...

[fskimospy]

Its statements like this that concern me.

How could you not know that the Democrats changed the filibuster rule in the Senate last year?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/s...-approve-changes-filibuster-rules-f2D11634344

This was a fundamental change in the way the Senate has operated for 200 years.

You may want to be more concerned for yourself. The democrats changed the filibuster rule for appointments, not for legislation. The ability of the democrats to use the filibuster is unchanged for anything the republican senate might do, unless you think Obama is going to start nominating people the democrats want to filibuster.

While it's true the republicans could eliminate the filibuster entirely, they won't. (It doesn't help them right now). I wish they would though, as the filibuster is horrible.

So yeah, it seems he has it right and you have it wrong.

 

[dank69]

Republican’s Tax Plan Awkwardly Aims at Rich
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/b...-tax-proposal-that-targets-the-rich.html?_r=0

From that link:

The Camp proposal seems unlikely to go anywhere, in no small part because the House Republican leadership has gone out of its way to distance itself from the proposal, praising Mr. Camp for his diligence and calling it worthy of consideration but not getting close to an endorsement.

House GOP tax plan would cut top rates but also hit high earners with a surtax
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...1ac868-9d92-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html

...

From that link:

Even many Republicans have grown leery of Camp’s proposal, worried that any simplification plan would have to trim popular tax breaks such as the deduction for home mortgage interest — a disadvantage in an election year.
...

The tax burden on the poorest taxpayers — those earning less than $20,000 a year — would initially rise slightly under Camp’s plan as some filers lost part of the refundable credits that now provide them with refunds that are larger than their tax bills.

They then go on to claim this burden on the poor would "evaporate" after a few years but fail to explain what that even means...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Did you read your own links on this? It's not actually revenue neutral, it depends on magical thinking and the elimination of unspecified tax breaks (that are left unspecified because if you look into what would need to be eliminated its impossible), and it doesn't even have any backing from the Republican Party as a whole.

It's just like the Ryan plan, it's not a serious proposal. So yeah, dank was right.

So Republicans aren't actually interested in tax code reform? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Brainonska511]

Its statements like this that concern me.

How could you not know that the Democrats changed the filibuster rule in the Senate last year?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/s...-approve-changes-filibuster-rules-f2D11634344

This was a fundamental change in the way the Senate has operated for 200 years.

You bring that up, but how could you not know that the rule change only applied to judicial nominations (excluding SCOTUS nominees) and cabinet appointments?

And the filibuster has changed over the years. It isn't some immutable rule written on a stone tablet by early sessions of the Senate. link

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The difference being that Dems are corrupted towards the few corps that contribute to them and are for the people otherwise, while GOP is corrupt toward the few corps that contribute to them and are for all corporations against the people anyway.

So your argument is that the Democrats are for being bought by kindler, gentler fat cats? Exactly how has that relationship fundamentally changed how the Democrats have tried reform such as I suggest?

It isn't about making things better, it's about shared misery. If people at the top made a ton of money BUT everyone else was much better off I'd say go for it. I'm not so sure about today's Democrat. They offer the same "tax the rich" mantra without actually doing in ways that influence jobs. Some stimulus that doesn't touch how things are done isn't going to be a lasting solution, but perhaps that's not wanted.

 

[hal2kilo]

They are in charge for now. In two years Americans will be pissed off at the Republicans, and the Senate will be Democrat again. With Hillary at the controls.

Well, you know they're going to go overboard since they as usual claim they have a mandate. So, yea, this is just a temporary set back. I've come to view these losses over time like getting a haircut. It always grows back, and it really didn't take that long for it to grow back. Plus the American electorate is so predictable.

 

[bshole]

So Republicans aren't actually interested in tax code reform? Is that what you're saying?

Oh I think they are VERY interested in tax reform. I fully expect them to make a strong pass on lowering taxes on the rich. That is their established modus operandi. Thank god Obama will veto any such nonsense.

 

[dank69]

So your argument is that the Democrats are for being bought by kindler, gentler fat cats? ...

No, my argument is that Democrats actually vote in the interest of the people when not being bribed to do otherwise while GOP vote against the interest of the people even when they are not being bribed.

Let's also not forget that liberal judges voted against allowing more money in politics while conservative judges continue to vote to allow even more in.

 

[fskimospy]

So Republicans aren't actually interested in tax code reform? Is that what you're saying?

I don't think they are particularly interested in revenue neutral tax code reform, no.

My evidence for this would be that they have never once attempted to put forth a tax proposal that has been revenue neutral which actually explains how it would be revenue neutral.

The day they put forward a serious proposal that actually describes how they will make it revenue neutral without relying on a bunch of asterisks and "TBD", I'll be the first person to welcome it. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, my argument is that Democrats actually vote in the interest of the people when not being bribed to do otherwise while GOP vote against the interest of the people even when they are not being bribed.

Let's also not forget that liberal judges voted against allowing more money in politics while conservative judges continue to vote to allow even more in.

I don't give a crap about the Republicans. I know what they are. Yeah this is in the interest of the people

You insist on blaming the Republicans, who are to blame for so much, but are telling me that by comparison the Dems aren't so bad. What a lousy criteria.

 

[blankslate]

deleted. made new thread on subject.

 

[Newell Steamer]

We can finally over turn ACA - because death panels (which are still no where in sight,..) and so many are suffering from it.

