Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Senate Republicans Block Tax Cut Plan that Leaves Out High Earners
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow" data-source="post: 1385262" data-attributes="member: 7123"><p>I would phrase it slightly differently: If only the R's were not trying to eviscerate THE last significiant bastion of power that we the little guys have against the huge corporate and governmental powers that be, when they act oppressively, maliciously, and wrongfully, to right the wrong with the appropriate amount of damage awards - <strong>the power of a JURY of our peers.</strong></p><p></p><p>They'd like nothing more than to annihilate one of the critical "Four Boxes" of power that we the people have in this country, along with a couple of others:</p><p></p><p>-Soap Box (1st Amendment)</p><p>-Ballot Box (1st Amendment)</p><p><em><strong>-Jury Box (7th Amendment)</strong></em></p><p>-Cartridge Box (2nd Amendment)</p><p></p><p>The %@#$% D's try to eviscerate the 4th one listed there, and the #@@#$%#$ Rs try to eviscerate the first 3 - is it any wonder I hate both major parties, and vote 3rd party at every opportunity?</p><p></p><p>It's not about the lawyers - who cares? It's about retaining our POWER as potential and actual jurors, to be able to let a JURY of our peers decide how to punish huge corporate and government interests when they lie, cheat, steal, oppress, maim, and otherwise shaft the little guy. So-called "tort reform" is nothing more than a coordinated, organized, smoke and mirrors scheme, bought and paid for by huge corporate interests (including health-related interests) to steal the power of the people, through fully-informed juries, to right wrongs and hold them accountable to the people for their wrongdoing - of course by "capping" the awards at "X" amount, regardless of how egregious the behavior and regardless of what the fully informed jury decides what the correct punishment should be (the damage award), after fighting tooth and nail for months and years against $600/hour lawyers for the fat cats, pulling every trick in the book to try to prevent a jury verdict from occuring in the first place.</p><p></p><p>On the taxes, both parties suck hairy sweaty gonads - of course the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, by a factor of x10 or x20. But is it smarter for (a) the Rs to try to frame this as "they won't give us a fair bill leaving the rich un-excepted, so we couldn't vote for one - it's all the D's fault", or for (b) Ds to try to frame this as "we gave a fair bill to extend the tax cuts, but the Rs filibustered it to protect the very rich fat cats"? </p><p></p><p>I'm not sure, but I think the answer is (b). I think the American people (nationwide average) mostly will buy argument (b) on or before Nov 2012, if nothing happens, more than argument (a), on balance - but it will be highly contested of course. Might depend upon whether the economy re-tanks.</p><p></p><p>Right or wrong, our income tax structure has always been a bit progressive in nature, at some times in history since 1916 much more on the progressive side (1960s and early 70s), and at times much less progressive (recently). It could stand to be a smidge more progressive than it is, IMO, on folks earning over 1 million per year - it would still be many many many times less progressive than it was on those folks in the late 60s, and eminently "fair", IMO. So I think they should have just passed what the Rs consider a "bad" bill, as a starting point, to protect the middle class, small busines owners, and the poor, NOW, for 2011 purposes, and protect the wobbling economic recovery (again, small business and middle class) -- and then the Rs could work toward amending it next session, and let a new regressivity proposal on the rich folks stand or fall on its own merit. So personally I will blame this on the Rs - but I hated both wings of the republicrat uniparty already, so doesn't really matter. I personally don't think ANYONE should pay ONE RED CENT of *federal* income tax if you make less than about $35K/year individual, or more if you have kids - gawdsakes, we didn't even HAVE an income tax before 1916 - surely we can get by without taxing the poor and below-median-income folks on the federal level (but let <strong>state income taxes </strong>stand to be decided on a state by state basis, at whatever level the states and their people decide).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow, post: 1385262, member: 7123"] I would phrase it slightly differently: If only the R's were not trying to eviscerate THE last significiant bastion of power that we the little guys have against the huge corporate and governmental powers that be, when they act oppressively, maliciously, and wrongfully, to right the wrong with the appropriate amount of damage awards - [B]the power of a JURY of our peers.[/B] They'd like nothing more than to annihilate one of the critical "Four Boxes" of power that we the people have in this country, along with a couple of others: -Soap Box (1st Amendment) -Ballot Box (1st Amendment) [I][B]-Jury Box (7th Amendment)[/B][/I] -Cartridge Box (2nd Amendment) The %@#$% D's try to eviscerate the 4th one listed there, and the #@@#$%#$ Rs try to eviscerate the first 3 - is it any wonder I hate both major parties, and vote 3rd party at every opportunity? It's not about the lawyers - who cares? It's about retaining our POWER as potential and actual jurors, to be able to let a JURY of our peers decide how to punish huge corporate and government interests when they lie, cheat, steal, oppress, maim, and otherwise shaft the little guy. So-called "tort reform" is nothing more than a coordinated, organized, smoke and mirrors scheme, bought and paid for by huge corporate interests (including health-related interests) to steal the power of the people, through fully-informed juries, to right wrongs and hold them accountable to the people for their wrongdoing - of course by "capping" the awards at "X" amount, regardless of how egregious the behavior and regardless of what the fully informed jury decides what the correct punishment should be (the damage award), after fighting tooth and nail for months and years against $600/hour lawyers for the fat cats, pulling every trick in the book to try to prevent a jury verdict from occuring in the first place. On the taxes, both parties suck hairy sweaty gonads - of course the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, by a factor of x10 or x20. But is it smarter for (a) the Rs to try to frame this as "they won't give us a fair bill leaving the rich un-excepted, so we couldn't vote for one - it's all the D's fault", or for (b) Ds to try to frame this as "we gave a fair bill to extend the tax cuts, but the Rs filibustered it to protect the very rich fat cats"? I'm not sure, but I think the answer is (b). I think the American people (nationwide average) mostly will buy argument (b) on or before Nov 2012, if nothing happens, more than argument (a), on balance - but it will be highly contested of course. Might depend upon whether the economy re-tanks. Right or wrong, our income tax structure has always been a bit progressive in nature, at some times in history since 1916 much more on the progressive side (1960s and early 70s), and at times much less progressive (recently). It could stand to be a smidge more progressive than it is, IMO, on folks earning over 1 million per year - it would still be many many many times less progressive than it was on those folks in the late 60s, and eminently "fair", IMO. So I think they should have just passed what the Rs consider a "bad" bill, as a starting point, to protect the middle class, small busines owners, and the poor, NOW, for 2011 purposes, and protect the wobbling economic recovery (again, small business and middle class) -- and then the Rs could work toward amending it next session, and let a new regressivity proposal on the rich folks stand or fall on its own merit. So personally I will blame this on the Rs - but I hated both wings of the republicrat uniparty already, so doesn't really matter. I personally don't think ANYONE should pay ONE RED CENT of *federal* income tax if you make less than about $35K/year individual, or more if you have kids - gawdsakes, we didn't even HAVE an income tax before 1916 - surely we can get by without taxing the poor and below-median-income folks on the federal level (but let [B]state income taxes [/B]stand to be decided on a state by state basis, at whatever level the states and their people decide). [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Senate Republicans Block Tax Cut Plan that Leaves Out High Earners
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
