A win for President Trump: tax reform in the Senate passes!

[thyme4change]

Holy crap McCain looks bad.  They are wheeling him around the capital in a wheelchair when he keeps answering "I don't know, I haven't decided yet."  He doesn't even look like he knows where he is.  I hope he stays alive long enough to keep everyone guessing.  

[billisonboard]

Nov 29, 2017 16:43:32 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think it's a good bill. ... It simply eliminates the individual mandate, ...

There isn't a bill. The House has passed something. The Senate is still in the process of developing something that might pass. And then there will be an attempt to reconcile those two bills to send something to the President. As far as the mandate - The House just passed its big tax bill. Here’s what is in it. - "It keeps the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate." The Senate version does end it. We will have to see if it is in the final Senate bill and then if it is in reconciled bill that is sent to the President.

[happyhoix]

Nov 29, 2017 16:35:46 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Nov 29, 2017 9:43:27 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

It'll be great.

By 2020, when the Donald and all his wealthy buddies have grown even fatter, and the 'trickle down effect' has once again failed to trickle down to the middle and lower classes, and the GOP has managed to defund the ACA so people who had insurance don't anymore, the GOP will be sitting on the sidelines wondering what the hell happened.

Wouldn't be surprised if a full blown socialist gets elected. Not the direction I want our country to go in, but as the income inequality gap keeps expanding exponentially, there's going to be a flashpoint, and it won't be pretty.

Not that the 1% will care. They'll buy their own islands and hire their own minions, and Trump will be right there with them, if he isn't in jail.

I think it's likely that a socialist will get elected in 2020 or 2024.  There's been a long standing tit for tat going to one extreme or the other in the last few election cycles.  Bush was followed by Obama, the most hard leftist to occupy the office since Roosevelt himself.  Now we have Trump, and I think that democrats will overcorrect and nominate a hard leftist in the 2020/2024 races.  I think it's entirely possible the democrats will nominate a socialist for the presidential race in 2020 and end up losing to Trump again because most Americans will find it unacceptable to have a socialist as president.  But maybe by 2024 it'll happen.   

Regarding the tax bill, I think it'll pass.  As for what affect it will have for the GOP, it's hard to say.  While the polls show public opposition, I think polls are massaged to make a political point.  There just hasn't been the groundswell of anger and public outcry there as there was over the potential ACA repeal.  So I don't think this bill will be the tipping point between the republicans winning or losing 2018 or 2020.  We're due for a correction either way in congress in 2018, republicans need to capitalize on their majority and pass what they can while they have full control. 

I think the republicans are just correctly assessing that they stand to lose more by doing nothing with their majority than passing legislation that may be unpopular but not that unpopular.  They'll then have the rest of 2018 to pass something more popular like infrastructure spending heading into the mid terms.   

Taxes are a thing that are hard to grasp because most of us don't know exactly how it will impact us. If the president says we will all get big cuts, I think his loyal followers will believe him, but within a year or two, when they didn't get the kind of tax relief they thought was promised, there will be repercussions, especially if the left publicizes how much of a tax cut the upper tiers got.

I think you're right about the constant swing from left to right. One of the most disturbing things I've seen lately is a graph showing voters not as a big bell curve, with the right and left at each side and a big wad of moderates in the middle, but as two different peaks, a red one and a blue one, with a trough of moderate voters in the middle.  If there is no big pool of moderate voters, the two parties will keep nominating more and more 'radical' candidates, and we'll all get whiplash.

I'm not sure what will fix this  - will we have to split into two (or more) countries, or will we have to split into a multi party political system with the smaller parties making alliances in order to win elections, like most European countries.

Or, Trump could declare martial law and become dictator for life...

[countrygirl2]

Sure give a tax cut so the national debt gets bigger and bigger.

I guess when you have billions, you need billions more.

Hell with the poor, put a boot heel on then till you end up with
someone like Hitler in power, we are getting closer to that all the
time.

Easy to get to that point, will be almost impossible to fix it.

[dondub]

Are there any righties that care about the $1.5-2.5Trillion this will add to the national debt? Anyone? Hello. Hello.

