Live feed of Bernie Sanders/Sherrod Brown/Mary Landrieu filibustering the tax "deal"

Did I miss anyone else who spoke? I didn't watch right from the beginning. I want to know of all the senators who actually have the common sense to join Sanders in this filibuster. I am glad that one of my senators joined in.
 
I didnt hear it, but Mary Landrieu took a turn. Although this may be slightly disingenuous because she voted for the Bush tax cuts originally, and goes out of her way to distance herself from Obama.
 
Waitaminute. I thought you just filibustered when a lone senator puts a block on a bill and everyone goes home for the day.

That's how it's been done for the past few years, at any rate.

;)
 
I may not agree with Bernie Sanders on everything but I'm proud a person like him is in the Senate and it gives me hope for the future.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I didnt hear it, but Mary Landrieu took a turn. Although this may be slightly disingenuous because she voted for the Bush tax cuts originally, and goes out of her way to distance herself from Obama.[/QUOTE]

She actually directly addressed why she voted for the Bush tax cuts, whether she was telling the truth or not. She claimed it was because there was a surplus at the time and that the cuts did help the middle and lower classes. Now, she was saying it is irresponsible to keep taxes cut for millionaires and billionaires when the lower and middle class are getting poorer and poorer and the deficit keeps growing.
 
bobsucksf.jpg


If you can't read that, let me type it out

Sander's on the estate tax said:
WAL-MART OWNERS DON'T NEED A TAX BREAK

SAM WALTON'S FAMILY, THE HEIRS TO THE WAL-MART FORTUNE ARE WORTH AN ESTIMATED $86.6 BILLION

THE WALTON FAMILY WOULD RECIEVE AN ESTIMATED $32.7 BILLION TAX BREAK IF THE ESTATE TAX WAS COMPLETELY REPEALED
Click to expand...
 
Come to think of it, is...is he even really filibustering? Isnt he just eating the allotted debate time? I dont think they actually have the votes to stand up against it, so if they wanted to shut him out, they could.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']
bobsucksf.jpg


If you can't read that, let me type it out[/QUOTE]

Now, quick - let's take the estimated amount of income for the US government in 2011 vs the estimated "loss" by extending the tax cuts through that same time period.

Which one of those numbers is a bigger percentage of the other? Federal income vs. loss due to tax increase or Walton income vs. loss due to tax increase?
 
$4,451,000,000,000 for 2010. These tax cuts will get the Federal Government less than $400,000,000,000.

So, you're saying these, what, 10 individuals should have to give up 38% (more) of their income so that the Federal Government can take in about 9% more income?

Let me ask you this - if the Waltons announced that they were going to cut employee pay, across the line, 38% so that the Waltons can make an additional 9% yearly, would you be okay with that?

But if the Federal Government wants to cut their income by 38% so that the Federal Government can make a few more bucks... well, it's not coming out of your bank account, so hell yeah!
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Come to think of it, is...is he even really filibustering? Isnt he just eating the allotted debate time? I dont think they actually have the votes to stand up against it, so if they wanted to shut him out, they could.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure he is since he has been going for the past 6 hours.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I'm pretty sure he is since he has been going for the past 6 hours.[/QUOTE]
but the vote isnt even scheduled till next week...

I mean, yes its technically a filibuster in that he will try to prevent debate from ending and going to a vote, but he may get shut out when its time for the vote to happen.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']$4,451,000,000,000 for 2010. These tax cuts will get the Federal Government less than $400,000,000,000.

So, you're saying these, what, 10 individuals should have to give up 38% (more) of their income so that the Federal Government can take in about 9% more income?

Let me ask you this - if the Waltons announced that they were going to cut employee pay, across the line, 38% so that the Waltons can make an additional 9% yearly, would you be okay with that?

But if the Federal Government wants to cut their income by 38% so that the Federal Government can make a few more bucks... well, it's not coming out of your bank account, so hell yeah![/QUOTE]

That's silly. You're silly.

You don't understand the difference between income and estate taxes. :) Silly boy.

Your indignation is cute.
 
[quote name='Quillion']That's silly. You're silly.

You don't understand the difference between income and estate taxes. :) Silly boy.

Your indignation is cute.[/QUOTE]

I just tried to ignore that post. You should do the same.
 
[quote name='Quillion']That's silly. You're silly.

You don't understand the difference between income and estate taxes. :) Silly boy.

Your indignation is cute.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I should have said "net worth". I was thinking that (thus the "more" comment, as they've already paid income taxes, then would have to pay /more/ in estate taxes) - but you're right, I botched that.

