• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senate Republicans block 60 Billion dollar infrastructure bill

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
quest55720 said:
And this is why democrats are always against spending cuts except military. It is the attitude that there is no waste abuse and fraud that government is this well oiled machine.

No one has gone through these because democrats will not scale back government unless forced to like state governments. Even things like cutting back bureaucrats who all do the same exact thing in different departments can not happen. There is not a government job that democrats won't try and save.
Click to expand...

This is simply false. Everyone has gone through these, and it's done so every time a politician wants to free up cash for a pet project.

Regardless, the fact that the right wing people on this board think that the majority party in the senate should adopt the policies of the minority party in order to pass legislation is a curious idea indeed. Bowing to the demands of the most obstructionist senate minority caucus in the history of the United States is not an option. It would only encourage more bad behavior on their part.
 
If we just give the millionaires a few more tax cuts maybe the GOP will stop hating America and cheerleading for Her to fail...
 
eskimospy said:
This is simply false. Everyone has gone through these, and it's done so every time a politician wants to free up cash for a pet project.

Regardless, the fact that the right wing people on this board think that the majority party in the senate should adopt the policies of the minority party in order to pass legislation is a curious idea indeed. Bowing to the demands of the most obstructionist senate minority caucus in the history of the United States is not an option. It would only encourage more bad behavior on their part.
Click to expand...

They should meet in the middle. But the problem as evidenced by this article is neither side cares to meet in the middle. Democrats wont fund this bill by cutting existing or spending money that is sitting idle. Republicans wont pass this bill because it taxes people making a million dollars.

If working with the minority party is not an option then democrats are just as much obstructionalists as the republicans. It takes two to tango.
 
Genx87 said:
They should meet in the middle. But the problem as evidenced by this article is neither side cares to meet in the middle. Democrats wont fund this bill by cutting existing or spending money that is sitting idle. Republicans wont pass this bill because it taxes people making a million dollars.

If working with the minority party is not an option then democrats are just as much obstructionalists as the republicans. It takes two to tango.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that the Democrats have been even remotely as unwilling to compromise with the Republicans as the Republicans have been with them? I seriously can't stand this false equivalence. The two parties are not even remotely equally to blame for the degree of Senate dysfunction by any objective measure.

Existing money that is 'sitting idle'? This is unlikely. The article doesn't mention what exactly that money is earmarked for, but I have a feeling it's not change sitting in the congressional sofa that someone just forgot about. It is appropriated towards other initiatives.
 
eskimospy said:
Do you honestly think that the Democrats have been even remotely as unwilling to compromise with the Republicans as the Republicans have been with them? I seriously can't stand this false equivalence. The two parties are not even remotely equally to blame for the degree of Senate dysfunction by any objective measure.

Existing money that is 'sitting idle'? This is unlikely. The article doesn't mention what exactly that money is earmarked for, but I have a feeling it's not change sitting in the congressional sofa that someone just forgot about. It is appropriated towards other initiatives.
Click to expand...

Tell that idiot Genx87 that the Tan man walked away from a 7 to 1 tax to revenue plan and he is full of shit.
 
eskimospy said:
Do you honestly think that the Democrats have been even remotely as unwilling to compromise with the Republicans as the Republicans have been with them? I seriously can't stand this false equivalence. The two parties are not even remotely equally to blame for the degree of Senate dysfunction by any objective measure.

Existing money that is 'sitting idle'? This is unlikely. The article doesn't mention what exactly that money is earmarked for, but I have a feeling it's not change sitting in the congressional sofa that someone just forgot about. It is appropriated towards other initiatives.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes I do. Democrats have compromised on bills they wanted through the senate and told the republicans to get bent on the rest. Likewise republicans have told the democrats to get bent when dictated the terms of the bill and worked on what they could to get what they want done.

We have reached the point where neither side is going to do shit unless they absolutely want to get it done. Then they will compromise on the issue.

You are viewing this as if when democrats want a bill like this one passed and dictate the terms(no cutting of spending) to fund it. That when republicans oppose such a bill it is only republicans who are obstructing. By the very fact democrats refuse to pass the bill without a millionaire tax or find cuts elsewhere to pay for it, they are just as guilty as republicans who are pushing their views in such a bill.

Ideally there could had been a mix of tax increase + spending cuts to pay for it. But neither side wanted that. So here we sit, bickering among ourselves over their incompetence and stubborness.
 
Ausm said:
Tell that idiot Genx87 that the Tan man walked away from a 7 to 1 tax to revenue plan and he is full of shit.
Click to expand...

If you werent such a pussy by putting me on your ignore list, you could debate me yourself instead of asking others to relay msgs.
 
Genx87 said:
Yes, yes I do. Democrats have compromised on bills they wanted through the senate and told the republicans to get bent on the rest. Likewise republicans have told the democrats to get bent when dictated the terms of the bill and worked on what they could to get what they want done.

We have reached the point where neither side is going to do shit unless they absolutely want to get it done. Then they will compromise on the issue.

You are viewing this as if when democrats want a bill like this one passed and dictate the terms(no cutting of spending) to fund it. That when republicans oppose such a bill it is only republicans who are obstructing. By the very fact democrats refuse to pass the bill without a millionaire tax or find cuts elsewhere to pay for it, they are just as guilty as republicans who are pushing their views in such a bill.

