Congress Catch-All | Laken Riley Act is first bill passed by House

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 556
  • Views: 13K
  • Politics 
Callatoroy said:
"Tax evasion is concentrated among the wealthy in part because high-income taxpayers are able to employ experts who can better shield them from reporting their true incomes, the Treasury Department argued in a blog post. More complicated incomes such as partnerships and proprietorships – more frequent among high earners — have a far greater noncompliance rate that can hit as high as 55%."

Change the effing laws then. Nothing like a democrat to participate in creating an extremely complex tax structure that requires "experts" and an entire specialty of law to administer, then complain that people who can afford to hire them are taking advantage of the very system democrats helped create. Quit bitching and lead the effort to rewrite the tax code. If its so bad, shift more resources to auditing rich people and less to the middle class. The answer isn't hiring more overhead. The answer is simplifying the code or focus more on the wealthy. I'm all for people paying the taxes they legally owe. Hell, I'm all for taxing the wealthy in different ways. But I also fully support the 50% who pay nothing having to have some skin in the game as well.
Click to expand...
So Democrats created a tax system to benefit the wealthy and punish the middle class ?

I did not know that :confused:
 
Callatoroy said:
"Tax evasion is concentrated among the wealthy in part because high-income taxpayers are able to employ experts who can better shield them from reporting their true incomes, the Treasury Department argued in a blog post. More complicated incomes such as partnerships and proprietorships – more frequent among high earners — have a far greater noncompliance rate that can hit as high as 55%."

Change the effing laws then. Nothing like a democrat to participate in creating an extremely complex tax structure that requires "experts" and an entire specialty of law to administer, then complain that people who can afford to hire them are taking advantage of the very system democrats helped create. Quit bitching and lead the effort to rewrite the tax code. If its so bad, shift more resources to auditing rich people and less to the middle class. The answer isn't hiring more overhead. The answer is simplifying the code or focus more on the wealthy. I'm all for people paying the taxes they legally owe. Hell, I'm all for taxing the wealthy in different ways. But I also fully support the 50% who pay nothing having to have some skin in the game as well.
Click to expand...
If you could turn $20 billion into $44 billion in 10 years, would that be a good investment?
 
Callatoroy said:
Yep, it was fantastic work. Not surprising you would look at a gotcha headline like the one NYC posted and make your comment or completely disregard everything else that got cut. The simple fact is trump created DOGE to highlight and eliminate wasteful spending. That your side would ridicule that speaks volumes. However, it also highlights just how out of touch this board is with reality. DOGE will be a huge hit among voters. Just wait and see.
Click to expand...
DOGE is already a flop with freaking Laura Loomer. You think it’ll be popular with the average American?
 
Callatoroy said:
Yep, it was fantastic work. Not surprising you would look at a gotcha headline like the one NYC posted and make your comment or completely disregard everything else that got cut. The simple fact is trump created DOGE to highlight and eliminate wasteful spending. That your side would ridicule that speaks volumes. However, it also highlights just how out of touch this board is with reality. DOGE will be a huge hit among voters. Just wait and see.
Click to expand...
If you think blowing enormous amounts of political capital on a gambit that resulted in zero spending benefits and pretty much everything the Dems wanted while setting up a massive problem for the Pubs just two months into Trump’s presidency is “fantastic work,” then I’m feeling much more confident about how the next couple of years will play out. I guarantee you Trump doesn’t think that Keystone Cops routine was “fantastic work.”
 
IMG_4363.jpeg

A shot across the bow for the current Speaker (fix this now or I won’t support you)? An impossible demand since this Congress is done for this term and why would Biden sign such a bill into law for Trump even if the new House and Senate pass it in a handful of days in January while also organizing leadership?
 
nycfan said:
IMG_4363.jpeg

A shot across the bow for the current Speaker (fix this now or I won’t support you)? An impossible demand since this Congress is done for this term and why would Biden sign such a bill into law for Trump even if the new House and Senate pass it in a handful of days in January while also organizing leadership?
Click to expand...

Happy New Year, the debt limit is here. Get ready for an all-out war over it.​

On Jan. 1, the limit resumes on the U.S. national debt of more than $36 trillion. And Republicans are divided on how to handle the cliff, after the House shot down the incoming president’s plan.

 
What am I missing? He will hold total congressional power to do whatever he wants after Jan 20. Why not just eliminate the debt ceiling with his congressional majorities “on Day One?”
 
“… One path requires full buy-in from Republican lawmakers to address the issue via budget reconciliation — a huge challenge thanks to the party’s fierce fiscal hawks. The other entails winning over Democrats, who for the most part rejected Trump’s initial debt-limit gambit last week.

“Whoever advised the president that it was even possible needs to better understand how this place works,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said about Trump’s latest push to raise the debt limit.

It’s going to be an urgent issue for Trump as soon as he takes office. The federal government will resume the cap on its borrowing authority on Jan. 1, as the U.S. sits on a national debt of more than $36 trillion, though the Treasury Department can buy time for a number of months with so-called extraordinary measures.

