Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

[Jack V Savage]

Are you actually implying that campaign contributions/kickbacks/etc dont strongly influence, and in many cases outright decide, the stance a politician will publically take on an issue.

Pretty much (could be exceptions for under-the-radar issues), yes. Not implying--stating.

 

[ChainFlow]

Pretty much (could be exceptions for under-the-radar issues), yes. Not implying--stating.

How do you reconcile that with, among other things, the recently publicized quote with the Republican Congressman stating that he was for the tax cuts because his donors told him to not call them ever again if he didn't pass them?

 

[theBLADE1]

Campaign donations are made to help elect people you agree with; they don't change legislators' minds.

Look how many politicians take money from the NRA. Are you gonna tell me that that doesn't change a politicians mind on gun laws a little bit? If not then your dope.

OK, so do you want to bet on how many Democrats will vote for the Trump tax proposal? I'll say zero, and you say what?

Definitely more than one.

 

[kpt018]

Cohn also admitted that CEO's are the most excited about the tax plan.

I mean, duh, but that gaffe that is extremely telling.

There is zero doubt the GOP is only interested in distributing wealth upwards.

 

[kpt018]

Definitely more than one.

You're really going out on a limb there.

 

[Jack V Savage]

How do you reconcile that with, among other things, the recently publicized quote with the Republican Congressman stating that he was for the tax cuts because his donors told him to not call them ever again if he didn't pass them?

That's not *why* he's for the cuts; it's just about persuasion. The primary motivation of the GOP as an institution (separate from voters) is to cut taxes for rich people. If they can't even get that done when they control all three branches of gov't, what's the point? I think that's the message there. "Do this or our existence is threatened."

Look how many politicians take money from the NRA. Are you gonna tell me that that doesn't change a politicians mind on gun laws a little bit? If not then your dope.

It doesn't. The NRA supports right-wing politicians--they don't try to change left-wing politicians' minds with donations. And their influence comes from representing a passionate voting bloc.

Definitely more than one.

Senators? Let's say one-month sig bet?

 

[gspieler]

Pretty much (could be exceptions for under-the-radar issues), yes. Not implying--stating.

I disagree. Special interest groups/lobbies/etc donate large sums of money to campaigns, with the expectation that that candidate will vote in their interest, and generally advocate causes they support. It's pretty intuitive, actually. The money in Washington acts as a barrier to change.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

If so, why the fuck would you think that? They want the tax cuts because their donors want them. They are only puppets for the people who finance them.

And BTW I'm just as tough on Democrats for this shit as well. If you actually want politicians to do something that benefits you you have to get money out of politics. Anyone who thinks these politicians aren't beholden to their corporate donors are choosing to stay willfully ignorant on how our political system works and how little age of these politicians actually give a damn about you.

Money OUT of politics now!

If money was out of politics and therefore politicians had to primarily be self-funded...wouldnt only rich people be able to run a successul campaign?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I disagree. Special interest groups/lobbies/etc donate large sums of money to campaigns, with the expectation that that candidate will vote in their interest, and generally advocate causes they support. ItIt's pretty intuitive, actually.

They donate large sums of money to campaigns to support candidates who agree with them; not to candidates they don't agree with in an effort to change their minds. Again, see the point that @theBLADE1 is ducking. If getting a legislator's vote were a simple matter of donating to his campaign, there would be no issue at all. Whichever party wins would just pass deregulation and regressive tax cuts. That's not what happens in reality, though, which should be a major tip-off that the theory has serious problems.

 

[Iceberg Slim]

I disagree. Special interest groups/lobbies/etc donate large sums of money to campaigns, with the expectation that that candidate will vote in their interest, and generally advocate causes they support. ItIt's pretty intuitive, actually.

He's not wrong that they spend the money with the politicians that already lean their way. The problem is, those politicians are not really free to change their mind afterwards. Legally they are but they'll lose the funding as well as trust. Future contributors will be less likely to fund them knowing they've changed up after the fact.

 

[MeatheadMike]

Regardless of who the tax cuts benefit you can't deny that the moral thing to do is to cut taxes for the upper class. Right now the upper class pays a disproportionate amount of taxes and suffer extreme tax inequality. It doesn't matter if they can afford it or not. When the top 20% pays 93% of taxes something is terribly wrong.

What was your other account?

 

[gspieler]

They donate large sums of money to campaigns to support candidates who agree with them; not to candidates they don't agree with in an effort to change their minds. Again, see the point that @theBLADE1 is ducking. If getting a legislator's vote were a simple matter of donating to his campaign, there would be no issue at all. Whichever party wins would just pass deregulation and regressive tax cuts. That's not what happens in reality, though, which should be a major tip-off that the theory has serious problems.

However you want protray the cause-and-effect is fine. The point is campaign contributions win elections(generalizing here), and the politicians who act in the best interest of the contributors, are the beneficiaries of those contributions.

However you want to phrase to give it the desired connotation...money buys elections, which ultimately dictates legislation.

 

[Orgasmo]

Regardless of who the tax cuts benefit you can't deny that the moral thing to do is to cut taxes for the upper class. Right now the upper class pays a disproportionate amount of taxes and suffer extreme tax inequality. It doesn't matter if they can afford it or not. When the top 20% pays 93% of taxes something is terribly wrong.

