(April 13, 2018 at 3:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I suppose you also (willfully?) forgot that the Dems lost control of the congress in the 2010 mid-terms. 

Are you willfully ignoring the fact that LOST control means they HAD control...and didn't tax the hell out of the 1% while they had it?

(April 13, 2018 at 4:24 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 13, 2018 at 3:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I suppose you also (willfully?) forgot that the Dems lost control of the congress in the 2010 mid-terms. 

Are you willfully ignoring the fact that LOST control means they HAD control...and didn't tax the hell out of the 1% while they had it?

Unless I'm mistaken, they would need 60 Senators for such a bill to be filibuster proof, and even then, they can't afford to lose a single Senator. The Democratic Party is more united than the Republican party, but it's not that united.

Getting any legislation passed is difficult. Even when the Dems had 60 Senators and passed Obamacare, they had to bend over backwards to insurance companies and Republicans while the bill was being written, as well as the more right-wing members of their own party. The final Obamacare bill was a watered down version of the original as a result.

Dems try and help the poor when possible but are always obstructed by the Republicans  . The Republicans tell them to go fuck themselves and do all they can to push a carrot stick for the rich cattle prod for the poor mentality . Tax breaks are bread and circus the whole economic system needs reform .

---

Quote:Are you willfully ignoring the fact that LOST control means they HAD control...and didn't tax the hell out of the 1% while they had it?

The Dems would never have been able to tax the rich their to ingrained in the political machine .

---

(April 13, 2018 at 5:12 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 13, 2018 at 4:24 pm)alpha male Wrote: Are you willfully ignoring the fact that LOST control means they HAD control...and didn't tax the hell out of the 1% while they had it?

Unless I'm mistaken, they would need 60 Senators for such a bill to be filibuster proof, and even then, they can't afford to lose a single Senator. The Democratic Party is more united than the Republican party, but it's not that united.

Getting any legislation passed is difficult. Even when the Dems had 60 Senators and passed Obamacare, they had to bend over backwards to insurance companies and Republicans while the bill was being written, as well as the more right-wing members of their own party. The final Obamacare bill was a watered down version of the original as a result.

This very this

(April 13, 2018 at 5:12 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 13, 2018 at 4:24 pm)alpha male Wrote: Are you willfully ignoring the fact that LOST control means they HAD control...and didn't tax the hell out of the 1% while they had it?

Unless I'm mistaken, they would need 60 Senators for such a bill to be filibuster proof, and even then, they can't afford to lose a single Senator. The Democratic Party is more united than the Republican party, but it's not that united.

Getting any legislation passed is difficult. Even when the Dems had 60 Senators and passed Obamacare, they had to bend over backwards to insurance companies and Republicans while the bill was being written, as well as the more right-wing members of their own party. The final Obamacare bill was a watered down version of the original as a result.

The Republicans just got a tax bill passed with nowhere near 60 seats in the senate. It can be done. Further, a serious attempt, if blocked by the Republicans, shows that there really is a significant difference between the two on taxes and gives me reason to consider voting Dem. Then they might get the 60 seats.

(April 13, 2018 at 5:12 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 13, 2018 at 4:24 pm)alpha male Wrote: Are you willfully ignoring the fact that LOST control means they HAD control...and didn't tax the hell out of the 1% while they had it?

Unless I'm mistaken, they would need 60 Senators for such a bill to be filibuster proof, and even then, they can't afford to lose a single Senator. The Democratic Party is more united than the Republican party, but it's not that united.

Getting any legislation passed is difficult. Even when the Dems had 60 Senators and passed Obamacare, they had to bend over backwards to insurance companies and Republicans while the bill was being written, as well as the more right-wing members of their own party. The final Obamacare bill was a watered down version of the original as a result.

And given that the original was a pisspoor republitraitor plan to funnel money from the government to the insurers and private hospitals while reaming the taxpayers, you know a watered down version is going to be bad, albeit not as bad as what it replaced.

The delayed seating of Senator Franken due to his close election and recounts in 2008 denied the dems a crucial senate vote for many important issues. As I recall the seating was delayed for months.

And? Shirley you're not saying that if Franken had been seated sooner they would have slapped a 70% rate on the 1%.

It's kind of bizarre to me that you want a serious increase in taxes on the rich but instead of voting for the party that would give them a slight increase you vote for the one that gives them a cut.

(April 14, 2018 at 11:03 am)Aegon Wrote: It's kind of bizarre to me that you want a serious increase in taxes on the rich but instead of voting for the party that would give them a slight increase you vote for the one that gives them a cut.

In a global economy, the money is in aligning your countries interests with that of the super rich and corporations.  That's what China did so well.  

I think the idea of 'raise taxes on the rich' is just the simple way we look at it, because for us, we get our paycheck, and pay a %.  There's no threat we're going to stash our money in the Caribbean, or become citizens of the Isle of Man if they increase our rate too high.  Whereas, for corporations and the super rich, they are free to go wherever they want.  The leverage the government has on joe schmoe doesn't exist in the same way it does with Bezos or Buffet.

(April 14, 2018 at 6:44 am)alpha male Wrote:

(April 13, 2018 at 5:12 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, they would need 60 Senators for such a bill to be filibuster proof, and even then, they can't afford to lose a single Senator. The Democratic Party is more united than the Republican party, but it's not that united.

Getting any legislation passed is difficult. Even when the Dems had 60 Senators and passed Obamacare, they had to bend over backwards to insurance companies and Republicans while the bill was being written, as well as the more right-wing members of their own party. The final Obamacare bill was a watered down version of the original as a result.

The Republicans just got a tax bill passed with nowhere near 60 seats in the senate. It can be done. Further, a serious attempt, if blocked by the Republicans, shows that there really is a significant difference between the two on taxes and gives me reason to consider voting Dem. Then they might get the 60 seats.

That was a tax cut and it used the process of reconciliation which eliminates the filibuster. As far as I am aware, there are only certain legislative items that qualify for reconciliation. I’m not certain you can use it to increase taxes. It’s a weird Senate rule.