You didn’t even quote an opinion piece, tho; you just gave us your opinion. Why should we give it any weight?
People on this message board (not you) sometimes seem terribly confused about the difference between opinion and fact.
Poster A makes a declaration of “fact”.
Poster B (properly) asks for a citation.
Poster A (or Posters C and D) respond with other people’s opinions.
To be clear; this was what was said. There were, in fact, no deductions removed with this tax bill that would affect the rich, such as taxing capital-gains, penalties for off-shoring, stock transaction fees, eliminating carried-interest deductions, limiting items that can be taken as business expenses, etc. In fact several loopholes and deductions were *added by this bill to directly benefit the rich and corporations.
And if anyone here thinks they’re going to eliminate those loopholes and deductions *later to balance things out so there is “no absolute tax cut for the upper class,” boy do I ever have a fantastic bridge to sell you.
That’s because the law is a matter of dueling opinions. Even the US Supreme Court doesn’t vote unanimously every time.
Besides, what are you complaining about? You cited opinion pieces yourself.
No, the law is NOT a matter of dueling opinions. The law is what Congress passes.
In any case, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, regardless of the vote count, IS the final determination of law.
Until it gets overturned. As an example, look at the progression of stopping lawful segregation.
“Separate but equal” was the law of the land confirmed buy a Supreme Court decision. Later overturned by Brown.
For every SCOTUS decision that is not unanimous, there is a dissenting opinion. Even at that level, there is not total agreement.
When same-sex marriage was made legal, Constitutional scholars like Ted Cruz declared it was not binding on the states.
Look how long the fight over abortion rights has been raging including court cases often involving attempts to circumvent because someone had the opinion that it was wrong. Including some judges.
Roy Moore was twice thrown off the Alabama Supreme Court because in his opinion, he didn’t have to obey.
You posted opinion pieces by people who while they acknowledge that the law does not require shareholders have top priority, they have the opinion that the law is wrong.
I’d just refer you to this: Trump-O-Meter: | PolitiFact
I’m not sure. Possibly. What’s the likelihood that we cut the budget by about 1/3rd in that alternate universe?
I asked a question, but I did not put words in your mouth.
And that isn’t an answer to the question I asked. I asked if you wanted a pony; saying you want a pony and someone to take care of it isn’t an answer.
Once again, would you support a tax bill that slashed taxes but caused deficits to rise by $15 trillion?
I am not sure how that supports your point, since that article references the 2027 expiration of tax cuts for the middle class that will grandfather in permanent tax cuts for the upper class.
I also note that the statement evaluated is starkly at odds with statements like this: “The rich will not be gaining at all with this plan. We are looking for the middle class and we are looking for jobs – jobs being the economy,”
I’m sure you can agree that one can seem ATB tax cuts, or cuts that do not benefit the wealthy, but you can’t do both. Trump literally promised both. Do you think it constitutes a lie when he promised both? Do you think he didn’t know what he was talking about? How do you reconcile those contradictory statements?
See my other post above. The question is whether Senator HurricaneDitka votes yes or no on an tax cut bill that increases deficits by $15 trillion. If you wish, you can imagine that the bill lowers revenues by $30 trillion and cuts spending by $15 trillion, but nets out to $15 trillion more in debt.
Whaddya think? Is this a tough call for you?
“Have to admit”? 
No matter how irresponsible the bill may seem to you, it would be easier to convince the Tortoise of Euclid’s First Proposition than to convince a “conservative” or Trumpist of any economic truth.
The Supreme Court overturning itself is infrequent, at best.
So why are you arguing against this part of the Hobby Lobby decision - “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else…”?
You’ve posted links trying to refute that, and then say that SCOTUS is the final word on the law. Why the contradiction?
Also, I asked if you thought the Founding Fathers thought that the human conscience was irrelevant to matters of law. You avoided that question (presumably because you recognized that your effort to mock an Ivy League professor was about to backfire on you). What do you say?
In simplified Randian terms, “looters” were the businessmen who used the government for subsidies, tax breaks, loans, and protection, while “moochers” arw individuals who go on the dole and have their initiative sapped from them.
This bill is a Looters bill. Paul Ryan is using the power of the goverment… how did Ayn put it, the power of gangs and guns?.. to extort $1.5 trillion of wealth from 325 million people to put it in the pockets of 3 million. As the $1.5 trillion is to be financed via government debt, that money will have to be repaid down the road, meaning that this “tax cut” is no more a tax cut than I am a German Shepherd.
If I read Atlas Shrugged (and her other books) correctly, Ayn would be pissed if people thought this abortion of a law is a true reflection of her beliefs. I am positive Ryan, Rand Paul, and other Randians have convinced themselves this law somehow is a triumph of Objectivist thought, but it really isn’t - it is the rejection of those beliefs for the acquisition of plain, raw, power.
Yes and no. Ayn Rand is on record as saying:
However, right after that she says:
It’s not clear if she would have seen this tax bill as the appropriate step to take in the process of transforming the US into a “fully free society”. But I do believe she would have wanted, at a minimum, to see cuts in the size and scope of government to fund any tax cuts rather than borrowing against the future.
So what? It still happens.
For what it’s worth, this is exactly what isnow being discussed. Here they discuss allowing a charitable donation to the state (tax deductible) in lieu of state taxes (no longer tax deductible). They also discuss the payroll tax loophole.
As Mitt Romney famously told us, it is our civic duty to find all the loopholes and pay the minimum taxes. If the GOP put together a shitty law that has a lot of loopholes, then as an American, it is my duty to use those.
Just as you have avoided addressing the fact that other law professors disagree with her.
How often? Once every 10/25/50 years?
Quite a few, actually.
Looks like 122.
List including non-explicit overrules (PDF)
In 228 years. It’s more than I would have thought, but it’s an average of once every two years. :rolleyes: