Yeah, because that's going to happen.

More likely scenario is that public opinion is soundly in favor of the Buffet rule, soundly in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy, soundly in favor of not cutting social programs, but because a few talking head cable news goons and the David Broder acolytes in the Washington press corps speak out against it and scare them , the Democrats will be the ones who end up compromising and come up with some absurd plan with 10 social program/spending cuts for every one half of a tax raised, and even that one half of a tax will likely be on the poor or middle class.

And then the Democrats will march around with their chests out, crowing about how they won because they got revenue increases, and why can't progressives just be happy about this and thank them for their hard work and skillful negotiating tactics.

The 99% is the permanent majority, not the 1% paying a few lackeys to run for Congress.

You can either fight back, or get clubbed like a bunch of baby seals.

Perhaps we've become too stupid as a general population to understand how devastating this republican economic attach has been on us. I always say, Republicans attack on every front, because they can afford it.

I just hope that those who vote for Republicans, and conservative democrats in primaries end up getting the results of their terrible votes. Democrats aren't that great, but who else are you going to vote for these days.

Exactly. Nobody. And the Democrats know that which is why they do the absolute bare minimum that they have to and still get re-elected on the "the other guys are worse" platform.

Until we figure out some way to remedy that situation we are just going to sink further into the abyss of having to continually choose between Republicans circa 2012 or Republicans circa 1980-1994 (AKA, the Democratic party).

there fixed it for you..

But how the hell does one decide where to position Mitch McConnell on a guillotine? I think they planned for this!!!

and his chins is the worm that is being hooked.

how do you decide which part to bury and which part to hoist on a pike?

It was totally futile! It was never going to pass! A total waste of valuable legislative time!

Yeah. All that and more.

But it serves a larger purpose, and that is to point out quite starkly who's on which side. Harry Reid needs to pay a little call on Mark Pryor and explain to him what it means to be a Democrat, but otherwise this should keep coming back and coming back for vote after vote. The public gets it and will get it when it's shown to them multiple times. And slowly, like an ocean liner making a turn, the course gets corrected. It does no good to say we're steaming in the wrong direction, and you can't change course in one instantaneous maneuver. If we're going to change things, little votes like this move the tiller.

Keep it up.

But then you seem to be ok with a possible slight change in course. I dont see no stinking change in course.

I understand the GOP assholes voting down the Buffett rule, what pisses me off is that the Democrats act like they are ok with it.

Bringing it to a vote again makes part of that change. How long do the Republicans go on and on with one of their destructive ideas? First it's ridiculed, as it should be. Then it looks like an endless exercise in futility. Then it keeps coming back, and coming back, the bad zombie idea that won't die, until at last, after all these tries, and the Wise Men of Washington, who control our discourse weigh in with "Why don't we" do whatever terrible idea is being promulgated. "Why don't we" slowly turns to "we must" which ultimately becomes "ZOMG, we have to deregulate the banking industry before it's too late!" And by then . . . yeah, it's too late.

I hope the Democrats have the stick-to-it-iveness necessary to follow through on a proposal that has two terrific advantages over Republican bullshit: (1) It's hugely popular, garnering anywhere from 55% to 72% approval in poll after poll; and (b) It would actually work to fix some of our economic problems, and reduce the deficit. Bringing it back for vote after vote, talking it up in the media, and sooner or later, we might get to the chin-stroking "Why don't we" phase. But you gotta do the groundwork first, even for an idea that should be a gimme.

and told the American public that the Repukes wont allow, WONT ALLOW, and up or down vote on the Buffett Rule.
The fact that the Democrats wont makes me question how badly they want it.

Lots of very rich in the Senate.

If they had any principles at all they would pony up their fair share.

But yeah... principles and politicians go together like oil and water.

you must first discover some noblesse.

The Walton family told him to.

reminded him that Arkansas ranks 48th. in per capita income while the Waltons were in the top .1%!

I believe they're in the upper 0.001%.

A group, which for anybody that follows this already knows, does much better than the 0.01%, and much MUCH better than the 0.1%, and MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better than the 1%

Four of the eleven wealthiest Americans are members of the Walton family. That puts them in the top .00000004%. If you thought the top .001% have it good the Waltons would make them look impoverished by comparision. What anyone could possibly do with that much money is beyond me, it should be a crime to be that rich as there are only so many resources to go around and the more these people horde the less the rest of society has to live with. The Waltons made their fortune off the backs of minimum wage employees, their employees live in poverty while they have enough money that they could nearly pay everyone's salary in their entire state. The GDP of Arkansas is about $105 Billion, just the four wealthiest members of the Walton family alone are worth about $85 Billion. Wrap your head around that, just four individuals are worth more than 80% of their entire state's GDP. It is obscene.

People vote for him because they remember what a decent governor and senator his dad was. I got to tour his dad's office while he was governor, and met Pryor Sr. again when he came to Springdale to give a speech as a US senator. He made a very favorable impression on me. But Junior is a different story.

