futuristxen
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19343
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt |
| Bernie Sanders is in the 10th hour filibustering the tax dea |
 |
|
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx
Go Bernie Go!
This was a dumbass compromise. Glad to see someone up there standing up to Lord Moneybags. Another year of unemployment benefits aren't worth the deficit of even more benefits for the rich.
Get a job, or get in the street and riot. |
Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:55 pm |
|
|
adic
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 727
Location: SJC |
Agreed Futur.. I hope somebody steps up and this compromise fails, really disappointed in Obama on this one... Even busting out Bill Clinton trying to win over the Dems that are pissed about it... |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:19 pm |
|
|
redball
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6849
Location: Northern New Jersey |
|
|
|
Our national debt relative to our GDP is fine. Why is it everyone is an economist when worried about the national debt but nobody is when it comes to the efficient stimulative effects of unemployment pay? Rioting in the streets won't put food on your plate. In fact, that sort of shit is likely to leave the economy in shambles and remove food from more plates.
I think Obama was trying to get the tax thing off the table quickly to remove the Republican's excuse for blocking all the other bills up in the air during the lame duck. At least he did something. Look at how terribly congress has played out the last few years. Obama is the only one whose managed to get any concession out of the Republicans. Democratic congressional leadership would have asked for too much, not conceded on enough, then ultimately the bill would have expired, which the voters who would have to pay more in taxes and the recession it would potentially trigger would be blamed on the Democrats. The new one wouldn't be put in place until the Republicans took over the house, which would ensure that the cuts for millionaires would remain, and the Republicans would take all the credit. Meanwhile the economy would still suddenly have 2 million people without any income, the effects of which would again be spun such that the Democrats took the blame. |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:05 pm |
|
|
crash
Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5441
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption |
try to keep count of how many times bernie says disgrace. it's one of his favorite words. |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:28 pm |
|
|
adic
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 727
Location: SJC |
|
|
|
redball wrote:
Our national debt relative to our GDP is fine. Why is it everyone is an economist when worried about the national debt but nobody is when it comes to the efficient stimulative effects of unemployment pay? Rioting in the streets won't put food on your plate. In fact, that sort of shit is likely to leave the economy in shambles and remove food from more plates.
I think Obama was trying to get the tax thing off the table quickly to remove the Republican's excuse for blocking all the other bills up in the air during the lame duck. At least he did something. Look at how terribly congress has played out the last few years. Obama is the only one whose managed to get any concession out of the Republicans. Democratic congressional leadership would have asked for too much, not conceded on enough, then ultimately the bill would have expired, which the voters who would have to pay more in taxes and the recession it would potentially trigger would be blamed on the Democrats. The new one wouldn't be put in place until the Republicans took over the house, which would ensure that the cuts for millionaires would remain, and the Republicans would take all the credit. Meanwhile the economy would still suddenly have 2 million people without any income, the effects of which would again be spun such that the Democrats took the blame.
Our national debt relative to GDP is fine.. I guess, it's still very high... A significant amount of our budget still goes paying off debt... 14 Trillion Dollars and counting is getting out of hand... We each owe $44,500 right now...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Letting tax cuts continue for the rich, when we have all this debt, and it's obvious keeping taxes that way doesn't help the economy is something I would not give in to.
I'm in favor of extending unemployment benefits but not if it means giving in to the demands of the rich.
I'm actually fairly happy with a lot of the things Obama has done since elected, and I see what he's trying to do here... I just don't agree
I'd perfer to see more progressive proposal's re-writing the tax codes in ways that would promote job growth in the U.S. while re-distributing the wealth a bit and taxing the rich more... I'm sure there are ways, but of course all the guys with money control such things...
Last edited by adic on Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:00 pm |
|
|
Jared Paul
Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 3717
Location: www.PrayersForAtheists.org |
Bernie should mention (while all eyes are on him) that if America would like to see more Independents like him, that they should demand Instant Runoff Voting & a multi-party system... |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:14 pm |
|
|
futuristxen
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19343
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt |
Jared Paul wrote:
Bernie should mention (while all eyes are on him) that if America would like to see more Independents like him, that they should demand Instant Runoff Voting & a multi-party system...
He might have. He was up there long enough. He was calling out the bank lobbyists that were milling about in the hallway at one point. |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:17 pm |
|
|
Jared Paul
Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 3717
Location: www.PrayersForAtheists.org |
futuristxen wrote:
Jared Paul wrote:
Bernie should mention (while all eyes are on him) that if America would like to see more Independents like him, that they should demand Instant Runoff Voting & a multi-party system...
