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

[quote name='Sporadic']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]

It's not like they care if schools get smaller budgets. They don't care if the arts get cut because they're not doing anything more than watching football, NASCAR, and the WWE. They could literally cut every sports program in America other than Pop Warner and middle America would be OK with it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

Do you really believe that it was a lack of tax revenue that caused the maintenance of that bridge to go unchecked?

If we cut, say, military spending by 10% - how many bridges could we maintain from those funds?
 
Plenty. Cutting military spending is political suicide. You may think it's a fine idea, and I may think it's a fine idea to cut military spending.

Ideas could be get out of the middle east ASAP, continue to reduce our nuclear armaments, eliminate the use of private military forces like Blackwater, get KBR out of our military bases, etc.

But they're not politically popular. That's why the public is so misinformed. They point to welfare, they point to foreign aid as popular sources of funds to cut. But little else; the public consistently overstimates just how much we spend in those two areas alone, and that eliminating those two *entirely* (without discussing what a terrible idea that would be) wouldn't come close to bridging the deficits we accrue via letting the tax cuts continue.

We want our cake and we want to eat it, too - and anyone who tells us that is impossible is a socialist.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do you really believe that it was a lack of tax revenue that caused the maintenance of that bridge to go unchecked?

If we cut, say, military spending by 10% - how many bridges could we maintain from those funds?[/QUOTE]

I just... I don't even.

Are you really that stupid?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But they're not politically popular.[/QUOTE]

You know Myke, you and I disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can both agree that we'd prefer for our political leaders to take charge and worry less about re-election and more about doing what's right. Even if I disagree with what PoliticianX considers, right, I'd have more respect for him/her (and the institution at large) if they'd do it and face the consequence rather than just make excuses to get re-elected.
 
But you don't respect politicians who make similarly unpopular choices when it involves spending money. That suggests inequity and insincerity from you.

Ted Strickland wants to invest in Ohio's future for growth and jobs via developing a rapid transit (i.e., railroad) infrastructure that will start out by connecting Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. There's ample research on the benefits of this kind of development - not just for those cities, but along those rail paths as well. John Kasich, the (R) gov-elect of Ohio, more or less ran on killing off the railroad and cutting spending - no matter the cost or benefit. So he's making a "tough choice," but one that is paradoxical as it is (1) politically popular yet (2) perilous to the growth of Ohio in terms of jobs, infrastructure, and development. Frankly, either direction is a "tough choice."

So it's insincere, from my perspective, to listen to you talk about how much you would respect a politician who made tough and honest choices; that's because you've only defined tough and honest choices as cuts to either taxes or spending, which is an ideologically limited definition of tough and honest choices.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But you don't respect politicians who make similarly unpopular choices when it involves spending money.[/quote]

Spending other people's money isn't a tough choice. Send me your credit cards and I'll show you how easy it is. :D

So it's insincere, from my perspective, to listen to you talk about how much you would respect a politician who made tough and honest choices; that's because you've only defined tough and honest choices as cuts to either taxes or spending, which is an ideologically limited definition of tough and honest choices.
Click to expand...

Two things: First, respect isn't the same as support. I can respect a candidate, but not support their position.

Second, I've mentioned before, I'm not against tax increases per-say. In fact, I believe we had a minor conversation about the sales tax increase we had locally in another thread. Voted for it and did some very minor campaigning for it. But you're right - I want to see spending cuts. It's a tough choice and a hard decision as to what needs to be cut - but, IMHO, it needs to be done. If you want tax increases, I wouldn't mind discussing that - after or with some hard and well defined spending cuts.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But you don't respect politicians who make similarly unpopular choices when it involves spending money. That suggests inequity and insincerity from you.

Ted Strickland wants to invest in Ohio's future for growth and jobs via developing a rapid transit (i.e., railroad) infrastructure that will start out by connecting Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. There's ample research on the benefits of this kind of development - not just for those cities, but along those rail paths as well. John Kasich, the (R) gov-elect of Ohio, more or less ran on killing off the railroad and cutting spending - no matter the cost or benefit. So he's making a "tough choice," but one that is paradoxical as it is (1) politically popular yet (2) perilous to the growth of Ohio in terms of jobs, infrastructure, and development. Frankly, either direction is a "tough choice."

So it's insincere, from my perspective, to listen to you talk about how much you would respect a politician who made tough and honest choices; that's because you've only defined tough and honest choices as cuts to either taxes or spending, which is an ideologically limited definition of tough and honest choices.[/QUOTE]

Kasich is such a dipshit. He killed the rail and asked for the money anyway to be used to do other shit, even though the explicit provision for getting the money was to build the rail. So then he and his dipshit cronies acted all surprised when Ohio lost millions of dollars to other states because that wasn't the deal. fuck him, another reason to leave this state.
 
