Do you think Trump's tax proposal will pass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

This is an improvement and I am glad to see that they were responsive to the feedback on these items.
Any word on the measures that impact higher education (students and universities), the state and local tax deduction, the carried interest loophole, the estate tax repeal (which will make it even harder to remove the role of money in our politics) and the use of chained CPI which will push taxpayers into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Also do the tax credits for families still sunset?
I am also really hoping they don't have some weird trigger that increases our taxes when tax revenues fall during a recession. I see that Jeff Flake is on board now which makes me wonder if they were able to find some trigger to raise rates when revenues fall which is most likely to happen during a recession. This is basically a recipe for making a recession worse. It is what state governments end up doing (because most have laws requiring them to balance their budgets) and it results in making their recessions worse and last longer.
I don't see any of the above in the Senate amendments shown in this Hill article from two hours ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362829-mccaskill-lobbyists-gave-dems-a-list-of-gop-amendments-to-tax-bill

It also looks like the medical expenses deduction might only be for 2017 and 2018 (I am not sure if I am reading this correctly).

From the article you included in the link above, that's just gross that the only way we are being informed about how this tax plan occurs is from a list provided by Republicans to lobbyists. The list she circulates shows that religious school instruction deduction is being added back in. I assume secular private school deductions are not?

So does that mean deductions for parents of students at St Albans and Sidwell?

How can they justify singling parochial schools out for preferential treatment?

The same way they justify not closing the carried interest loophole that make hedge fund managers billionaires while saying there isn't enough money to fund the Children's Health Insurance Plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

This is an improvement and I am glad to see that they were responsive to the feedback on these items.
Any word on the measures that impact higher education (students and universities), the state and local tax deduction, the carried interest loophole, the estate tax repeal (which will make it even harder to remove the role of money in our politics) and the use of chained CPI which will push taxpayers into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Also do the tax credits for families still sunset?
I am also really hoping they don't have some weird trigger that increases our taxes when tax revenues fall during a recession. I see that Jeff Flake is on board now which makes me wonder if they were able to find some trigger to raise rates when revenues fall which is most likely to happen during a recession. This is basically a recipe for making a recession worse. It is what state governments end up doing (because most have laws requiring them to balance their budgets) and it results in making their recessions worse and last longer.
I don't see any of the above in the Senate amendments shown in this Hill article from two hours ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362829-mccaskill-lobbyists-gave-dems-a-list-of-gop-amendments-to-tax-bill

It also looks like the medical expenses deduction might only be for 2017 and 2018 (I am not sure if I am reading this correctly).

PP here. Thanks for responding nicely. It is so refreshing when I come across a liberal who doesn't demean me personally.

As to your questions, there was nothing about the education deductions nor the estate tax. But getting the AMT back in is a big plus. Another BIG plus was the property tax back in, capped at $10k. That means the minority of middle class people who itemize (under $200k) will now, for the most part, get a cut.

As for the medical deduction, I understood Collins (I think it was her....hard to remember who said what) to mean that there would be 7.5% for two years! and then back up to the current 10%. But perhaps I misunderstood and it's disappearing after two years entirely.

Flake is a go. Corker is a no. But they know they have the votes, at 51. So it's good we don't need a tie-breaker.

This is much better. Not perfect, but much less objectionable. IMO.

I am the Democratic person you are responding to and I don’t think I am alone in wanting tax reform especially corporate tax reform. I have just been shocked by how donor driven this has been upto and including today’s giveaways I agree with you that the senate version is better than the house version especially now that they have added the $10000 property tax deduction. I don’t support the bill because I think it will hurt a lot of people especially middle and upper middle class families in blue states by 2027.

By then the national debt will have grown considerably in large part because of this tax cut. Democrats will then be asked to vote to cut social security and Medicare benefits for middle class and upper middle class families or allow the middle class tax cuts to sunset permanently
Be asked to choose between cutting social security benefits

I'm the Republican with whom you've been "conversing" (and I think we may have had an exchange before....you "sound" familiar...)

Anyway, you and I agree that getting corporate tax reform through is needed. It is the most important aspect of this entire undertaking, and personally, I would have been fine if they had left the individual side alone and just focused on the corporate. But we are where we are, and right now, things are looking better. Putting the property tax deduction back in, up to $10K, will allow the vast majority of middle-class owners who itemize to see a cut, and putting the AMT back doesn't let the wealthy (or wealthier) get away with quite so much. And as far as the middle-class who take the standard, they will get double the amount, a lower rate, AND a doubling of the child tax credit (which will help offset the loss of the personal exemption). It WILL benefit most middle earners.

The biggest problem I see is that the middle-income tax cuts are not permanent. But what I do not see as a problem is that rich people will gain a lot. After all, they pay a lot. I think people are getting too wrapped up with "the rich"....the rich!" and should instead just concentrate on whether this helps the "real' middle-income, and it will - and they are the ones who need it the most. They will see their current top rate (25% on $90K) come on the way down to 12%. That's where my focus lies.

As far as your issue with donors, yeah...well....politics is a nasty business. I wouldn't survive a day. But you see that type of thing on both sides of the aisle. With Obamacare, for instance, the medical costs weren't touched, and insurance companies came out the big winners. (I have a business. I would LOVE the government to require people buy my product, and then use taxpayer money to help those who can't afford it buy it.) That happened because the insurance companies donate big bucks to both Rs and Ds. Pharmaceuticals, too.

Anyway, the bill is perfect. But this last round improved things a lot (the AMT....the property tax deduction.....the medical deduction), and if we have to swallow some of the less appealing aspects in order to get corporate tax reform, it will be worth it.

