The Bernie Sanders Filibuster

[essential1]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by ninjahood

I agree wit da bill...if da rich want unfunded tax breaks then da middle

Class should get unfunded unemployment benefits. Eff it lets all deficit spend......

The bill still stinks.  The 2% payroll tax cut and unemployment benefit are stimulative, the rest is garbage.  2 $800 billion stimulus plans and neither one of them does any real job creation. 

Even then the 2% payroll tax cut comes at the detriment of social security..

When you think about it, it doesn't even sound right.  "Obama to extend Bush tax cuts".  

He's $%%%+# himself over.

That's what you get when you are elected a liberal (dubbed the most liberal senator (even though Bernie Sanders is) and govern as a center right president.... You get everyone to hate you..  The right hates you because you are a "liberal", the left hates you because you won't stand for anything you say you believe in, and independents hate you for flip flopping...  Where if he stood strong and said this is what I believe in, and I am going to fight day in & day out for my beliefs he would be more liked & more respected.

Would I rather see him win over the republican candidate in 2012 (barring Colin Powell or Michael Bloomberg) Yes... But if he loses in 2012, his I am a liberal but I never act like one attitude will be why he loses..

 

[rico x hood]

^^ truth the President has "try to please everyone" attitudes. An that's the type of attitude this country needs. But not the kind this country wants, as Essential1 outlined. As President I.believe he should go back to the leftist base that elected him and regain that lost political capital. It would also show his fellow Dems that he's down for the cause. He said during the transition that he'd rather be a one term President and do big things than be a two term and do small things. But what he doesn't seem to realize is that he's on the path of becoming a one term President with few landmark legislative wins. Yes, history judges Presidents but as it's looking now he won't be held in high regards when 2012 comes around. But seeing the way he Is, he probably won't care.

 

[rico x hood]

^^ truth the President has "try to please everyone" attitudes. An that's the type of attitude this country needs. But not the kind this country wants, as Essential1 outlined. As President I.believe he should go back to the leftist base that elected him and regain that lost political capital. It would also show his fellow Dems that he's down for the cause. He said during the transition that he'd rather be a one term President and do big things than be a two term and do small things. But what he doesn't seem to realize is that he's on the path of becoming a one term President with few landmark legislative wins. Yes, history judges Presidents but as it's looking now he won't be held in high regards when 2012 comes around. But seeing the way he Is, he probably won't care.

 

[sirius lee handsome]

Originally Posted by CaBron James 23

that was one impressive phillybuster

 

[sirius lee handsome]

Originally Posted by CaBron James 23

that was one impressive phillybuster

 

[rexanglorum]

I really would like to know why progressives consider it important, impressive, courageous to stand up for eight hours all for the cause of trying to confiscate more wealth from citizens.

It is not very courageous to "fight" for the ability of government to tax a small minority of tax payers. Progressives want to help the poor, means test social security. Progressives want to make government more accommodating of homosexuality, try to convince people outside of big cities and college towns to agree with your stance. Progressives want to keep medicare and social security as the center piece of the "social safety net," summon the courage to means test who gets benefits. Progressives want to reduce carbon emissions from the US and around the world, consider alternatives in addition to or in lieu of trying to heavily tax and/or ration fossil fuels and supporting weak/supplementary (for the time being at least) sources like wind and solar (if Earth 2100 is even remotely correct and carbon emission will be the downfall of civilization, consider nuclear power or at least the horror of flying commercial and having to see wind turbines on the horizon from your Cape Cod homes). Progressives want every child to have a world class education but they deny school choice to middle income and working class families while putting their kids in private schools.

Progressives sneer at conservatives for believing that tax cuts and/or more prayer will usher in a utopia yet progressives seem to believe that the answer to all of our domestic problems are tax hikes. Progressives have some laudable goals, some of those goals are goals that libertarians, moderates, conservatives and almost every support but the left has to realize that it can reach those goals if it is willing to open its mind on some issues and to stand up to or at least not bow down to certain special interests, just like all people of all political ideologies need to do.

As far as taxes are concerned, not only can progressives achieve their goals with current or lower tax rates, it may be a case where they must. Progressives like to mention that the US enjoyed growth under higher levels of taxation and conclude that not only would tax hikes not cause damage but that they may very well encourage growth. The two most commonly cited eras of growth under high taxation are the 20 years or so after the end of WWII and the 90's.

In the first instance, the top marginal tax rates were very high but the level of taxation was not very high because people hide their income and avoided the higher tax rates and the government captured about the same amount of GDP as it did today. Government also tended to be more thrifty and it spent money more wisely than it did today. State and Federal bureaucracies were smaller. Money for education actually went to class room instruction and not downtown district offices. When money was allocated for infrastructure, the money went into building roads and bridges and highways in growing urban and suburban areas, the DOT's goal was not to get people onto bikes and finally, a good deal of growth was created by loose money issues by the Federal Reserve and the nation paid the tab during from the late 60's into the early 1980's.

The Clinton era is also cited as one of higher tax rates than today but also of robust growth. In that case, it is likely that the economy grew because of a positive supply shock, the capital stock that was built up in the capital accumulation friendly Reagan and Bush years, new technology that increased worker productivity as well as Federal Reserve stimulus for which we are now paying with moribund growth caused by two decades of malinvestment.

Unlike in the 1950's or the 1990's, the Fed is in a liquidity trap; much leaner and more frugal countries, whose public sector gets much more bang for their educational and infrastructure buck (or rather yuan), are more competitive and are being more so every day; we have an aging population so Entitlement programs cannot be funded like they used to be, by running a ponzi scheme that always had many more new members than long established members and unlike the 1950's or the 1990's, those golden eras of high tax rates and robust growth, we do not have the technology to induce a wonderful supply shock like there was right after the second world war or right before the Third Millennium.

If we are going to get out of this economic malaise, it will not happen because we raise taxes on especially productive people. In the short run it, would garner more revenue but in the long run it would change behavior, reduce investment (be it in a business, an incohate business, an invention or one's education or career training) and likely give the treasury either no additional income or a fraction of what the CBO estimates. That extra money would not be used to reduce the deficit nor would much of it go towards public sector investment and we would simply have higher tax rates (and with the Fed's love of printing money for its friends on Wall Street, fast food and retail workers might be, in a decade or so, making 250k or more per year) on some or most people and full employment and a future, let alone a bright one, will seem just as if not more elusive than it is today.

All people of all ideologies have to slaughter some sacred cows and learn to say "no" to some of their favorite people and entities but we all have to do this, our salvation does not lie on government confiscating a larger percentage of the fruits of anyone's labor. 

This concludes my fillibuster, I yield the floor.


One more thing, I may disagree with Bernie Sanders' views on the size and scope of government but I respect more than most law makers because he acts like Socialist and identifies himself as such, I respect political figures who make their views known and I love that he opposed the bailouts and is the lef twing version of Ron Paul in that he calls out Ben Bernanke, Tim Giethner and the rest of the bankster's lackey's in Government. 

 

[rexanglorum]

I really would like to know why progressives consider it important, impressive, courageous to stand up for eight hours all for the cause of trying to confiscate more wealth from citizens.

It is not very courageous to "fight" for the ability of government to tax a small minority of tax payers. Progressives want to help the poor, means test social security. Progressives want to make government more accommodating of homosexuality, try to convince people outside of big cities and college towns to agree with your stance. Progressives want to keep medicare and social security as the center piece of the "social safety net," summon the courage to means test who gets benefits. Progressives want to reduce carbon emissions from the US and around the world, consider alternatives in addition to or in lieu of trying to heavily tax and/or ration fossil fuels and supporting weak/supplementary (for the time being at least) sources like wind and solar (if Earth 2100 is even remotely correct and carbon emission will be the downfall of civilization, consider nuclear power or at least the horror of flying commercial and having to see wind turbines on the horizon from your Cape Cod homes). Progressives want every child to have a world class education but they deny school choice to middle income and working class families while putting their kids in private schools.

Progressives sneer at conservatives for believing that tax cuts and/or more prayer will usher in a utopia yet progressives seem to believe that the answer to all of our domestic problems are tax hikes. Progressives have some laudable goals, some of those goals are goals that libertarians, moderates, conservatives and almost every support but the left has to realize that it can reach those goals if it is willing to open its mind on some issues and to stand up to or at least not bow down to certain special interests, just like all people of all political ideologies need to do.

As far as taxes are concerned, not only can progressives achieve their goals with current or lower tax rates, it may be a case where they must. Progressives like to mention that the US enjoyed growth under higher levels of taxation and conclude that not only would tax hikes not cause damage but that they may very well encourage growth. The two most commonly cited eras of growth under high taxation are the 20 years or so after the end of WWII and the 90's.

In the first instance, the top marginal tax rates were very high but the level of taxation was not very high because people hide their income and avoided the higher tax rates and the government captured about the same amount of GDP as it did today. Government also tended to be more thrifty and it spent money more wisely than it did today. State and Federal bureaucracies were smaller. Money for education actually went to class room instruction and not downtown district offices. When money was allocated for infrastructure, the money went into building roads and bridges and highways in growing urban and suburban areas, the DOT's goal was not to get people onto bikes and finally, a good deal of growth was created by loose money issues by the Federal Reserve and the nation paid the tab during from the late 60's into the early 1980's.

The Clinton era is also cited as one of higher tax rates than today but also of robust growth. In that case, it is likely that the economy grew because of a positive supply shock, the capital stock that was built up in the capital accumulation friendly Reagan and Bush years, new technology that increased worker productivity as well as Federal Reserve stimulus for which we are now paying with moribund growth caused by two decades of malinvestment.

Unlike in the 1950's or the 1990's, the Fed is in a liquidity trap; much leaner and more frugal countries, whose public sector gets much more bang for their educational and infrastructure buck (or rather yuan), are more competitive and are being more so every day; we have an aging population so Entitlement programs cannot be funded like they used to be, by running a ponzi scheme that always had many more new members than long established members and unlike the 1950's or the 1990's, those golden eras of high tax rates and robust growth, we do not have the technology to induce a wonderful supply shock like there was right after the second world war or right before the Third Millennium.

If we are going to get out of this economic malaise, it will not happen because we raise taxes on especially productive people. In the short run it, would garner more revenue but in the long run it would change behavior, reduce investment (be it in a business, an incohate business, an invention or one's education or career training) and likely give the treasury either no additional income or a fraction of what the CBO estimates. That extra money would not be used to reduce the deficit nor would much of it go towards public sector investment and we would simply have higher tax rates (and with the Fed's love of printing money for its friends on Wall Street, fast food and retail workers might be, in a decade or so, making 250k or more per year) on some or most people and full employment and a future, let alone a bright one, will seem just as if not more elusive than it is today.

All people of all ideologies have to slaughter some sacred cows and learn to say "no" to some of their favorite people and entities but we all have to do this, our salvation does not lie on government confiscating a larger percentage of the fruits of anyone's labor. 

This concludes my fillibuster, I yield the floor.


One more thing, I may disagree with Bernie Sanders' views on the size and scope of government but I respect more than most law makers because he acts like Socialist and identifies himself as such, I respect political figures who make their views known and I love that he opposed the bailouts and is the lef twing version of Ron Paul in that he calls out Ben Bernanke, Tim Giethner and the rest of the bankster's lackey's in Government. 

 

[ghenges]

Originally Posted by eddiehouse5

I wonder how long he can go for.

That's what she said.

 

[ghenges]

Originally Posted by eddiehouse5

I wonder how long he can go for.

That's what she said.

 

[bijald0331]

Originally Posted by Ghenges

Originally Posted by eddiehouse5

I wonder how long he can go for.

That's what she said.

Ghenges wrote:

---

NT overall has the sense of a humor of a 14-18 year old male. 

 

[bijald0331]

Originally Posted by Ghenges

Originally Posted by eddiehouse5

I wonder how long he can go for.

That's what she said.

Ghenges wrote:

---

NT overall has the sense of a humor of a 14-18 year old male. 

 

[ghenges]

Originally Posted by bijald0331

Originally Posted by Ghenges

Originally Posted by eddiehouse5

I wonder how long he can go for.

That's what she said.

Ghenges wrote:

---

NT overall has the sense of a humor of a 14-18 year old male. 

 You know many 14-18 year olds that watch The Office?

 

[ghenges]

Originally Posted by bijald0331

Originally Posted by Ghenges

Originally Posted by eddiehouse5

I wonder how long he can go for.

That's what she said.

Ghenges wrote:

---

NT overall has the sense of a humor of a 14-18 year old male. 

 You know many 14-18 year olds that watch The Office?

 

[bijald0331]

^I didn't even know TWSS is from The Office... been hearing that joke since I was 16 (within the degraded 14-18 demographic).

Don't take a shot at people and come right back with the same humor.

 

[bijald0331]

^I didn't even know TWSS is from The Office... been hearing that joke since I was 16 (within the degraded 14-18 demographic).

Don't take a shot at people and come right back with the same humor.

 

[hellohiphop4000]

It's not from the office. And a lot.

 

[hellohiphop4000]

It's not from the office. And a lot.

 

[ghenges]

Originally Posted by bijald0331

^I didn't even know TWSS is from The Office... been hearing that joke since I was 16 (within the degraded 14-18 demographic).

Don't take a shot at people and come right back with the same humor.

That joke has been around forever but saying it in context of how it's used in The Office, where it's purposely overdone, it is not taken at face value.  Sorry you missed the point.

 

[ghenges]

Originally Posted by bijald0331

^I didn't even know TWSS is from The Office... been hearing that joke since I was 16 (within the degraded 14-18 demographic).

Don't take a shot at people and come right back with the same humor.

That joke has been around forever but saying it in context of how it's used in The Office, where it's purposely overdone, it is not taken at face value.  Sorry you missed the point.

 

[ghenges]

And if you hear that joke today and DON'T think (or know) it is said to mock (or pay tribute to) The Office, then I don't know what to tell you.


Edit - Ya dig?

 

[ghenges]

And if you hear that joke today and DON'T think (or know) it is said to mock (or pay tribute to) The Office, then I don't know what to tell you.


Edit - Ya dig?

 

[ghenges]

AND if you are in the company of dudes who say that joke AT face value (and not as a reference to The Office) then... murder-suicide.

 

[ghenges]

AND if you are in the company of dudes who say that joke AT face value (and not as a reference to The Office) then... murder-suicide.

 

[hellohiphop4000]

Nah it is still commonly used at face value, as lame as that is 

and office reference or not, that's still some 14-18 y.o humor dawg 

 

[hellohiphop4000]

Nah it is still commonly used at face value, as lame as that is 

and office reference or not, that's still some 14-18 y.o humor dawg