3 ms·

The deduction wasn't eliminated, it was capped. Because the standard deduction was increased, most people aren't worse off but people not just in blue states bu

The deduction wasn't eliminated, it was capped. Because the standard deduction was increased, most people aren't worse off but people not just in blue states but in blue cities, where property values are much higher, are worse off. I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities.

kbenson 8y ago
> I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities. The cynic on me thinks this is by design. It's much easier to press for the removal of programs when you can point towards how we're continuously unable to avoid a deficit because of them...
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  That "strategy" hasn't ever worked before - at least, it has not resulted in significant numbers of programs being cut. (Or, rather, it hasn't resulted in significant dollars worth of programs being cut.)
  - extra88 8y ago
    I don't know if that's true or not, that it has never worked. When the amount budgeted to a program is not increased to cover the increased cost achieve what it's meant to achieve (e.g. pay for the medical coverage of the poor and disabled), that is effectively a cut. And Mitch McConnell is talking about making cuts to the big three social insurance programs to address deficits [0]. This comes after he championed and passed major reductions in tax revenue last year, to the benefit primarily of corporations and the very wealthy. [0] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-calls-for-cutting-government-programs-to-deal-with-disturbing-debt https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-calls-for-cutting...
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Fine, McConnell is talking. A lot of people have talked, over a lot of years. Let me know when actual cuts to actual budgets happen.
      - extra88 8y ago
        I would rather those actual cuts not take place at all. Just because politicians like Paul Ryan haven't succeeded in their goals doesn't mean they aren't real. Certainly the popularity of the social insurance programs makes politicians, regardless of party, wary of cutting them but I expect that there have been cases where a bill with cuts has passed the House but failed in the Senate only because the need to get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.
- extra88 8y ago
  To the Republicans in power, tax cuts are always good in their own right but this secondary effect is also desirable.

kbenson 8y ago

> I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities. The cynic on me thinks this is by design. It's much easier to press for the removal of programs when you can point towards how we're continuously unable to avoid a deficit because of them...

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
That "strategy" hasn't ever worked before - at least, it has not resulted in significant numbers of programs being cut. (Or, rather, it hasn't resulted in significant dollars worth of programs being cut.)
- extra88 8y ago
  I don't know if that's true or not, that it has never worked. When the amount budgeted to a program is not increased to cover the increased cost achieve what it's meant to achieve (e.g. pay for the medical coverage of the poor and disabled), that is effectively a cut. And Mitch McConnell is talking about making cuts to the big three social insurance programs to address deficits [0]. This comes after he championed and passed major reductions in tax revenue last year, to the benefit primarily of corporations and the very wealthy. [0] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-calls-for-cutting-government-programs-to-deal-with-disturbing-debt https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-calls-for-cutting...
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Fine, McConnell is talking. A lot of people have talked, over a lot of years. Let me know when actual cuts to actual budgets happen.
    - extra88 8y ago
      I would rather those actual cuts not take place at all. Just because politicians like Paul Ryan haven't succeeded in their goals doesn't mean they aren't real. Certainly the popularity of the social insurance programs makes politicians, regardless of party, wary of cutting them but I expect that there have been cases where a bill with cuts has passed the House but failed in the Senate only because the need to get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.
extra88 8y ago
To the Republicans in power, tax cuts are always good in their own right but this secondary effect is also desirable.