Tax Passage Clears House

[lothar]

Is there something you don't understand about 41 Repub Senators holding the legislative process hostage to their own whims, particularly extending tax cuts to the nation's wealthiest, the true Bush constituency? That they filibustered over 90 times? Are you really that dense?

How did Bush manage to pass tax cuts during his term when he had a 51R-49D majority in the Senate and the Democrats filibustered it?

 

[Jhhnn]

How did Bush manage to pass tax cuts during his term when he had a 51R-49D majority in the Senate and the Democrats filibustered it?

Sihg. I suspect you're equally as dense. It's a lot harder for politicians to stand in the way of a tax cut than a tax increase, not to mention that other events play a huge role. The Bush Admin and their congressional allies justified both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in terms of relief for a sagging economy, claimed they actually worked in the 2004 election, even though gains were largely in terms of the housing bubble and increased military expenditures. They also puffed up and exploited the Terrarist threat, creating as much irrationality as possible.

The best that Dems could muster from their fractious ranks was forcing it into reconciliation, so that the cuts wouldn't become permanent. It didn't do them much good, seeing as how they got clobbered in both the 2002 and 2004 election cycles.

Low tax rates and Bush Admin cheerleading of the looting spree caused the income share of the top .1% to grow explosively from 2002 to 2007, from 7% to nearly 12%, almost the share of the bottom 50% combined, even as their federal tax rate plunged from 28.5% to 21.5%.

Extension of the tax cuts will mostly promote the welfare of the wealthiest, ultimately at the expense of everybody else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

https://secure3.convio.net/pn/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=587

 

[lothar]

Sihg. I suspect you're equally as dense. It's a lot harder for politicians to stand in the way of a tax cut than a tax increase, not to mention that other events play a huge role. The Bush Admin and their congressional allies justified both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in terms of relief for a sagging economy, claimed they actually worked in the 2004 election, even though gains were largely in terms of the housing bubble and increased military expenditures. They also puffed up and exploited the Terrarist threat, creating as much irrationality as possible.

The best that Dems could muster from their fractious ranks was forcing it into reconciliation, so that the cuts wouldn't become permanent. It didn't do them much good, seeing as how they got clobbered in both the 2002 and 2004 election cycles.

Low tax rates and Bush Admin cheerleading of the looting spree caused the income share of the top .1% to grow explosively from 2002 to 2007, from 7% to nearly 12%, almost the share of the bottom 50% combined, even as their federal tax rate plunged from 28.5% to 21.5%.

Extension of the tax cuts will mostly promote the welfare of the wealthiest, ultimately at the expense of everybody else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

https://secure3.convio.net/pn/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=587

Rubbish. That's a lot of useless rabble.
If Republicans passed it through the senate using reconcilation when they only had a 51R-49D majority and couldn't overcome a Democrat filibuster, why the hell couldn't the Democrats do the same thing now?

You're just another person who makes excuses for Democrats.
Democrats have 59-60 votes in the Senate and could have passed their own tax measure through reconciliation like Bush did anytime the past 2 years without promoting welfare for the wealthy.

 

[dawp]

Rubbish. That's a lot of useless rabble.
If Republicans passed it through the senate using reconcilation when they only had a 51R-49D majority and couldn't overcome a Democrat filibuster, why the hell couldn't the Democrats do the same thing now?

You're just another person who makes excuses for Democrats.
Democrats have 59-60 votes in the Senate and could have passed their own tax measure through reconciliation like Bush did anytime the past 2 years without promoting welfare for the wealthy.

You're forgetting that dems usually don't vote lock-step the way repubs do. The gop tends to have better cohesion then the dems do.

"I belong to no organized party, I'm a Democrat."

 

[matt0611]

Is there something you don't understand about 41 Repub Senators holding the legislative process hostage to their own whims, particularly extending tax cuts to the nation's wealthiest, the true Bush constituency? That they filibustered over 90 times? Are you really that dense?