Note to other Democrats: I am happy to engage with you, but those of you who tell me to go to h*ll and call me an idiot, whatever, will be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

This is an improvement and I am glad to see that they were responsive to the feedback on these items.
Any word on the measures that impact higher education (students and universities), the state and local tax deduction, the carried interest loophole, the estate tax repeal (which will make it even harder to remove the role of money in our politics) and the use of chained CPI which will push taxpayers into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Also do the tax credits for families still sunset?
I am also really hoping they don't have some weird trigger that increases our taxes when tax revenues fall during a recession. I see that Jeff Flake is on board now which makes me wonder if they were able to find some trigger to raise rates when revenues fall which is most likely to happen during a recession. This is basically a recipe for making a recession worse. It is what state governments end up doing (because most have laws requiring them to balance their budgets) and it results in making their recessions worse and last longer.
I don't see any of the above in the Senate amendments shown in this Hill article from two hours ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362829-mccaskill-lobbyists-gave-dems-a-list-of-gop-amendments-to-tax-bill

It also looks like the medical expenses deduction might only be for 2017 and 2018 (I am not sure if I am reading this correctly).

PP here. Thanks for responding nicely. It is so refreshing when I come across a liberal who doesn't demean me personally.

As to your questions, there was nothing about the education deductions nor the estate tax. But getting the AMT back in is a big plus. Another BIG plus was the property tax back in, capped at $10k. That means the minority of middle class people who itemize (under $200k) will now, for the most part, get a cut.

As for the medical deduction, I understood Collins (I think it was her....hard to remember who said what) to mean that there would be 7.5% for two years! and then back up to the current 10%. But perhaps I misunderstood and it's disappearing after two years entirely.

Flake is a go. Corker is a no. But they know they have the votes, at 51. So it's good we don't need a tie-breaker.

This is much better. Not perfect, but much less objectionable. IMO.

I am the Democratic person you are responding to and I don’t think I am alone in wanting tax reform especially corporate tax reform. I have just been shocked by how donor driven this has been upto and including today’s giveaways I agree with you that the senate version is better than the house version especially now that they have added the $10000 property tax deduction. I don’t support the bill because I think it will hurt a lot of people especially middle and upper middle class families in blue states by 2027.

By then the national debt will have grown considerably in large part because of this tax cut. Democrats will then be asked to vote to cut social security and Medicare benefits for middle class and upper middle class families or allow the middle class tax cuts to sunset permanently
Be asked to choose between cutting social security benefits

I'm the Republican with whom you've been "conversing" (and I think we may have had an exchange before....you "sound" familiar...)

Anyway, you and I agree that getting corporate tax reform through is needed. It is the most important aspect of this entire undertaking, and personally, I would have been fine if they had left the individual side alone and just focused on the corporate. But we are where we are, and right now, things are looking better. Putting the property tax deduction back in, up to $10K, will allow the vast majority of middle-class owners who itemize to see a cut, and putting the AMT back doesn't let the wealthy (or wealthier) get away with quite so much. And as far as the middle-class who take the standard, they will get double the amount, a lower rate, AND a doubling of the child tax credit (which will help offset the loss of the personal exemption). It WILL benefit most middle earners.

The biggest problem I see is that the middle-income tax cuts are not permanent. But what I do not see as a problem is that rich people will gain a lot. After all, they pay a lot. I think people are getting too wrapped up with "the rich"....the rich!" and should instead just concentrate on whether this helps the "real' middle-income, and it will - and they are the ones who need it the most. They will see their current top rate (25% on $90K) come on the way down to 12%. That's where my focus lies.

As far as your issue with donors, yeah...well....politics is a nasty business. I wouldn't survive a day. But you see that type of thing on both sides of the aisle. With Obamacare, for instance, the medical costs weren't touched, and insurance companies came out the big winners. (I have a business. I would LOVE the government to require people buy my product, and then use taxpayer money to help those who can't afford it buy it.) That happened because the insurance companies donate big bucks to both Rs and Ds. Pharmaceuticals, too.

Anyway, the bill is perfect. But this last round improved things a lot (the AMT....the property tax deduction.....the medical deduction), and if we have to swallow some of the less appealing aspects in order to get corporate tax reform, it will be worth it.

Note to other Democrats: I am happy to engage with you, but those of you who tell me to go to h*ll and call me an idiot, whatever, will be ignored.

Oops! I meant to say the bill is FAR from perfect. (Phone rang in the middle and interrupted my train of thought.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

There are no positives to this bill. So what we've gone from cold crap to hot crap. It's still crap. You might be a slavering ninny who thinks hot crap is a good deal, but you can eat it all. America doesn't want any.

As I said, liberals will be negative no matter what, but this does add back in some of the objections. (I forgot to add in that liberals will personally insult me, but a slavering ninny who can eat crap is an original insult.)

This thing will pass. Eat it yourself!

Tell me what about this moronic theft from Americans isn't hot crap. https://mobile.twitter.com/clairecmc/status/936678750577623041

I may have to live with the consequences of soulless people like you voting for a crime syndicate, but you like this bill so much, you enjoy your hot crap.

Nasty liberal alert! On ignore....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

This is an improvement and I am glad to see that they were responsive to the feedback on these items.
Any word on the measures that impact higher education (students and universities), the state and local tax deduction, the carried interest loophole, the estate tax repeal (which will make it even harder to remove the role of money in our politics) and the use of chained CPI which will push taxpayers into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Also do the tax credits for families still sunset?
I am also really hoping they don't have some weird trigger that increases our taxes when tax revenues fall during a recession. I see that Jeff Flake is on board now which makes me wonder if they were able to find some trigger to raise rates when revenues fall which is most likely to happen during a recession. This is basically a recipe for making a recession worse. It is what state governments end up doing (because most have laws requiring them to balance their budgets) and it results in making their recessions worse and last longer.
I don't see any of the above in the Senate amendments shown in this Hill article from two hours ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362829-mccaskill-lobbyists-gave-dems-a-list-of-gop-amendments-to-tax-bill

It also looks like the medical expenses deduction might only be for 2017 and 2018 (I am not sure if I am reading this correctly).

