House Votes to Change the Way Economic Legislation is Scored

The notion that this piece of legislation is a necessary step toward reforming the tax code is the real, and only, joke here. What you should have said is that this legislation will enable the Republicans to use pseudo-math to manufacture a means of justifying their giving out big tax breaks that we, the American people, cannot afford. You never answered my original question: When have these massive tax breaks ever resulted in anything other than record debt and deficits? We now have two recent examples, Reagan and Bush, who amassed record debt while slashing taxes. You honestly want to continue with this lie that lowering taxes is revenue neutral? That's insanity.

If you think this is a Republican vs. Democrat issue you are incorrect. This is a "are we going to use real mathematics or are we going to call our best wild ass guess or highest desire the truth? Because there can only be one truth and, frankly, I'll take the one that is concrete and can be put on paper to make sense. When you have to put astericks out to the side of your math it is a direct sign that your math is incorrect and you know that it is incorrect and the person you are presenting it to knows that it is incorrect yet you ask them to believe you anyway. It's a fantastical way of saying, "let's pretend." My point is that this is far too serious to be including WAG's into the factoring and that is all that the Republicans have voted to do here.

The Joint Committee on Taxation does indeed include macroeconomic effects of legislation into their figures. They've done so for a long time and it is a direct part of their function. What you are missing here is that before said legislation goes to the Joint Committee on Taxation it has to originate in the Congressional Budget Office where it is scored using only the known economic factors in order to create a baseline. After legislation goes through the Congressional Budget Office and is assigned a baseline it then goes to the Joint Committee on Taxation, who include other economic factors. Without establishing a baseline, how do you suppose the Joint Committee on Taxation is going to perform their duties? So.....let's go back now to what the origin of this conversation was: The Republicans want to change the way that the CBO functions so that they can say that a terd equals a sweet smell and as long as they have an asterick out to the side the CBO must agree and make it part of the baseline figures. Do you have any idea how this will skew the integrity of the process? Obviously not. I guess neither does @shane or @lsutiga

 

Integrity?

Really?

You are talking about integrity with regards to politics? Lol. Like anyone has any.

 

you realize the climate change models do this same Very thing right?

 

Man manipulated Data.

 

Respond, hell. You think I read that long-ass post for meaning? I quickly skimmed it for a few nuggets.

 

You have a real response or just more of this crap? I am asking for some debate here.....if you guys cannot provide any I will have to assume that you agree

 

Hello....read carefully. I said the tax code needs to be reformed. Is there anyone with a nugget of sense not in agreement? I also said this legislation will enable that....not that it is a necessary step. Big difference.

Nope. The Washington fight over tax payer money is always a political one.

And then the JCT includes some things that have absolutely nothing to do with economic factors. "In preparing every revenue estimate, the JCT staff identifies the new economic incentives faced by taxpayers as a result of the proposed change in law. The JCT staff then considers taxpayers’ likely behavioral responses to the new tax environment in light of those incentives. This exercise of predicting behavioral responses to new tax legislation frequently is the most challenging and time-consuming aspect of preparing a revenue estimate"

So the JCT staff are also behavioral psychologists but you want to talk about economic integrity? Okay.

 

Debate what? Your rambling opinion?

This is how it will go:

We will disagree.

You say it is some trend? How about Obama saying he will Veto the Keystone when it "passes" congress. Same shit dude, you just happen to be on Obama's side. If Republicans do something Obama doesn't like Dems get a pass, but not the other way around.


When you actually say things like "they seem hell bent to full steam ahead toward keeping it white and right.", you really think you will get any debate?



You loaded up a thread full of shit so you could throw it.