And your point? Please, don't act like nothing has ever passed the senate unless it was a fillbuster proof majority. Don't use that bullshit excuse. You think rebpublicans will fillibuster tax cuts anyway? are you fucking kidding me? The democrats had more senators than GWB ever had republicans n the senate. Didn't the democrats have 58 + 2 majority for a time anyway if i recall?

Even if not, there are ways to negotiate things passing, look at the last several weeks.

Every single thing the democrats have failed at is blamed on the republicans. No wonder democrats have taken such a beaten as of late. People don't want to hear excuses. Its pathetic.

The real reason? Lowering taxes is not on the progressive agenda, never has, never will be.

 

[ericlp]

You make McOwen look prophetic.

Why should you care? Your not the top 2%.

 

[fskimospy]

Rubbish. That's a lot of useless rabble.
If Republicans passed it through the senate using reconcilation when they only had a 51R-49D majority and couldn't overcome a Democrat filibuster, why the hell couldn't the Democrats do the same thing now?

You're just another person who makes excuses for Democrats.
Democrats have 59-60 votes in the Senate and could have passed their own tax measure through reconciliation like Bush did anytime the past 2 years without promoting welfare for the wealthy.

Yes they could have, and then they couldn't have passed other bills that CAN'T be passed through reconciliation. I thought this was common knowledge.

 

[rcpratt]

Anyone else planning to do what rcpratt mentioned earlier? Just throwing 2% more into 401k or your other savings method of choice? I already made the change and now I'm trying to decide if that is being a good citizen or not. Maybe I should just go spend the money in hopes that my measly 2% will help do something to help the economy?

Just to clarify, that 2% wouldn't have been doing anything but sitting in my high interest checking account anyways.

 

[lothar]

Yes they could have, and then they couldn't have passed other bills that CAN'T be passed through reconciliation. I thought this was common knowledge.

But yet they passed the health care bill through reconciliation

Let me get this straight...Your point is...
Bush's tax cuts could be passed through reconcilation.
Health care could be passed through reconciliation.
Obama's tax cuts cannot be passed through reconciliation?

What special items did Obama's tax cut contain that wouldn't pass reconciliation?
If pork is the problem, remove it from the bill.

 

[Jhhnn]

And your point? Please, don't act like nothing has ever passed the senate unless it was a fillbuster proof majority. Don't use that fucking bullshit excuse. You think rebpublicans will fillibuster tax cuts anyway? are you fucking kidding me? The democrats had more senators than GWB ever had republicans n the senate. Didn't the democrats have 58 + 2 majority for a time anyway if i recall?

Even if not, there are ways to negotiate things passing, look at the last several weeks.

Every single thing the democrats have failed at is blamed on the republicans. No wonder democrats have taken such a beaten as of late. Its pathetic.

Heh. Repubs did, in fact, filibuster extension of middle class taxcut extensions that didn't include the lopsided cuts for the wealthy, and a lot of other stuff until they got their way.

They've exploited Senate rules in an unprecedented fashion, invoking filibuster over 90 times in 2010 alone, executing a scorched earth policy wrt legislation and secret holds on appointments. If they can't rule, they'll be damned if they'll let Dems do it, either.

Tending to the interests of America's wealthiest is their version of patriotism.

 

[fskimospy]

But yet they passed the health care bill through reconciliation

Let me get this straight...Your point is...
Bush's tax cuts could be passed through reconcilation.
Health care could be passed through reconciliation.
Obama's tax cuts cannot be passed through reconciliation?

What special items did Obama's tax cut contain that wouldn't pass reconciliation?
If pork is the problem, remove it from the bill.

They most certainly did NOT pass the health care bill through reconciliation. They passed a small package of additional amendments related to the budget through reconciliation after the main legislation had been passed through the normal process. The regular bill could not have been passed through reconciliation, as it did not meet the rules. That's easily available, public information.