PP here. Thanks for responding nicely. It is so refreshing when I come across a liberal who doesn't demean me personally.

As to your questions, there was nothing about the education deductions nor the estate tax. But getting the AMT back in is a big plus. Another BIG plus was the property tax back in, capped at $10k. That means the minority of middle class people who itemize (under $200k) will now, for the most part, get a cut.

As for the medical deduction, I understood Collins (I think it was her....hard to remember who said what) to mean that there would be 7.5% for two years! and then back up to the current 10%. But perhaps I misunderstood and it's disappearing after two years entirely.

Flake is a go. Corker is a no. But they know they have the votes, at 51. So it's good we don't need a tie-breaker.

This is much better. Not perfect, but much less objectionable. IMO.

I am the Democratic person you are responding to and I don’t think I am alone in wanting tax reform especially corporate tax reform. I have just been shocked by how donor driven this has been upto and including today’s giveaways I agree with you that the senate version is better than the house version especially now that they have added the $10000 property tax deduction. I don’t support the bill because I think it will hurt a lot of people especially middle and upper middle class families in blue states by 2027.

By then the national debt will have grown considerably in large part because of this tax cut. Democrats will then be asked to vote to cut social security and Medicare benefits for middle class and upper middle class families or allow the middle class tax cuts to sunset permanently
Be asked to choose between cutting social security benefits

I'm the Republican with whom you've been "conversing" (and I think we may have had an exchange before....you "sound" familiar...)

Anyway, you and I agree that getting corporate tax reform through is needed. It is the most important aspect of this entire undertaking, and personally, I would have been fine if they had left the individual side alone and just focused on the corporate. But we are where we are, and right now, things are looking better. Putting the property tax deduction back in, up to $10K, will allow the vast majority of middle-class owners who itemize to see a cut, and putting the AMT back doesn't let the wealthy (or wealthier) get away with quite so much. And as far as the middle-class who take the standard, they will get double the amount, a lower rate, AND a doubling of the child tax credit (which will help offset the loss of the personal exemption). It WILL benefit most middle earners.

The biggest problem I see is that the middle-income tax cuts are not permanent. But what I do not see as a problem is that rich people will gain a lot. After all, they pay a lot. I think people are getting too wrapped up with "the rich"....the rich!" and should instead just concentrate on whether this helps the "real' middle-income, and it will - and they are the ones who need it the most. They will see their current top rate (25% on $90K) come on the way down to 12%. That's where my focus lies.

As far as your issue with donors, yeah...well....politics is a nasty business. I wouldn't survive a day. But you see that type of thing on both sides of the aisle. With Obamacare, for instance, the medical costs weren't touched, and insurance companies came out the big winners. (I have a business. I would LOVE the government to require people buy my product, and then use taxpayer money to help those who can't afford it buy it.) That happened because the insurance companies donate big bucks to both Rs and Ds. Pharmaceuticals, too.

Anyway, the bill is perfect. But this last round improved things a lot (the AMT....the property tax deduction.....the medical deduction), and if we have to swallow some of the less appealing aspects in order to get corporate tax reform, it will be worth it.

Note to other Democrats: I am happy to engage with you, but those of you who tell me to go to h*ll and call me an idiot, whatever, will be ignored.

Oops! I meant to say the bill is FAR from perfect. (Phone rang in the middle and interrupted my train of thought.)

Are you comfortable with the process the GOP is taking to get this bill passed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

This is an improvement and I am glad to see that they were responsive to the feedback on these items.
Any word on the measures that impact higher education (students and universities), the state and local tax deduction, the carried interest loophole, the estate tax repeal (which will make it even harder to remove the role of money in our politics) and the use of chained CPI which will push taxpayers into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Also do the tax credits for families still sunset?
I am also really hoping they don't have some weird trigger that increases our taxes when tax revenues fall during a recession. I see that Jeff Flake is on board now which makes me wonder if they were able to find some trigger to raise rates when revenues fall which is most likely to happen during a recession. This is basically a recipe for making a recession worse. It is what state governments end up doing (because most have laws requiring them to balance their budgets) and it results in making their recessions worse and last longer.
I don't see any of the above in the Senate amendments shown in this Hill article from two hours ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362829-mccaskill-lobbyists-gave-dems-a-list-of-gop-amendments-to-tax-bill

It also looks like the medical expenses deduction might only be for 2017 and 2018 (I am not sure if I am reading this correctly).

PP here. Thanks for responding nicely. It is so refreshing when I come across a liberal who doesn't demean me personally.

As to your questions, there was nothing about the education deductions nor the estate tax. But getting the AMT back in is a big plus. Another BIG plus was the property tax back in, capped at $10k. That means the minority of middle class people who itemize (under $200k) will now, for the most part, get a cut.

As for the medical deduction, I understood Collins (I think it was her....hard to remember who said what) to mean that there would be 7.5% for two years! and then back up to the current 10%. But perhaps I misunderstood and it's disappearing after two years entirely.

Flake is a go. Corker is a no. But they know they have the votes, at 51. So it's good we don't need a tie-breaker.

This is much better. Not perfect, but much less objectionable. IMO.

I am the Democratic person you are responding to and I don’t think I am alone in wanting tax reform especially corporate tax reform. I have just been shocked by how donor driven this has been upto and including today’s giveaways I agree with you that the senate version is better than the house version especially now that they have added the $10000 property tax deduction. I don’t support the bill because I think it will hurt a lot of people especially middle and upper middle class families in blue states by 2027.

