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

[quote name='nasum']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]

Al Franken is really not that bad all things considered. He has faltered on a few issues such as this but overall he's much better than most Dems currently in office.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']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.[/quote]
Of course it's all their fault. It's not like Republican filibusters skyrocketed after they "took control" of Congress, but that wouldn't jive with what you're saying of course.

Democrats are ruled by corporate interests, too, by the way.
Click to expand...
I don't deny that, but there's a difference between neo-liberalism and stalling needed social programs to make sure that the richest 1% "gets theirs."
 
[quote name='dohdough']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.[/QUOTE]

Don't forgot Body Count (though technically metal, but come on it was Ice T) and the West Side Connection (although they only released one album). Raekwon, Blackstar, Cypress Hill, Public Enemy, Gangstarr, De La Soul, and very late 90's brought in pharoahe monch's first album.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Of course it's all their fault. It's not like Republican filibusters skyrocketed after they "took control" of Congress, but that wouldn't jive with what you're saying of course.[/quote]

You still haven't refuted that Democrats could have brought up their desired version of the bill (or several others) and made Senate Republicans vote down tax cuts for middle class Americans. If nobody budged last minute (unlikely), they could have adjusted the 250k mark up to about 400k for inflation and received a vote or two.

I don't deny that, but there's a difference between neo-liberalism and stalling needed social programs to make sure that the richest 1% "gets theirs."
Click to expand...
It's not the top 2% that has an unusual amount of wealth, it's the top .3 or so percent. And those guys aren't getting theirs because of tax cuts (vast majority don't even make income, they're taxed on capital gains). They're getting theirs thanks to a retarded monetary system and government that colludes with banks and corporations to squash competition.

Why are you defending Democrats? Seriously dude, they're terrible.
 
FtA is correct. Democrats aren't playing savvy politics. And they need to if they want to defeat the ridiculous Republican economic narrative of trickle-down economics.

As for separating the top 0.3 (or 0.1) from the top 2%, there's some merit to that. Democrats should be doubling or tripling the capital gains tax and forcing companies disclose the long-term projected costs of stock options they use as executive compensation.
 
Why would increasing a capital gains tax only harm the rich? By no means am I rich but I get dividends and capital gains from a 401(k) as well as a couple of other investments. This is one of those things that gets sold as "taxing the rich" but basically, if you have a retirement account of some variety, you'll be feeling this one.
 
[quote name='nasum']Why would increasing a capital gains tax only harm the rich? By no means am I rich but I get dividends and capital gains from a 401(k) as well as a couple of other investments. This is one of those things that gets sold as "taxing the rich" but basically, if you have a retirement account of some variety, you'll be feeling this one.[/QUOTE]

make it progressive.

this kind of tax is absolutely necessary. stock options are one way in which the wealthy elite grow their wealth and/or mask their enormous salaries. it has replaced traditional income as a means of amassing wealth, and as such needs to be taxed as if it were wealth.
 
The bottom two income brackets pay 5% on long-term while all others pay 15%. I'd have to double check, but I think short-term is taxed as ordinary income as of 2003. So it is mostly progressive.

In terms of masking, I think you're talking about stock options where insiders are allowed to purchase shares at a reduced rate, but aren't required to report the "extra" capital gains and only need to report the purchase price available to the market at the time of purchase. It's a complicated tax scheme, and one I'm not entirely familiar with since I don't do taxes for people with 7 figure incomes...

Clak,
C'mon man, we all know that only the severely blind/loyal Dittohead types are under the impression that the Estate Tax applies to everyone. Though again, it's multiple taxation of the same dollar which is what SHOULD get those people in an uproar and not that it penalizes dying which is just silly.
 
[quote name='nasum']Though again, it's multiple taxation of the same dollar which is what SHOULD get those people in an uproar.[/QUOTE]

So if the money I get from my paycheck is taxed and then I use that money to pay for something which I get charged sales tax, should I be outraged?
 
It's ot penalizing dying though, it's taxing that which otherwise the person's family would get for nothing. I mean you'll have to excuse if I don't feel sorry for some rich guy's family because they get a little less in inheritance.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So if the money I get from my paycheck is taxed and then I use that money to pay for something which I get charged sales tax, should I be outraged?[/QUOTE]No, that's a state sales tax and that's fine. Same goes for states with income taxes and sales taxes, that's just state's rights.
 
[quote name='Clak']It's ot penalizing dying though, it's taxing that which otherwise the person's family would get for nothing. I mean you'll have to excuse if I don't feel sorry for some rich guy's family because they get a little less in inheritance.[/QUOTE]

It's kind of funny when you think about it. The right are the first to talk about how you have to earn what you get, but who doesn't earn what they get more than the kids of millionaires? Where the only reason they have the money is because they were lucky enough to be born to rich parents?
 
I actually have to hand it to Gates, he's said his kids would get a million each when he dies, that's it. Now granted I'd settle for a million without any complaint, but when dad is a billionaire, a million is chump change.
 
Any talk of "double taxation" is a poor attempt to obfuscate the issue.

The last time I lost a game of monte carlo was in a bus station 15 years ago.
 
So anyhoo...

Thrust's entire worldview in a nutshell is that one monkey sometimes smacks around other monkeys to show them he has the bigginest swingingest monkey dick in the entire monkey manse, therefore we should cut taxes for rich people.

For some reason he chooses not to respond or elaborate on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top