Once again, as I said before Obama's tax cuts could have been passed through reconciliation, but other issues they were attempting to work on during the lame duck session would have been blocked by the Republicans as they were not amenable to reconciliation rules. Pork has nothing to do with it. (and is generally irrelevant anyway)

 

[Jhhnn]

Pork has nothing to do with it. (and is generally irrelevant anyway)

Pork is a red herring, a distraction furnished by Repubs. Instead of building bridges, roads, schools &etc, they'll just order more F22's.

Just what we need to bomb mud hut dwelling terrarists! back into their caves.

 

[matt0611]

Heh. Repubs did, in fact, filibuster extension of middle class taxcut extensions that didn't include the lopsided cuts for the wealthy, and a lot of other stuff until they got their way.

They've exploited Senate rules in an unprecedented fashion, invoking filibuster over 90 times in 2010 alone, executing a scorched earth policy wrt legislation and secret holds on appointments. If they can't rule, they'll be damned if they'll let Dems do it, either.

Tending to the interests of America's wealthiest is their version of patriotism.

They didn't filibuster the extension of middle class tax cuts because they didn't want them, they wanted to extend tax cuts for everyone, which is what they got. Dems could have cut taxes further on the middle class if they wanted to in the last two years as people struggle to get by.

 

[lothar]

They most certainly did NOT pass the health care bill through reconciliation. They passed a small package of additional amendments related to the budget through reconciliation after the main legislation had been passed through the normal process. The regular bill could not have been passed through reconciliation, as it did not meet the rules. That's easily available, public information.

Once again, as I said before Obama's tax cuts could have been passed through reconciliation, but other issues they were attempting to work on during the lame duck session would have been blocked by the Republicans as they were not amenable to reconciliation rules. Pork has nothing to do with it. (and is generally irrelevant anyway)

Obama and Harry Reid had almost 2 years to do it...Why would they wait until last minute to do it in a lame duck and pass a welfare bill for the wealthy then complain that if they didn't pass that, everything else would have been derailed? Why didn't they also have enough sense to do that last year or when they were working the financial regulations bill earlier this year(which was also filibustered)? Nonsense I say.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicalj...t-back-gop-filibuster-on-financial-regulation

Bush was able to do whatever he wanted and destroy the country at it with a simple +2 vote majority.
Obama had a +18-20 vote majority for 2 years and isn't really able to do anything? Hogwash.
Democrats really need to grow a vertebrae and stop complaining rather than rolling over and playing dead. They really are spineless.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama and Harry Reid had almost 2 years to do it...Why would they wait until last minute to do it in a lame duck and pass a welfare bill for the wealthy then complain that if they didn't pass that, everything else would have been derailed? Why didn't they also have enough sense to do that last year or when they were working the financial regulations bill earlier this year(which was also filibustered)? Nonsense I say.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicalj...t-back-gop-filibuster-on-financial-regulation

Bush was able to do whatever he wanted and destroy the country at it with a simple +2 vote majority.
Obama had a +18-20 vote majority for 2 years and isn't really able to do anything? Hogwash.
Democrats really need to grow a vertebrae and stop complaining rather than rolling over and playing dead. They really are spineless.

Ahh, so now you're trying to change the argument to something else after you were proved wrong with your first one. When they pass a whole bunch of things together, you complain about how they lump unrelated legislation into one thing. When they pass things rapidly you complain about how legislation is being rushed through, when they don't do that you ask why they didn't pass all these things sooner.

lets just look at this for what it is, you would be attacking them no matter what they did.

Obama has accomplished HUGE things in his first two years, he's been fantastically successful, so the idea that he couldn't do anything is ridiculous.

 

[lothar]

Ahh, so now you're trying to change the argument to something else after you were proved wrong with your first one. When they pass a whole bunch of things together, you complain about how they lump unrelated legislation into one thing. When they pass things rapidly you complain about how legislation is being rushed through, when they don't do that you ask why they didn't pass all these things sooner.

lets just look at this for what it is, you would be attacking them no matter what they did.

