Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 197

Thread: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

  1. #101
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The only way the Republicans could get the tax cuts through was with a sunset. They wanted a permanent reduction but the Democrats wouldn't let that through so wha tis your point? A filibuster would have occurred without the sunset and that is what you are ignoring.
    and both of you are still confused equating the tactics of the Republicans today with the Democrats in 2001. Sadly, the Dems were not nearly as cold, calculating, ruthless and self serving in 2001 as the GOP is today. Cheaney broke the tie in 2003 for round two.

    This is a perfect illustration of just how bad the GOP has made things in the Senate today with their hyper partisanship and their insistence on 60 for everything.

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00170

    But yet again you are getting bogged down in votes and historical details. The point is a clear one: the tax raise going into effect in a few weeks was part of the bill passed by the 107th Congress when republican George Bush was President, the GOP held the House, and there was a tie in the Senate but with a Republican VP available to break any tie.
    Last edited by haymarket; 12-10-10 at 05:34 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #102
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    political pragmatism? I guess that is one way of hiding behind their words and not acting.

    why didn't you dems claim that those Bush rates for the middle class were useful in 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09?
    The Democrats probably didn't talk much about them because they agreed that they were helpful to the middle-class. Generally you don't see a lot of political debate on points that everyone agrees on.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude
    I love your attitude towards the rich--nothing screams LOSER louder
    Actually I have nothing against the rich; I'm doing pretty well myself. I mainly just have a problem with obnoxious douchebags who constantly brag about their wealth, then whine about how horrible America treats the wealthy.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #103
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    and both of you are still confused equating the tactics of the Republicans today with the Democrats in 2001. Sadly, the Dems were not nearly as cold, calculating, ruthless and self serving in 2001 as the GOP is today. Cheaney broke the tie in 2003 for round two.

    This is a perfect illustration of just how bad the GOP has made things in the Senate today with their hyper partisanship and their insistence on 60 for everything.

    U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

    But yet again you are getting bogged down in votes and historical details. The point is a clear one: the tax raise going into effect in a few weeks was part of the bill passed by the 107th Congress when republican George Bush was President, the GOP held the House, and there was a tie in the Senate but with a Republican VP available to break any tie.
    A good civics class will teach you how a bill gets to the floor for a vote. In the Senate it requires 60 votes for cloture. Look up the term and definition. The final vote once cloture happens is a simple majority.

  4. #104
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The Democrats probably didn't talk much about them because they agreed that they were helpful to the middle-class. Generally you don't see a lot of political debate on points that everyone agrees on.



    Actually I have nothing against the rich; I'm doing pretty well myself. I mainly just have a problem with obnoxious douchebags who constantly brag about their wealth, then whine about how horrible America treats the wealthy.
    There is only one ideology today that doesn't care about what someone else makes or pays in taxes, and that would be the conservative ideology. What we have here is a principle at play that should concern everyone and that is the desire of politicians to classify someone keeping more of their personal income as an expense to the govt? What is more disturbing are the millions that bought this rhetoric. This country wasn't built on those principles and the radical leftists are trying to gain hold of this country's economy.

  5. #105
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    A good civics class will teach you how a bill gets to the floor for a vote. In the Senate it requires 60 votes for cloture. Look up the term and definition. The final vote once cloture happens is a simple majority.
    You are being intentionally obtuse.

    The hyperpartisan climate of today and the GOP tactics of today WERE NOT the everyday rule a decade ago and were used only sparingly compared to today. Again, only 58 votes were cast in favor of the resolution in 2001. Today, that would have killed it dead under GOP fanaticism and obstructionism.

    A simple majority ALWAYS can bring a bill to the floor UNLESS it is filibustered then needing the 60 votes.
    Last edited by haymarket; 12-10-10 at 05:47 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #106
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,249

    Re: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You are being intentionally obtuse.

    The hyperpartisan climate of today and the GOP tactics of today WERE NOT the everyday rule a decade ago and were used only sparingly compared to today. Again, only 58 votes were cast in favor of the resolution in 2001. Today, that would have killed it dead under GOP fanaticism and obstructionism.

    A simple majority ALWAYS can bring a bill to the floor UNLESS it is filibustered.
    Give me a break, you don't think Pelosi and Reid have added to the hyperpartisanship since they have been in charge since 2007. Hyperpartianship has been in place for decades but you obviously have been blinded by an ideology. Now all of a sudden the Republicans take over the House, add seats in the Senate, and take over 680 state legislative positions and now you want non partisanship? A simple majority can only bring a bill to the floor in the House, the Senate requires 60 votes. Your youth is showing.