By then the national debt will have grown considerably in large part because of this tax cut. Democrats will then be asked to vote to cut social security and Medicare benefits for middle class and upper middle class families or allow the middle class tax cuts to sunset permanently
Be asked to choose between cutting social security benefits

I'm the Republican with whom you've been "conversing" (and I think we may have had an exchange before....you "sound" familiar...)

Anyway, you and I agree that getting corporate tax reform through is needed. It is the most important aspect of this entire undertaking, and personally, I would have been fine if they had left the individual side alone and just focused on the corporate. But we are where we are, and right now, things are looking better. Putting the property tax deduction back in, up to $10K, will allow the vast majority of middle-class owners who itemize to see a cut, and putting the AMT back doesn't let the wealthy (or wealthier) get away with quite so much. And as far as the middle-class who take the standard, they will get double the amount, a lower rate, AND a doubling of the child tax credit (which will help offset the loss of the personal exemption). It WILL benefit most middle earners.

The biggest problem I see is that the middle-income tax cuts are not permanent. But what I do not see as a problem is that rich people will gain a lot. After all, they pay a lot. I think people are getting too wrapped up with "the rich"....the rich!" and should instead just concentrate on whether this helps the "real' middle-income, and it will - and they are the ones who need it the most. They will see their current top rate (25% on $90K) come on the way down to 12%. That's where my focus lies.

As far as your issue with donors, yeah...well....politics is a nasty business. I wouldn't survive a day. But you see that type of thing on both sides of the aisle. With Obamacare, for instance, the medical costs weren't touched, and insurance companies came out the big winners. (I have a business. I would LOVE the government to require people buy my product, and then use taxpayer money to help those who can't afford it buy it.) That happened because the insurance companies donate big bucks to both Rs and Ds. Pharmaceuticals, too.

Anyway, the bill is perfect. But this last round improved things a lot (the AMT....the property tax deduction.....the medical deduction), and if we have to swallow some of the less appealing aspects in order to get corporate tax reform, it will be worth it.

Note to other Democrats: I am happy to engage with you, but those of you who tell me to go to h*ll and call me an idiot, whatever, will be ignored.

Oops! I meant to say the bill is FAR from perfect. (Phone rang in the middle and interrupted my train of thought.)

Are you comfortable with the process the GOP is taking to get this bill passed?

Not particularly. It's rushed. But I wasn't happy with how Obamacare was pushed through, either. To me, I'm trying to keep my focus on the result: corporate tax cuts. If we get that, it will be so positive for the economy that the "sausage-making" will be overlooked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

This is an improvement and I am glad to see that they were responsive to the feedback on these items.
Any word on the measures that impact higher education (students and universities), the state and local tax deduction, the carried interest loophole, the estate tax repeal (which will make it even harder to remove the role of money in our politics) and the use of chained CPI which will push taxpayers into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Also do the tax credits for families still sunset?
I am also really hoping they don't have some weird trigger that increases our taxes when tax revenues fall during a recession. I see that Jeff Flake is on board now which makes me wonder if they were able to find some trigger to raise rates when revenues fall which is most likely to happen during a recession. This is basically a recipe for making a recession worse. It is what state governments end up doing (because most have laws requiring them to balance their budgets) and it results in making their recessions worse and last longer.
I don't see any of the above in the Senate amendments shown in this Hill article from two hours ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362829-mccaskill-lobbyists-gave-dems-a-list-of-gop-amendments-to-tax-bill

It also looks like the medical expenses deduction might only be for 2017 and 2018 (I am not sure if I am reading this correctly).

PP here. Thanks for responding nicely. It is so refreshing when I come across a liberal who doesn't demean me personally.

As to your questions, there was nothing about the education deductions nor the estate tax. But getting the AMT back in is a big plus. Another BIG plus was the property tax back in, capped at $10k. That means the minority of middle class people who itemize (under $200k) will now, for the most part, get a cut.

As for the medical deduction, I understood Collins (I think it was her....hard to remember who said what) to mean that there would be 7.5% for two years! and then back up to the current 10%. But perhaps I misunderstood and it's disappearing after two years entirely.

Flake is a go. Corker is a no. But they know they have the votes, at 51. So it's good we don't need a tie-breaker.

This is much better. Not perfect, but much less objectionable. IMO.

I am the Democratic person you are responding to and I don’t think I am alone in wanting tax reform especially corporate tax reform. I have just been shocked by how donor driven this has been upto and including today’s giveaways I agree with you that the senate version is better than the house version especially now that they have added the $10000 property tax deduction. I don’t support the bill because I think it will hurt a lot of people especially middle and upper middle class families in blue states by 2027.

By then the national debt will have grown considerably in large part because of this tax cut. Democrats will then be asked to vote to cut social security and Medicare benefits for middle class and upper middle class families or allow the middle class tax cuts to sunset permanently
Be asked to choose between cutting social security benefits

I'm the Republican with whom you've been "conversing" (and I think we may have had an exchange before....you "sound" familiar...)

Anyway, you and I agree that getting corporate tax reform through is needed. It is the most important aspect of this entire undertaking, and personally, I would have been fine if they had left the individual side alone and just focused on the corporate. But we are where we are, and right now, things are looking better. Putting the property tax deduction back in, up to $10K, will allow the vast majority of middle-class owners who itemize to see a cut, and putting the AMT back doesn't let the wealthy (or wealthier) get away with quite so much. And as far as the middle-class who take the standard, they will get double the amount, a lower rate, AND a doubling of the child tax credit (which will help offset the loss of the personal exemption). It WILL benefit most middle earners.

The biggest problem I see is that the middle-income tax cuts are not permanent. But what I do not see as a problem is that rich people will gain a lot. After all, they pay a lot. I think people are getting too wrapped up with "the rich"....the rich!" and should instead just concentrate on whether this helps the "real' middle-income, and it will - and they are the ones who need it the most. They will see their current top rate (25% on $90K) come on the way down to 12%. That's where my focus lies.