Regardless, the point still stands. Is the mere act of dying worth having to pay 38% of one's net worth into the Federal Government?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']lol FoxNews

bobsucks2.jpg


http://nation.foxnews.com/bernie-sa...rants-when-enough-enough-these-rich-crybabies

And alot of the comments are calling for Sanders to write a big check to the IRS. rofl stupid talking points.[/QUOTE]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
OMFG IT'S A SOCIALIST. RUN FOR THE fuckING HILLS! HE'S GONNA TAX US ALL!

I love it. Keep on making fools of yourselves, Fox News, and I'll keep on laughing.

Thanks for posting that so I didn't have to click on the actual link to Fox News and increase their ad revenue.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Sorry, I should have said "net worth". I was thinking that (thus the "more" comment, as they've already paid income taxes, then would have to pay /more/ in estate taxes) - but you're right, I botched that.

Regardless, the point still stands. Is the mere act of dying worth having to pay 38% of one's net worth into the Federal Government?[/QUOTE]

Yup.

You see, the estate tax exists to help remove blocks to upward mobility. To "grease the wheels" as it were, and prevent a small noble class from forming. Believe me, they'd survive just fine with only 62% of daddy's money.

But I suspect that's a point on which we'll never agree. Besides, aren't you all for people "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps"?

Nevermind, don't answer me. I don't want to hear regurgitated talking points.
 
I'm amazed he is still going and going at the same speed he was when he started.

I wouldn't be surprised if he beat the record of 24 hours
 
But didn't he earn his salary? WHy should he have to forcefully donate his salary?

Look, there's no doubt that you'll find morons on the Fox page. It's amazing that some of them can even figure out the internet. Then again, like it or not, it is fair to point out a bit of hypocrisy when this guy makes a minimum of $174,000 per year and he's trying to sell himself as some champion of those making 10% his salary.

I think it was in another tax tangent thread but someone mentioned going back to the two tier system (Reagan era tax structure) because it was more simple. The problem there was that it was 10% and 25% with somewhere in the $50k area being the split. That isn't really a good amount for the split, maybe $75k would make more sense given the economic climate of today.
There's still one giant problem with all of this and that's the taxation of income instead of wealth. I mean really, how much INCOME tax do Buffett and Gates really pay? They've already earned their income so aside from capital gains and interest based income they're not really raking it in. Then they can go ahead and do some charitable giving to reduce their tax burden under the guise of philanthropy as well as the tax loopholes that are more easily accessible as you have a higher and higher income.

The so called "death tax" is an effort to eliminate this, though it really doesn't work all that well to point out that the Waltons "keep" $40 billion as it's to devisive. The current talking points indicate that a "business owner" making $250k or more per year will get a huge tax increase and won't be able to leave anything to their kids because it will have 35 or 55% lopped off by the govmt. Well, if that business owner has half a brain (obviously more than the righties on the radio give their audience credit for) they'd realize that their operational income isn't the same as what they pay themselves and in turn put onto a 1040. There are also numerous sheltered investments to keep the inheritance vultures from swooping in.

The death tax is already there anyway since you have to pay income taxes on gifts/inheritances/etc... over a certain amount WELL below $5 million. More like $300k but I'd have to go through my books and find some more recent #'s.

The funniest bit of this whole thing is how the left paints it as tax cuts for the wealthy. The Bush tax rates effected all five brackets and were heavily loaded on the bottom. Your first $8,750 of income is now taxed at 10%. If the tax rates change that is going to go to 15% or $437.50 per year on the lowest bracket. I have a hard time calling that a tax cut on the wealthy. Granted that's what comes out of your income taxes, come tax time when you file that can radically change but that's not what's up for debate right now. Even though many seem to be confused on that when you read various boards. This is all actual out of pocket money and not more that you'll pay in come April 2012.
 
[quote name='nasum']But didn't he earn his salary? WHy should he have to forcefully donate his salary?

Look, there's no doubt that you'll find morons on the Fox page. It's amazing that some of them can even figure out the internet. Then again, like it or not, it is fair to point out a bit of hypocrisy when this guy makes a minimum of $174,000 per year and he's trying to sell himself as some champion of those making 10% his salary.