Stop with the intellectually under-steeped credit card metaphors, Bob. It only enhances your insincerity.

Where you going to go, DoK? Wisconsin and New Jersey just suffered the same fate. We won't enhance infrastructure under the guise of being sincere fiscal conservatives, but we still want the money anyway.

The face of fiscal conservatism: we vant zeh monie, le-bow-ski.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Stop with the intellectually under-steeped credit card metaphors, Bob. It only enhances your insincerity.

Where you going to go, DoK? Wisconsin and New Jersey just suffered the same fate. We won't enhance infrastructure under the guise of being sincere fiscal conservatives, but we still want the money anyway.

The face of fiscal conservatism: we vant zeh monie, le-bow-ski.[/QUOTE]

Probably back to "Taxachusetts" if my husband's company actually decides to transfer him to their office there at some point in the next decade (they are pretty much going that slowly at this point). At least the motorists there aren't as stupid.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Stop with the intellectually under-steeped credit card metaphors, Bob. It only enhances your insincerity.[/QUOTE]

That was hardly a metaphor - it was a tongue-in-cheek comment with regards to the idea that it's easy to spend someone else's money.

There's a story some time ago that I should look up that's relevant to this exact thing... it involves Ron Paul though - if I find it, promise you'll read it over for me? :)

Found it...
 
Wealthy people don't employ enough people or spend enough money on stuff that employs people or stimulates the economy. Even if they did, that money isn't benefiting the country as much as the government could if they took that money directly. Right?

Did I pass? Can I be a Democrat now?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Wealthy people don't employ enough people or spend enough money on stuff that employs people or stimulates the economy. Even if they did, that money isn't benefiting the country as much as the government could if they took that money directly. Right?[/QUOTE]
If they did, money wouldn't have overwhelmingly concentrated at the top over the last decade. Right?
 
[quote name='speedracer']If they did, money wouldn't have overwhelmingly concentrated at the top over the last decade. Right?[/QUOTE]

Without fascist interventionism, money will always be overwhelmingly concentrated somewhere. It's just a matter of whether you agree with where it's concentrated.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Without fascist interventionism, money will always be overwhelmingly concentrated somewhere. It's just a matter of whether you agree with where it's concentrated.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but if "the rich" were really pumping that much money into the economy instead of sitting on it, it wouldn't concentrate to the degree that it has. I don't think the gargantuan rise of wealth for top earners in the last decade as a % of all wealth has as much to do with spending as I think that it has come by crushing middle and upper middle class income but if trickle down had any significant effects, surely we would have seen it 2001-2010. The transfer of wealth to the top is so staggering I just don't think it's reasonable to believe that it'll naturally find some new equilibrium without tax intervention.

I know that's heresy to you, but I can't think of any plan (short of jailing just about every banker on the planet and demanding clawback for losses due to fraud) that can make up for the transfer without taxation.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So you consider wealth concentrated even if it were in the hands of several million members of the middle class?[/QUOTE]

Yes, however I don't think that could possibly happen naturally.

There will always be a class of dicks that will be more motivated and/or willing to do things the majority isn't to get ahead. The real discussion and balancing act is how to keep them from truly screwing everyone else, without making their existence illegal.

I think it should be legal to be a rich greedy asshole prick, if that's what you want to be - as long as you do it without directly harming others.

6:15-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRfuAUubT0



[quote name='speedracer']Sure, but if "the rich" were really pumping that much money into the economy instead of sitting on it, it wouldn't concentrate to the degree that it has. I don't think the gargantuan rise of wealth for top earners in the last decade as a % of all wealth has as much to do with spending as I think that it has come by crushing middle and upper middle class income but if trickle down had any significant effects, surely we would have seen it 2001-2010. The transfer of wealth to the top is so staggering I just don't think it's reasonable to believe that it'll naturally find some new equilibrium without tax intervention. [/quote]
I don't disagree. It is a problem, it's just hard to know how to deal with it.
There is another factor to what you are saying as well - with Congressional willing reluctance to really forge a tax plan for the future, it makes rich people sit inside their vaults with the door closed. Until they can plan, they won't spend. That's not a counter to what you are saying though, just another complexity.

In other words, an unpredictable government policy(which, lets face it, we have had for a while) pretty much aborts the "trickle down" baby from every getting born.