[weltschmerz]

Nov 29, 2017 19:05:01 GMT -5 dondub said:

Are there any righties that care about the $1.5-2.5Trillion this will add to the national debt? Anyone? Hello. Hello.

No. They only bitch when it's a Democrat who adds to the national debt.

[Phoenix84]

Nov 29, 2017 19:05:01 GMT -5 dondub said:

Are there any righties that care about the $1.5-2.5Trillion this will add to the national debt? Anyone? Hello. Hello.

That's based on projections that don't take into account the increased economic activity that these tax cuts will bring.

Whether or not you believe that depends if you subscribe to the "trickle down" economic philosophy or not.

But I could ask you the same thing. Why is the national debt suddenly a concern now whereas it was not when the ACA passed and was going to cost trillions?

[thyme4change]

Nov 29, 2017 19:05:01 GMT -5 dondub said:

Are there any righties that care about the $1.5-2.5Trillion this will add to the national debt? Anyone? Hello. Hello.

I had a guy tell me that the sole reason he was voting for Trump was because the debt was out of control. I haven't had the guts to ask him how he feels about the tax bill.

I also suspect that he thinks he is going to get a big break, but one analysis made me think he won't.

[thyme4change]

Nov 30, 2017 9:19:28 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Nov 29, 2017 19:05:01 GMT -5 dondub said:

Are there any righties that care about the $1.5-2.5Trillion this will add to the national debt? Anyone? Hello. Hello.

That's based on projections that don't take into account the increased economic activity that these tax cuts will bring.

Whether or not you believe that depends if you subscribe to the "trickle down" economic philosophy or not.

But I could ask you the same thing. Why is the national debt suddenly a concern now whereas it was not when the ACA passed and was going to cost trillions?

We are okay going into debt to give hard working Americans basic health care, but not to buy a bunch of rich fucks a third private jet.

[movingforward]

Nov 30, 2017 9:19:28 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Nov 29, 2017 19:05:01 GMT -5 dondub said:

Are there any righties that care about the $1.5-2.5Trillion this will add to the national debt? Anyone? Hello. Hello.

That's based on projections that don't take into account the increased economic activity that these tax cuts will bring.

Whether or not you believe that depends if you subscribe to the "trickle down" economic philosophy or not.

But I could ask you the same thing. Why is the national debt suddenly a concern now whereas it was not when the ACA passed and was going to cost trillions?

Well, actually the national debt did concern me when the ACA was passed. It concerned me then and it concerns me now. The ACA has problems (I don't think anyone will dispute that) but at least I felt like it was a step in the right direction. I have a problem with the GOP willing to kick people off of the ACA with no viable option as a replacement. So they are willing to add trillions of dollars to the national debt AND screw people over.

In regards to the tax bill, I don't completely hate it...I am okay with giving corporations a tax break (if for nothing else, just to see what happens). I also think everyone should have some skin in the game. As for the trickle down effect, it isn't about "subscribing" to it, it is about the plain truth of does it work or doesn't it work. This we won't know for several years, but historically it hasn't played out very well. Honestly, I hope it does work...I would love to see CEOs saying "okay, I will filter this money to my employees - give them enough to get off medicaid and food stamps." Wouldn't that be glorious...

[giramomma]

Nov 30, 2017 10:59:04 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Nov 30, 2017 9:19:28 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

That's based on projections that don't take into account the increased economic activity that these tax cuts will bring.

Whether or not you believe that depends if you subscribe to the "trickle down" economic philosophy or not.

But I could ask you the same thing. Why is the national debt suddenly a concern now whereas it was not when the ACA passed and was going to cost trillions?

We are okay going into debt to give hard working Americans basic health care, but not to buy a bunch of rich fucks a third private jet.

It's not just that.

It's penalizing folks for going to college.

Frankly, I'd rather see SS cut than education and health care.

And, it really, really bothers me that NO ONE is talking about really cutting SS. ACA is just noise. Let's talk about cutting SS, please, because that is going to be more crippling on us in future years than ACA...According to the website below last year ..ACA subsidies cost 31 billion...SS 916 billion.

