How is This "Reaching Across the Aisles"?

[Glenn Quagmire]

From US News and World Report:

"According to the Senate Historian's Office, the number of "cloture petitions" — a procedural step that sets up a vote to end a filibuster — was 68 in the two-year session of Congress running from 2005 to 2006, the last time Democrats were in the minority.

But that number has exceeded 100 for each of the past three two-year sessions, all of which have seen Republicans in the minority, peaking at 139 in the 2007-2008 session. There have been 109 in the current 2011-2012 session, with several more weeks of lame duck meetings expected."

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

I think the filibuster should stay. However, I think any Senator wanting to filibuster should have to openly debate on the Senate floor like they had to do back in the day. This is from the Senate historian office:

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

"Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.
Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957."

 

[eolesen]

It cost as much to protect a romney as it does me. Why should a romney pay less?

A romney excercises as much freedom as i do. Why should a romney pay less?

Why cant a romney pay the same percentage as me?

If it costs the same to protect a Romney as it does anyone else, why should they pay a larger percentage?

Should you, being employed, pay $32.00 per gallon of gas while unemployed folks pay $3.20?

Should you, having more disposable income, pay $1,000 per month for your phone service, so that those needing Obamaphones can have them for free?

Romney paid over $2M per year in taxes. Percentages are convenient when you want to talk about how unfair it is for the rich to be paying lower tax rates, but hey, it's perfectly OK to talk net/gross amounts when it comes to the size of someone'e pay cut.

The poor and middle class sent their kids to war. How many wealthy families sent their kids to war?

That's a great soundbyte, but if anything, low AFQT scores and arrest records keep poor people out of the military. That's a fact. Go ask any recruiter.

Somewhere on the order of 20% of all Army recruits are disqualified simply on their inability to pass the AFQT entry exam. And the Army has the lowest threshold for test scores, followed by the Navy. If you have a GED instead of a high school diploma, the threshold is 15% higher.

With downsizing of the military, high re-enlistment, and a high unemployment rate, the Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines have all raised their minimum score requirements, making it harder for the poor to enlist.

The military doesn't track family income. But they do release by zip code, making it easy to associate enlistment to low/middle/high income brackets.

Want some verification?

Some parts of the population are more likely than others to have a service member or veteran in their family. Whites are more likely than blacks — 68 percent versus 59 percent. Hispanics are much less likely than either, with just 30 percent saying they had a family member who served.

Political orientation is also a strong predictor. Among Republicans, 73 percent say they have a family connection to the military, higher than the 59 percent of Democrats and the 56 percent of independents.

Those come out of the right-wing New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/civilian-military-gap-grows-as-fewer-americans-serve.html

Note that it doesn't bother to address income levels... I suspect it is intentional, because if it did, you'd see your "the rich don't send their kids to war" hypothesis turn into a pile of dog crap. And it would probably send liberals into a tizzy.

Fortunately, there are studies which do refute your statement.

Look at the following graph --- notice that those in income bracket 1 (the bottom 10%) is almost identical to those in income bracket 10 (the top 10%)

http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/military-recruitment-2010/

That study does exactly what I was referring to above -- takes zip code income data and ties it to the recruiting data by zip code.

If you want to say that the ultra-rich are under-represented, you'd probably be right on the technicality. But so are the ultra-poor, and by just about the same proportion.

When you compare deciles 2 thru 8, it's actually weighted more towards upper income zip codes and families.

There's lots of other good information in there if you have the time. But then you'd be informed on the topic, and couldn't argue that the rich go out of their way not to wear the uniform.

 

[Ms Tree]

If it costs the same to protect a Romney as it does anyone else, why should they pay a larger percentage?

Should you, being employed, pay $32.00 per gallon of gas while unemployed folks pay $3.20?

Should you, having more disposable income, pay $1,000 per month for your phone service, so that those needing Obamaphones can have them for free?