Ideally there could had been a mix of tax increase + spending cuts to pay for it. But neither side wanted that. So here we sit, bickering among ourselves over their incompetence and stubborness.
Click to expand...

This is a really bizarre case of revisionist history. There are dozens and dozens of cases where Democrats have proposed halfway measures with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, and to the best of my knowledge every single one of those bills, without exception, has been rejected by the Republicans. The debt ceiling negotiations were a perfect example of this.

Exactly what bills do you think the Republicans have compromised on? The only case of any compromise that I can remember is when tax cuts for the rich were threatened. That's a single case, and sorry, I'm not impressed.
 
eskimospy said:
This is a really bizarre case of revisionist history. There are dozens and dozens of cases where Democrats have proposed halfway measures with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, and to the best of my knowledge every single one of those bills, without exception, has been rejected by the Republicans. The debt ceiling negotiations were a perfect example of this.

Exactly what bills do you think the Republicans have compromised on? The only case of any compromise that I can remember is when tax cuts for the rich were threatened. That's a single case, and sorry, I'm not impressed.
Click to expand...

It really doesnt matter if you are impressed or not. Nobody is asking. But answer me this question. If democrats dropped the millionaire tax would this be passed? If republicans dropped their idea to fund it by cutting elsewhere would it be passed?

How bad do either of these two parties want this bill passed? Apparently not enough to compromise on those key issues. In my book neither is more guilty than the other when it comes to obstructing. They are both carrying their parties banner to the end.
 
momeNt said:
Ignore lists on P&N, shake my head 🙁
Click to expand...

You have to sometimes.... i've only got one person on my ignore list because he refused to discuss the topic at hand and just hurled insults, i got tired of trying to keep him on topic so just blocked the nonsense.



I'm not even going to try to defend the REpublicans, since it's clear that they are indeed blocking a bill that they disaprove of with no compromise. They are not against creating jobs like the media tries to spin it, they are against a targeted tax increase. That's not to say the Dems and Libs and their followers are being completely honest about compromise, either. Hypocritical if you ask me. Remember the problem with politics is politicians.
 
Texashiker said:
How much have we spent rebuilding Iraq?

Bringing our factories back would increase revenue, especially through fuel taxes.

Trucks have to buy fuel to transport goods and raw materials. Would you rather that fuel be bought in china, or in the states?
Click to expand...

Why are you always so stupid.
 
Ausm said:
I can argue with an ignoramus such as yourself what does that make me now?
Click to expand...

What's there to argue? Do you have people on ignore or not? If you do then you're too scared to debate or prove them wrong or you know they own you with their every post.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Yep....Craig, McOwned, and Ausm have people they are too scared to face on ignore.
Click to expand...

I really didnt know McOwned put people on his list. But I do find it sad that Craig and Ausm are so scared shitless of debate they put people on their ignore list. And I find it interesting both make sure to let people know and remind those people about being on their ignore list when people respond to them. It is almost like they are powerless in the debate and this is their only way to regain any control.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
What's there to argue? Do you have people on ignore or not? If you do then you're too scared to debate or prove them wrong or you know they own you with their every post.
Click to expand...

LMAO he is getting Pwned by Eskimo above and now he is throwing a tantrum and you are somehow his spokesman now?His rant which is usually baseless as he is proving again just got old FAST.

Dude and for the record I don't give a fuck what you think about it.
 
Do you guys think a 0.25% tax hike across the board instead of targeted at the rich would pass? or some other small amount fairly assessed to every american?
 
Ausm said:
LMAO he is getting Pwned by Eskimo above and now he is throwing a tantrum and you are somehow his spokesman now?His rant which is usually baseless as he is proving again just got old FAST.

Dude and for the record I don't give a fuck what you think about it.
Click to expand...

You see Eskimopy and I can engage in a civil debate without having winners and losers or pwning each other. We will most likely have little chance of seeing eye to eye on many things due to our personal ideology and outlook on life. However neither of us will be cowards to put each other on an ignore list either. And while I cant speak for him, I will still respect his arguments even if I disagree with them.
 
Genx87 said:
The filibuster is fine. If both sides would sit down and talk instead of ramming ideology down our throats the filibuster wouldnt be an issue. When republicans hold a majority you will welcome the filibuster again. Your mind will change when you see democrat filibustering a pro-life bill.
Click to expand...

I sure won't change my mind. The filibuster is not fine, and you can quote me on that.

The Senate already disproportionately rewards the minority enough, the filibuster has made it into a joke. Did you know that states representing as little as ~12% of the US population can block all legislation for the federal government? In practice it's of course more than that, but the minority is already well protected by the structure of the institution.

The current working of the senate has rendered it a mostly nonfunctional legislative entity. It needs to be changed.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
What's there to argue? Do you have people on ignore or not? If you do then you're too scared to debate or prove them wrong or you know they own you with their every post.
Click to expand...

Oh, he does indeed. If someone beats him up in a discussion or gets his goat, he puts them on ignore. He probably has half of P&N on ignore by now. :awe:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top