...and not just because he believes in invisible cloud-beings and that evolution isn't real...

blue dog dims, can't stand them or understand their treachery.

to uphold the Constitution? This Congress is just as corrupt as SCOTUS.

It is beyond me why anyone in the middle class would vote Repub when
their main agenda is to continue to pump more money up to the 1%.

when
their main agenda is to continue to pump more money up to the 1%.




*******


Because they are all gonna win the lottery, doncha know.

be discovered for the genius that they possess ... even though that would STILL make them EMPLOYEES.

The IRS who's tax code allows huge corporations to pay nothing?

It's a corrupt political show that will remain corrupt until some administration comes along that will start holding, oh say torturers, accountable.

does anyone believe that there are enough intelligent people in this country to vote out these nutjobs?

The problem is no matter how many Republicans and independents actually agree with the Buffet rule, so many of the people who support these clowns care more about their guns or taking rights away from other people. There was a great picture someone posted last week about this.

this one does and i hope the lame voters who sat out the last mid term election get off their rears and vote .( note: in austrailia it is MANDITORY. if u dont vote , u get a very hefty fine ) I sure hope we defeat mittins and his minions and or retake the house . I hope those who are angry enough show their anger , not just "angry white males) ie gun owners etc) iam a angery white male . hate injustice , inequality , and corruption. bah humbug 18

sadly ask most Americans and they don't even know there was any type of vote.

The principles that this country was founded on have gone by the wayside - we are very much a fascist state under the current GOPT and they not only want to keep it that way, they want to go as far right as they possibly can --------- we MUST stop them.

90% of Americans couldn't care less and have no idea of anything going on in government.

so middle/lower class conservatives will never know how badly they are being swindled. The information they get is filtered and concocted.

They pretty much showed their hand back in the Bush Administration when they first gained control of the Senate. Beyond accepting this ridiculous 60-vote, 'threat of a filibuster is enough, gents' garbage, Reid took ridiculous steps to maneuver progressive legislation into a ditch, and substitute the Republican versions of bills in their place. The Senate Democrats have made careers out of being "stymied" by those mean old Republicans, and somehow it always means more money for the people who give them campaign donations.

The Democratic party's leadership-- particularly in the Senate-- seems to spend most of it's time figuring out ways to push the 1%er agenda without actually getting their hands dirty.

are listening to the upper middle class and the millionaires. So no matter how much the 99% bitch about it nothing is going to happen. They are not going to raise their taxes. We are going to have to bite that bullet. Especially the people who least can afford it.

Thanks for the thread, xchrom.

Where I work about their response to blocking this rule that over 60 percent of Americans favor as a way of increasing revenue, I mean you would think that they would get pummelled for not supporting this and .... You know what they told me?

" The Buffet rule would bring in about 10 billion per year in actual revenue to the U.S. treasury, and that simply won't be enough to maintain the lavish vacations, clown suits, mind readers, and yes foreign hookers for the various government agencies not to mention the costs of the first family's extravagant lifestyle, hip hop parties in the White House, multi million dollar vacations, hundreds of rounds of golf, etc." Further they claim that under Obama, "Government has become fiscally incompetent" and then they launch into tirades from Gas prices to fast and furious....and finally they say the rich are not altruistic, they are certainly not stupid, they are rich, increasing their taxes will do nothing but result in them securing that revenue from another source, i.e., if they are a business they will pass costs onto consumers, if they aren't a business they will move money out of the U.S. and invest it overseas which will impact jobs here in America....

I always get told that I have not concept of real world economics.... and sometimes I find it hard to counter their common sense arguements i.e., they ask if the RICH were going to just roll over and pay more revenue in the form of taxes to the government then why don't they just take less deductions now? Than they ask me if I were rich and the government increased my taxes how would I offset that.... it is a compelling case because certainly if the rich were altruistic this wouldn't be an issue at all.

First, the rich actually want to do business here. It is the biggest economy on the planet, so raising the cost of admission will not drive them off.

Second, tax rates do effect wealth accumulation by the 1%. There is massive amounts of evidence in economic statistics that prove this. The wealthy argued for lower tax rates because it would help them get rich faster.

Third, all "investment" is not equal. In the current market many vehicles for profitable investment produce few if any jobs. They are the functional equivalent in society of going to the race track and betting on the ponies. This can be good for the race track owner or the brokerage firm, but little more.

Fourth, the entire economy is a cycle, every cost is always passed on, no one is immune. However, the data is clear that cash flows through the economy until it lands in the pocket of the wealthy, where it stops. This is why they get wealthy faster and faster, because more and more money stops moving when it gets into their accounts. Collecting a slice of it and putting it back into circulation will not prevent them from getting quite wealthy over time, but makes the process slower. In short, done right, the wealthy will need to produce more businesses, jobs, and such over a longer period to get to the same place.

Finally, passive gains need to be taxed at a much higher rate than business activity. If speculating in commodities is the easy path to fast money, prepare to pay more for gasoline. When speculating in electricity futures was the way to fast money, we got ENRON. ENRON did not produce a thing other than artificial shortages to boost asset valuations. This form of investment needs to be taxed out of existence. Actual venture capital investment in anything that produces real jobs making actual products, should be favored with lower tax rates. I like the notion that if you are not ready and able to accept actual delivery of 10 tons of wheat, or a tanker full of crude, then you have no business owning it.

Your fourth point is one that I really hadn't been talking up, i.e., that the rich would be forced to expand business and produce more jobs over a longer period to get to the same place so this would effectively fuel economic growth. I am definately going to go on the attack with that one.

The problem I am having getting through to them is that the optics of the GSA and Secret Service scandals are really bad right now, even if I got them to agree, and I think I could convince a majority because they have no dog in the rich man fight, they would still demand that government use the revenue strictly to pay down debt not to create more spending....

It's hard for me to address the spending issues because, I too believe that government spends way too much money, I think it would be smart if the President focused on the wastes by the MINC....

I have listened to these arguments for a very long time, and it seems only government can "waste" money. The private sector can "invest poorly" and "lose money", but it is never seen as a "waste" of money. Handing out billions in bonuses every year to business leaders who are laying off workers, cutting benefits, and raiding pension funds while riunning the company into bankruptcy may be seen as "stupid" by some, but the term "waste" is rarely if ever mentioned. Providing private sector management every perk imaginable, private jets, luxury resorts, you name it, is never seen as "waste".

In this recession, the private sector laid waste to perhaps 25 or 30 trillion dollars of asset values. It simply evaporated from people's home values, pension funds, 401Ks. This is still not seen as "waste", some term it as fraud, or a scam. Government in its wildest excesses has never "wasted" money the way Enron did. It has never wasted money in the way Bear Stearns did. It has never wasted money in the way AIG did, all while paying unimaginable bonuses to its staff.

Reporters look hard for Government "waste", "fraud", and "abuse". You want to know why? Because government employees are required to cooperate with their investigations. Transparency laws require that we disclose records and be generally of assistance to reporters. As a civil servant, I have been "investigated" three times by three different media outlets. Since I am fortunate not to have a budget or any access to gov't funds, they have never found any "waste" (even in gov't you must actually have money to "waste" it) . On "fraud", one look at my bank accounts and really old vehicles settles any questions. So they usually settle on the attempt to make a story of "abuse" or "incompetence". They have never found anything worth a report, and go back to the office and disappoint the editor.

Fascinatingly, the facts I reveal to them about private sector fraud and abuse during these "investigations" that I have uncovered during my work rarely merit ink. It is not the story they came to report, and they don't want to tangle with private sector lawyers over it. In short, the emphasis on government "waste" in the media is more a testament to their laziness, than a statement of a real problem. The real problem is 1000's of times larger, in the private sector, and vastly harder to report on.

make the case with the private sector waste because typically tax dollars aren't supporting it.... That is the great crime these bailouts and too big to fail mentalities. Taxpayers should never be on the hook for private sector that is just pure anti-Americanism.

Your argument indicates that you think only tax dollars can be "wasted". That is my point, this contention is simply untrue. There is only one kind of money. The private sector is vastly more capable of wasting it than the public sector, if for no other reason than that they simply have so much more of it.

Understand that the money lost in this latest real estate bubble alone was 2 to 3 times larger than the entire national debt. This is true even if you don't count the resulting recession and related loss of GDP. (This added in would expand the loss to perhaps as much as 4 times the national debt). Now toss in the tech bubble, Enron, and the S&L collapse and government debt starts looking very tiny.

So we dutifully "concern" ourselves with the latest government "waste" scandal, something that amounts to 0.001 percent of the federal budget, while real waste that costs 25 or 30 times the entire federal budget doesn't even earn the term. We are well trained.

Then they are not doing what their constituents want. This should be a number 1 commercial for the Dem's. Keep showing commercials that tell the truth about how the Repukes are taking away our rights. How they don't care what WE want, they care what their lobbyist wants. Taking away women's rights, which in result effect their male counterparts. Every commercial should let more and more sunshine in.

even these industrial strength cockroaches are not fond of the light. Keep that light on 'em even when they scurry for cover. I suggest keeping the light on their food supply/supplier is a further good tactic.

All by itself.

so nothing needs to be done other than letting them all expire. We can then try to pass cuts for the lower income groups next year (The Obama tax cuts) and see if the (R)s will vote against them.


Getting these people on the record is not a strategy of last resort. It is an obvious trap that they willingly fall into. Both sides wants to run on tax policy this year. The difference is clear and votes like that are what both sides want.