First off they do not pay the same amount of tax, they don't pay more tax. Right now with the system in place they pay less tax than I do. With the current system in place their income is calulated differently because they do not earn their income off a W2 like people who work for a living do.

Food, fuel, pictures are all consumables and are paid for by volume that is easy to determine. The impact that Romney or Gates has on society in terms of what they use verses what they pay is less easily defined. There is no way to make a flat rate tax that is equitable for everyone. An increased sales tax would affect the poor and midle class more so than the rich.

A progressive system may not be perfect but I have yet to hear of you or someone else to come up with a more equitable system.

 

[eolesen]

First off they do not pay the same amount of tax, they don't pay more tax. Right now with the system in place they pay less tax than I do.

So, you paid more than $2M in taxes last year? Incredible. I thought you were in the 99%.

Thee impact that Romney or Gates has on society in terms of what they use verses what they pay is less easily defined

If anything, the cost on society for the rich is far less, since they're more likely to use privately funded education, don't use public transportation, and often hire their own security.

One thing is clear -- their philanthropy helps reduce the burden on taxpayers.

 

[RDU Jetblast]

Thanks E. ill chew on that for awhile.

 

[Keroseneuser]

First off they do not pay the same amount of tax, they don't pay more tax. Right now with the system in place they pay less tax than I do. With the current system in place their income is calulated differently because they do not earn their income off a W2 like people who work for a living do.

Food, fuel, pictures are all consumables and are paid for by volume that is easy to determine. The impact that Romney or Gates has on society in terms of what they use verses what they pay is less easily defined. There is no way to make a flat rate tax that is equitable for everyone. An increased sales tax would affect the poor and midle class more so than the rich.

A progressive system may not be perfect but I have yet to hear of you or someone else to come up with a more equitable system.

What was your effective tax rate last year? (Not what was taken out of your check, but what you actually paid after deductions etc.)

Mine was under what Romney paid. I do not fall into obama's rich catagory.

i am betting your effective tax rate was less than what romney paid as well.

However this year looking at the new stuff kicking in I expect to have a much higher effective tax rate.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

It cost as much to protect a romney as it does me. Why should a romney pay less?

A romney excercises as much freedom as i do. Why should a romney pay less?


Why cant a romney pay the same percentage as me?

The tax cuts have been around long enough. When does the country see the benefits of the bush tax cuts?

The poor and middle class sent their kids to war. How many wealthy families sent their kids to war?

Ah,...Who is....R O M N E Y ?????????
Hahahahahahahahahahah !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ms Tree]

What was your effective tax rate last year? (Not what was taken out of your check, but what you actually paid after deductions etc.)

Mine was under what Romney paid. I do not fall into obama's rich catagory.

i am betting your effective tax rate was less than what romney paid as well.

However this year looking at the new stuff kicking in I expect to have a much higher effective tax rate.

17.2%

 

[Keroseneuser]

17.2%

Interesting. Mine was 9.04%

Judging from our other conversations I am guessing we both make about the same give or take a little.

Are you missing some of the standard deductions? Mortgage interest etc?

 

[Ms Tree]

House is paid off. Wife wed a lot of OT as a nurse

 

[southwind]

I wonder. I wonder if republicans have ever changed the rules of procedure to work in their favor. I wonder if someoen did some research into this if they would find any examples of such actions? Nah... that woiuld never happen. It is not like researching anything would ever happen. Typical right wing ignorance.

Should you actually be interested in history you might want to start with 2006 but I suspect that ignorance is much more suited to your POV.

So, in your case, 2 wrongs, make a right !

 

[eolesen]

It's Bush's fault.

 

[Ms Tree]

Try reading a little. Way more than two wrongs. No, it does not make it right any more than the previous who knows how many times it was done. What I am saying is that it has happened, it is happening and it will happen in the future. Your crap stinks just like everyone else. If you want to complain about it complain about it in the context of both sides doing it and it all sucks. Try not to pretend that the other guys do it and your guys crap kittens and rose petals.