As far as your issue with donors, yeah...well....politics is a nasty business. I wouldn't survive a day. But you see that type of thing on both sides of the aisle. With Obamacare, for instance, the medical costs weren't touched, and insurance companies came out the big winners. (I have a business. I would LOVE the government to require people buy my product, and then use taxpayer money to help those who can't afford it buy it.) That happened because the insurance companies donate big bucks to both Rs and Ds. Pharmaceuticals, too.

Anyway, the bill is perfect. But this last round improved things a lot (the AMT....the property tax deduction.....the medical deduction), and if we have to swallow some of the less appealing aspects in order to get corporate tax reform, it will be worth it.

Note to other Democrats: I am happy to engage with you, but those of you who tell me to go to h*ll and call me an idiot, whatever, will be ignored.

Oops! I meant to say the bill is FAR from perfect. (Phone rang in the middle and interrupted my train of thought.)

Are you comfortable with the process the GOP is taking to get this bill passed?

Not particularly. It's rushed. But I wasn't happy with how Obamacare was pushed through, either. To me, I'm trying to keep my focus on the result: corporate tax cuts. If we get that, it will be so positive for the economy that the "sausage-making" will be overlooked.

I need more details on how this process compares to the Obamacare process. I don't remember handwritten notes on bills and the bill getting through in this short a timeframe but please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

This is an improvement and I am glad to see that they were responsive to the feedback on these items.
Any word on the measures that impact higher education (students and universities), the state and local tax deduction, the carried interest loophole, the estate tax repeal (which will make it even harder to remove the role of money in our politics) and the use of chained CPI which will push taxpayers into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Also do the tax credits for families still sunset?
I am also really hoping they don't have some weird trigger that increases our taxes when tax revenues fall during a recession. I see that Jeff Flake is on board now which makes me wonder if they were able to find some trigger to raise rates when revenues fall which is most likely to happen during a recession. This is basically a recipe for making a recession worse. It is what state governments end up doing (because most have laws requiring them to balance their budgets) and it results in making their recessions worse and last longer.
I don't see any of the above in the Senate amendments shown in this Hill article from two hours ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362829-mccaskill-lobbyists-gave-dems-a-list-of-gop-amendments-to-tax-bill

It also looks like the medical expenses deduction might only be for 2017 and 2018 (I am not sure if I am reading this correctly).

PP here. Thanks for responding nicely. It is so refreshing when I come across a liberal who doesn't demean me personally.

As to your questions, there was nothing about the education deductions nor the estate tax. But getting the AMT back in is a big plus. Another BIG plus was the property tax back in, capped at $10k. That means the minority of middle class people who itemize (under $200k) will now, for the most part, get a cut.

As for the medical deduction, I understood Collins (I think it was her....hard to remember who said what) to mean that there would be 7.5% for two years! and then back up to the current 10%. But perhaps I misunderstood and it's disappearing after two years entirely.

Flake is a go. Corker is a no. But they know they have the votes, at 51. So it's good we don't need a tie-breaker.

This is much better. Not perfect, but much less objectionable. IMO.

I am the Democratic person you are responding to and I don’t think I am alone in wanting tax reform especially corporate tax reform. I have just been shocked by how donor driven this has been upto and including today’s giveaways I agree with you that the senate version is better than the house version especially now that they have added the $10000 property tax deduction. I don’t support the bill because I think it will hurt a lot of people especially middle and upper middle class families in blue states by 2027.

By then the national debt will have grown considerably in large part because of this tax cut. Democrats will then be asked to vote to cut social security and Medicare benefits for middle class and upper middle class families or allow the middle class tax cuts to sunset permanently
Be asked to choose between cutting social security benefits

I'm the Republican with whom you've been "conversing" (and I think we may have had an exchange before....you "sound" familiar...)

Anyway, you and I agree that getting corporate tax reform through is needed. It is the most important aspect of this entire undertaking, and personally, I would have been fine if they had left the individual side alone and just focused on the corporate. But we are where we are, and right now, things are looking better. Putting the property tax deduction back in, up to $10K, will allow the vast majority of middle-class owners who itemize to see a cut, and putting the AMT back doesn't let the wealthy (or wealthier) get away with quite so much. And as far as the middle-class who take the standard, they will get double the amount, a lower rate, AND a doubling of the child tax credit (which will help offset the loss of the personal exemption). It WILL benefit most middle earners.

The biggest problem I see is that the middle-income tax cuts are not permanent. But what I do not see as a problem is that rich people will gain a lot. After all, they pay a lot. I think people are getting too wrapped up with "the rich"....the rich!" and should instead just concentrate on whether this helps the "real' middle-income, and it will - and they are the ones who need it the most. They will see their current top rate (25% on $90K) come on the way down to 12%. That's where my focus lies.

As far as your issue with donors, yeah...well....politics is a nasty business. I wouldn't survive a day. But you see that type of thing on both sides of the aisle. With Obamacare, for instance, the medical costs weren't touched, and insurance companies came out the big winners. (I have a business. I would LOVE the government to require people buy my product, and then use taxpayer money to help those who can't afford it buy it.) That happened because the insurance companies donate big bucks to both Rs and Ds. Pharmaceuticals, too.

Anyway, the bill is perfect. But this last round improved things a lot (the AMT....the property tax deduction.....the medical deduction), and if we have to swallow some of the less appealing aspects in order to get corporate tax reform, it will be worth it.

Note to other Democrats: I am happy to engage with you, but those of you who tell me to go to h*ll and call me an idiot, whatever, will be ignored.

Oops! I meant to say the bill is FAR from perfect. (Phone rang in the middle and interrupted my train of thought.)

Are you comfortable with the process the GOP is taking to get this bill passed?