I think it was in another tax tangent thread but someone mentioned going back to the two tier system (Reagan era tax structure) because it was more simple. The problem there was that it was 10% and 25% with somewhere in the $50k area being the split. That isn't really a good amount for the split, maybe $75k would make more sense given the economic climate of today.
There's still one giant problem with all of this and that's the taxation of income instead of wealth. I mean really, how much INCOME tax do Buffett and Gates really pay? They've already earned their income so aside from capital gains and interest based income they're not really raking it in. Then they can go ahead and do some charitable giving to reduce their tax burden under the guise of philanthropy as well as the tax loopholes that are more easily accessible as you have a higher and higher income.

The so called "death tax" is an effort to eliminate this, though it really doesn't work all that well to point out that the Waltons "keep" $40 billion as it's to devisive. The current talking points indicate that a "business owner" making $250k or more per year will get a huge tax increase and won't be able to leave anything to their kids because it will have 35 or 55% lopped off by the govmt. Well, if that business owner has half a brain (obviously more than the righties on the radio give their audience credit for) they'd realize that their operational income isn't the same as what they pay themselves and in turn put onto a 1040. There are also numerous sheltered investments to keep the inheritance vultures from swooping in.

The death tax is already there anyway since you have to pay income taxes on gifts/inheritances/etc... over a certain amount WELL below $5 million. More like $300k but I'd have to go through my books and find some more recent #'s.

The funniest bit of this whole thing is how the left paints it as tax cuts for the wealthy. The Bush tax rates effected all five brackets and were heavily loaded on the bottom. Your first $8,750 of income is now taxed at 10%. If the tax rates change that is going to go to 15% or $437.50 per year on the lowest bracket. I have a hard time calling that a tax cut on the wealthy. Granted that's what comes out of your income taxes, come tax time when you file that can radically change but that's not what's up for debate right now. Even though many seem to be confused on that when you read various boards. This is all actual out of pocket money and not more that you'll pay in come April 2012.[/QUOTE]

Considering the requirements of the US Senator job, $174k seems fair enough, and he is more than willing to pay his fair share of taxes on that. It is not like he is making a million dollars or more, which he might be if he were in the private sector. His job requires a bit more skill than a job that makes 10% of his salary. And we don't know about his charitable contributions- does anyone have any data on that? I don't think he's trying to be a "champion" of this movement. He's just the only one who was willing to call out the injustice through a filibuster, and managed to get a couple other senators to follow his lead. Any real senator with balls would have done the same thing, or would have at least joined him (thank you Sherrod Brown and Mary Landrieu).

Gift tax is taxed at amounts greater than the lifetime allowance of $1 million, with an exemption for all gifts $13k or lower.

And I am pretty sure Sanders and others are advocating keeping the tax cuts on the lower brackets and getting rid of them for the rich.
 
[quote name='nasum']There's still one giant problem with all of this and that's the taxation of income instead of wealth. I mean really, how much INCOME tax do Buffett and Gates really pay? They've already earned their income so aside from capital gains and interest based income they're not really raking it in. Then they can go ahead and do some charitable giving to reduce their tax burden under the guise of philanthropy as well as the tax loopholes that are more easily accessible as you have a higher and higher income.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I'm sure that giving half of their fortunes away to charity is a guise so that they can reduce their tax burden.

/facepalm
 
[quote name='nasum']The funniest bit of this whole thing is how the left paints it as tax cuts for the wealthy. The Bush tax rates effected all five brackets and were heavily loaded on the bottom. [/QUOTE]

this would break the tables so click the spoiler

8v33x.gif
 
[quote name='bk187']Yes, I'm sure that giving half of their fortunes away to charity is a guise so that they can reduce their tax burden.

/facepalm[/QUOTE]

Nevermind that there is a limit on the charitable deduction. There's only so much that they can reduce their tax burden by.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']fuck, went to get dinner and it looks like the filibuster is over.[/QUOTE]

I had the same thing happen. Does anybody know how he ended it?
 
From his facebook page:
If the American people are prepared to stand – and we’re prepared to follow them – I think we can defeat this proposal. I think we can come up with a better proposal which better reflects the needs of the middle class and working families of our country and, to me, most importantly, the children of our country. And with that, Madam President, I would yield the floor.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If only Obama had the guts to stand up to Republicans the way he's beating down Democrats this week.[/QUOTE]

This sums it all up perfectly. Thank you Professor/Queen of Scotland.

I forget the exact nature of the bet that caused you to become the Queen of Scotland. Care to refresh my memory?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']this would break the tables so click the spoiler

8v33x.gif
[/QUOTE]

Yes because when we tax citizens of this country we do as a percentage of what you make, but when we give tax breaks it should be done equally with no consideration for the brackets.

