Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 359: Two Scoops of Impeachment

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mr Lasastryke posted...

this is such a weird talking point of yours. you're seriously arguing "marx and engels were pro-gun so guns are leftist"? i can just as easily say "ron paul is pro-gun so guns are libertarian." name-dropping famous dudes and saying "see? this proves everything!" is not a valid way of arguing.

I mean he also covers his ears and screams when we point out we're talking assault rifles which those guys didn't know were a thing so

---

yeah, that's also true.

ron paul, however, is very much aware of what assault rifles are, so the argument that being in favor of them is right-wing is probably stronger!

---

Guns are so closely married to modern-day US conservatism that it baffles me that anyone would try to claim it's anything other than a hard right-wing stance. It's the biggest single-issue vote drawer for Republicans (outside of racism, apparently).

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

tony said last topic...

as someone who doesn't mind your anti-dem posts, i'll say that i'm pretty sure the vast majority of us hate the dems, with exceptions being LotM (obviously) and suprak (maybe). the amount of people here who think the dems are good enough is minuscule.

I mean I'm definitely in the Sanders/Warren/AOC wing of the party but yes I would rather work within the democratic party framework then tear it down and start anew. I'm fine with people criticizing democrats who don't do enough. The only time I'm likely to yell at someone is if I sense they are doing the "bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe" dance which I simply do not have patience for anymore.

xp1337 posted...

Broadly speaking, reconciliation is something that can only be used once per fiscal year when the House is working on the annual budget. They specify to one or more committees some instructions to follow in terms of targets in spending/revenue/deficeits and the committee has to make it work and the bill is privileged against filibuster. It also forces any Senate amendments to be germane to the bill instead of a free-for-all of jamming in stuff unrelated. And finally, though YMMV on whether this is a positive or not, the Senate can't throw in amendments that increase the deficit (though they can move to strike down House amendments that were saving money; they just can't offer their own that increase it.)

Reconciliation can't be used for things that have no effect - or incidental effect - on the budget, and can't increase the deficit for years outside the reconciliation window (I think this is typically a ten year window but may be subject to being defined by the House; this is also why a lot of Republican tax bills have tax cuts for the middle class - but not the wealthy - sunset after 10 years. The lock in the cuts for the wealthy and force Congress to face the choice of expiration or making permanent the cuts for most people at the end of that timeframe) If you try anyway, then in the Senate any such measures can be objected to and if the Senate parliamentarian finds it to be breaking one of those (or a few others but those are the main ones) then such a provision is struck from the bill and cannot be offered later as an amendment. You can bypass such a judgment by the parliamentarian with 60 votes but that defeats the purpose of using reconciliation to dodge the filibuster. Alternatively, I believe the VP can overrule them too. ...Or you can do what Republicans did in 2001 and just fire and replace them.

Oh ok, cool thanks!

Couldn't the democrats just argue that everything in that bill is for the purpose of helping the economy recover? Even the $15 minimum wage (but especially all the COVID relief stuff)? Would they have to offset it by increasing taxes amongst the wealthy to make sure it is deficit neutral or would that not matter as a lot of this stuff would expire outside the ten year window?

Of course, this is assuming they have 50 votes which I'm not sure of at the moment.

---

TotallyNotMI posted...

I mean he also covers his ears and screams when we point out we're talking assault rifles which those guys didn't know were a thing so

Im addressing this first so it doesnt get lost, and Id hope someone else can back me up.

Literally none of this is fucking true, what the fuck are you talking about? Not only did I not defend assault rifles ONCE, I literally said Id be ok with banning automatic weapons.

Explain yourself.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

this is such a weird talking point of yours. you're seriously arguing "marx and engels were pro-gun so guns are leftist"? i can just as easily say "ron paul is pro-gun so guns are libertarian." name-dropping famous dudes and saying "see? this proves everything!" is not a valid way of arguing.

Im bringing it up to show the pointlessness of the attack Tonys view on guns aligns with the far right!!

It doesnt, first of all, and secondly, if my view aligns with anyone on the Right and KARL MARX, whats the point of the attack? Specifically, what is the goal? Because it doesnt actually mean anything, especially when you make shit up out of thin air.

I literally just said guns, and then someone (I think SEP) said assault weapons makes you Right Wing, and I quipped Yeah like Karl Marx, and then three other people decided all of a sudden I was actively defending assault rifles, despite never once actually doing that.

Its so stupid.