I know that's heresy to you, but I can't think of any plan (short of jailing just about every banker on the planet and demanding clawback for losses due to fraud) that can make up for the transfer without taxation.
Click to expand...
It might make me a radical but something along those lines is not out of the question to me. It's the banks that made all these problems necessary. If we could find a way to largely eliminate banking as we know it, I think most of the problem would go away. You and I can't even fathom a world without banks, however, let alone hope for it.
 
I don't know how it's possible to be a rich greedy asshole prick without harming others. You get to the top on the broken backs of the middle class.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think it should be legal to be a rich greedy asshole prick, if that's what you want to be - as long as you do it without directly harming others.[/quote]

That's a cop out Miss America pageant "I want to see peace on earth" answer. Specify 'directly harming others,' just for starters.

I don't disagree. It is a problem, it's just hard to know how to deal with it.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/business/12advantage.html?scp=1&sq=bank secret&st=cse

Do you think banks should be permitted to operate in a such a secretive, private, unseen manner regarding derivatives price-setting and speculation?

It's not hard to know how to deal with it. The answer is regulation. But your ideological perspective is threatened by such a notion, such that you have to shield yourself from considering it by thinking of it as "socialism."

Here's the "the market will fix it" mentality applied to modern medicine:

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5968611&page=1

Blind faith is a dangerous thing, thrust. Unless you think the panels that set derivatives rates for the globe should be anonymous and their discussions off the record.
 
Wow, I agree with someone and they call me an asshole. That's a first.

The whole derivative thing was a scam and the people running it knew it. The reason they didn't want to stop it was because it looked good on the balance sheet. It wasn't even real money by the time it got repackaged and resold for the third time. What I don't understand is how people freak out about regulation on this one, yet demand it when it comes to hedge and/or mutual funds if they so happen to be in their own 401(k).
Thank god that Bush never got the chance to privatize social security, imagine the lynch mobs that would be roving the streets nowadays if that had happened.

Also, that bridge didn't fall because a lack of tax revenue.
Wikipedia:
==============
In 2005, the bridge was again rated as "structurally deficient" and in possible need of replacement, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Bridge Inventory database.[41] Problems were noted in two subsequent inspection reports.[42][43] The inspection carried out June 15, 2006 found problems of cracking and fatigue.[43] On August 2, 2007, Governor Tim Pawlenty stated that the bridge was scheduled to be replaced in 2020.[44]

The I-35W bridge ranked near the bottom of federal inspection ratings nationwide. The scale used was a "sufficiency rating" which ranges from the highest score, 100, to the lowest score, zero. In 2005 the bridge was given a rating of 50, indicating that replacement may have been in order. Out of over 100,000 heavily used bridges, only about 4% scored below 50. On a separate measure, the I-35W bridge was rated "structurally deficient," but was deemed to have met "minimum tolerable limits to be left in place as it is."[42][43][45]

In December 2006, a steel reinforcement project was planned for the bridge. However, the project was canceled in January 2007 in favor of periodic safety inspections, after it was revealed that drilling for the retrofitting would in fact weaken the bridge. In internal Mn/DOT documents, bridge officials talked about the possibility of the bridge collapsing and worried that it might have to be condemned.[46]

The construction taking place in the weeks prior to the collapse included joint work and replacing lighting, concrete and guard rails. At the time of the collapse, four of the eight lanes were closed for resurfacing,[47][48][49][50] and there were 575,000 pounds (261,000 kg) of construction supplies and equipment on the bridge.[51]
==================
It was known since 1990 to have been shaky at best but nothing was ever done about it because it was such a vital part of getting through the cities. It didn't help that so much equipment was on the bridge at the time.

CSB
I rode over that thing on my bike about 15-20 minutes before it fell. Had I stayed at Grumpy's for another beer or smoke I probably would have ended up in the river!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Wealthy people don't employ enough people or spend enough money on stuff that employs people or stimulates the economy. Even if they did, that money isn't benefiting the country as much as the government could if they took that money directly. Right?

Did I pass? Can I be a Democrat now?[/QUOTE]
I'm a racist homophobe with a strong authoritarian fetish.

Can I be a CONSERVATIVE now?

Douchebag.
 
It's a fantastic bar with some of the best burgers I've ever had. The Melvins concerts in the parking lot are just icing on the cake.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'm a racist homophobe with a strong authoritarian fetish.

Can I be a CONSERVATIVE now?

Douchebag.[/QUOTE]

Wow. I guess stereotypes are ok when you get to use them.
 
