Is there trouble ahead for the Trump economic agenda?

RE: The David Smick article (post #29 by lustylad):

Smick writes good stuff. Did you happen to read his book The World is Curved? Very interesting stuff. I highly recommend it.

As one of Jack Kemp's aides, the author had a front-row seat during discussions leading up to the tax reforms of the 1980s.

I'm not sure I'm quite as optimistic as he is about tax reform now, though.

The 1986 tax reform had broad bipartisan support. In fact, if I remember correctly, it got only a single-digit number of "nay" votes in the Senate.

Can you imagine Democrats working with Trump on any sort of tax reform -- even corporate tax reform -- today? For one thing, Schumer and a number of others have said that they're not going to budge even an inch on any of this until The Donald releases his tax returns. I don't think anyone will be waiting with bated breath for that to occur.

And for budget analysis reasons, there's still a lot of pressure on congress to enact some sort of Obamacare repeal & replace before proceeding onward with tax reform. According to some supporters, factions of congress are close to a deal, but I'll believe it when I see it.

After the healthcare debacle of a few weeks ago, the Trump team is in desperate need of a "win" in order to gather momentum and move the agenda. The White House and Congress better start getting on the same page with a lot of this, and fast, else the opportunity to enact an effective reform agenda may be in deep jeopardy.
.

Note: I'm not going to apologize for bumping this old thread, especially since it's as topical as ever, and since a number of people gratuitously bumped a slew of ridiculously stupid threads a month or two ago.

Besides, I don't see a single thread on tax policy. (What the hell is up with a political forum lacking tax policy discussion?)

It now looks as though Republicans have given up hope on any sort of health care reform. Perhaps it's just as well, since no one set forth a plan likely to be any more popular than the status quo. Is it worse to look completely incompetent, or to cram through a bunch of crap that doesn't really fix anything, and would make a lot of things worse, like Obama and congressional Democrats busily did in 2009-2010?

More recently, attention turned to tax reform -- which also appears to be going nowhere fast.

If Republicans finish the year zero-for two on the major-legislation front, the outlook for the 2018 midterm elections might look quite a bit dimmer than previously thought.
.

Note: I'm not going to apologize for bumping this old thread, especially since it's as topical as ever, and since a number of people gratuitously bumped a slew of ridiculously stupid threads a month or two ago.

Besides, I don't see a single thread on tax policy. (What the hell is up with a political forum lacking tax policy discussion?)

It now looks as though Republicans have given up hope on any sort of health care reform. Perhaps it's just as well, since no one set forth a plan likely to be any more popular than the status quo. Is it worse to look completely incompetent, or to cram through a bunch of crap that doesn't really fix anything, and would make a lot of things worse, like Obama and congressional Democrats busily did in 2009-2010?

More recently, attention turned to tax reform -- which also appears to be going nowhere fast.

If Republicans finish the year zero-for two on the major-legislation front, the outlook for the 2018 midterm elections might look quite a bit dimmer than previously thought.
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You gotta have FAITH, Brother! Let it play out...

tax policy is basically ho-hum. I'll believe it when I see when they enact those changes. there are constituencies who will fight to keep it there.

Why? We cannot balance our budget and cut taxes, and stop the giveaways to the 47% of the population of this country of losers who demand free housing, free health care, free food, free,free,free..... they would revolt!!! Originally Posted by DSK

We saw all the riots in Greece, when they had to do austerity measures, to get bailed out by the EU SEVERAL times.. Imagine how bad it would be here, if we had to austerity all those leeches on welfare/ebt..

It is unlikely that deregulation alone can accomplish this goal. The huge gains in the U.S. stock market since the election are based largely on investors’ anticipation that bold tax reform is coming—and soon. If the GOP can’t deliver on tax reform, ObamaCare replacement and economic growth, there’s the real definition of “stupid.” Originally Posted by lustylad

And what's the bet, if it doesn't happen, the dems like always, will blame it on the GOP..

True, the border-adjustment tax is complicated. The proposal, which would eliminate the corporate income tax and place a 20% tax on imports, assumes that a stronger dollar will counter any effect of rising consumer prices. Executives of Wal-Mart and other retailers hate the tax because of the risk that the cost of imports could rise. But if you don’t have a job, you can’t buy much. And no one denies that the structure of the U.S. corporate tax code has put American companies at a global disadvantage. Originally Posted by lustylad

I for one, wouldn't mind paying 20% extra for goods, if it means our economy thrives..

The border-adjustment tax has its pros and cons. One downside is that the world could retaliate if the U.S. taxes imports. Its upside is that the new tax would allow the broader rate-cutting tax-reform package to be revenue neutral, like the successful 1986 reform. Originally Posted by lustylad

And how much do we export compared to what we import?

Successful tax reform often begins with a catalyst, even a controversial one, which stirs up debate and brings the relevant parties to the table. House Republicans should insist on the border-adjustment tax until opponents offer an acceptable alternative. In Washington, rhetoric is cheap, but a plan beats no plan. And a continuation of the tax status quo would be bad news for congressional Republicans, the Trump administration and Main Street. Originally Posted by lustylad

That might work back then, but these days the dems WON'T offer up any alternatives.. At least nothing acceptable.

If Republicans finish the year zero-for two on the major-legislation front, the outlook for the 2018 midterm elections might look quite a bit dimmer than previously thought.
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

And the GOP will only have their backstabbing asses to blame for it.

It now looks as though Republicans have given up hope on any sort of health care reform. Perhaps it's just as well, since no one set forth a plan likely to be any more popular than the status quo. Is it worse to look completely incompetent, or to cram through a bunch of crap that doesn't really fix anything, and would make a lot of things worse, like Obama and congressional Democrats busily did in 2009-2010? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I wouldn't characterize the Republican reform effort as an attempt "to cram through a bunch of crap that doesn't really fix anything, and would make a lot of things worse"?

The whole discussion was entirely superficial. Dems only cared about the CBO scoring any bill to show millions of Americans losing their healthcare. Republicans only cared about saying they kept their promise to repeal obamacare, whether this was true or not.

Politics aside, what would a "competent" healthcare reform bill look like?

In the meantime, the DOW hit 23,000 for a while today.

I wouldn't characterize the Republican reform effort as an attempt "to cram through a bunch of crap that doesn't really fix anything, and would make a lot of things worse"?

The whole discussion was entirely superficial. Dems only cared about the CBO scoring any bill to show millions of Americans losing their healthcare. Republicans only cared about saying they kept their promise to repeal obamacare, whether this was true or not.

Politics aside, what would a "competent" healthcare reform bill look like? Originally Posted by lustylad

I agree. Both sides have an agenda. Obamacare has problems. Trumpcare would have had problems. Under Trumpcare not only would millions have lost their insurance, but rates on older people not yet eligible for Medicare and having to buy insurance on the open market would have seen their rates soar. And younger people with health issues who needed health insurance would have seen their rates soar. And those with pre-existing health conditions may have seen their rates soar, if not lose coverage totally.

I am glad to see that Senators Alexander and Murray seem to be trying hard to work on a compromise plan.