I mean, I know I'm a music major and all that, but shit, even I'm smart enough to see that 900 billion is much bigger number than 30 billion.

www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

[happyhoix]

Nov 30, 2017 11:26:14 GMT -5 movingforward said:

Nov 30, 2017 9:19:28 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

That's based on projections that don't take into account the increased economic activity that these tax cuts will bring.

Whether or not you believe that depends if you subscribe to the "trickle down" economic philosophy or not.

But I could ask you the same thing. Why is the national debt suddenly a concern now whereas it was not when the ACA passed and was going to cost trillions?

Well, actually the national debt did concern me when the ACA was passed. It concerned me then and it concerns me now. The ACA has problems (I don't think anyone will dispute that) but at least I felt like it was a step in the right direction. I have a problem with the GOP willing to kick people off of the ACA with no viable option as a replacement. So they are willing to add trillions of dollars to the national debt AND screw people over.

In regards to the tax bill, I don't completely hate it...I am okay with giving corporations a tax break (if for nothing else, just to see what happens). I also think everyone should have some skin in the game. As for the trickle down effect, it isn't about "subscribing" to it, it is about the plan truth of does it work or doesn't it work. This we won't know for several years, but historically it hasn't played out very well. Honestly, I hope it does work...I would love to see CEOs saying "okay, I will filter this money to my employees - give them enough to get off medicaid and food stamps." Wouldn't that be glorious...

Trickle down doesn't work because when the wealthiest people get extra money, they don't turn around and spend it 'things' usually. They save it.

If we really want money to go back into the economy, we should make sure the lower and middle class people get it. They're the ones that will spend that money rather than save it.

This has all played out before and failed, but I guess we're going to try the same thing again and hope for something different.

Almost no companies pay the highest tax bill possible now anyway, they have plenty of loop holes and right offs to reduce their taxes already. Trump has personally made special deals with NTC to avoid paying something like 5 million dollars in property taxes since he's been in business.

And if Trump was the financial genius he claims he is, he would recognize that the time to cut taxes on business is when the economy is in a slump and businesses need the extra help. Right now, the opposite is true. Businesses are mostly doing really well and can afford their own expansions without government handouts. In fact we should be looking at corporate loopholes we can close to make sure businesses are paying their fair share of taxes.

Instead, Trump is pushing through a tax package that will provide him and his family a gain of about 1 billion dollars, while at the same time he's lied and said he won't benefit from it at all, and all his billionaire buddies hate him for trying to pass it.

I say, find, let's do this, and let's see what happens to the GOP in 2020 when the rich are even richer and the poor still have shit.

[thyme4change]

Bernie may happen.

[Value Buy]

I am shocked McCain is going to do it!

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-gop-presses-ahead-on-tax-bill-mccain-backs-measure/ar-BBFYgq4

We are going to get tired of winning!

[happyhoix]

Steve Munchin lied about doing a formal assessment of the proposed tax plan's impact on the economy in a transparent manner. Not only is there no transparancey, they never actually did a formal assessment of the bills economic effect - liar liar, Steve Munchin.

www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/treasury-analysis-tax-bill.html?_r=0

The lack of any formal assessment of the bills’ economic effect from the administration comes as Republicans barrel ahead with a plan that is expected to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit at a time when the federal debt has already topped $20 trillion. Deficit hawks, including lawmakers like Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona, have been asking for analyses that show how the plan will avoid ballooning the deficit, which reached $666 billion, or 3.5 percent of gross domestic product, for fiscal 2017.

“This administration’s top salesmen spent months trying to con the American people into buying false claims about their tax plan,” said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee. “Treasury has broken this promise intentionally and know the truth would sink this scam once and for all. They’re doing everything they can to cover up Republicans’ middle-class tax hike.”

I guess this is winning, if by 'winning' you mean 'deceiving the tax paying masses that they will get a tax break when really it's the ultra rich that get richer while the middle class pays the bill (what we don't kick down the road for future generations to pay.)

Where is all the fiscal outrage from the right that followed the ACA passage? Has it been wall papered over by the greedy thought of a few more hundred bucks in your pockets?  Selling out your kids so you can blow a little more on lattes next year?

