[btomba_77]

I’m OK with it.  We’ve been moving in that direction over time anyway. 
 
Judicial appointments, reconciliation … the legislative filibuster is about all that’s left.
 
It would be nice to get back to the kind of bipartisan comity that allowed for bills to pass 70-30 with regularity.  But I don’t think we’ll see that for some time.
 
There’s certainly a “be careful what you wish for” aspect to it.  (See also Harry Reid nucking judicial leading directly to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh)
 
But overall, it probably has a slight favor to Dems since Democratic legislation tends to become more popular over time while GOP legislation tends to be less popular.  That means the repeal of a law when the GOP comes in to power is likely to have more political downside than the repeals of a Republican law when Dems take power.
 
 

[clickpenguin_460]

Would you say the same if Trump wins and Repubs keep the Senate?

[btomba_77]

I think there is a good chance that McConnell actually prefers having the legislative filibuster as an insurance card against crazy legislation coming out of a Republican House.
 
I don’t think the Republican party has any broad legislative goal that would require ending the filibuster.  Most of what they want is tax cuts … and they can get a lot of that done via reconciliation with 50 votes anyway…. it’s blowing up the filibuster in all but name only.
 
And the other they want is the judiciary … which they can also do with 50 votes.
 
 

[clickpenguin_460]

I mean that’s true, because Republicans see the country as fundamentally doing well.  Dems have goals to fundamentally change the country.  But still, you would say the same even if Trump and Repubs win?
 
I suppose you could just say okay fine, let them pass their Green stuff and then when the economy is destroyed, they will just be voted out. (as one example)
 
The issue that a lot of people have now is that the Dems have become so adept as using racism, sexism, etc. -isms to fuel their party that they may not lose votes as easily as they should (see California, Illinois, NY).  The reliance on the voters to actually vote out bad lawmakers  (both sides) is just not there anymore.
 
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://thehill.com/homenews/news/509827-obama-backs-new-voting-rights-act-bill-calls-filibuster-a-jim-crow-relic]Obama backs new Voting Rights Act bill, calls filibuster a ‘Jim Crow relic'[/link]

[clickpenguin_460]

Ha what a loser.  He should just go make his Netflix millions and be quiet.
 
Filibuster was around before “Jim Crow” era.  Both parties have used it to their advantage.

[Unknown Member]

You are not a Republican

[btomba_77]

Actually, Obama, the constitutional scholar, is correct.
 
[link=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/senate-filibuster-monument-white-supremacy/613579/]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/senate-filibuster-monument-white-supremacy/613579/[/link]
 
[b]The Senate Filibuster Is Another Monument to White Supremacy[/b][/h1]  

Yet there is another relic of the Jim Crow era that has, thus far, been largely overlooked. The Senate filibusterthe rule that allows a minority of senators to block nearly every piece of legislationmay not have the literal weight of stone or metal. But it, too, is a direct legacy of segregation, and it remains a tool for maintaining systemic racism. In this moment of long-overdue reckoning, its time for the filibuster to go.
…
 
One faction in particular was large and well organized enough to make good use of the new filibuster: southern segregationist Democrats. And the single issue on which they were most unifiedand to which they were most adamantly opposedwas civil rights.
 
…
 
Consider what happened in the early 1920s, when the Massachusetts Republican Henry Cabot Lodge introduced a bill to combat lynching. At the time, most lawmakers were not pro-lynching. An anti-lynching bill had passed the House and enjoyed majority support in the Senate as well. But to take advantage of that majority support, the bill needed to be voted on.
To ensure that this never happened, southern senators executed what can best be described as a ballet of obstruction. First, to slow the proceedings, they demanded that the Senate journal be read out loud each day in full, something technically required by the chambers rules but rarely enforced. Then the filibusterers began offering amendments to the journal during the reading. These could be as meaningless as inserting a senators middle name or changing a single word in a speech. Yet the vote on each of these amendments could be filibustered.
After a week of fruitless exhortation, Lodge realized that he had only two options: abandon the rest of his legislative priorities or scuttle the anti-lynching bill. He scuttled the bill. Over the next few decades, Congress would [link=https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Temporary-Farewell/Anti-Lynching-Legislation/]consider nearly 200 anti-lynching measures[/link]. Thanks to the unique procedures of the Senate, and the unique enthusiasm with which they were exploited by Jim Crows supporters, [link=https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Temporary-Farewell/Anti-Lynching-Legislation/]not one became law[/link].
…
 
 {S}omewhat ironically, it was precisely because the filibuster was such an effective tool for defending segregation, and because segregationists in turn became the filibusters staunchest defenders, that obstruction on other issues was relatively rare. Most senators didnt want to legitimize Jim Crows favorite procedural tactic.
 
