Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard chuck grassley on npr this afternoon
He was asked about the tax bill adding to the deficit and his response was that they are designing a tax bill that will lower deficits. He claimed that if it results in GDP growth rate that is 0.4% more than it normally would it will pay for itself. This is the same number I've heard several republican lawmakers use. What is weird is that the most recent Joint Committee on taxes report found is that if the GDP growth rate is 0.8% higher we would add $1 trillion to our deficits
The other question was about the estate tax. He was asked why the republicans were so keen to get rid of this when only 80 family farms and small businesses have to pay any estate tax at all in any year (couples can leave over $11 million to their heirs tax free). Grassley said he did not dispute the facts but for him it was a philosophical issue. He said that it was a way of celebrating people who have been frugal and saved and invested in order to accrue substantial assets. He gave the example of Two couples making $100000. One spends all their money and does not save much. The other couple is very frugal and saves aggressively and we need to reward them for their hard work and frugality by not taxing their estate.
I just can't even......

Hilarious. I’d love to meet all those couple earning 100k income with 11 million dollar estates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And with all of this, Sen. Hatch claims the US cannot afford to fund CHIP.

UFB

Did he say that? My understanding was that the failure to fund CHIP was a (pretty dumb) mistake that would soon be rectified. I guess they're trying to use the mistake politically, now.

Even Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who was one of CHIP’s original sponsors in 1997 and frequently mentions his devotion to children’s welfare, is willing to sacrifice his own brainchild to the needs of plutocrats. In a “heated exchange” this month in the Senate Finance Committee hearing room reported by the Washington Post, Hatch responded truculently to a goad by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) that he should show his devotion to the poor by extending CHIP.

“I’m not starting with CHIP,” Hatch snapped.

Anonymous wrote:I heard chuck grassley on npr this afternoon
He was asked about the tax bill adding to the deficit and his response was that they are designing a tax bill that will lower deficits. He claimed that if it results in GDP growth rate that is 0.4% more than it normally would it will pay for itself. This is the same number I've heard several republican lawmakers use. What is weird is that the most recent Joint Committee on taxes report found is that if the GDP growth rate is 0.8% higher we would add $1 trillion to our deficits
The other question was about the estate tax. He was asked why the republicans were so keen to get rid of this when only 80 family farms and small businesses have to pay any estate tax at all in any year (couples can leave over $11 million to their heirs tax free). Grassley said he did not dispute the facts but for him it was a philosophical issue. He said that it was a way of celebrating people who have been frugal and saved and invested in order to accrue substantial assets. He gave the example of Two couples making $100000. One spends all their money and does not save much. The other couple is very frugal and saves aggressively and we need to reward them for their hard work and frugality by not taxing their estate.
I just can't even......

Anonymous wrote:And with all of this, Sen. Hatch claims the US cannot afford to fund CHIP.

UFB

Anonymous wrote:And with all of this, Sen. Hatch claims the US cannot afford to fund CHIP.

UFB

Anonymous wrote:So apparently the deficeit hawks are balking - Corker, Flake etc.

And Collins isn't satisfied on a number of issues, so she is going to be offering a number of amendments.

This isn't necessarily over yet.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is. Go to sleep now.

Anonymous wrote:They're having another vote to send it back to committee? Why? I don't understand what is going on with this bill. Is it usual to have several votes, in this instance unsuccessful, to send a bill back to committee?