[quote name='nasum']Wow. I guess stereotypes are ok when you get to use them.[/QUOTE]
Eat a box of dicks and tell me how DEMOCRAT! isn't used as a pejorative or how the right has twisted everying centrist into fucking tirades about socialism, communism, and Obama being a Kenyan MUSLIM! usurper that wasn't born a citizen, then get back to me. Could you be anymore of an intellectually dishonest prick? If history has shown us anything, the answer is no, you can't avoid it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Even if they did, that money isn't benefiting the country as much as the government could if they took that money directly. Right?
[/QUOTE]
This is interesting. Lets say we took a vast majority of everyones' money beyond a certain level, threw it in a hole and burned it. Part of having taxes too low is that you get boom and bust cycles, speculative bubbles created by all this idle money that gets funneled into the stock market. Sure, that doesnt solve having a derivative/credit swap market that exceeds the GDP of the planet, or the majority of trading volume being high frequency, rip-off trading, but any damage caused by actual money should be reduced dramatically.

On top of that, since your income level is basically hard capped, legislation will no longer cater to what the monied interests want, and will default back to the needs of everyone else.

Its not an efficient use of that money, but if the options are they have it or no one gets to have it, I might give it a spin.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yes, however I don't think that could possibly happen naturally.[/quote]

Interpol should put out an arrest warrant for your rape of the English language.

Also, when did I say I cared whether anything was "natural" or not?

You may live in a tree, forage and fashion termite sticks with which to smash a keyboard with and find nothing lacking. But to me it looks as if you are just using a wallpaper word.

There will always be a class of dicks that will be more motivated and/or willing to do things the majority isn't to get ahead. The real discussion and balancing act is how to keep them from truly screwing everyone else, without making their existence illegal.
Click to expand...

No one is talking about making everyone exactly equal or outlawing douchebags. We were discussing massive income inequality which isn't natural BTW.

There is another factor to what you are saying as well - with Congressional willing reluctance to really forge a tax plan for the future, it makes rich people sit inside their vaults with the door closed. Until they can plan, they won't spend. That's not a counter to what you are saying though, just another complexity.

In other words, an unpredictable government policy(which, lets face it, we have had for a while) pretty much aborts the "trickle down" baby from every getting born.
Click to expand...


Your entire "argument" is that giving millions to millionaires they will spend more and boost the economy.

For some reason giving a million dollars to a poor person (or me) it wouldn't get spent as well.

Even if there were a grain of truth to what you say thrust, there is such a thing as the law of diminishing returns.

Any positive benefit was probably met decades ago.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Eat a box of dicks and tell me how DEMOCRAT! isn't used as a pejorative or how the right has twisted everying centrist into fucking tirades about socialism, communism, and Obama being a Kenyan MUSLIM! usurper that wasn't born a citizen, then get back to me. Could you be anymore of an intellectually dishonest prick? If history has shown us anything, the answer is no, you can't avoid it.[/QUOTE]

If you were anything close to a centrist then your statement here may have some validity.

Only really stupid people still hold to the whole Obama not being born in Hawaii deal and you likely won't find any of that on CAG unless it's sarcasm. Certainly never got any of it from me.

As for your last bit there Chandler, I can't avoid being more? I know what you're getting at, but jeez buddy take a breath from time to time.

Msut said "Your entire "argument" is that giving millions to millionaires they will spend more and boost the economy. For some reason giving a million dollars to a poor person (or me) it wouldn't get spent as well."

I've always wondered about that. Your righties will scream that it's wealth redistribution/welfare, but the lefties having gone along with the program the whole time are somewhat suspect even if they whimper about it not being fair from time to time. I mean really, they're wholly complicit in the collective squashing of sub $60k salaries. That no one calls them on it is quite possibly the finest example of this whole politics thing being a sham since the early 1900's.
 
Pierson and Hacker make a great argument as to why even the Democrats abandoned the middle-class to pursue the interests of corporations and the economic elite the past 3 decades.

"Winner-Takes-All Politics." Seriously my book of the year. I'm half tempted to mail out a copy to y'all if you want to borrow it, it's that important of a read.
 
[quote name='nasum']but the lefties having gone along with the program the whole time are somewhat suspect even if they whimper about it not being fair from time to time. I mean really, they're wholly complicit in the collective squashing of sub $60k salaries. That no one calls them on it is quite possibly the finest example of this whole politics thing being a sham since the early 1900's.[/QUOTE]

Are you defining "Lefty" as Democrat?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']6:15-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRfuAUubT0
[/QUOTE]

I bet they thought that taking on Ventura would make them look good given that he's a conspiracy nut.

But even a conspiracy nut occasionally hits on something real eventually.