[b]
[/b]
…
 
The result was a kind of bargainor at least a reluctant acceptancethat shaped our democracy for decades. On the one hand, the Senate helped build the America we have today, passing the bulk of the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, the Interstate Highway System, and plenty of other big, ambitious bills. Yet, during that same time, the former Confederacy was allowed to maintain a system of autocratic, racist, one-party rule. Americans were murdered, unjustly imprisoned, denied the right to vote, and treated by their own country as subhumanall because of the Senates unique and often venerated procedure.
Today, the filibuster continues to hold back progress on civil rights. Because the chambers two-senators-per-state structure favors smaller-population rural states, disproportionately white states have disproportionate power in the Senate. Combine this with the current 60-vote threshold for passing legislation, and its not hard to see why racial justice is a far more urgent priority for Americans than it is for senators.
 
…
 
Doing away with the Senate filibuster would not, of course, mean the end of systemic racism. But it would make anti-racist policies far easier to pass than they are today, and it would help dismantle both the legacy and machinery of Jim Crow. Debates about long-venerated icons are never simple, and there will always be those who argue that protecting our heritage is more important than rising above the worst failings of our past. But with the prospect of change on the horizon, Americans should approach the potential collapse of the filibuster the same way they increasingly view the fall of Davis, Rizzo, Colston, and so many others. Tear it down. Its time.

[clickpenguin_460]

Just because it was used a lot during that era doesn’t mean it’s a “Jim Crow” relic.  It was around since 1806.  What Obama was saying implies that it was created for the sole use for oppressing blacks, which it was not.
 
And as I said, it has been used by both parties.  Also, since you brought it up, which party was the party of slavery and “Jim Crow” again? 
 
And Chiro, I used to be a Republican but not anymore.  Anything to do with the government, media, etc. annoys me no matter the party.  This board is just so far Left it makes me seem right-wing when I respond.

[kayla.meyer_144]

“Jim Crow Era” is post Slavery Era. A very many laws were made in support of slavery to satisfy the slave states concerns including the Constitution and Electoral College. Time to retire all those laws that legalize discrimination and the power to discriminate. Including the filibuster. Real life is not Mr Smith Goes To Washington, a liberal idealistic movie about a man against the forces of corruption, political and corporate. Nowadays that corruption is part of things.
 
Time to support a lot of laws including retiring laws to make this the
 
[size=”0″]Government of the People,[/size]
[size=”0″]By the People, and[/size]
[size=”0″]For the People.[/size]
 
[size=”0″]Stop voter suppression & increase participation and remove money from politics and influence. Money is NOT Free Speech. So time for campaign finance laws and regulation.[/size]

[btomba_77]

Quote from dergon

I’m OK with it.  We’ve been moving in that direction over time anyway. 

Judicial appointments, reconciliation … the legislative filibuster is about all that’s left.

It would be nice to get back to the kind of bipartisan comity that allowed for bills to pass 70-30 with regularity.  But I don’t think we’ll see that for some time.

There’s certainly a “be careful what you wish for” aspect to it.  (See also Harry Reid nucking judicial leading directly to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh)

But overall, it probably has a slight favor to Dems since Democratic legislation tends to become more popular over time while GOP legislation tends to be less popular.  That means the repeal of a law when the GOP comes in to power is likely to have more political downside than the repeals of a Republican law when Dems take power.

Quote from dergon

I think there is a good chance that McConnell actually prefers having the legislative filibuster as an insurance card against crazy legislation coming out of a Republican House.

I don’t think the Republican party has any broad legislative goal that would require ending the filibuster.  Most of what they want is tax cuts … and they can get a lot of that done via reconciliation with 50 votes anyway…. it’s blowing up the filibuster in all but name only.

And the other they want is the judiciary … which they can also do with 50 votes.

 
 
[link=https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/to-preserve-the-filibuster-republicans-need-scarier-policy-threats/]National Review[/link] articulates what I tried to get at with my first posts in this thread 
 
 
 
[h1]McConnells Filibuster Threats Arent That Scary[/h1]  

For as much as Democrats may detest Mitch McConnells agenda, they know that none of the items he listed would be necessarily permanent. None would fundamentally restructure the political order. Democrats could simply repeal them when they are back in power, just as they will soon probably repeal Paul Ryans corporate tax cut.
 