This is not the GOP party anymore. It's the 'everyman for himself' party, led by the chief pirate.

[tallguy]

Nov 29, 2017 16:43:32 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think it's a good bill.

Poor people don't pay taxes, rich people pay taxes, so it makes sense that any tax cuts would affect the rich for the most part.

It's a misnomer that poor people lose money under this bill.  It simply eliminates the individual mandate, giving poor people the choice not to carry health insurance.  This means that they may CHOOSE not to get medicaide and obamacare subsidies for health insurance that they may otherwise qualify for.  So they really haven't lost any money, just benefits they elected not to take.  This is fine in my book as no one should be forced to buy something just because they exist.  Of all the Obamacare provisions, this is the one that I most viehamately disagree with.

No, it's a horrible bill.  First, there is no real need for it.  Tax cuts are beneficial when the economy is NOT doing well.  Corporations are not in need of a huge cash influx.  Many are sitting on tons of cash, and they have access to borrowing at almost unprecedentedly low rates.  A large group of business leaders was asked how many would increase investment in their businesses if they got a tax cut, and very few hands were raised.  Proper economic theory would suggest that this would be a better time to raise taxes, not lower them, and that we should use the revenue to first balance the budget and then pay down the debt.  Second, it is targeted to the wrong people.  It is claimed that it will help the economy and create jobs, but that is exactly what it will NOT do.  For tax cuts to be stimulative they have to go to people who will spend the money.  Poor and lower-middle class people will do that.  The wealthy will not, or at least to a much lesser degree.  Third, ANY tax cut that is designed to increase the deficit when the country is not in a period of either recession or war should NEVER be approved.  Those are the only two times where deficit spending is appropriate.  And tax cuts never pay for themselves.  It has been tried, and it has failed.  It should be unbelievable that any politician still spouts such nonsense, or that the public still falls for it. 

Further, tying the repeal of the ACA individual mandate to this does indeed hurt the poor.  It is not just a matter of them choosing not to get a subsidy.  It is that the repeal will increase costs to a level where they may not be able to afford insurance or care.  To the extent that this bill also takes money away from Medicare and Medicaid people will very possibly be cut off from access to services even if their insurance may cover it.  Providers may decline to serve them or even cut off existing patients.  There is little in this bill that is actually good (in the extended term) for the average person.  It will greatly benefit the wealthy, and it will greatly benefit corporations.  But the average person gets screwed all the way around.  A small (and considerably smaller than advertised) benefit now for the next few years, and much bigger harms after that for most people.  Anyone who votes for this plan should be removed from office.  They either believe the nonsense, in which case they are too stupid to remain in office, or they know better and vote for it anyway, in which case they are too corrupt to remain in office. 

The passage of this bill would indicate to me only this:  That there is nobody left in the GOP with any integrity, courage, or common sense.  There is only the choice of economic illiteracy or greed, with a healthy dose of hypocrisy thrown in.  So much for fiscal responsibility or conservatism.  From Reagan and George W. Bush to this, we can officially pronounce it dead.       

[dondub]

Why is the national debt suddenly a concern now whereas it was not when the ACA passed and was going to cost trillions?

It's not suddenly a concern as the Repos were very vocal about the debt under Obama. Now? Not so much.

[dondub]

Plutocratic oligarchy on it's way.

www.seattletimes.com/opinion/we-are-being-scammed-bigly/

[Value Buy]

Maybe this is one of those cases where they have to pass it to see what's in it.
Everyone should be fine with that.
It was ok for Pelosi and President Obama.

[dondub]

It sucked that 24 million Americans were able to acquire health insurance. This bill will correct most of that problem by lopping an estimated 15 million off the ACA.

In the meantime folks have been signing up like mad during this years open enrollment period.

[tallguy]

Nov 30, 2017 17:02:37 GMT -5 dondub said:

Plutocratic oligarchy on it's way.

www.seattletimes.com/opinion/we-are-being-scammed-bigly/

Oh, and ignore claims that tax cuts for corporations would jump-start the economy and pay for themselves. Of the 42 ideologically diverse economists surveyed by the University of Chicago on the impact of Republican tax plans, only one agreed that they would lead to substantial economic growth, while none disagreed with the proposition that they would substantially increase U.S. debt.