There is nothing wrong with top 20% paying most of the taxes if they have most of the wealth. A guy paying 40% tax on his $200K income would not feel the same impact as a guy paying 10% tax on his $40k income. It'd be immoral to gouge the middle class and the poor by shifting tax burden to them when the rich are increasingly getting a larger share of the wealth pie.

 

[Makani]

They donate large sums of money to campaigns to support candidates who agree with them; not to candidates they don't agree with in an effort to change their minds. Again, see the point that @theBLADE1 is ducking. If getting a legislator's vote were a simple matter of donating to his campaign, there would be no issue at all. Whichever party wins would just pass deregulation and regressive tax cuts. That's not what happens in reality, though, which should be a major tip-off that the theory has serious problems.

But there are many issues that politicians don't really have an opinion on, most likely. Some 64-year old schmuck from Montana might not have the most enlightened or entrenched opinion on net-neutrality, but then Comcast throws a couple hundred thousand in the coffer and suddenly he sees the merit of their position. I'm not saying it's always that way, but your position is a little extreme in my opinion.

Senate GOP are scrambling for purchase right now, but I'l agree that this bill gets no Democratic support.

 

[theBLADE1]

They donate large sums of money to campaigns to support candidates who agree with them; not to candidates they don't agree with in an effort to change their minds. Again, see the point that @theBLADE1 is ducking.

Nobody is ducking shit. You live in a fantasy world where politicians who are dependent on these donors don't change their minds to get that money. Everyone can clearly see how flawed your point of view is. There is even proof of it with your favorite Democrat.

Senators? Let's say one-month sig bet?

Deal. If even 1 Democrat votes in favor of Trumps tax cuts then I win.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/04/trump-gop-tax-bill-democrats-244529

Democrats helped crush the GOP’s Obamacare repeal push by maintaining total unity and generating broad public outrage. It’s a powerful formula that fractured Republicans — but one that will be harder to replicate against the GOP tax bill.

Already a handful of vulnerable Democrats in the House and Senate say they remain open to whatever tax legislation is ultimately produced. And while progressive groups and lawmakers are deploying plans to rev up the base, it’s not clear taxes will energize people outside the Beltway as the more visceral topic of health care does.

 

[Jack V Savage]

However you want protray the cause-and-effect is fine. The point is campaign contributions win elections(generalizing here), and the politicians who act in the best interest of the contributors, are the beneficiaries of those contributions.

However you want to phrase to give it the desired connotation...money buys elections, which ultimately dictates legislation.

Campaign contributions don't really decide elections beyond a certain minimum level, though, particularly if an incumbent is running.

Look, I agree that policy in general is tilted toward the interests of the rich. I don't see campaign contributions being a part of that. For one thing, almost everyone who seriously runs for office is rich themselves, and mostly or exclusively only knows other rich or at least upper-middle people in an intimate way. And then, yeah, big donors are going to get their calls taken, but what happens after those calls begin is what's really important. Think of how your own views are shaped.

No offense, but this ties to discussions I've had with @IngaVovchanchyn and @Cajun. People who really study what active steps people can take to make winning elections more likely are pretty much stumped. William Goldman's summary of the entertainment industry ("nobody knows anything") applies to the political one, too. Studies that attempt to answer whether this technique or that one actually works almost always show being "no, or the effect is too small to be identified." But regular people are really convinced that they know what works (generally--do what I like, and you'll win elections). I think it's really an issue where the more you know, the more humble you are.

 

[HatchetHarry]

There is nothing wrong with top 20% paying most of the taxes if they have most of the wealth. A guy paying 40% tax on his $200K income would not feel the same impact as a guy paying 10% tax on his $40k income. It'd be immoral to gouge the middle class and the poor by shifting tax burden to them when the rich are increasingly getting a larger share of the wealth pie.

It doesn't matter if they feel the same "impact". Making one group of people pay more while they benefit the same is morally repugnant. There is no wealth pie. Wealth is earned based on hard work and intelligence. Anyone can accumulate wealth however keeping it is getting harder as the upper class continue to get screwed in order to spoon feed the lazy lower class.

 

[theBLADE1]

You're really going out on a limb there.

Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana are considered gettable for Republicans. But all I need is 1 to beat Jack.

BTW I'm hope I'm wrong. I want Democrats to have a spine but anyone with half a brain knows that don't. There are too many centrist/corporate/opportunist Democrats holding office as it is which is a problem with the party overall.

Do you have anything more to add?

 

[AFCrookie]

Good thing Donald promised to fix all that....

 

[Jack V Savage]

But there are many issues that politicians don't really have an opinion on, most likely. Some 64-year old schmuck from Montana might not have the most enlightened or entrenched opinion on net-neutrality, but then Comcast throws a couple hundred thousand in the coffer and suddenly he sees the merit of their position. I'm not saying it's always that way, but your position is a little extreme in my opinion.

See above. That is my position:

"Are you actually implying that campaign contributions/kickbacks/etc dont strongly influence, and in many cases outright decide, the stance a politician will publically take on an issue."

"Pretty much (could be exceptions for under-the-radar issues), yes."

Deal. If even 1 Democrat votes in favor of Trumps tax cuts then I win.

To be clear, we're talking about the Senate.

@Lead, looks like we have a bet.