It makes me so angry to hear these guys saying that the government needs to stop them from stealing money. What happened to personal integrity?

fuck them. fuck them up down and sideways.
 
You know conventional wisdom is that power corrupts, but I think it's really money. I say that because when you think about it, who has the power in most countries? The rich do, the more money you have the more power and influence you can buy. It doesn't matter if you have any official powers when you can just buy off the people who do.
 
[quote name='Clak']You know conventional wisdom is that power corrupts, but I think it's really money. I say that because when you think about it, who has the power in most countries? The rich do, the more money you have the more power and influence you can buy. It doesn't matter if you have any official powers when you can just buy off the people who do.[/QUOTE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-aXFR189rI
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Damn I haven't heard that song in a few years. Brings back memories.[/QUOTE]

Funny thing is that I just heard that song last night at work. 90's Hip-Hop on aolradio is where it's at.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Funny thing is that I just heard that song last night at work. 90's Hip-Hop on aolradio is where it's at.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes...90's hip hop...before mass media conglomerates got their hands on it and co-opted it.

Nas, Tribe Called Quest, Wu-Tang Clan, Lox, DMX, Lil Kim, Warren G, B.I.G., NWA, Getto Boys, etc...I'm missing a bunch, but yeah...good times in the hip-hop scene IMO.

edit: I also must add Lauryn Hill to that list.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Pierson and Hacker make a great argument as to why even the Democrats abandoned the middle-class to pursue the interests of corporations and the economic elite the past 3 decades.

"Winner-Takes-All Politics." Seriously my book of the year. I'm half tempted to mail out a copy to y'all if you want to borrow it, it's that important of a read.[/QUOTE]

Added to my Amazon wishlist. Will be picking up soon.

Always looking for good non-fiction.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll be in the COV on Wednesday sometime; I could always lend you my copy, if you swear to baby jesus you'll mail it back.[/QUOTE]

Not baby Buddha? If I lied, it would rain tea.

Deal. I'll be at work Wednesday. Burned all my Vacay going to Scotland this year. I can meet lunch hour, or after five.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Wow...Al Franken...not sure if I should be surprised or not.[/QUOTE]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/the-hardest-vote-ive-take_b_796716.html

His supposed reasoning.

And I am taking the president at his word that he will fight harder to put an end to these wasteful tax breaks in 2012 than he did in 2010.
Click to expand...


Oh Al!
pegbundy.jpg
 
You know, I understand the need for compromise and the Very real effects on working class families, especially poor ones, but the thing is that the fucking fight didn't begin the second they sat down to cast their votes. They should've been out there hammering the fucking pubs at every single chance they got. Sanders was out there for how many hours on Friday? This is fucking horseshit. I put some of the blame on Clinton for allowing those media mergers as well.

And now we have Obama, which for all practicality, is a fucking 90's Republican. I know it'd be worse with McCain and I understand that he's still a politician, but I seriously wonder if Hilary would've been a better choice sometimes....
 
What do you want Franken to do, vote no and let taxes go up on the group he and every other Democrat screams about protecting?

Yeah, that's smart.

Blame the leadership of the party for putting the bill together the way it came about, not the rank and file.

Better yet, round up the liberal and progressive anti-war base that has almost completely dried up since Obama's election.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']What do you want Franken to do, vote no and let taxes go up on the group he and every other Democrat screams about protecting?

Yeah, that's smart.[/quote]
That's not what I mean at all. My point is that it shouldn't have even gone this far.

Blame the leadership of the party for putting the bill together the way it came about, not the rank and file.

Better yet, round up the liberal and progressive anti-war base that has almost completely dried up since Obama's election.
Click to expand...
Or I could just blame the pubs and their corporate overloads that have much more to do with it anyways.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Are you defining "Lefty" as Democrat?[/QUOTE]

in the colloquial sense, but yes.

Al Franken has been kind of a bummer, but hey anything was better than that effin turncoat Norm Coleman. How does a Kennedy Democrat from the East Coast show up in the Midwest as a Reaganite Republican?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Or I could just blame the pubs and their corporate overloads that have much more to do with it anyways.[/QUOTE]

You could do that. You'd be hilariously misguided, though. Those in power decide which bills see the light of day. Democrats are in power. It's their fault they didn't push this issue in 2009 or at any time before the mid-term election. It's their fault they didn't bring out a bill with only the cuts under 250k on the table.

Democrats are ruled by corporate interests, too, by the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum']in the colloquial sense, but yes.[/quote]

Defining the political spectrum is more art than science, but if you see no distinction between "Lefty" and Senate Democrat (in the new 60 vote Senate) then I see no reason to continue the conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top