Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Karl Henning]

Mitch apparently has the votes to pass a tax bill we haven't seen yet (but which probably is going to raise our taxes in order to finance a corporate tax cut and the creation of numerous loopholes for large businesses). I guess this is just how legislation works now.

It is a bizarrely weak wobble, for the party which is In Power.  They're determined "to pass something," because not to, will be failure!  Apparently oblivious to the fact that rushing through a dog's breakfast of a "tax reform" bill is a steaming bucket of failure in its own right.

[Karl Henning]

The Dow surpassed 24K in anticipation of this tax bill, "U.S. stocks have been rising all year, helped by hopes that Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress would pass business-friendly measures to free up more growth and investment in an economy already growing solidly." 

What about your tax burden?

[Karl Henning]

I would be surprised if this bill changes our taxes much and don't buy the line that this bill only benefits "the rich". 

I know you are highly credulous of what the President says; do you buy his line that this bill hurts him "a lot"?

[Todd]

I'll say, impeachment and petulant resignation (probably via a tweet).  When it reaches the impeachment stage, his lack of spine will show.

Why would Republicans impeach him?

[Karl Henning]

I don't pay attention to anything he says.

Thank you for conceding that he's a con man.  On this thread, that is a frank, manly confession.

I'm adding a tickler to my calendar.  In February 2019, I'll share with you the change in our taxes, and you can tell me again the line you didn't buy this year.  Hey, it may be an opportunity to tell you that you were right.

[Karl Henning]

Why would Republicans impeach him?

Ah, right, of course.  You caught me lazily with your own suggestion of impeachment.  There:  you tricked me.

[Todd]

Ah, right, of course.  You caught me lazily with your own suggestion of impeachment.  There:  you tricked me.

You were the one who boldly stated that Trump has five months left.  I am simply trying to understand the series of events that might lead to him leaving office with such haste.  If impeachment/removal or impeachment/resignation are off the table, then what might cause such a swift demise?  Surely you don't think the 25th Amendment solution will be successfully utilized in that timeline.  True, one of AmPo's scribblers started back in on that within the last few days (it was Cohen, I think), but that seems extremely unlikely.  I know, maybe the pressure and stress just gets to be too much, and Trump resigns - just because.

[SimonNZ]

I was about to reply to San Antonio's saying that he's going to delete his posts here "once they've outlived their usefulness", but I see that one has been deleted already. As are all the ones from the last few hours that Karl is responding to on this page.

[Turbot nouveaux]

Why would Republicans impeach him?

As a 'foreigner' it surprises me that more Republicans aren't worried by your President's egregious disregard of your constitution and the rule of law, not to say his lack of ordinary decency. From abroad, the question seems to be more, 'why don't they impeach him'?

[Mahlerian]

As a 'foreigner' it surprises me that more Republicans aren't worried by your President's egregious disregard of your constitution and the rule of law, not to say his lack of ordinary decency. From abroad, the question seems to be more, 'why don't they impeach him'?

They see him as a useful idiot.  They'll ditch him the second they feel he's no longer of any utility in getting their agenda through.

[Todd]

'why don't they impeach him'?

Because he's popular with a portion of the Republican base.  Republicans in districts and states that Trump won by large margins have to be careful not to alienate his base, because if they do, they could and will face primary challenges from farther right Republicans.  The Senate race in Alabama illustrates this to an extent, though it also has state-specific attributes.

[amw]

This isn't new.  Surely you've read about the New Deal, and maybe you remember Nancy Pelosi proclaiming that the ACA needed to be passed to find out what's in it.

Nancy is a capitalist extraordinaire, but I think the final text of the ACA was available for at least a couple of weeks (although back then Republicans kvetched about it being not enough time for such a complex bill). This time it seems like quite a few senators themselves haven't read the bill and don't know what amendments are in it. And yet only confirmed Republican no vote is Corker (because deficits I guess).

So anyway your taxes are going up if you itemize deductions, claim multiple exemptions, have a student loan, are a teacher, or whatever. Your insurance premiums are also probably going up. Your taxes are going down if you're a wealthy heir or a pass-through business. A+ tax plan Republicans (how do Rs screw up giving everyone a tax cut?? even Bush 43 could manage that)

Also somewhat entertaining is that the reason they've arbitrarily decided it needs to be rushed through is in case the new senator from Alabama, who will be elected in 3 weeks, is against it due to him being either a crazy child molester or a Democrat.