Not particularly. It's rushed. But I wasn't happy with how Obamacare was pushed through, either. To me, I'm trying to keep my focus on the result: corporate tax cuts. If we get that, it will be so positive for the economy that the "sausage-making" will be overlooked.

I need more details on how this process compares to the Obamacare process. I don't remember handwritten notes on bills and the bill getting through in this short a timeframe but please explain.

I don't have time to go back and research the details right now, but I do recall a lot of arm-twisting and cornhusker deals to get the last few votes. That last one - Stupak - looked SICK when he announced he was coming out in favor. I always wondered what they did to make him cave. And Pelosi saying that we'd have to pass it before we could know what's in it? (The Obama Administration was the least transparent....ever.) But most of all, the process aside, the promises were false.....I lost my doctor, I lost my plan, I'm paying a fortune for what is effectively a catastrophic plan. So I wouldn't hold the Obamacare process up as an ideal we should aim for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

This is an improvement and I am glad to see that they were responsive to the feedback on these items.
Any word on the measures that impact higher education (students and universities), the state and local tax deduction, the carried interest loophole, the estate tax repeal (which will make it even harder to remove the role of money in our politics) and the use of chained CPI which will push taxpayers into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Also do the tax credits for families still sunset?
I am also really hoping they don't have some weird trigger that increases our taxes when tax revenues fall during a recession. I see that Jeff Flake is on board now which makes me wonder if they were able to find some trigger to raise rates when revenues fall which is most likely to happen during a recession. This is basically a recipe for making a recession worse. It is what state governments end up doing (because most have laws requiring them to balance their budgets) and it results in making their recessions worse and last longer.
I don't see any of the above in the Senate amendments shown in this Hill article from two hours ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362829-mccaskill-lobbyists-gave-dems-a-list-of-gop-amendments-to-tax-bill

It also looks like the medical expenses deduction might only be for 2017 and 2018 (I am not sure if I am reading this correctly).

PP here. Thanks for responding nicely. It is so refreshing when I come across a liberal who doesn't demean me personally.

As to your questions, there was nothing about the education deductions nor the estate tax. But getting the AMT back in is a big plus. Another BIG plus was the property tax back in, capped at $10k. That means the minority of middle class people who itemize (under $200k) will now, for the most part, get a cut.

As for the medical deduction, I understood Collins (I think it was her....hard to remember who said what) to mean that there would be 7.5% for two years! and then back up to the current 10%. But perhaps I misunderstood and it's disappearing after two years entirely.

Flake is a go. Corker is a no. But they know they have the votes, at 51. So it's good we don't need a tie-breaker.

This is much better. Not perfect, but much less objectionable. IMO.

I am the Democratic person you are responding to and I don’t think I am alone in wanting tax reform especially corporate tax reform. I have just been shocked by how donor driven this has been upto and including today’s giveaways I agree with you that the senate version is better than the house version especially now that they have added the $10000 property tax deduction. I don’t support the bill because I think it will hurt a lot of people especially middle and upper middle class families in blue states by 2027.

By then the national debt will have grown considerably in large part because of this tax cut. Democrats will then be asked to vote to cut social security and Medicare benefits for middle class and upper middle class families or allow the middle class tax cuts to sunset permanently
Be asked to choose between cutting social security benefits

I'm the Republican with whom you've been "conversing" (and I think we may have had an exchange before....you "sound" familiar...)

Anyway, you and I agree that getting corporate tax reform through is needed. It is the most important aspect of this entire undertaking, and personally, I would have been fine if they had left the individual side alone and just focused on the corporate. But we are where we are, and right now, things are looking better. Putting the property tax deduction back in, up to $10K, will allow the vast majority of middle-class owners who itemize to see a cut, and putting the AMT back doesn't let the wealthy (or wealthier) get away with quite so much. And as far as the middle-class who take the standard, they will get double the amount, a lower rate, AND a doubling of the child tax credit (which will help offset the loss of the personal exemption). It WILL benefit most middle earners.

The biggest problem I see is that the middle-income tax cuts are not permanent. But what I do not see as a problem is that rich people will gain a lot. After all, they pay a lot. I think people are getting too wrapped up with "the rich"....the rich!" and should instead just concentrate on whether this helps the "real' middle-income, and it will - and they are the ones who need it the most. They will see their current top rate (25% on $90K) come on the way down to 12%. That's where my focus lies.

As far as your issue with donors, yeah...well....politics is a nasty business. I wouldn't survive a day. But you see that type of thing on both sides of the aisle. With Obamacare, for instance, the medical costs weren't touched, and insurance companies came out the big winners. (I have a business. I would LOVE the government to require people buy my product, and then use taxpayer money to help those who can't afford it buy it.) That happened because the insurance companies donate big bucks to both Rs and Ds. Pharmaceuticals, too.

Anyway, the bill is perfect. But this last round improved things a lot (the AMT....the property tax deduction.....the medical deduction), and if we have to swallow some of the less appealing aspects in order to get corporate tax reform, it will be worth it.

Note to other Democrats: I am happy to engage with you, but those of you who tell me to go to h*ll and call me an idiot, whatever, will be ignored.

Oops! I meant to say the bill is FAR from perfect. (Phone rang in the middle and interrupted my train of thought.)

Are you comfortable with the process the GOP is taking to get this bill passed?

Not particularly. It's rushed. But I wasn't happy with how Obamacare was pushed through, either. To me, I'm trying to keep my focus on the result: corporate tax cuts. If we get that, it will be so positive for the economy that the "sausage-making" will be overlooked.

I need more details on how this process compares to the Obamacare process. I don't remember handwritten notes on bills and the bill getting through in this short a timeframe but please explain.