:roll::roll:

That chart is grossly misleading.

I am also curious as to why you guys haven't commented on the increase in tax breaks to every other class? Is it just not enough, or are you concerned with the deficit? Or both....I guess
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Obama enlists Bill Clinton in trying to convince Democrats that this isn't a bum deal:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/10/tax.plan/index.html?hpt=T2

Just stop, Obama. Please.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, Clinton is the King of the Awesome Budget - shouldn't we all just listen to him?

[quote name='Knoell']I am also curious as to why you guys haven't commented on the increase in tax breaks to every other class? Is it just not enough, or are you concerned with the deficit? Or both....I guess[/QUOTE]

To be fair, at least to members have said they would vote to end all tax cuts as opposed to ending them for everyone. I'll give them some credit there. Of course, what I wouldn't give to peer into some alternate universe where they were actually put on the spot to vote one way or another...
 
[quote name='Knoell']That chart is grossly misleading.[/quote]

explain please.

I am also curious as to why you guys haven't commented on the increase in tax breaks to every other class? Is it just not enough, or are you concerned with the deficit? Or both....I guess
Click to expand...

The 2% payroll tax cut is frightening because it is a direct reduction of the funds that pay for Social Security. In two years' time, Republicans will disavow their responsibility for enhancing the national debt via their insistence upon tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy (about $200B of the debt growth in 2011-12 will come from that alone). They will lament "government spending" (heck, some of y'all are already talking out of both sides of your mouth, bemoaning spending while insisting upon legislation that will greatly enhance our deficit by reducing tax revenues substantially - evidently, the Republican motto is "ok, you can spend this much more money, but only if we spend THIS MUCH MORE money, *coughblusterbullshit*fiscalresposibility*coughblusterbullshit*").

On top of that, the solvency of SS will be truly threatened by the payroll tax cut, leading to Republicans seeking to continue the asinine endeavor of seeking to privatize it in the best case scenario, and in the worst case scenario, eliminate it altogether.

Think of it this way: when Obama ran for office, he sought to increase the income taxable under FICA (to above $250K/year incomes, which is the current cap, I believe). Two years later, he's creating a policy (as part of the left's side of this "compromise") that will virtually guarantee the demise of Social Security.

When I was younger and went to see a bunch of shitty horror movies (as teenagers are wont to do), I hated when people would shout at the movie. Like Jason Voorhees would be going after some buxom young thing in a negligee, and she would, of course, run into the woods to escape his ax. Some assholes would add their own commentary, shouting things like "DON'T RUN IN THERE, DUMB BITCH! IT'S A TRAP AND HE'S GONNA KILL YOU!"

Sadly, though, the reason I bring that up is because I've found myself shouting that at the television this week when I see Obama defending this terrible, terrible bill.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']explain please.[/QUOTE]

I imagine it will be that the top pay more taxes dollarwise therefore they deserve to get more back dollarwise
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I imagine it will be that the top pay more taxes dollarwise therefore they deserve to get more back dollarwise[/QUOTE]

Why should it be different?

Why do wealthy people deserve to pay a percentage of their income to make sure it is fair (not to mention a higher percentage), but when tax breaks are in order they deserve to receive an equal share of the tax breaks to everyone else completely ignoring the income difference on that end.

To people with basic knowledge of income taxes that chart seems like the rich are getting a great deal. If that chart wanted to be less misleading it would have an average of what each group paid in taxes right along side it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']

The 2% payroll tax cut is frightening because it is a direct reduction of the funds that pay for Social Security. In two years' time, Republicans will disavow their responsibility for enhancing the national debt via their insistence upon tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy (about $200B of the debt growth in 2011-12 will come from that alone). They will lament "government spending" (heck, some of y'all are already talking out of both sides of your mouth, bemoaning spending while insisting upon legislation that will greatly enhance our deficit by reducing tax revenues substantially - evidently, the Republican motto is "ok, you can spend this much more money, but only if we spend THIS MUCH MORE money, *coughblusterbullshit*fiscalresposibility*coughblusterbullshit*").

On top of that, the solvency of SS will be truly threatened by the payroll tax cut, leading to Republicans seeking to continue the asinine endeavor of seeking to privatize it in the best case scenario, and in the worst case scenario, eliminate it altogether.

Think of it this way: when Obama ran for office, he sought to increase the income taxable under FICA (to above $250K/year incomes, which is the current cap, I believe). Two years later, he's creating a policy (as part of the left's side of this "compromise") that will virtually guarantee the demise of Social Security.

