Export thread

69 year old man has more balls than the entire Senate. He's explaining every reason why extending the tax cuts for the rich is such a god damned terrible idea.

C-SPAN Video Player - Watch it live on C-Span cause it's going on right now and it owns so hard.

I missed it.

Yeah, Mary Landrieu is up right now. She's as pissed off as Bernie Sanders, if not more so.

The partisanship they're crafting their speeches around is crazy.

No different than 10 years ago.

Honestly, to be surprised the Democrats are jumping on the partisan wagon is kinda silly. I'm amazed it has taken them this long to do so with anything even close to the vehemence of the right.


I'd like to know where the numbers came from on the net worth she was giving.


Edit: Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat, he's an Independent. Even Landreiu is considered a conservative blue dog Democrat.

Dave said:

I missed it.

Click to expand...

Sanders is back up!

"I guess we can afford to let Exxon Mobil take home 156 billion dollars but we can't afford to pay for education, healthcare and social security"

Bernie Sanders, December 10 2010

JONJONAUG said:

"I guess we can afford to let Exxon Mobil take home 156 billion dollars but we can't afford to pay for education, healthcare and social security"

Click to expand...

I hate when people start saying stupid stuff like this. The overall effect on our economy is more positive with the existence of exxon mobil than it would be without it - they've provided a lot of jobs, states get taxes of gas sales they make, they lower the overall cost of fuel through market competition, etc, etc, etc.

If they are truly getting 156 billion dollars in tax cuts that they should have had to pay, whose fault is that? Not exxons!!! It's the stupidity of governers and the legislature that provided those tax rules in the first place to get them to build their plants on our soil (or a specific state's soil, compared to another nearby state).

So that line actually angers me. It is essentially saying that the American dream - where you can create your own business and generate wealth for yourself and those around you - is anti-american, and that all companies should support the government more than normal citizens.

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------

In other words, spoken like a true democrat.

If they want jobs, why do they keep talking about knee-capping the business that employee millions of people and sell goods that net the government billions in taxes on sales of those goods.

First Lady Puffinstuff said:

If they are truly getting 156 billion dollars in tax cuts that they should have had to pay, whose fault is that? Not exxons!!! It's the stupidity of governers and the legislature that provided those tax rules in the first place to get them to build their plants on our soil (or a specific state's soil, compared to another nearby state).

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is sort of the point. A lot of this speech is directed at other members of Congress for allowing unhealthy tax breaks.

More? No. As much as? Damn right.

Shit like this is why I have a hard time feeling sympathy for companies like Exxon/Mobil.

Oh, well then allow me to switch positions:

He's just jealous that Exxon didn't fund his last campaign!

Krisken said:

More? No. As much as? Damn right.

Shit like this is why I have a hard time feeling sympathy for companies like Exxon/Mobil.

Click to expand...

But... why are the politicians complaining about a position they themselves crafted?

Let's turn it around a bit.

Even though there are cheaper places to hire engineers, Michigan was able to get some of the asian automakers to plant new design and engineering firms here, and they did so by eliminating taxes for the most part for these companies. If they hadn't done that, the firms would be located elsewhere.

The question I put to you is: Do you know whether the additional jobs (and resulting income taxes, sales taxes, local spending) is worse for our economy than not have the firm at all?

Sure, they're "losing" millions of dollars in taxes a year, but they're gaining tax revenue from the employees that they would not have at all if the firm was located elsewhere.

So I'm curious what that means for your position that the loopholes should be eliminated completely.

Wow. Just, wow. I have no words. You've talked me into giving up.

Do I have to switch sides again just to get a good argument going here?

Sure, some firms have a net positive effect on the local economy, but in some cases they have a net drain on the national economy. Take, for instance, Walmart. While they pay their employees minimum wage, they schedule them and structure the organization such that many people have to take multiple jobs (and try to juggle their schedules without being fired) and if they do not do that, they draw on federal poverty programs. Politicians may give tax breaks to walmart, but when they do so they really only do it for sales tax revenue. Unemployment will technically go down, but poverty may actually increase, not to mention the burden on the local healthcare system for uninsured employees.

Exxon Mobil is a special case. They have vast, worldwide operations, and a business structure that, for instance, allows them to "spend" revenue they make in the US on operations elsewhere in the world so the books show US operations created very little revenue, while operations outside the tax system of the US generated vast amounts of revenue. This revenue is still taxable in the US to some degree (due to the headquarters being located in texas), but not to the degree that it would be if it were "local" revenue.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

I suppose the upshot is that politicians may collectively rail against earmarks and tax breaks, the reality is that they all do it for their constituencies, and what can really be done?

Here, FLP, let me try -

What's with these democrats? You'd think from listening to them they'd actually won the elections or something.

Yeah, it's not like they are still in control of the Senate because the Republican candidates were such fetid choices even Reid looked good.

He's still going! I wish I didn't have exams to go to, this is fantastic.

Is Bernie Sanders still talking?

"IF Obama is the Democratic candidate for president" - I love this guy so much.

Looks like Clinton has taken over for a bit: With Obama, Clinton urges Dems to back tax deal - Yahoo! Finance

They really want the dems to fall in line for this don't they...

Here's a link to the whole thing, for those who missed it.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/12/10/HP/R/41779/Sen+Sanders+Held+a+Tax+Cut+Filibuster.aspx

YOU SHOULD TOTALLY LISTEN TO THIS! It is one of the most important speeches made by any politician in the last year, if not the most important.

It's also eight and a half hours long, so you might want to get a sandwich before starting.

EDIT: OH WOW FORGOT THE LINK! WHOOPS!