And P.S. Didn't I just say I wasn't particularly happy with the process and admitted the whole thing was rushed? You are so ready to jump down my throat that you didn't even read what I wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

This is an improvement and I am glad to see that they were responsive to the feedback on these items.
Any word on the measures that impact higher education (students and universities), the state and local tax deduction, the carried interest loophole, the estate tax repeal (which will make it even harder to remove the role of money in our politics) and the use of chained CPI which will push taxpayers into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Also do the tax credits for families still sunset?
I am also really hoping they don't have some weird trigger that increases our taxes when tax revenues fall during a recession. I see that Jeff Flake is on board now which makes me wonder if they were able to find some trigger to raise rates when revenues fall which is most likely to happen during a recession. This is basically a recipe for making a recession worse. It is what state governments end up doing (because most have laws requiring them to balance their budgets) and it results in making their recessions worse and last longer.
I don't see any of the above in the Senate amendments shown in this Hill article from two hours ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362829-mccaskill-lobbyists-gave-dems-a-list-of-gop-amendments-to-tax-bill

It also looks like the medical expenses deduction might only be for 2017 and 2018 (I am not sure if I am reading this correctly).

PP here. Thanks for responding nicely. It is so refreshing when I come across a liberal who doesn't demean me personally.

As to your questions, there was nothing about the education deductions nor the estate tax. But getting the AMT back in is a big plus. Another BIG plus was the property tax back in, capped at $10k. That means the minority of middle class people who itemize (under $200k) will now, for the most part, get a cut.

As for the medical deduction, I understood Collins (I think it was her....hard to remember who said what) to mean that there would be 7.5% for two years! and then back up to the current 10%. But perhaps I misunderstood and it's disappearing after two years entirely.

Flake is a go. Corker is a no. But they know they have the votes, at 51. So it's good we don't need a tie-breaker.

This is much better. Not perfect, but much less objectionable. IMO.

I am the Democratic person you are responding to and I don’t think I am alone in wanting tax reform especially corporate tax reform. I have just been shocked by how donor driven this has been upto and including today’s giveaways I agree with you that the senate version is better than the house version especially now that they have added the $10000 property tax deduction. I don’t support the bill because I think it will hurt a lot of people especially middle and upper middle class families in blue states by 2027.

By then the national debt will have grown considerably in large part because of this tax cut. Democrats will then be asked to vote to cut social security and Medicare benefits for middle class and upper middle class families or allow the middle class tax cuts to sunset permanently
Be asked to choose between cutting social security benefits

I'm the Republican with whom you've been "conversing" (and I think we may have had an exchange before....you "sound" familiar...)

Anyway, you and I agree that getting corporate tax reform through is needed. It is the most important aspect of this entire undertaking, and personally, I would have been fine if they had left the individual side alone and just focused on the corporate. But we are where we are, and right now, things are looking better. Putting the property tax deduction back in, up to $10K, will allow the vast majority of middle-class owners who itemize to see a cut, and putting the AMT back doesn't let the wealthy (or wealthier) get away with quite so much. And as far as the middle-class who take the standard, they will get double the amount, a lower rate, AND a doubling of the child tax credit (which will help offset the loss of the personal exemption). It WILL benefit most middle earners.

The biggest problem I see is that the middle-income tax cuts are not permanent. But what I do not see as a problem is that rich people will gain a lot. After all, they pay a lot. I think people are getting too wrapped up with "the rich"....the rich!" and should instead just concentrate on whether this helps the "real' middle-income, and it will - and they are the ones who need it the most. They will see their current top rate (25% on $90K) come on the way down to 12%. That's where my focus lies.

As far as your issue with donors, yeah...well....politics is a nasty business. I wouldn't survive a day. But you see that type of thing on both sides of the aisle. With Obamacare, for instance, the medical costs weren't touched, and insurance companies came out the big winners. (I have a business. I would LOVE the government to require people buy my product, and then use taxpayer money to help those who can't afford it buy it.) That happened because the insurance companies donate big bucks to both Rs and Ds. Pharmaceuticals, too.

Anyway, the bill is perfect. But this last round improved things a lot (the AMT....the property tax deduction.....the medical deduction), and if we have to swallow some of the less appealing aspects in order to get corporate tax reform, it will be worth it.

Note to other Democrats: I am happy to engage with you, but those of you who tell me to go to h*ll and call me an idiot, whatever, will be ignored.

Oops! I meant to say the bill is FAR from perfect. (Phone rang in the middle and interrupted my train of thought.)

Are you comfortable with the process the GOP is taking to get this bill passed?

Not particularly. It's rushed. But I wasn't happy with how Obamacare was pushed through, either. To me, I'm trying to keep my focus on the result: corporate tax cuts. If we get that, it will be so positive for the economy that the "sausage-making" will be overlooked.

I need more details on how this process compares to the Obamacare process. I don't remember handwritten notes on bills and the bill getting through in this short a timeframe but please explain.

And P.S. Didn't I just say I wasn't particularly happy with the process and admitted the whole thing was rushed? You are so ready to jump down my throat that you didn't even read what I wrote.

NP. I read and researched what you wrote, but I disregard comments that are false. I wasn't particularly happy with the sausage making either, but the ACA was definitely not rushed and the legislative history bears that out.

ACA Legislative history-
Introduced in the House (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
Committee consideration by Ways and Means
Passed the House on November 7, 2009 (220-215)
Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

[Anonymous]

I feel physically sick reading the news about this bill and how it's being passed. It's the biggest FU to Americans imaginable.

Why do Congressional Republicans hate Americans so much?!

[Anonymous]

Marco Rubio practically sounded like he agreed with the Democrats when he introduced his amendment.

[Anonymous]

I'm still holding out hope it's going to get stuck again. If they could pass it they would have passed it already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel physically sick reading the news about this bill and how it's being passed. It's the biggest FU to Americans imaginable.

Why do Congressional Republicans hate Americans so much?!