Obama has accomplished HUGE things in his first two years, he's been fantastically successful, so the idea that he couldn't do anything is ridiculous.

I only had one argument and it has yet to be proved wrong.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30975128&postcount=78

 

[fskimospy]

I only had one argument and it has yet to be proved wrong.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30975128&postcount=78

No, you had several, you just abandoned the other ones.

Your argument is meaningless. Basically any piece of legislation that any Democrat wanted to have passed ever you could make the same argument for. They had other legislative priorities. I for one am glad they did.

 

[lothar]

Ahh, so now you're trying to change the argument to something else after you were proved wrong with your first one. When they pass a whole bunch of things together, you complain about how they lump unrelated legislation into one thing. When they pass things rapidly you complain about how legislation is being rushed through, when they don't do that you ask why they didn't pass all these things sooner.

lets just look at this for what it is, you would be attacking them no matter what they did.

Obama has accomplished HUGE things in his first two years, he's been fantastically successful, so the idea that he couldn't do anything is ridiculous.

The same can be said about many liberals and progressives when Bush was President.

In the eyes of someone like Spidey and ProfJohn, Bush accomplished "HUGE" things and would be considered "fantastically successful".
Only difference between you and them is that you're opposite ends of the same pole.

 

[lothar]

No, you had several, you just abandoned the other ones.

Your argument is meaningless. Basically any piece of legislation that any Democrat wanted to have passed ever you could make the same argument for. They had other legislative priorities. I for one am glad they did.

You must be confused.
I had only one which I mentioned when I started posting today.

 

[fskimospy]

The same can be said about many liberals and progressives when Bush was President.

In the eyes of someone like Spidey and ProfJohn, Bush accomplished "HUGE" things and would be considered "fantastically successful".
Only difference between you and them is that you're opposite ends of the same pole.

Now you're moving onto yet another argument. This is bizarre, and I'm not even sure what you're trying to do other than pick a fight. You were making an argument about how Obama hasn't accomplished anything, and I was saying that he has. I'm not aware of anyone saying that Bush hadn't accomplished anything in his tenure as president, and I'm certain that I never said that, so I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make.

 

[lothar]

Now you're moving onto yet another argument. This is bizarre, and I'm not even sure what you're trying to do other than pick a fight. You were making an argument about how Obama hasn't accomplished anything, and I was saying that he has. I'm not aware of anyone saying that Bush hadn't accomplished anything in his tenure as president, and I'm certain that I never said that, so I'm not even sure what argument you're trying to make.

How exactly is that an argument?
You're of the opinion that all statements are arguments?

I predict you will quote this post and say I am moving unto yet another argument.

 

[Jhhnn]

They didn't filibuster the extension of middle class tax cuts because they didn't want them, they wanted to extend tax cuts for everyone, which is what they got. Dems could have cut taxes further on the middle class if they wanted to in the last two years as people struggle to get by.

Dems did pass taxcuts for the middle class under the Obama Admin. It was just buried by the so called liberal media while they carried on about the Tea Party and Republican ravings-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?_r=1

 

[fskimospy]

How exactly is that an argument?
You're of the opinion that all statements are arguments?

I predict you will quote this post and say I am moving unto yet another argument.

Not all statements are arguments, but the statement you made about liberals having the exact same attributes as what I'm attributing to you is most certainly an argument. (one definition being 'the assertion that something is true')

I did notice how you didn't address the substance of what I wrote though, being that you're just wildly searching for new topics as each old one is discredited.

 

[matt0611]

Dems did pass taxcuts for the middle class under the Obama Admin. It was just buried by the so called liberal media while they carried on about the Tea Party and Republican ravings-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?_r=1

I know they did, obviously not nearly enough though. Small bit, let me know when they get serious about it and lower the actual rates.

 

[Engineer]

I know they did, obviously not nearly enough though. Small bit, let me know when they get serious about it and lower the actual rates.

Here we go with the semantics horseshit again.:\