[b]Potential legislation must seem long-lasting and transformative if it is to function as a genuine threat, but here Democrats have the advantage. They have policy options that fit the long-lasting and transformative criteria, while Republicans have no comparable threats to wield. If the filibuster ends, destruction is not mutually assured.[/b]

The most obvious policy option for Democrats is mass immigration achieved through legislation such as the [link=https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/amnesty-comprehensive-or-piecemeal/]Menendez bill[/link], which would legalize nearly every illegal immigrant, hamstring enforcement, and increase annual green cards.
Republicans returned to power could try to restrict the future flow, but citizenship once bestowed cannot be withdrawn. The people whom Democrats let in can stay here permanently, and [link=https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/immigration-democratic-party-republican-party-dream-act-party-affiliation-conservatives-limited-government-traditional-values/]more immigration means more Democrats[/link]. By contrast, there is no rival immigration plan that would recruit large numbers of Republican voters to the U.S. It is hard to imagine what such a plan would even look like.
 
A second option for Democrats is adding states, since there is no practical way to expel a state once it joins. Granting statehood to the District of Columbia receives the most attention, but Democrats need not stop there. Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are all attractive places to host two U.S. senators. Democratic Party dominance would be guaranteed in DC and likely in the other new states. In response, Republicans could try some state-splitting shenanigans e.g., turning Texas into five states. The problem is that changing state borders is logistically harder and more transparently political than simply granting statehood to a territory.
 
Without mutually assured destruction, I cannot see the filibuster surviving. If Republicans want to keep it, they need to come up with a legislative threat that is much scarier to Democrats than defunding Planned Parenthood. To that end, back in January Senator Mike Lee [link=https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/nuking-the-filibuster-bad-for-the-senate-worse-for-america/]offered[/link] a longer list of Republican priorities for a filibuster-less Senate. Some are promising, such as vouchers to break up the public-school monopoly, but none approach the level of permanence and transformation that Democrats have at their disposal.[/QUOTE]
 

[clickpenguin_460]

So just take things you don’t like and associate them only with the “Jim Crow” era and slavery.  Got it.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Spinning into non sequiturs. That’s your best talent.
 
Got it.

[clickpenguin_460]

Just summarizing for you.

[Unknown Member]

Cubs, we have told you about this … we would tell you to stop feeding the murderous marxist troll (actually the useful idiots get murdered), except that calling F-bomb a troll is giving her PMS too much credit. Talking to F-bomb is like talking to an aging (single) woman. They know the truth deep down, but they just hate reality. It will go nowhere.

[clickpenguin_460]

You’re right.  I don’t know why I continue to do it.  Just drives me nuts.  I have a hope that Frumi is just a total troll and doesn’t actually believe the things he/she says.

[clickpenguin_460]

Obama flippy-floppy  [link=https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/barack-obama-filibuster-hypocrisy/]https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/barack-obama-filibuster-hypocrisy/[/link]

[ruszja]

They dont learn.

[btomba_77]

For sure, *every* Democrat including Obama is flip-flopping on the filibuster.
 
I think it is a response to the current state of affairs… and it’s a logical evolution.   I mentioned the reasons that I think no filibuster tilts slightly in favor of Democrats relative to the GOP above,  so I think it is reasonable to at least consider it.
 
 
Obama is being a pretty skilled politician using some judo to try turn an arguably  anti-democratic (small “d) action of ending the filibuster into a call for social justice.   He provides a lot of cover to other Democrats who might want to get on board with it too.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington gave the filibuster a romantic “little guy fighting for right” flavor. Reality has been different. Balance Mr Smith with Strom Thurmond’s filibuster against Civil Rights. And now we have the “virtual” filibuster that requires supermajority vote, 60 votes.
 
 

In Federalist No. 22, [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton]Alexander Hamilton[/link] described super-majority requirements as being one of the main problems with the previous [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation]Articles of Confederation[/link], and identified several evils which would result from such a requirement:

“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.

 
 

In Federalist No. 58, the Constitution’s primary drafter [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison]James Madison[/link] defended the document against routine super-majority requirements, either for a quorum or a “decision”:

“It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.”In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.”

 

[satyanar]

Both sides make an appeal to exclude a super majority rule and yet in the end it stayed. That period was perhaps worse than now in terms of partisanship.
 
“I’m not throwing away my shot!’

[btomba_77]

[h1][b]How Biden Plans to Beat GOP Obstructionism … and maybe the Filibuster[/b][/h1]  
[link=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/joe-biden-democrats-midterms-2022-obama/617716/]The Atlantic[/link]: The trick, says Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, will be lowering the expectations of an impatient Democratic base that is eager to press the partys slim advantage by forcing votes on issues like Medicare for All or by making structural changes that could secure the partys power. Booker says there arent enough votes to pass statehood for Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico right now, nor for expanding the Supreme Court.
 
Democrats are planning to vote early and often in the new Congress, and to essentially dare Republicans to stand in their way on politically popular measures. [L]ook for arguments over the filibuster to instead focus on COVID-19 relief (which will almost certainly end up tied to the infrastructure bill) or a new Voting Rights Act. If Republican senators hold those bills up by filibustering, Democrats would accuse them of standing in the way of helping Americans, or standing in the way of voting rights. Ending the filibuster would then be an easier sell.
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

Sound plan.  Pass bills that people will like.  Let the GOP make an attempt to try and take something away.  Like $15 minimum wage.  the writing is kind of on the wall with that anyway.  Businesses are going the $15 on their own.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Regardless of the “Leftist” Democrats’ expectations and desires, they are not going to get anything of what they want until Biden has some substantial successes that gather a lot of public support. And McConnell will be very careful to sustain that lack of success much as he did with Obama. Considering the Senate’s 50:50+1, it is going to be impossible to overreach. That said I think Biden’s biggest problem is underreaching with low expectations that will satisfy no one and will hardly quell the right-wing opposition to any proposal of the Democrats no matter how milquetoast. Any milquetoast proposals will still be met with SOCIALISM! and COMMUNIST! accusations. Republicans will be of zero help to move the country forward.

[btomba_77]

[b]Chuck Schumer rejects Mitch McConnell’s Senate filibuster demand

[/b]
On Friday, Majority Leader Schumer turned down a request by Minority Leader McConnell to include a protection for the filibuster in a Senate power-sharing agreement, calling the request unacceptable. Schumer added that he wants the same agreement that was established for the last 50-50 Senate in 2001, and called McConnell’s request an “extraneous demand.” The minority leader noted that he refused former president Trump’s demand to end the filibuster in 2017 and that Democrats have used it many times themselves.
 
 
 
 
(I think it’s a smart move.  Schumer needs the threat of blowing up the filibuster to prevent it’s repeated use.   And the politics … I speculate…. favor Dems if they *do* blow it up on over a bill that has 60%+ popular support like Covid relief , infrastructure, voting/democracy protection)
 
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

It is also a mistake to both take McConnell at his word and open negotiations by giving what McConnell wants right out of the gate without any sort of return on what McConnell would throw into the pot. What’s the deal? Gimme what I want & then I’ll agree to some sort of power-sharing agreement that I haven’t agreed to yet either.
 
All Schumer has to do is agree to his unilateral disarmament for the Democrats.

[ruszja]

Careful what you wish for. One day you abolish the filibuster, next thing you have 3 new federalist society justices on the supreme court.

[btomba_77]

Yep. I dont think Dems have the votes to get rid of it

But they do need the *threat* in order to push republicans to let votes come to the floor

(I think pushing the limits of reconciliation with 51 votes a more likely strategy …. at least at first…. unless they have to and until they can get the public frustrated by GOP obstruction…

But it is certainly a high risk maneuver )

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from fw

Careful what you wish for. One day you abolish the filibuster, next thing you have 3 new federalist society justices on the supreme court.

Honestly I am not sure how I feel about abolishing the filibuster in spite of its genesis and historical abuse. Especially considering if Dems lose Congress in 2022 & McConnell rams the lack of filibuster up Democrats butts. Which he is prone to do with glee. The single thing McConnell can be trusted to do.

[btomba_77]

Democrats Look to Reconciliation for Relief Bill

Wall Street Journal: Democrats are likely to eventually move to a process called budget reconciliation to pass at least part of the legislation with a simple majority in the Senate. Reconciliation typically limits a bill to tax and spending measures.

But some in the party want to go further, exploring ways to stretch the rules and precedents that have historically constrained what policy provisions are allowed under the reconciliation process. Some see it as a way to pass party priorities like raising the minimum wage without ending the filibuster.

[kaldridgewv2211]

Imperative they get things done now. Let the GOP try and take away things that might be popular.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Instead of abolishing the filibuster, a better option is return to the old rules. Like Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. A Senator & allies have to hold the floor, everyone present. Nothing gets done during filibuster until its finished or stopped. No more virtual filibuster.
 
I believe the filibuster has value but it should not be easy to do, thats the point.
 
 

[rwalmsley_851]

So are taxing going up or not? 🙂

[btomba_77]

Up for some most likely.

Flat or down a little for others (SALT)

[rwalmsley_851]

Sorry for my ignorance…

Change to SALT would be good for people with a high state income tax with a large mortgage?

[btomba_77]

Quote from ghostofosler

Sorry for my ignorance…

Change to SALT would be good for people with a high state income tax with a large mortgage?

If the “change” is repeal of the Trump SALT deduction limit then yes. .. and those with high property taxes.

[rwalmsley_851]

Thanks

[btomba_77]

If you’re in New Jersey with a big house but only making maybe $150k then the Trump tax bill hurt you bad in 2017.  If it’s just a simple repeal, then those people come back out better.
 
But the details of a tax plan aren’t out.

[rwalmsley_851]

I think repeal would reduce my taxes quite a bit. Fingers crossed.

Maybe I can get my tax refund in GME stock or Bitcoin.

[clickpenguin_460]

The SALT deduction is so interesting…
 
Rich people benefit from it in mostly blue states.  Supposedly Democrats want the rich to “pair their fair share.”  Republicans make those rich people pay more and Dems want to change it back.
 
If you want to argue that it unfairly targets blue states, then you’re right except for there’s a reason for that – mismanaged blue states with high taxes.  Blame them, not Republicans.
 
Also, I say this as someone who would actually benefit from it returning to pre-Trump times.
 
No more taxes until the government fixes its waste problem.  Total government audit.  All departments.  Line by line.  I don’t care how long it takes. 

[kaldridgewv2211]

No corporations should be paying 0. There probably needs to be higher taxes on some part of investment income or high frequency trading.

[btomba_77]

Agree with a much lower rate.

Make up the revenue through taxes on capital gains and dividends and progressive income taxes

That would encourage businesses to truly invest and hire rather than manipulate stock price

[clickpenguin_460]

There will be a philosophical difference here about taxes and that’s okay.  I don’t believe you should ever pay tax twice on the same money.  Since invested money has already been taxed once (income tax), I don’t think you should be taxed at all.  I understand though that I am in the minority and it’s treated more like if you won money at a casino and you had to be taxed on your winnings.
 
So, that being said, I think if you want to tax investments and trading, then they need to be the short-term, high frequency type and not anything that people use at retirement vehicles.  That’s a broad generalization but it just sucks the life out of me thinking that I will have to pay 40% in income tax, 40% in capital gain tax, and 1-2% in taxes every time I make a financial transaction.  There’s nowhere to go with the money and as I said before, I have 0 confidence in taxes being spent in any meaningful way right now.
 
I will say that I definitely agree with above in that big corporations shouldn’t be paying 0 but that needs to come from the regulation side targeted at them.  The field isn’t level because they got incentives that are legal to receive and they have write-offs that are legal as well. 
 
 

[btomba_77]

[b]Biden Says Democrats Could Change Filibuster Rules for Debt Ceiling[/b][/h1]  
President Biden said it is a real possibility that Senate Democrats could seek to revise the chambers filibuster rules to overcome a Republican blockade on raising the debt ceiling, the [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/10/05/biden-debt-ceiling-filibuster/]Washington Post[/link] reports.
 
Such a major change could give Democrats the ability to stave off a potential, calamitous default roughly two weeks before a critical fiscal deadline but only if all party lawmakers agree to loosen the Senates typical 60-vote threshold in a way some, including Biden, have been disinclined to do for months.

 

[satyanar]

How is that any different than doing it through reconciliation? I thought they said it had to be bipartisan?

[btomba_77]

Quote from Thread Killer

How is that any different than doing it through reconciliation? I thought they said it had to be bipartisan?

from a “number of votes” standpoint it is no different.
 
from a political/functional standpoint it is a bit.     Can use regular order with up or down and iirc no vote-o-rama … so GOP couldn’t force tough amendment votes.
 
 
also, reconciliation can only be used a limited number of times per session. If it got tied in to the infrastructure package it could make passage more difficult.
 
 (although, honestly at this point I think the Dems end up doing the debt ceiling on reconciliation … not enough time for anything else.
 
I would love for them to just go big and abolish the whole thing or simply return the decision to the discretion of the Treasury)

[kayla.meyer_144]

Money invested isn’t taxed again, only the gains, dividends and interest is taxed.
 
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

I like the idea of not taxing investment income but there should be a limit.  It shouldn’t apply to billionaires.  I recall seeing numbers and it was a high % of people have no savings or very little.  I would look at this as a way to help those people get some kind nest egg going.
 
 

[clickpenguin_460]

I know the principal isn’t taxed.  What I was saying is that philosophically I don’t think money that has already been taxed should ever be taxed again when it is used as an investment, gains interest, etc.  This is not an argument or anything as I know it’s not reality.  I just don’t feel it’s fair to earn money, get taxed, invest money, get taxed, put money anywhere, get taxed.  If taxes were actually funding great things then sure but we have talked about the waste and nonsense.
 
As DICOM Dan points out, so few people have savings and investments.  We shouldn’t be hindering that.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

The 2 things are not the same. Encouraging people to save more depends first on do they have disposable income to save? As for taxing capital gains and dividends and interest, people with low to middling incomes likely aren’t earning a lot of gains. But I am all in favor of limiting taxes on gains and such for less than a certain amount in order to encourage savings. That said, small savers can easily open IRAs to avoid paying taxes on gains.

[clickpenguin_460]

Yeah, I’m not sure how to convince people to open a Roth IRA rather than blow $2000 on a phone they can’t afford.  

[kayla.meyer_144]

Or those multiple 75″ TVs and channels and multiple cars and so on proving that poverty does not exist in the US.
 
As if that was the problem.
 
And my phone doesn’t even cost $2,000. You are being scalped.
 
 

[btomba_77]

SALT deduction repeal doesnt look like it will be in the Covid bill

[kayla.meyer_144]

Not the most important part. Republicans want to stick it to Blue states & won’t be repealed yet.
 
There are bigger fish to fry than restoring tax deductions for the affluent.

[btomba_77]

Manchin ready to make it “more painful” to use the filibuster.
 
Pressure growing on Dems to make some changes to push through the HR-1 voting reform bill.
 
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/542125-biden-against-making-changes-to-filibuster-psaki-says]Biden against making changes to filibuster, Psaki says

[/link]

“His preference is not to make changes to the filibuster rules,” Psaki said at a briefing with reporters. “And he believes that with the current structure that he can work with Democrats and Republican to get work and business done. Hes also happy to hear from Sen. Manchin and others who have ideas about how to get the business done for the American people.”
 
Psaki was asked multiple times about whether Biden would support ending the filibuster, or enacting changes that would make it more difficult to block legislation. In each case, Psaki indicated the president was opposed to tweaking the filibuster.
 
“His preference is not to make different changes to the rules to the filibuster rules,” Psaki said.

[/QUOTE]
 

[ruszja]

The filibuster is already dead. You attach a little tax provision to anything you want to pass and voila, you can pass it with a vote by the vice president.

[kaldridgewv2211]

Biden mustn’t want any legislation passed.

[btomba_77]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

Biden mustn’t want any legislation passed.

I think he
 
a) he knows he can use reconciliation to get a lot done
b) if he [i]does[/i] get behind ending the legislative filibuster he wants to be seen politically as having tried everything first. Then he can move while labelling the Republicans as recalcitrant.
 
(If the GOP balks at infrastructure legislation and/or political reform he might shift … but he wants it to be seen that he tried bipartisanship )
 
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

that’s already the narrative the GOP is trying to spread.  The GOP isn’t going to back anything and will just be obstructing  It’s not bi-partisan because the GOP doesn’t get behind something.  Like the new covid bill has overwhelming support amongst Americans but not the GOP.  So they get on TV and whine about how they weren’t included.  I’m glad that the dems can get that done via reconciliation.  Some GOP moron went on TV and gave Jo an F report card for his first 100 days (it’s only been like 45).

[clickpenguin_460]

So, if Desantis/Haley is President in 2024 and the Senate is 50/50, a bunch of Dems will go along with what he/she wants?  Yeah right.
 
Change the ideas/bills (and the politicians).  Don’t need to change the filibuster.

[btomba_77]

Doubtful.

The things Dems have going for them is a) a popular agenda that allows them to claim will of the people and b) support from a majority of Republican voters an d c) support of large numbers of elected Republicans at the state and local level to provide more evidence of bipartisanship

When the GOP passes legislation on a party line vote in the senate they do it repressing only about 40% of Americans and generally pass very unpopular bills

[clickpenguin_460]

*rolls eyes*
 

[btomba_77]

But if the GOP had some bill that had 70% public support it would almost certainly wind up with Dem support in Congress

[btomba_77]

Its the difference between being a majority party with fewer seats than your national support would suggest (D) and being a minority party that takes power representing a minority of voters (R)

The dynamics are just different

[ruszja]

Quote from dergon

But if the GOP had some bill that had 70% public support it would almost certainly wind up with Dem support in Congress

 
Mh. No.

[btomba_77]

[link=https://messagebox.substack.com/p/reasons-to-be-hopeful-about-the-filibuster?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMTM1MDIsInBvc3RfaWQiOjMzNDgwNTIxLCJfIjoialdld3EiLCJpYXQiOjE2MTU4MTIzMTUsImV4cCI6MTYxNTgxNTkxNSwiaXNzIjoicHViLTY1MDI2Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.uZI15_WKEeY1-sex0rUY-J29AxZWvDPolkS-3ZKQQJ4]Dan Pfeiffer[/link]: 

[h1]Reasons to be Hopeful About Joe Manchin and the Filibuster[/h1]

First, Manchin believes that the parties have not tried hard enough to see what stuff can get done on a bipartisan basis. While I personally believe that obstruction is inevitable with a Republican Party that refuses to acknowledge that Biden won the election legitimately, Manchin is correct that the proposition has not been fully tested. I know every day feels like a month during a pandemic, but Joe Biden has been President for less than two months. The Senate has been focused on confirming Bidens nominees and passing the American Rescue Plan, which was filibuster-proof thanks to reconciliation. The Republicans have yet to use the filibuster to block any part of the Biden Agenda. Many Democratic Senators not just Manchin will need a record of obstruction to change their minds.
 
Second, Manchin is saying he will never vote to eliminate the filibuster completely.

We should take him at his word. But and this is a giant but Manchin is making it clear that the filibuster has been abused and that he is open to some sort of reform or compromise.

[/QUOTE] 

and the author thinks Schumer is going to go hard at it

“….
Schumers comments indicate that he is working on a way around the filibuster. As many have pointed out, Schumer is up for reelection in 2022 and is doing everything in his power to avoid a primary challenge from a progressive like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He is highly motivated to find a way to ensure that voting rights and other progressive priorities dont get buried in McConnells graveyard.”
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/543298-no-2-senate-democrat-torches-filibuster]No. 2 Senate Democrat torches filibuster

[/link]

Illinois Sen. [link=https://thehill.com/people/dick-durbin]Dick Durbin[/link], the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber, torched the legislative filibuster on Monday, arguing that it is undermining democracy.
 
The filibuster is still making a mockery of American democracy. The filibuster is still being misused by some senators to block legislation urgently needed and supported by a strong majority of the American people, Durbin said during a floor speech. 
 
He added that this is what hitting legislative rock bottom looks like.

[/QUOTE]
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

What are the odds that either party gets to a 60+ majority? If anything Id guess time is on the side of the dems. Republicans are dying out. The people that they called the young guns were people like Kevin McCarthy who had a full head of gray hair. Very youthful. Trying to think back but historically conservative parties have died out. Wigs was one.

[btomba_77]

Biden Supports Reforming Filibuster

President Joe Biden told ABC News that he supports changing the Senates filibuster rule back to requiring senators talk on the floor to hold up a bill, the first time he has endorsed reforming the procedure the White House has for weeks insisted the president is opposed to eliminating.

[clickpenguin_460]

I’m surprised you would want to eliminate it considering the high likelihood of Republican takeover in 2022 and 2024 if Dems nominate Harris.  Heck, they might even make it illegal to kill fetuses and let everyone carry a gun while making people immigrate legally.  Could you imagine a world like that???  How could you sleep!

[kaldridgewv2211]

SO basically the GOP goes back to GOP tactics?  Mitch was threatening to be Mitch.  The other thing is I think it’s much harder to remove something that is passed once it is popular with Americans.  So go ahead kill it.  Pass good legislation.  Let the GOP be the bad guys and try and take things away.  
 
Maybe not even kill it but reform it.  Right now Ted Cruz can just send an email saying I filibuster and things grind to a halt.  Make it painful.

[btomba_77]

 
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-17/senate-filibuster-can-t-be-deterred-by-halfway-measures]Jonathan Bernstein[/link]:[b]Theres No Half-Way to End the Filibuster[/b]

Forcing senators to give marathon orations to carry out a filibuster [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-09/senate-filibuster-can-t-be-weakened-by-compelling-speeches-km1zrfcv?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=210317&utm_campaign=earlyreturns]is a bad idea[/link], but it looks like it may be a bad idea whose time has come, with President Joe Biden endorsing the talking filibuster in an ABC News interview. Why? Because most Democrats want to eliminate the filibuster, and Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia the most moderate Democrat in the Senate  has said that while he absolutely wont vote to eliminate the filibuster, hes open to going the talking route.
And so thats whats were going to talk about. Because what happens with Senate procedures over the next few months is going to determine whether Democrats pass a lot of their remaining agenda or very little of it.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/09/most-likely-filibuster-reform-its-limits/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_politics]Washington Post[/link]: The talking filibuster and its limits.
 

[btomba_77]

Quote from Mitch McConnell

As soon as Republicans wound up back in the saddle, we wouldnt just erase every liberal change that hurt the country.
Wed strengthen America with all kinds of conservative policies with zero input from the other side.
Nationwide right-to-work for working Americans. Defunding Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities on day one.
A whole new era of domestic energy production. Sweeping new protections for conscience and the right to life of the unborn.
Concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Massive hardening of security on our southern border.[/QUOTE]

[link=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/republican-filibuster-reform-senate-mcconnell-biden-majority.html]Jonathan Chait[/link]: 

[b]Republicans’ Threat: End the Filibuster, and Well Punish America By Enacting Our Agenda

[/b]

The Wall Street [i]Journal[/i] editorial page, echoing McConnell (as it usually does) [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/mcconnells-filibuster-throwdown-11615935214?mod=opinion_lead_pos1]chimes in[/link]: Republicans would be in position to rule the Senate without a filibuster. Imagine what they might pass? Mr. McConnell gave a few examples defunding Planned Parenthood but for political flavor think GOP Senators Josh Hawley and Rand Paul unbound. This, as well see later, is telling.

…

{W}e have the peculiar dynamic in which [b]the leader of a major party is invoking his own agenda as something that cannot and should not happen.

[/b]Obviously, I dont like the policies McConnell described. What I cant understand is how [i]McConnell[/i] is supposed to feel about them. If he truly thinks theyd strengthen America, then shouldnt he want to have the chance to enact them, and then have his party run on the results?

…

Obviously, McConnell would never concede this openly, even though it follows straightforwardly from his logic. [b]His agenda exists in a netherworld where one group of people is told it will happen if they vote Republican, and another group is reassured it never will.[/b]

[/QUOTE]
 

[btomba_77]

I would be surprised if theres anyone in any of these competitive states that would support maintaining the filibuster. Getting rid of the filibuster is as close to a litmus test for our party as I can describe.
 
Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D), quoted [link=https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/23/filibuster-democrats-senate-midterms-477573]by Politico[/link], about how Senate candidates are campaigning on the filibuster.
 

[btomba_77]

Two related stories 

[link=https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/544624-dems-plan-to-squeeze-gop-over-filibuster]https://thehill.com/homen…ze-gop-over-filibuster[/link]

Democrats plan to squeeze GOP over filibuster[/h1]

Senate Democrats are eyeing the next phase of the filibuster fight as they plan a series of tests to try to squeeze Republicans and sway their colleagues wary of changing the Senates most famous rule.
 
As the House passes several big policy priorities, Senate Majority Leader [link=https://thehill.com/people/charles-schumer]Charles Schumer[/link] (D-N.Y.) is vowing that he will put the bills on the floor this year, setting up high-profile showdowns on [link=https://thehill.com/people/joe-biden]President Biden[/link]s campaign promises.
 
Democrats say the strategy is two-fold: It will make Republicans go on the record in opposition and could demonstrate to Democrats wary of reforming the legislative filibuster that much of their agenda will be stuck in limbo without reforms. 
[/QUOTE]

___________

[h1]Filibusters Survival Will Depend on How GOP Reacts[/h1]  
Sen. Angus King (I-ME) is among a small minority of the members in the Senate Democratic Caucus hesitant to lowering the threshold to 51 votes to break a filibuster down from the 60 votes required today.
 
However, he warns in the [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/24/angus-king-filibuster-republicans/]Washington Post[/link] that how Republicans act in the coming weeks could change his mind.
 

[btomba_77]

[h1][b]Its Do or Die for the Group of 20[/b][/h1]  
[link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/committee-save-filibuster-bipartisan-group-seeks-show-senate-can-work-n1261935]NBC News[/link]: The survival of the Senates effective supermajority rule to pass bills could hinge on a working group of 20 senator that includes the most moderate members in both parties.
 
If the group can cut deals and deliver victories, it could become the model for lawmaking under President Joe Biden. If it fails, the Democratic-led Congress will face pressure to pursue partisan avenues to enact its ambitious agenda, including the simple-majority budget process and nixing the filibuster.