Ryan/Trump had a very specific reason for wanting to do healthcare first:
“But there’s a reason the GOP was pushing a bill that would have taken everything people don’t like about the health-care system and made it worse. That’s the fact that it would have allowed them to pass two permanent tax cuts for the rich. Anyone, you see, can pass a tax cut that expires after 10 years. But if you want to make it last — and you don’t have 60 votes in the Senate — then you need to find a way to pay for it (or at least look like you did). Taking health insurance away from poor and sick people would have done just that for the Obamacare taxes, which primarily hit people in the top 1 or 2 percent.”
[…]
"Now, the crazy thing is that this first tax cut for the rich (in the form of Obamacare “repeal and replace”) would have made a second one (this one coming in the form of “tax reform”) look more affordable.
That’s because, due to parliamentary rules, tax revisions can’t lose any revenue outside the 10-year budget window if it’s going to be permanent. The question, though, is lose revenue compared towhat. If Republicans had repealed the Affordable Care Act’s $1 trillion worth of taxes before they revised taxes, that’s $1 trillion less they’d have to come up with to make it look like money wasn’t being lost. Now, without those phantom savings, tax restructuring, Speaker of the House Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) admitted, will be “more difficult.”
Edit: And I would point out that you can pass large tax cuts, or you can reduce the deficit/debt, but you can’t do both simultaneously.
Unless they dramatically cut spending. And I think it’s reasonable to assume that Government is too big and does to much. So…start cutting!
Edit: I also think that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. Yes…I know you don’t agree. You think that the more money government has and the less that job creators have is best for the country.
I would be more impressed if it was a 2 or 3 person field the whole way. I really don’t think the field was poor–17 is just too many people to have any policy driven talk. The field is so crowded it thrives on 2 second sound bytes and bombast, and Trump has those in spades. A 2 or 3 person contest requires people to actually speak on policy to a greater degree.
OK. So there’s SS, Medicare, Medicaid and the defense budget. Which one(s) will be slashed enough to meaningfully impact the deficit/debt? Because no matter how satisfying it might feel, you can’t get there just by strangling Big Bird.
Basing radical reshaping of economic policy on a hunch is not what I would call a rational thing to do.
The non-Trump Republicans took turns on eachother instead of taking out Trump early. Jeb turned on Rubio, then Christy finished off little Marco. Cruz sold out Kasich with that “strategic vote” nonsense.
That’s funny stuff. But what isn’t so funny is 45 million people on food stamps. And something like 90 million people no longer counted as unemployed because they’ve given up. Obama’s way didn’t really work–you want more of it? Of course you do he was cool he was on Jon Stewart (yawn). There are ways beyond making the welfare queens actually work that would cut the budget. There are entire departments that are not needed. They simply interfere with states authority…
What is your alternative? Continue on the pathway to madness? Give everyone everything? Continue to raise taxes until there is no incentive whatsoever?
The fact is 2016 had the single best group of Presidential candidates in modern history. Governor’s, former Governor’s and Senator’s. 16 incredible candidates. And they ate each other up just as you say. But, I will give Trump credit for sticking to a theme that resonated with the masses in the very, very unimportant flyover states…did I say that right lefty’s?
Please allow me to disabuse you of this conservative trope. That number–which has been pinging around in the right-wing echo chamber for years–includes retirees, high-school and college-age individuals. In short, it counts as ‘unemployed’ people for whom there is no expectation of workforce participation.
Name one, and then we’ll look up its budget and see how many billions of dollars can be shaved off the budget by cutting it.
Means-test SS.
Budget-capped govt option healthcare. (Note: NOT single-payer.) This would also involve phasing out Medicare, ultimately entirely.
Increase the top marginal tax rate to ~40% on individuals earning $500K and families earning $1M.
Make smart cuts to the Defense budget.
Stop subsidizing the carbon-fuel industry.
Reform taxation of the uber-wealthy investor class (eg, end the carried-interest loophole).
Trump’s edge in the primaries was the field was himself, a moderate Jeb from the unpopular Bush family, Ted Cruz who thinks the Bible should trump the Constitution, and 15 other guys who all said the same things as each other, but none of them had to quit because the Supreme Court allowed so much new money into the elections that they were kept on artificial life support long after they should have weeded each other out.
Trump’s next problem is that he wants to push a big infrastructure bill and cut taxes. Uh, huh. Republicans are always saying they will balance the budget, cut taxes, and spend more money (usually on the military and Homeland security) and it never works.
Feels good to just be the ‘party of no’ again, doesn’t it? So much easier than actually governing.
You’re welcome for that little respite, but fantasy time is over, and reality is calling. Your party is in charge. Time to govern–to do something besides oppose.
I agree with 1, 2, and 4. However #3 is already in place–in fact they are taxed more than that–married couples are taxed at that bracket when they get to $477,000 not $1 million. And single filers are taxed at that % when they hit 418K
5 is debatable primarily because there are many subsets of “subsidy” and I’d want to know which you want to drop and why. Just saying “drop subsidies” is a blanket statement IMHO.
To the contrary: Essentially every American has tax liabilities–sales, payroll, excise, etc. You’re referring to those who do not pay Federal income tax.
Definitely agreed the wide field was a problem, and even more so the fact than non-entities refused to drop out very late in the game. But the one advertised with the most political talent (Rubio) wasn’t ready for prime time and came off as lightweight, and Cruz - who came off as a pandering careerist - failed even more to measure to expectations. In my opinion, it was a generally weak field in that the candidates, by and large, weren’t great general election candidates.
Trump definitely benefited from the sound byte format required because the Ben Carsons wouldn’t hang it up. A candidate frankly has never been as lucky as Trump in nearly all phases of the game.