The fiscal time bomb illustrates the struggle Trump and Republican leaders face heading into 2025, as they consider whether to court Democrats who will want concessions or their own conservatives who are known for rigidly sticking to their demands to cut funding.

“I’ve told my caucus, if they try to do it under reconciliation, they’ll lose my vote,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said on Friday. “I told them: You want to kill reconciliation, put something on that we don’t like.” …”
 
“… Raising the debt limit by $1.5 trillion, even with corresponding funding cuts, would not keep the nation from hitting the borrowing cap for long. The U.S. budget deficit, the gap between how much comes in from revenue like taxes and how much is spent, was $1.8 trillion in the fiscal year that ended in September. Congress’ nonpartisan budget scorekeeper projects that interest payments on the national debt will total almost $900 billion next year. …

After the debt ceiling is reinstated on Jan. 1, the Treasury Department will immediately deploy the typical “extraordinary measures,” cash-shifting accounting tactics to ensure the country can continue to pay its bills for at least a few months longer. Then a surge of revenue will begin to flow into federal coffers when tax filing season begins at the end of January, keeping the U.S. from hitting its borrowing limit for a few more months. …”
 
I see this as a very good thing for Dems. Johnson is an incredibly weak Speaker. This makes it highly likely the House will be wracked with dysfunction and embarrassment for the first part of Trump's presidency.


President-elect Donald Trump endorsed House Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday ahead of the new Congress convening to elect a speaker later this week.

“The American people need IMMEDIATE relief from all of the destructive policies of the last Administration. Speaker Mike Johnson is a good, hard working, religious man. He will do the right thing, and we will continue to WIN. Mike has my Complete & Total Endorsement. MAGA!!!,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
 
The Republicans can literally only lose two votes in the House in the first several months of this Administration. Good luck!
 
www.semafor.com

Trump offers strategic endorsement of Mike Johnson | Semafor

The House’s successful election of a speaker on Friday is critical to certifying the president-elect’s victory.
www.semafor.com www.semafor.com

Trump "... needs the House to elect a speaker on Friday in order to move forward with certifying the presidential election results — and sources close to Trump note that his Johnson endorsement partially stems from an interest in no delays to the election certification.

“He can bury [Johnson] whenever he wants,” one person close to Trump told Semafor.

“Get through Jan. 20, get rolling on the border, rack up some wins, and then use the bully pulpit in full force from there on out.”

Notably, Trump backed Johnson at the end of a lengthy Truth Social post about his own presidential win and highlighted that voters “need IMMEDIATE relief from” the current administration. ,,,"
 
politicalwire.com

Some Thoughts on This Week's Speaker Election

The 119th Congress officially begins at noon on Friday and we're once again faced with the prospect of a contested election for Speaker. The math is brutal for Republicans: The House make up will be
politicalwire.com politicalwire.com

"...
  • The House make up will be 219 Republicans to 215 Democrats on Friday since former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) resigned.
  • All Democrats will vote for Rep. Hakeem Jefferies (D-NY), so that means if just two Republicans vote for someone other than Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) the House will fail to elect a speaker.
  • Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) has already said he won’t back Johnson. Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Scott Perry (R-PA) won’t say how they’ll vote.
  • The Democrats won’t save Johnson this time. That means he’ll need a partisan majority to remain Speaker.
  • House Republicans did not have a stable majority in the last Congress and it seems unlikely they’ll have one this Congress either.
  • That means whoever becomes Speaker will need to use the suspension process — and thus bargain with Democrats — to move must-pass legislation. The House will almost function like a coalition government. ..."
----
I will be a bit stunned if the GOP doesn't hold their collective nose and re-elect Johnson as Speaker ... for now. I mean, i could see a shot across-the-bow no vote to get rules in place to be able to push him out later, if need be, but I do think they'll come to their senses and try to get their governance rolling rather than start with a big, nasty family fight.

Of course, they've done it to themselves a few times already, so I guess we shall see.
 
For the Dems, remember who we are dealing with here:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Thursday night bragged about blocking President Barack Obama’s attempt to fill federal judicial vacancies for two years. Then, he laughed about it as he discussed the Republican Party’s effort to stack the courts with conservative judges under President Donald Trump.
“I was shocked that former President Obama left so many vacancies and didn’t try to fill those positions,” Fox News host Sean Hannity said to McConnell.
Obama didn’t leave those vacancies so much as he was blocked from filling them by a GOP-controlled Senate led by McConnell ― something the majority leader was quick to point out.
“I’ll tell you why,” he said. “I was in charge of what we did the last two years of the Obama administration.”

Then, he laughed:

McConnell not only blocked federal judges, he prevented Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from even getting a hearing. In 2018, McConnell told Kentucky Today that the decision to block Garland’s appointment was “the most consequential decision I’ve made in my entire public career.”

www.huffpost.com

Mitch McConnell Brags About Blocking Obama For 2 Years, Then Laughs About It

The Senate majority leader boasted about stacking the courts with conservative judges under Trump.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top