He might have. He was up there long enough. He was calling out the bank lobbyists that were milling about in the hallway at one point.
hahahhahahaha
I'm bout to go turn on C-Span... is it on now? |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:18 pm |
|
|
adic
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 727
Location: SJC |
He's on now... in the link Futur posted
I love this guy |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:28 pm |
|
|
redball
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6849
Location: Northern New Jersey |
|
|
|
adic wrote:
Our national debt relative to GDP is fine.. I guess, it's still very high... A significant amount of our budget still goes paying off debt... 14 Trillion Dollars and counting is getting out of hand... We each owe $44,500 right now...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Letting tax cuts continue for the rich, when we have all this debt, and it's obvious keeping taxes that way doesn't help the economy is something I would not give in to.
I'm in favor of extending unemployment benefits but not if it means giving in to the demands of the rich.
I'm actually fairly happy with a lot of the things Obama has done since elected, and I see what he's trying to do here... I just don't agree
I'd perfer to see more progressive proposal's re-writing the tax codes in ways that would promote job growth in the U.S. while re-distributing the wealth a bit and taxing the rich more... I'm sure there are ways, but of course all the guys with money control such things...
Our debt load as a percentage of GDP is lower than half of Europe.
That $44,500 figure is so shitty and manipulative. I know you didn't come up with it, you're just repeating it, but can we lose the simpleton pandering here? That figure is based on the assumption that we all pay equal taxes, both in percentage and amount. In reality the inequity in pay and progressive taxation mean that you won't be paying anywhere near that to the national debt. Some people pay 10 times that amount in federal taxes every year. It's just a scary figure to make people believe that austerity makes sense so that they'll throw more proven economics out the window. Austerity in a recession is dumb. |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:25 pm |
|
|
adic
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 727
Location: SJC |
|
|
|
I could watch this guy all night, but I got other plans... Some notes I took while listening for about an hour...
Invest in infrastructure - multiple benefits
- Creates jobs, cheaper transportation long run, less oil need, more efficient
2.4% GDP spent on infrastructure
24.9% GDP spent on Debt
2 out of 3 corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998-2005 - had 2.5 trillion in sales
why the bill sucks...
-No money in the deal for infrastructure
-doubts if extend tax cuts now we will actually repeal it later
-bill keeps tax rates much lower for captial gains/dividends holders then for average working class
-estate tax lowers to 35%, was 55% under Clinton. Tax only applies to the super rich - not normal people or even really rich people.
-Diverts money that would go to Social security - further screwing SS when we already have huge debt. Really bad long term.
-repubs talk about deficit but add huge amounts with the tax cuts for rich
-Will add 900 billion to deficit - repub's will say deficit is too big and cut programs
-Traditionally (for the last 40 years), repubs have voted to extend unemployment benefits when they are as high as they are now. Only now does the crusade for rich change that
-It's obvious the tax cuts for middle class are a good idea |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:28 pm |
|
|
adic
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 727
Location: SJC |
|
|
|
redball wrote:
adic wrote:
Our national debt relative to GDP is fine.. I guess, it's still very high... A significant amount of our budget still goes paying off debt... 14 Trillion Dollars and counting is getting out of hand... We each owe $44,500 right now...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Letting tax cuts continue for the rich, when we have all this debt, and it's obvious keeping taxes that way doesn't help the economy is something I would not give in to.
I'm in favor of extending unemployment benefits but not if it means giving in to the demands of the rich.
I'm actually fairly happy with a lot of the things Obama has done since elected, and I see what he's trying to do here... I just don't agree
I'd perfer to see more progressive proposal's re-writing the tax codes in ways that would promote job growth in the U.S. while re-distributing the wealth a bit and taxing the rich more... I'm sure there are ways, but of course all the guys with money control such things...
Our debt load as a percentage of GDP is lower than half of Europe.
That $44,500 figure is so shitty and manipulative. I know you didn't come up with it, you're just repeating it, but can we lose the simpleton pandering here? That figure is based on the assumption that we all pay equal taxes, both in percentage and amount. In reality the inequity in pay and progressive taxation mean that you won't be paying anywhere near that to the national debt. Some people pay 10 times that amount in federal taxes every year. It's just a scary figure to make people believe that austerity makes sense so that they'll throw more proven economics out the window. Austerity in a recession is dumb.
Europe is in trouble as well, just because we are better then half of Europe doesn't make me feel any better...
I agree the $44,500 is somewhat manipulative, and that really isn't something I'm trying to argue or make a point about. Although Warren Buffet just said percentage wise he pays less taxes then his secretary...
My main point is I believe this is just another move toward ensuring the rich get richer and not beneficial to the country long term... |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:41 pm |
|
|
Jared Paul
Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 3717
Location: www.PrayersForAtheists.org |
adic wrote:
He's on now... in the link Futur posted
I love this guy
He's ballin' for sure.
He's too good to be a Democrat. Let the defections begin! |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:43 pm |
|
|
AharonHebert
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 123
Location: maine |
"if you're one of the top hedge fund managers you're doing pretty, pretty good" |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:47 pm |
|
|
Plum Puddin'
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 1649
Location: Get off my lawn. |
 |
|
Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:35 pm |
|
|
 
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Fri May 24, 2013 5:10 am
|
|
|
|
| |