So it’s a giant scam. And while the exact nature of the scam may be unclear, ordinary American families would end up being the victims either way.

For suppose those temporary tax breaks did end up becoming permanent, so that the budget deficit soared on a long-term basis. Then what? You know the answer: Republicans would suddenly revert to the pretense that they’re deficit hawks, and demand “entitlement reform” — that is, cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, programs that ordinary families depend on. In fact, they’re already talking about those cuts — they’ve started the switch even before getting the suckers to take the bait.

So will they manage to pull off this giant con job? The reason they’re rushing this to the Senate floor without a single hearing, without a full assessment from Congress’ own official scorekeepers, is their hope that they can pass the thing before people figure out what they’re up to.

And the question is whether there are enough Republican senators with principles, who believe that policies should not be sold with lies, to stop this bum’s rush.

Yep.

[Value Buy]

Nov 30, 2017 17:12:06 GMT -5 dondub said:

It sucked that 24 million Americans were able to acquire health insurance. This bill will correct most of that problem by lopping an estimated 15 million off the ACA.

In the meantime folks have been signing up like mad during this years open enrollment period.

Yes, it sucked that probably 24 million part timers were knocked down to 27 hours a week rather than their 32 to 37 hours a week because mgmt did not want to give them mandatory health insurance, because you know.......the government was not paying for it, but the business was.

[Tennesseer]

Nov 30, 2017 17:04:55 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Maybe this is one of those cases where they have to pass it to see what's in it.
Everyone should be fine with that.
It was ok for Pelosi and President Obama.

If it is passed, it will have far greater long term consequences than the passing of the ACA.

[Value Buy]

Nov 30, 2017 17:29:47 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Nov 30, 2017 17:04:55 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Maybe this is one of those cases where they have to pass it to see what's in it.
Everyone should be fine with that.
It was ok for Pelosi and President Obama.

If it is passed, it will have far greater long term consequences than the passing of the ACA.

Hey we agree on something, but for some strange reason, we are probably at polar opposites on the actual outcome.

[tallguy]

Nov 30, 2017 17:33:41 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Nov 30, 2017 17:29:47 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

If it is passed, it will have far greater long term consequences than the passing of the ACA.

Hey we agree on something, but for some strange reason, we are probably at polar opposites on the actual outcome.

If that is true, you should probably rethink your position.  

[Tennesseer]

Nov 30, 2017 17:33:41 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Nov 30, 2017 17:29:47 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

If it is passed, it will have far greater long term consequences than the passing of the ACA.

Hey we agree on something, but for some strange reason, we are probably at polar opposites on the actual outcome.

You are correct. And you get another from me.

[NastyWoman]

Since the OP started with a link regarding the proposed tax cuts, I thought I should join the party: www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/30/im-a-depression-historian-the-gop-tax-bill-is-straight-out-of-1929/?ref=yfp

Maybe someone can copy a paragraph or two out of the article since I don't know how to do that on my old iPAD. However the title of the link speaks for itself.

[tallguy]

Nov 30, 2017 22:40:32 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Since the OP stareted with a link regarding the proposed tax cuts, I thought I should join the party: www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/30/im-a-depression-historian-the-gop-tax-bill-is-straight-out-of-1929/?ref=yfp

Maybe someone can copy a paragraph or two out of the article since I don't know how to do that on my old iPAD. However the title of the link speaks for itself.

We can copy a bit of it, but people really should read the whole thing.  

Yet the plain fact that the trickle-down approach has never worked leaves Republicans unfazed. The GOP has been singing from the Market-is-God hymnal for well over a century, telling us that deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, and the concentration of ever more wealth in the bloated accounts of the richest people will result in prosperity for the rest of us. The party is now trying to pass a scam that throws a few crumbs to the middle class (temporarily — millions of middle-class Americans will soon see a tax hike if the bill is enacted) while heaping benefits on the super-rich, multiplying the national debt and endangering the American economy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt called for “bold, persistent experimentation” and said: “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” The contrasting position of Republicans then and now is: Take the method and try it. If it fails, deny its failure and try it again. And again. And again.

