it's an issue, though I imagine people will still disagree strongly about how to fix the problem. 

 

At this point I honestly can't think of a solution that will gain universal support (for any issue, not just Education). There is plenty of support for identifying problems, but identifying problems doesn't require passing legislation. The solution does.

[jayjayj 571]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

Ya I realize that, that's why I didn't say "if the vote was held today". Obviously they still have the same numbers today. Of course the majority is the same today, and tomorrow etc... I didn't know the exact date, but I figured it was probably January.

 

If the vote was held with a 51-49 split it likely still would have passed, but would probably have required a tie breaking vote. Trying healthcare reform again will only get more difficult at this point. Not sure what is next on their agenda but if we assume that it will be a party-line issue, it will continue to be difficult because the Republicans aren't very unified right now.

Just for clarity though, you did say "Republicans have an even slimmer majority in the Senate now."  That is an inaccurate statement without the caveats from your subsequent posts.  

[jayjayj 571]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

I agree everyone should hopefully agree that it's an issue, though I imagine people will still disagree strongly about how to fix the problem. 

 

At this point I honestly can't think of a solution that will gain universal support (for any issue, not just Education). There is plenty of support for identifying problems, but identifying problems doesn't require passing legislation. The solution does.

Have you seen the documentary Waiting for Superman?

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Just for clarity though, you did say "Republicans have an even slimmer majority in the Senate now."  That is an inaccurate statement without the caveats from your subsequent posts.  

That's true, I didn't realize I said that despite even you bolding it. My fault.

 

I should have said "Republicans will have an even slimmer majority in the Senate". In my head I was thinking that as far as I've read there will not be a recount, so the question or whether or not Doug Jones will be seated is pretty much resolved and it is a foregone conclusion. But you're right it isn't actually happening now. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Have you seen the documentary Waiting for Superman?

I've heard about it, but I haven't seen it yet. I know some details about it but I won't claim to be able to discuss it because all of the details I know are second hand. From what I've heard it sits somewhere in the "public school vs. charter school" debate.

[jayjayj 571]

Just now, bcking said:

I've heard about it, but I haven't seen it yet. I know some details about it but I won't claim to be able to discuss it because all of the details I know are second hand. From what I've heard it sits somewhere in the "public school vs. charter school" debate.

It is mainly about that debate, but there are other subtopics about the education system that are alarming. 

 

This pertains to the thread topic, because eliminating the U.S. Department of Education would decrease spending.      

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

It is mainly about that debate, but there are other subtopics about the education system that are alarming. 

 

This pertains to the thread topic, because eliminating the U.S. Department of Education would decrease spending.      

Well I would imagine that if we eliminated the DoE we would probably redistribute SOME of the spending (likely not all) to other places. Even if just to support State's taking on the responsibility. 

 

My issue with the charter school topic is that most people focus on the "top charter schools" and then tend to compare them to all public schools. If you are selecting the "best ones", it would only be fair to compare them to the "best" public schools. I don't know how they would compare. They also have issues involved in scale (They account for something like 5% or so? What works for 5% may not work for 100%). I've also heard that they have a slightly easier time "fudging" their numbers because they have less restrictions on how they can "force" (or strongly suggest) certain students to  leave.

 

As I said before though most of this is me hearing from others. I admit I'm not that well...educated...on the education reform topic (pun intended :)).