Forbes On Fox: Trump Tax Cuts, Dem Demands & Bipartisanship

by Mike

More to the point, the PERILS of bipartisanship!
A lively and spirited discussion, including Forbes himself, host David Asman, Financial Analyst Elizabeth MacDonald, Libertarian John Tamny, Moderate Bill Baldwin, and Millenial Jessica Tarlov.
Many excellent points are made, including how high taxes stifle S Corps, and thus small business job creation, that bipartisanship is poison to Republicans, that Elections have consequences and the GOP should seize the initiative, but the best quotes for my money were E-Mac’s assertions that the Tax Code creates more liars than golf, and the deductions section is responsible for more works of fiction than the entire library of Congress!

Here are, left – the entire segment, right – E-Mac’s spot-on rant:

Leave a Comment

  • allen

    any call from the democrats for bipartisanship should be met with laughter and “really? was that how you passed obamacare?” and driving the point home by doing everything without a single democrat being involved.

  • Bruce Currie

    Re: “The PERILS of bipartisanship.” Sigh…. For a more mature view, read here:

    “…So it’s time to take another stab at an approach to governance worthy of a democratic republic. Where to begin? I submit that Rabbit Angstrom’s question offers a place to start: What’s the point of being an American? Authentic progressives and principled conservatives will offer different answers to Rabbit’s query. My own answer is rooted in an abiding conviction that our problems are less quantitative than qualitative. Rather than simply more — yet more wealth, more freedom, more attempts at global leadership — the times call for different. In my view, the point of being an American is to participate in creating a society that strikes a balance between wants and needs, that exists in harmony with nature and the rest of humankind, and that is rooted in an agreed upon conception of the common good.”–Andrew Bacevich
    http://www.tomdispatch.com

    • The common good derives from the rule of law which prevents me from harming you or your property.
      There can never be too much freedom as long as that is assumed to be accompanied by personal responsibility and morality. Freedom is not the same as license.

      We can debate what government should, or should not, do within the confines of the Constitution, but “more wealth is not the answer” is over-simplified. I may not need more wealth to be happy, but that should be MY choice as long as I am not harming others. (see personal responsibility and morality)

      Even for environmentalists, a prosperous society should be desirable because it is a clean society – you’ll never find a people scrabbling for survival, no matter how nobly, diverting energy to clean up after themselves. Rich societies, on the other hand, have the time and money to clean up their environment, which is why our environment was cleaned up long before the Soviet Union’s environment.

      Rich societies have time and money for idle pursuits, even for the Democrat Party, but beware – if your policies impoverish a society, their tolerance of frivolous and wasteful pursuits, AND Democrats, will wear very thin.

      • Bruce Currie

        It’s the bankrupt ideas of Neoliberalism–a consensus both parties share– that has impoverished the former blue collar middle class. 40 years of “because markets” notions of “free trade”, voodoo economics, privatization and deregulation have provided austerity for 90% of us–stagnant wages, plus increased morbidity and mortality rates for a large swath of Americans. In effect, the elite have said: “Die faster.

        From the Case-Deaton study of white working class Americans:
        “This paper documents a marked increase in the all-cause mortality of middle-aged white non-Hispanic men and women in the United States between 1999 and 2013. This change reversed decades of progress in mortality and was unique to the United States; no other rich country saw a similar turnaround.”
        “http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full

    • allen

      can you tell me why, when democrats are in power, calls for bipartisanship are met with a not so polite call to fornicate with oneself, yet when republicans are in power, any call for bipartisanship is a “mature view”?

      it does not appear that you are being consistent. perhaps you should fix that.

      • Bruce Currie

        That’s a nice story you’re peddling. Unfortunately, it’s not accurate. It’s the ideologues among the “Freedom Caucus”, and the rest of the Kochtopus-funded network among the former Grand Old Party who see “bipartisanship” as selling out. They’ve driven the GOP far to the right over the last several decades, as they’ve eliminated moderates and gerrymandered districts safe for their extreme views all over. An accurate accounting of the development of the ACA shows who’s trying to work in a bipartisan manner and who isn’t. The House refused to have anything to do with Obama from the outset. The rest, as they say, is history. As Norm Ornstein of the AEI writes:

        “…Eric Cantor and House Republicans had already made it crystal clear that they were not cooperating under any circumstances. There, Democrats debated the issue for several months, but mostly amongst themselves, before introducing a detailed bill that emerged from committees in July 2009 and passing it through the House later in the year with just one Republican vote.

        “But with Obama’s blessing, the Senate, through its Finance Committee, took a different tack, and became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.
        ? ?
        “Baucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option.”
        https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/

        • allen

          so how much “bipartisanship” did we get on obamacare again? tell me, I keep forgetting.

          all I see is turnabout being fair play, and democrats being whiny little bitches about the whole thing.

          • Bruce Currie

            Here you go. Again, sorry it doesn’t conform to your preconceived narrative about how things went. More excerpts from the same article (which you might have bothered to read, to answer your own question):

            “What became clear before September, when the talks fell apart, is that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had warned both Grassley and Enzi that their futures in the Senate would be much dimmer if they moved toward a deal with the Democrats that would produce legislation to be signed by Barack Obama. They both listened to their leader. An early embrace by both of the framework turned to shrill anti-reform rhetoric .

            “Obama could have moved earlier to blow the whistle on the faux negotiations; he did not, as he held out hope that a plan that was fundamentally built on Republican ideas would still, in the end, garner at least some Republican support. He and Senate Democratic leaders held their fire even as Grassley and Enzi, in the negotiations, fought for some serious changes in a plan that neither would ever consider supporting in the end. If Obama had, as conventional wisdom holds, jammed health reform through at the earliest opportunity, there would have been votes in the Senate Finance Committee in June or July of 2009, as there were in the House. Instead, the votes came significantly later.

            “To be sure, the extended negotiations via the Gang of Six made a big difference in the ultimate success of the reform, but for other reasons. When Republicans like Hatch and Grassley began to write op-eds and trash the individual mandate, which they had earlier championed, as unconstitutional and abominable, it convinced conservative Democrats in the Senate that every honest effort to engage Republicans in the reform effort had been tried and cynically rebuffed. So when the crucial votes came in the Senate, in late December 2009, Harry Reid succeeded in the near-impossible feat of getting all 60 Democrats, from Socialist Bernie Sanders and liberal Barbara Boxer to conservatives Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Blanche Lincoln, to vote for cloture, to end the Republican filibuster, and to pass their version of the bill. All sixty were needed because every single Republican in the Senate voted against cloture and against the bill. Was this simply a matter of principle? The answer to that question was provided at a later point by Mitch McConnell, who made clear that the unified opposition was a ruthlessly pragmatic political tactic. He said, “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.”

          • allen

            and there you go again, not answering the question. it’s ok, I know these things are a bit difficult to admit. but I’ll ask again, for clarity, and hopefully you’ll answer this time.

            “can you tell me why, when democrats are in power, calls for
            bipartisanship are met with a not so polite call to fornicate with
            oneself, yet when republicans are in power, any call for bipartisanship
            is a “mature view”?”

            it’s ok to admit it’s a political tactic. we both know it is. we use it too. we just like to hear you say it.

            for the record, we don’t really give a flying fig who came up with the idea for obamacare. donkey poop and elephant poop is still poop. it still stinks, it’s not something you’d want to eat, and about the only use for it is to make your garden grow but you have to let it rot for a few seasons before it’s even good for that. we want it shoveled off the street and disposed of.

Previous post:

Next post: