OFFLINE

Did anybody catch any of Sen. Bernie Sanders' long speech (a sort of filibuster) today on C-span, or hear about it?  It was about 8 1/2 hrs with a break from Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH) & another senator, whose name I can't recall at the moment.  It wasn't a real "filibuster" as the term is used in government, but I think it got a good bit of attention.  He is an Independant & against extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 or 2 percent of Americans.  I was just wondering who saw it, and what you thought about it.

OFFLINE

I saw bits of it, but dont understand what he was tryng to do.  Does it affect the outcome of the vote?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
I saw bits of it, but dont understand what he was tryng to do.  Does it affect the outcome of the vote?

Not unless someone hears what he is saying and it changes their mind.  What it did do, however, IMO, was to at least take a stand for the people in this country who are struggling to get by, while the republicans hold everyone hostage until they get the tax cuts they want for the wealthiest of people in this country.  

OFFLINE

all this mess we've been seeing with the democrats, dennis, has just been a masterful display of political theater. everything they've been saying and doing has all been symbolic, meant to appease their far-left base, who feels like it didn't get enough of the hopenchange it was promised.

see, these people thought that this was finally their time to "fundamentally transform america," and at last impose the changes necessary to achieve equality and social justice. they had their ideologue president, and a supermajority in congress. finally, it was their chance, but nobody saw the tea party movement coming, and even outside of the tea party, there was a conservative awakening, mainly due to the bully boy tactics that the democrats asserted early on.

and really, if you think about it, the democrats have employed a brilliant strategy here. they've taken all of the wind out of the republicans' sails (though i think the reps are more than happy to sit back, out of the limelight as much as possible, until the new congress starts) and how? by creating their own little civil war. by doing so, obama is given political cover from independents and moderates (or at least it's hoped so), while congressional democrats are free to play it up to their far-left constituents, as if saying, "well we tried! we fought hard for you, liberal base, but it just wasn't meant to be. but don't turn your backs on us, we'll pick up the fight again in 2012!"

OFFLINE

Here's what I don't understand.  If the GOP will agree to voting yes to a bill that the Dems say will help the unemployed...why are the Dems balking at giving a few rich people tax breaks?  

If I'm struggling to pay the bills, put food on the table, etc...why should I even CARE if some rich guy gets a tax cut...as long as I do too?  And as long as I get more unemployment help?  I could care less if a rich guy gets a break.

I was joking earlier when I said the liberals are evil.  But really, these Dems are cutting off their nose to spite their face!  They seem to be willing to throw away any chance for unemployed to get a little more help...just because they hate the rich folks and wanna stick it to them.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
why are the Dems balking at giving a few rich people tax breaks?  

because it flies in the face of everything the democrats stand for. to them, "the rich" have only gotten what they have by steeling it from others, and are nothing more than greedy money vacuums, that just sit up in their castles, hording all of their piles of gold and silver. in their eyes, the rich owe society, because of their sheer wealth. and this extends all the way down to people making $200,000 a year. it's classic class warfare/racial politics.

see dennis, the entire philosophy behind american liberalism, is centered around the marxist ideas of fairness and equality. but in the real world this translates into them trying to make everyone the same. they don't like that there are winners and losers, so they teach our kids there are no winners and losers. they don't like that there are rich and poor, so they see it as the government's responsibility to use methods meant to ensure financial mediocrity. instead of admiring a rich man today, and studying what it is that motivates someone toward excellence, the rich are now seen as having committed some sin. it's not "fair" that they can have so much, while others have so little. unless they're democrat elitists, that is.

what does all this mean? it means that it stifles innovation, and lowers the incentive for business owners to actually reinvest in their companies (which is something the progressives don't really consider) and hire more workers. they think that rich people can just pay themselves less, in order to hire people. it also means, of course, that there is an even firmer reliance on government, which has had some pretty disastrous results in the past. it's this whole quasi-capitalist, kaynesian,theoretical madness, and envy of the private sector, that drives these nuts.

OFFLINE

also dennis, they're scared it's going to work, and then of course they'll have to spin it in such a way as to say, "look, things are better now, so no need to keep those tax cuts going." rather than, "oh, wow, it looks like tax cuts do work to help spur an economy. our bad, we see the light now." that's not going to happen.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
also dennis, they're scared it's going to work, and then of course they'll have to spin it in such a way as to say, "look, things are better now, so no need to keep those tax cuts going." rather than, "oh, wow, it looks like tax cuts do work to help spur an economy. our bad, we see the light now." that's not going to happen.

You might like this article Dødherre, The first line: If the government decided not to kill you today, would that mean that the government gave you your life, for which you presumably should be grateful? Only in the most twisted of totalitarian societies. Likewise, if the government failed to tax away your income today, does that mean the government gave you that money?
http://blog.american.com/?p=18618

OFFLINE

what has happened, is that the government has kind of been turned against the people. the more money in the peoples' hands, the less revenues for the government. the more inherent rights the people have, the less right the government has to tell us what to do.

but unlike under maxism-leninism, where a proletarian revolt is absolutely seen as necessary, the west has adopted "social democracy." this means that the government keeps the main mechanisms for capitalism in place, only to reform it and make capitalism "aligned with the ethical ideals of social justice." here, instead of a mass revolution meant to overthrow capitalism, the government simply sets about controling the markets. this is now being called state-capitalism, and it is exactly what the american left and the democratic leadership has been doing. basically what it amounts to is collectivism with a smile.

the very heart of leftist thinking revolves around the idea that people are just herds of sheep. to them the individual doesn't matter, it's the herd that matters. i mean it's the stuff of dystopian nightmares. all leftist systems are based on marxist ideals, just to a varying degree. but like the lure of the dark side, this intellectual cancer always pulls governments in closer, as they become drunk with power.

and the most scary part of it is, these leftist thinkers all tell you exactly what they're thinking, yet people still support them. people still ignore. insulated in their cocoon of the nanny-state, most are complacent, and content. unaware of what's really going on.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Here's what I don't understand.  If the GOP will agree to voting yes to a bill that the Dems say will help the unemployed...why are the Dems balking at giving a few rich people tax breaks?  

If I'm struggling to pay the bills, put food on the table, etc...why should I even CARE if some rich guy gets a tax cut...as long as I do too?  And as long as I get more unemployment help?  I could care less if a rich guy gets a break.

Taxes are how the government get money to run the country, Dennis.  If no one paid taxes, there would be no way to pay forthe things the govt pays for.  Right now, we have more money going out than we have coming in.  The bush administration enacted those tax cuts before they took us into two wars.  The revenue that those taxes would bring to the federal government would help pay for many of the things that we are currently borrowing $ from other countries to pay for, such as the two wars, and many other things.  This country is going bankrupt, basically.  We can only cut back on so much.  If these tax cuts were going to create jobs, etc, why hasnt' that happened in the ten years that they have been in place?

Bill Clinton left office with a balanced budget.  He refused to cut taxes, and cut back on spending.  Bush increased spending, and gave tax cuts to everyone.  I'm quite sure that had he started the wars first, no one would have voted for those tax cuts, and we wouldn't have this issue, or be borrowing to pay for everything these days.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
all this mess we've been seeing with the democrats, dennis, has just been a masterful display of political theater. everything they've been saying and doing has all been symbolic, meant to appease their far-left base, who feels like it didn't get enough of the hopenchange it was promised.

  Bernie Sanders is an INDEPENDANT, not a democrat, Dod.