[drogulus]

     Stocks Plummet Upon Reports Flynn Will Testify Against Trump

     No! I didn't mean it, not my stocks!

     White House Tries to Distance Itself From 'Ex-Obama Official' Flynn

     That may be the most Sarah Huckabee Sanders thing I've ever read. You can actually hear her, can't you?

[Todd]

Nancy is a capitalist extraordinaire, but I think the final text of the ACA was available for at least a couple of weeks (although back then Republicans kvetched about it being not enough time for such a complex bill).

That's why I also included the New Deal, which had multiple pieces of legislation passed without most members of Congress reading any of them.  From what I gather, most members of Congress rarely sit down and read lengthy bills in their entirety themselves; that's what staff is for.  In any event, complaints like this are generally hollow posturing.

I will be interested to see what happens to my federal taxes.  I itemize since I live in a state with high property taxes and high income taxes.  However, unlike many Americans, I never bought into the idea that I should buy as much house as I could afford, and instead went with the least house I would accept, so my housing deductions remain intact.  (And even so, the gentrifying impulses of the political left where I live have pushed my home value to absurd levels, which is of course good for me when I sell.)  I may end up benefitting from the higher standard deduction.  I suspect the net effect will be immaterial either way, which is usually the case.  The more important thing here is that Dems lose.

     Stocks Plummet Upon Reports Flynn Will Testify Against Trump

The Dow closed down 40 points, or 0.17%.  Sensationalist political outlets are not the best source of headlines for economic news.

[BasilValentine]

Jeff Sessions' refusal to answer the question put to him by the House Intelligence Committee: Did Trump ask you to do anything to hinder the Russian investigation?, suggests two things: Trump did ask. Sessions needs to be subpoenaed, asked the question again, and jailed for contempt if he refuses to answer.

[SimonNZ]

Will this new tax plan allow Robert Mercer to keep his seven billion in unpaid back taxes?

[Todd]

DCCC calls for [first term] Nevada congressman [Ruben Kihuen] to resign amid harassment allegations

I do like this "zero tolerance" policy Dems are adopting.  Such policies very rarely cause unintended consequences. 

[kishnevi]

On the other side of the aisle
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/01/blake-farenthold-taxpayer-funds-sexual-harassment-274458

[amw]

I will be interested to see what happens to my federal taxes.  I itemize since I live in a state with high property taxes and high income taxes.  However, unlike many Americans, I never bought into the idea that I should buy as much house as I could afford, and instead went with the least house I would accept, so my housing deductions remain intact.  (And even so, the gentrifying impulses of the political left where I live have pushed my home value to absurd levels, which is of course good for me when I sell.)  I may end up benefitting from the higher standard deduction.  I suspect the net effect will be immaterial either way, which is usually the case.  The more important thing here is that Dems lose.

The mortgage deduction may well change in conference, since the Senate and the House had different ideas of what it should be. I think (but we haven't seen a final version of the bill yet) that you're likely to pay more in taxes immediately if you make about $80k to about $200k, less taxes immediately but more in the long term if you make below $80k, and less taxes period if you make over $200k. In the long term this is likely to be a tax increase on 60-80% of households, which is actually..... fine...... I mean this is a good time to raise taxes due to the economic growth, if you subscribe to a non-Austrian school of economics anyway. It's obviously a bad time to lower taxes on corporations & the rich, but I guess the next Democratic president will just raise taxes on them again in order to pass Medicare for All through budget reconciliation, and Majority Leader Amy Klobuchar will probably get rid of the legislative filibuster or something, so, w/e.

Anyway, it got through the Senate 51-49 (Corker was the only Republican no vote) and next stop is conference. Wonder how many House members representing wealthy suburbs in New York, New Jersey and California are going to vote for a bill that removes all the protections they tried to give their constituents. That'll be fun.

[amw]

Also worth noting that a lot of key senators/White House people were won over with the traditional targeted kickbacks, but.... because reconciliation.... a lot of these may be ruled by the parliamentarian to be not directly impacting the budget and therefore struck out: keep an eye on the carve-out for Betsy DeVos's conservative university in Michigan, or the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge oil drilling for Lisa Murkowski, or the healthcare stabilisation measures requested by Susan Collins, etc. Ending earmarks may not have been the best move where it comes to coalition building.