Not Windows/Mac, but after having 6 iPhones since the launch, my new phone is a Galaxy S8. Just got tired of their crap.
[doublepost=1516283029][/doublepost]
This is the biggest load of crap shoveled on the American people and should be banned.
Why would it be so bad for the Federal Government to Freeze spending at current levels and if a Department needs more money, they go to Congress and ask for it. Don't just give them 10% automatically every year. Who else gets to live like that? We don't even have to actually cut spending, a simple Freeze would do wonders for the deficit.
We've actually had reduced annual discretionary spending a number of times since 2010. That's not just a reduction in the rate of growth of discretionary spending, but a reduction on an actual dollars basis. Discretionary spending was more or less flat for 2011, but then declined for 2012, again for 2013, again for 2014, and again for 2015. It was considerably lower for 2016 than it was for 2010 (and somewhat lower than it was for 2009). Even if we add in the new programatic spending from ObamaCare, it was lower in 2016 than it was in 2010.
Of course, total spending climbed for most (but not all) of those years, though at a much slower rate than had become the norm. Total spending climbed because programatic spending (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, spending on veterans' programs) climbed at a fast rate. Most politicians aren't willing to step in front of those speeding trains. But when it comes to spending that we choose each year, rather than that which happened pursuant to existing laws (which there hasn't been much willingness to change), we've been cutting spending lately. That's true for both defense discretionary spending and non-defense discretionary spending. For my part, I'd be on board for cutting it (and other spending) further.
Not the conspiracy theory you are making it out to be. The simple fact is due to the budget rules, to use a reconciliation bill that would only need a majority vote to pass the Senate, the individual tax cuts had to expire after 5 years. Otherwise they would have needed 60 votes in the Senate to close debate.
Please don't ask me the arcane rules that lead to this because I can't.
There are a number of resources which might help people understand how the reconciliation process works, if they're interested (or masochists). See, e.g., this
CRS report.
But, yeah, the nuances of the rules aside, some of the tax cuts had to expire in order for Republicans to be able to use the reconciliation process to pass the legislation and not need to get 60 votes (for cloture) in the Senate. Republicans painted themselves into a bit of a corner with the budget resolution they passed in October. Per the rules of reconciliation, certain details are set out in such budget resolutions which limit what can be done through the reconciliation process. Notably here there were two important limitations. The new legislation couldn't (be projected to) increase the deficit by more than $1.5 trillion total and it couldn't increase the deficit in the out years (i.e. those more than 10 years out) at all unless increases in those years were fully offset by reductions in the prior 10 years.
Those limitations meant that some tax cuts had to expire and that those which were permanent, and which increased the deficit in the out years, needed to be offset in those out years by changes which would decrease the deficit.
One correction though... the individual tax cuts don't, for the most part at least, expire until 2026.