When Bill Clinton proposed a modest increase in the top marginal tax rate in his 1993 budget, every Republican voted against it. Trickle-down economists proclaimed that it would lead to economic disaster. But the tax increase on the wealthy was followed by one of the greatest periods of prosperity in American history and resulted in a budget surplus. When the Republicans came back into power in 2001, the administration of George W. Bush pushed the opposite policies, which had invariably produced calamity in the past. Predictably, that happened again in 2008.

[nittanycheme]

Nov 30, 2017 12:14:06 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Nov 30, 2017 11:26:14 GMT -5 movingforward said:

Well, actually the national debt did concern me when the ACA was passed. It concerned me then and it concerns me now. The ACA has problems (I don't think anyone will dispute that) but at least I felt like it was a step in the right direction. I have a problem with the GOP willing to kick people off of the ACA with no viable option as a replacement. So they are willing to add trillions of dollars to the national debt AND screw people over.

In regards to the tax bill, I don't completely hate it...I am okay with giving corporations a tax break (if for nothing else, just to see what happens). I also think everyone should have some skin in the game. As for the trickle down effect, it isn't about "subscribing" to it, it is about the plan truth of does it work or doesn't it work. This we won't know for several years, but historically it hasn't played out very well. Honestly, I hope it does work...I would love to see CEOs saying "okay, I will filter this money to my employees - give them enough to get off medicaid and food stamps." Wouldn't that be glorious...

Trickle down doesn't work because when the wealthiest people get extra money, they don't turn around and spend it 'things' usually. They save it.

If we really want money to go back into the economy, we should make sure the lower and middle class people get it. They're the ones that will spend that money rather than save it.

This has all played out before and failed, but I guess we're going to try the same thing again and hope for something different.

Almost no companies pay the highest tax bill possible now anyway, they have plenty of loop holes and right offs to reduce their taxes already. Trump has personally made special deals with NTC to avoid paying something like 5 million dollars in property taxes since he's been in business.

And if Trump was the financial genius he claims he is, he would recognize that the time to cut taxes on business is when the economy is in a slump and businesses need the extra help. Right now, the opposite is true. Businesses are mostly doing really well and can afford their own expansions without government handouts. In fact we should be looking at corporate loopholes we can close to make sure businesses are paying their fair share of taxes.

Instead, Trump is pushing through a tax package that will provide him and his family a gain of about 1 billion dollars, while at the same time he's lied and said he won't benefit from it at all, and all his billionaire buddies hate him for trying to pass it.

I say, find, let's do this, and let's see what happens to the GOP in 2020 when the rich are even richer and the poor still have shit.

Actually, I have been hearing about all these theories and think that a new twist is going to be added to the "trickle down" outcome.    Its going to be like that Carrier plant - all the extra money is going to "trickle down" to automating those jobs so they can save money over the long  haul (because everyone who's worked in big business knows that that most of the cost improvement projects are only considered real if you can get rid of people).  So, no tax breaks for the people who make less money, and higher probability that their jobs will be automated and eliminated.  Even if they get retrained to fix the machines, I bet that the company still can cut down most of the work force.  it doesn't take that many people to maintain and fix robots. 

[tallguy]

And the summary of the other article:

The analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that people making less than $100,000 a year (approximately 80 percent of American households) will have their taxes increased while the millionaires and billionaires will make off like bandits.

In the 1920s, Republicans were in full control of the federal government and used that power to pursue their objective to “make the well-to-do prosperous.” It didn’t “leak through on those below.” In that decade, the mass-production American economy became dependent on mass consumption. For it to work, the masses need a sufficient share of the national income to be able to consume what is being produced.

Republican policies in the ’20s instead pushed to concentrate more of the income at the top. Nine decades later, Republicans are rushing to do it again — and they are sprinting toward an economic cliff. Another round of Government of the People, by the Republicans, for the super-rich will be catastrophic. The American people must call a halt before it’s too late.