We can finally stop Ebola from pouring into the US from Mexico.

We can finally stop the gubnament from recommending we put fruit in our s'mores.

We can go back to flat out denying climate change, instead of throwing our hands up and saying; "well, I am not a scientist,.."

We can bring back 'binders of women'.

We can sue the President. Or, rather, try to convince people why we should sue him, then have your chosen law firm for the suit quit, then have another law firm quit,.. and then,.. well,.. uhm,.. yeah.

We can finally lower (fingers crossed; abolish) taxes on the rich.

And, hopefully, we can legitimize rape - in order to think of and save the children.

Also, let's go for gold; Obama's birth certificate,.. we want to actually hold said certificate,.. to rip it up and confirm he really doesn't have one.

Sky High Hope: bring back slavery fight for true state's rights.

 

[dank69]

I don't give a crap about the Republicans. I know what they are. Yeah this is in the interest of the people

You insist on blaming the Republicans, who are to blame for so much, but are telling me that by comparison the Dems aren't so bad. What a lousy criteria.

Can you tell me what that link has to do with Democrats?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't think they are particularly interested in revenue neutral tax code reform, no.

My evidence for this would be that they have never once attempted to put forth a tax proposal that has been revenue neutral which actually explains how it would be revenue neutral.

The day they put forward a serious proposal that actually describes how they will make it revenue neutral without relying on a bunch of asterisks and "TBD", I'll be the first person to welcome it. I'm not holding my breath.

I think you're wrong. Remember this post and I will do the same.

 

[Genx87]

How does raising minimum wage not fuck big business?

They can more easily pass along the cost than a small company? Economies of scale and all?

Anyways what you said was just ridiculous regardless of going into the details of some of these regulations. And that was my point. Your entire argument is the democrats are for the people except when their corporate handlers tell them they arent.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you're wrong. Remember this post and I will do the same.

Well they've had almost four years to make one since they took control of the house and I haven't seen it.

Not as a bet or anything, but at what point would you conclude they are not interested in that? Like, how many more years?

 

[dank69]

They can more easily pass along the cost than a small company? Economies of scale and all?

Anyways what you said was just ridiculous regardless of going into the details of some of these regulations. And that was my point. Your entire argument is the democrats are for the people except when their corporate handlers tell them they arent.

No, my entire argument is that the Dems are for the people sometimes while the GOP is against the people all the time. That is it.

 

[doubledeluxe]

lulz.

Dont you mean in charge of the gold course?

It's not like obama is actually doing in the white house besides sleeping between his golfing rounds.

These types of idiotic posts are why I think you're a 12 year old

 

[Oldgamer]

Well, you know they're going to go overboard since they as usual claim they have a mandate. So, yea, this is just a temporary set back. I've come to view these losses over time like getting a haircut. It always grows back, and it really didn't take that long for it to grow back. Plus the American electorate is so predictable.

Hardly a mandate considering how damn close these elections were last night. You had 49 to 50, 47 to 50 I mean the elections last night were so close that yes many republicans were sweating last night. In my opinion a mandate is when it is overwhelming like being voted for 30 to 70. That would be a loud mandate but not some piddly 49 to 50. It was just too damn close last night. A mere 7000 votes in some cases that made the deciding factor on who was elected it was just that close. In addition I can't help wonder how much of the voter suppression tactics worked yesterday and the prior weeks in early voting that may have tilted this balance last night in favor of republicans.

Now we set our sights to 2016 presidential elections. It Republicans start doing stupid shit like taxing the middle class poor hard, and giving the rich tax breaks, and killing off the ACA then those very things may end up costing them the 2016 election. They won't be able to blame Democrats anymore now because they have the majority and run both the Senate and House now. So they will have no excuses and any fuck ups on their part will fall squarely on their shoulders. This might actually be a blessing in disguise with them having the senate and may help Democrats in 2016.

 

[Oldgamer]

No, my entire argument is that the Dems are for the people sometimes while the GOP is against the people all the time. That is it.

They aren't against everyone, only those who income is under a million. LOL

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Well they've had almost four years to make one since they took control of the house and I haven't seen it.

Not as a bet or anything, but at what point would you conclude they are not interested in that? Like, how many more years?

During the next 2 years I believe they will put a tax reform bill on Obama's desk that will be largely revenue neutral for individuals. However, I do suspect they may try to lower taxes somewhat for corporations as many don't feel we're on a level playing field with the rest of the world.

 

[dank69]

During the next 2 years I believe they will put a tax reform bill on Obama's desk that will be largely revenue neutral for individuals. However, I do suspect they may try to lower taxes somewhat for corporations as many don't feel we're on a level playing field with the rest of the world.

If taxes go down on corporations, they go up for someone else. Who? You can't make up that huge difference just by taxing the rich.

 

[bshole]

If taxes go down on corporations, they go up for someone else. Who? You can't make up that huge difference just by taxing the rich.

We sure can try though. Put the rate at 85% for the ultra-wealthy, I think you would be suprised at the amount of revenue that would generate. Taxing the rich worked like a charm in the 50s, there is no reason why it shouldn't work just as well now.

 

[BoberFett]

No, my entire argument is that the Dems are for the people sometimes while the GOP is against the people all the time. That is it.

Black and white thinking is indicative of a very simple, gullible mind.

 

[dank69]

Black and white thinking is indicative of a very simple, gullible mind.

That's me. Simple and gullible.