Their rich donors want the bill. It is 1% against the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If The liberals could stop criticizing Trump for 10 seconds, there are some recent positives with the Senate bill:

1) AMT back in
2) Property tax deduction up to $10k
3)!Medical deduction not on,y back in, but threshold drops back to 7.5% (you might remember that Obama raised this tax as part of Obamacare.....hurt a lot lot middle-class people with medical expenses)

4) Repatriation rate up from 7% to 14%! (Matches House bill)

I know liberals will complain no matter what, but it's looking better. It's going to pass.

This is an improvement and I am glad to see that they were responsive to the feedback on these items.
Any word on the measures that impact higher education (students and universities), the state and local tax deduction, the carried interest loophole, the estate tax repeal (which will make it even harder to remove the role of money in our politics) and the use of chained CPI which will push taxpayers into higher tax brackets much more quickly. Also do the tax credits for families still sunset?
I am also really hoping they don't have some weird trigger that increases our taxes when tax revenues fall during a recession. I see that Jeff Flake is on board now which makes me wonder if they were able to find some trigger to raise rates when revenues fall which is most likely to happen during a recession. This is basically a recipe for making a recession worse. It is what state governments end up doing (because most have laws requiring them to balance their budgets) and it results in making their recessions worse and last longer.
I don't see any of the above in the Senate amendments shown in this Hill article from two hours ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/362829-mccaskill-lobbyists-gave-dems-a-list-of-gop-amendments-to-tax-bill

It also looks like the medical expenses deduction might only be for 2017 and 2018 (I am not sure if I am reading this correctly).

PP here. Thanks for responding nicely. It is so refreshing when I come across a liberal who doesn't demean me personally.

As to your questions, there was nothing about the education deductions nor the estate tax. But getting the AMT back in is a big plus. Another BIG plus was the property tax back in, capped at $10k. That means the minority of middle class people who itemize (under $200k) will now, for the most part, get a cut.

As for the medical deduction, I understood Collins (I think it was her....hard to remember who said what) to mean that there would be 7.5% for two years! and then back up to the current 10%. But perhaps I misunderstood and it's disappearing after two years entirely.

Flake is a go. Corker is a no. But they know they have the votes, at 51. So it's good we don't need a tie-breaker.

This is much better. Not perfect, but much less objectionable. IMO.

I am the Democratic person you are responding to and I don’t think I am alone in wanting tax reform especially corporate tax reform. I have just been shocked by how donor driven this has been upto and including today’s giveaways I agree with you that the senate version is better than the house version especially now that they have added the $10000 property tax deduction. I don’t support the bill because I think it will hurt a lot of people especially middle and upper middle class families in blue states by 2027.

By then the national debt will have grown considerably in large part because of this tax cut. Democrats will then be asked to vote to cut social security and Medicare benefits for middle class and upper middle class families or allow the middle class tax cuts to sunset permanently
Be asked to choose between cutting social security benefits

I'm the Republican with whom you've been "conversing" (and I think we may have had an exchange before....you "sound" familiar...)

Anyway, you and I agree that getting corporate tax reform through is needed. It is the most important aspect of this entire undertaking, and personally, I would have been fine if they had left the individual side alone and just focused on the corporate. But we are where we are, and right now, things are looking better. Putting the property tax deduction back in, up to $10K, will allow the vast majority of middle-class owners who itemize to see a cut, and putting the AMT back doesn't let the wealthy (or wealthier) get away with quite so much. And as far as the middle-class who take the standard, they will get double the amount, a lower rate, AND a doubling of the child tax credit (which will help offset the loss of the personal exemption). It WILL benefit most middle earners.

The biggest problem I see is that the middle-income tax cuts are not permanent. But what I do not see as a problem is that rich people will gain a lot. After all, they pay a lot. I think people are getting too wrapped up with "the rich"....the rich!" and should instead just concentrate on whether this helps the "real' middle-income, and it will - and they are the ones who need it the most. They will see their current top rate (25% on $90K) come on the way down to 12%. That's where my focus lies.

As far as your issue with donors, yeah...well....politics is a nasty business. I wouldn't survive a day. But you see that type of thing on both sides of the aisle. With Obamacare, for instance, the medical costs weren't touched, and insurance companies came out the big winners. (I have a business. I would LOVE the government to require people buy my product, and then use taxpayer money to help those who can't afford it buy it.) That happened because the insurance companies donate big bucks to both Rs and Ds. Pharmaceuticals, too.

Anyway, the bill is perfect. But this last round improved things a lot (the AMT....the property tax deduction.....the medical deduction), and if we have to swallow some of the less appealing aspects in order to get corporate tax reform, it will be worth it.

Note to other Democrats: I am happy to engage with you, but those of you who tell me to go to h*ll and call me an idiot, whatever, will be ignored.

Oops! I meant to say the bill is FAR from perfect. (Phone rang in the middle and interrupted my train of thought.)

Are you comfortable with the process the GOP is taking to get this bill passed?

Not particularly. It's rushed. But I wasn't happy with how Obamacare was pushed through, either. To me, I'm trying to keep my focus on the result: corporate tax cuts. If we get that, it will be so positive for the economy that the "sausage-making" will be overlooked.

Wow, you just blew your cover, PP! You have never been a Democrat - you are a Fox watching Republican. Only a Fox watching fool would dare repeat that widely repudiated lie. The ACA was NOT pushed they and was available to read on line before the vote. President Obama had a televised meeting with Republicans with the bill on their desks before the vote. Jon Stewart called out some asshole debug on his show who was claiming there were death panels in the bill and Stewart took out a copy of the bill, put it in front of her and asked her to find the death panels - also before the vote.

I have no clue why you would get into this long ridiculous discussion pretending to be a Democrat.

You just embarrassed yourself BIG TIME.