When I was younger and went to see a bunch of shitty horror movies (as teenagers are wont to do), I hated when people would shout at the movie. Like Jason Voorhees would be going after some buxom young thing in a negligee, and she would, of course, run into the woods to escape his ax. Some assholes would add their own commentary, shouting things like "DON'T RUN IN THERE, DUMB BITCH! IT'S A TRAP AND HE'S GONNA KILL YOU!"

Sadly, though, the reason I bring that up is because I've found myself shouting that at the television this week when I see Obama defending this terrible, terrible bill.[/QUOTE]

The social security tax is unbearable as it is. In my paystub it is nearly as much as the federal tax every week. Which is why so many people take issue with SS's solvency already.

Include yourself next time, suddenly when tax breaks come up you are so terribly concerned about the deficit when in the other thread you practically say the deficit does not matter and we should spend more. Nope not talking out of both sides of your mouth. Not at all.

It is simply an ideological difference between sides. You guys think 2% of American don't deserve tax cuts because all they do is swim in the money vaults, not spending a dime, and the other side believes the tax cuts should be extended for everyone. The second option should be an easy choice if they would just find a way to pay for it. But you know government knows how to spend money better than all those "millionaires" yeah, that government, the one that is trillions in debt. :roll:
 
No, they do not deserve the tax cut extension. Their wealth has increased disproportionately over the past 40 years, and the middle class' situation has worsened (to the point where a 1-income household is an anomaly, not the norm).

80% of all wealth and income growth in the past 40 years have gone to 1% of the population. When the government asks them to contribute a bit more, now suddenly we hear you talk about "fair" and "equal"? That's preposterous. Why do fairness and equality matter on only one end of the income spectrum?

Seriously, I can't recommend Pierson and Hacker's "Winner-Take-All Politics" enough to people; if you're too cheap to pay for a book, then grab some of Larry Bartels' research off of google scholar. Those who do not believe we are a developing oligarchy won't be convinced, but that's simply the difficulty of combating ideologues with facts.

I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth because I believe in stimulus spending - which is necessary to get out of the Bush Depression, but also necessary to keep things like police on the streets, develop improved means of public transportation, and fund additional projects in other states. Not to mention the begged-for-for-decades train tunnel to NYC from NJ.

We can't even pay for bridges to be maintained due to tax revenue. Have our short term memories already forgotten about I-35 in Minneapolis? Mine has not. I'd say society is fair and equal when we live in one where we aren't likely to drive on a bridge that will collapse and kill us because we lack the tax revenue. You think in mere proportions with zero hindsight or critical thinking skills of the historical conditions that got us to where we are today.
 
There is a bridge nearby here that every time I drive over it I think of that bridge in Minneapolis. The thing looks like it could fall any day and it scares the shit out of me to drive over it. It's a large bridge too, over the Cumberland river.

You know it always confuses me how most European countries have much higher taxes than we do here, yet always rank higher on those happiness indexes. I mean in the American way of thinking, you'd think they'd be miserable and want to overthrow their governments, but no, they're usually more satisfied and happier than we are.

Look at the rioting in the UK right now over raises in University tuition, something that used to be paid for by taxes. They're going to have to pay around the same amount that students here do, and they're fucking pissed about it. Here, we just just accept it and go into debt that takes years to pay off.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']80% of all wealth and income growth in the past 40 years have gone to 1% of the population. When the government asks them to contribute a bit more, now suddenly we hear you talk about "fair" and "equal"? That's preposterous. Why do fairness and equality matter on only one end of the income spectrum? [/QUOTE]

And the funniest thing about all of this is that the top two richest people in the world already came out and said they don't support the extension of Bush's tax break.

While a large number of poor saps making barely over minimum wage have been tricked into fighting for the top 1.5% at their own expense. Because if you lower tax revenue, what do you think they are going to cut in response? I'll give you a hint, it's not going to be military spending.

[quote name='Clak']You know it always confuses me how most European countries have much higher taxes than we do here, yet always rank higher on those happiness indexes. I mean in the American way of thinking, you'd think they'd be miserable and want to overthrow their governments, but no, they're usually more satisfied and happier than we are.[/QUOTE]

Because they don't always need that new item to feel good and have safety nets in place in case anything out of their control happens.

We work hard, get crushed in debt and have to worry about whether we can afford to get that lump checked out (with or without insurance) or if we have to wipe out our savings to get the car fixed because there is no real public transportation outside a few major cities or (like Bernie was reading) if they will be able to afford to heat their home in the wintertime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top