  7. #107
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,605

    Re: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

    http://rules.house.gov/archives/proc_diff_h_and_s.htm




    Bringing Bills to the Floor In the House of Representatives, most major legislation is brought to the floor by the House's adoption of a special rule, which takes the form of a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules. Special rules set guidelines for floor consideration of measures, measures in violation of standing House rules, or measures requiring a special debate or amendment structure. Special rules allow the House leadership to establish legislative priorities. If such special rules were not used, the House would have to consider bills in the order that they were reported from committee Special rules are requested by a letter from the Chairman of the reporting committee to the Chairman of the Rules Committee. The House must adopt, by simple majority, a special rule which specifies how the bill will be considered before it can actually consider the underlying bill. Once adopted, the rule may govern the amount of general debate time, amendments permitted to the underlying bill, or waive points of order against the bill or amendments to that bill. In the Senate, there is no Rules Committee to perform this function. Legislation reported from a committee is placed on the Senate Calendar as a "General Order", which the Senate must then agree to take up. The motion to take up a measure is debatable after the first two hours of any legislative day. As a result, controversial legislation is often subject to a filibuster before it is even considered (see below).
    Please note that the words in bold refer to OFTEN SUBJECT TO A FILIBUSTER and not the word ALWAYS. That is then where the 60 votes come up.

    But yet again you are getting bogged down in votes and historical details. The point is a clear one: the tax raise going into effect in a few weeks was part of the bill passed by the 107th Congress when republican George Bush was President, the GOP held the House, and there was a tie in the Senate but with a Republican VP available to break any tie.

    Arguing about Senate procedures is a red herring that changes nothing about who passed these tax increases in the first place. That is not and never was my point.

    Conservative - why are you so intent and deflecting the conversation from that fact?
    Last edited by haymarket; 12-10-10 at 06:09 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #108
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

    Argument and counter-argument...

    Do tax cuts cost...yes or no?

    People work to earn an income. Under state and/or federal constitutional authority or by state law, your income is taxed. These taxes provide a source of revenue for state and federal governments. Now, tax cuts are suppose to allow the wage earner to retain more of their income - keep more of what you earn. Regardless of the nature of the economy, generally speaking this is true. However, what tends to happen during a recession or when the government is running a budget deficit is tax cuts reduce the government's revenue. Reduced revenues along with increased state/federal spending equates to debt.

    Now, I understand the call for spending cuts, towit, if you're running a deficit the best way to reduce the debt is to reduce the amount of funds given to specific government programs or eliminate them completely. It's clear that in hard economic times, however, very few governing bodies are willing to cut programs they believe are necessary to provide aid to those individuals who are suffering economically. So, since the onset of the October 2008 recession where the deficit was already extremely high, our government had to act quickly in an attempt to inject capital into the economy otherwise face going into a depression. They (the Obama Administration) determined that the best way to do this was via public-private partnerships (meaning government contracts to private businesses) or via providing funds to the States for infrastructor projects. Corporate America - the private sector - could not correct itself because it (our financial sectors) were the problem (i.e., bad mortgage lending, over-extended credit, too much financial risk). That brings us up to today...

    Conservatives are tic'd because they consider allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire to be a "tax hike". But as we all know these taxes were due to expire at the end of the year, thereby resetting them back to where they were originally prior to 2003 (which was the second tax reduction authorized by former Pres. G. W. Bush). Compounding their anger is the fact that many entitlement programs, i.e,. unemployment benefits, are being authorized in a downed economy. As such, the combination of tax cuts on top of entitlements are adding to the deficit. How? Because the tax cuts are no longer offset by revenues that taxation without deficit spending would have ordinarily generated. As such, our government has to borrow money in order to make up the difference.

    So, yes, where ordinarily tax cuts would not cost the government a penny in spending when the economy is up, they do cost the government when the economy is down. Even if you cut spending in a down economy and still had tax cuts, if the government is running a deficit, eventually they'd have a significant reduction in revenues to work from which is exactly the case we find ourselves in today. To learn more on this matter, read this detailed review from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 12-10-10 at 06:08 PM.

  9. #109
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Uhh are you looking at the same bill that I'm looking at? The Democrats supported 99% of it? What in God's name are you talking about? The bill was a massive extension of the Bush tax cuts and a lower estate tax, and in exchange the Democrats got...an extension of unemployment benefits. Whoa. I'm so impressed. What an awesome deal. Yeah, I have no idea why Democrats would be opposed to that.
    Hey, it was some lib who said Republican's got 99% of what they wanted. I was just playing their game. The only thing dems were giving up was tax cuts for the wealthy and a compromise on the death tax.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  10. #110
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    Hey, it was some lib who said Republican's got 99% of what they wanted. I was just playing their game. The only thing dems were giving up was tax cuts for the wealthy and a compromise on the death tax.
    That's a lot bigger than an extension of unemployment benefits, both in terms of dollars and in terms of politics. Tax cuts for the wealthy are basically the central plank of the Republican platform. Furthermore, extending them now increases the likelihood that they will be made permanent in 2012, and it makes Obama invested in defending the Republican position for the next two years. An extension of unemployment benefits, while modestly important for the short-term economic recovery, is not going to get most Democrats worked up. It almost certainly will not be extended again, and it's certainly not worth the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •