Bernie Sanders Filibustering Tax Compromise

Now, if they were SMART they'd offer to make the 2001/2003 tax cuts permanent to get republican support for more than just the UB extensions, then use the political capital gained from making the cuts permanent (LOTS of middle class independents out there watching this fiasco) to address tax rates on upper income brackets at a later date.

I agree the current compromise is a good one, for the time being. That said, the tax cuts for the wealthy can not, under any circumstances, be made permanent because tax rates on the upper income brackets will not be addressed later.

We have to always remember the Repubs are against government programs to help the needy. High deficits accomplish that. When discussions come up regarding helping the needy all the Repubs have to do is quote the deficit.

They don't have to disagree with any specific program or give any reason. The deficit is their argument. "We can't afford it."

Governments have used that excuse for generations, both Repubs and Dems. We know that because we saw what happened during the 90s when governments were raking in the dollars. Did they volunteer to raise unemployment benefits? Welfare? Did they send a little extra to welfare recipients for Christmas? Did they send a little extra for a child's gift? Did they build homes for the poor and/or homeless?

Unable to help the poor. Unable to afford medical care for the needy. It's all a lie! Affordability has nothing to do with it.

The bright side is as more and more people become poor, as they lose their jobs and homes and see their children doing without basic necessities, as their numbers grow, change will come about.

The less one has to lose the more they're willing to fight for change.



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Somehow it is not surprising that someone like yourself cannot seem to grasp what a compromise in legislation is.

Here is how compromise works:
Hey, if you support this part that you don't like, we'll support that part that we don't like.

In short, in supporting the compromise, the republicans AGREED to SUPPORT UB extensions IF the democrats in turn support cross-the-board extension fo the 2001/2003 tax cuts.

So here we have the republicans agreeing to a compromise - and a fairly significant one at that. IF it passes, republicans get cross-the board extension of the 2001/2003 tax cuts. But to get that much, they agree to the extension lasting only 2 more years, at which time the issue will need to be revisited yet again, AND they agree to vote for (ie: SUPPORT you ignorant twit) another extension of federal unemployment benefits.

On the other side of the aisle, the democrats, whose ONLY compromise in the whole deal is a paltry 2-year extension on taxes for those making above $250K, would rather fuck over the middle class and poor, whom they CLAIM to represent, than retain current tax levels for TWO WHOLE YEARS.

The excuse that they want to tax the rich more just does not cut it when the middle class, people barely making ends meet now, could well see their paychecks drop as much as $300/mo (guess what that will do to the economy?) while long term unemployed are being told, essentially, to suck it up. (or is it just "suck it"?, or maybe "fuck you guys, we have rich people who need higher taxes!")

Now, if they were SMART they'd offer to make the 2001/2003 tax cuts permanent to get republican support for more than just the UB extensions, then use the political capital gained from making the cuts permanent (LOTS of middle class independents out there watching this fiasco) to address tax rates on upper income brackets at a later date.

But "smart" and "liberal democrat" cannot be associated with each other while keeping a straight face.
 
Back
Top