---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Couldn't the democrats just argue that everything in that bill is for the purpose of helping the economy recover? Even the $15 minimum wage (but especially all the COVID relief stuff)? Would they have to offset it by increasing taxes amongst the wealthy to make sure it is deficit neutral or would that not matter as a lot of this stuff would expire outside the ten year window?

I don't think "it helps the economy" is sufficient. It has to impact the federal budget or deficit directly. Off the top of my head, I think that means direct COVID spending would be fine, but minimum wage might not. I'm not sure.

COVID relief programs would presumably end before 10 years so I think they wouldn't need to worry about there being deficit impacts in 2031 since the programs would presumably no longer be in effect. But say, something like UBI would require an offset... unless you pulled a page from the Republican playbook, and had UBI end in 10 years and then bank on the Republicans being unable to actually vote against making it permanent in a "normal" bill down the road. I think that would work.

---

I've seen several fairly leftist folks say if you go far enough left you get the guns back

---

to be exact, if you go far enough left you're the only ones who get the guns back~

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

tony said last topic...

as someone who doesn't mind your anti-dem posts, i'll say that i'm pretty sure the vast majority of us hate the dems, with exceptions being LotM (obviously) and suprak (maybe). the amount of people here who think the dems are good enough is minuscule.

before you reply "but if that's the case why is everyone bashing me for making anti-dem posts lol," that's probably because that's pretty much all you talk about, like LTM pointed out. it annoys people in the same way that people get annoyed that metal_dk posts about nothing about the casual revolution sucking (even if he may have a point in there).

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/79223743/949256547

Very first old topic I clicked, made last week.

I make plenty of anti-Trump posts too, but because literally everyone is making them they get missed.

Not everyone is calling out, or even wants to call out, issues with the Dems.

Im not going to apologize for criticizing a shitty party just because their opponents are shittier.

My frustration/confusion lies in the seemingly total unwillingness to actually have a discussion or admit yeah, I wish Democrats would do better.

Like, I think it was Inviso literally made half a nice post understanding the point like Yeah, a full $2000 would be better, and probably more etc before reverting to the lol nobody thought $2000 checks meant actual $2000 checks (fact check: type 2000 into Twitter and tell me no one did)

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1349869510996750337?s=21

Quote: 2000 means 2000, 2000 does not mean 1400. - AOC

---

It was extremely obvious that the $2000 was meant to be instead of the $600, not in addition to it.

That said, now that the $600 has already passed the Dems should have pivoted to "an additional $2000". But if we're talking about what Dems should be doing, it should be $2k a month, retroactively since March. *shrug*

---

Kenri posted...

It was extremely obvious that the $2000 was meant to be instead of the $600, not in addition to it.

so AOC is dumb?

---

No, she is just playing with words.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im bringing it up to show the pointlessness of the attack Tonys view on guns aligns with the far right!!

It doesnt, first of all

You don't need to add the far right part here. But your gun views are undeniably right wing.

---

xp1337 posted...

I don't think "it helps the economy" is sufficient. It has to impact the federal budget or deficit directly. Off the top of my head, I think that means direct COVID spending would be fine, but minimum wage might not. I'm not sure.

Correct, reconciliation can only be used for issues that directly involve government spending and/or revenue. All the things that involve spending are fine so long as the spending is set to stop in 10 years. On the other hand, the minimum wage increase definitely wouldn't be allowed.
---

Which also it is fine to hold right wing views if you're not insane. Problem is the republican party is insane. But Bernie's voters are pro-gun so compared to many he is relatively pro-gun. I don't agree with that stance but he is representing his people's wishes so it's like, that's fine since he is rocking it almost everywhere else.

Anyway we all know the GOP is a total joke for the most part, so in spirit, if not always in practice, tony is right. The biggest threat to this country is the democrats not doing good by the people, squabbling among themselves, and letting GOP back into power.

Do good by the people, stop sucking your donors cocks for a change, and maybe you'll get more of the youth to believe in you and turn out. The middle is dead tbh
'

---

In fairness, I do and DID think it was extremely obvious $2000 meant total, until the $600 went out and they kept literally saying the words We will get you $2000 checks.

In extremely related, NOT anti-Dem, and funny news, apparently Ben Shapiro is doing some weird telethon broadcast of a Conservative movie called Take Back the Culture, and I guess I wonder why hed feel the need to show a Conservative movie OR Take Back the Culture when our movies and culture are already Conservative?

https://twitter.com/intothecrevasse/status/1349873489239535620?s=21

Its funny because this shit looks exactly like On Cinema.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

so AOC is dumb?

She's doing exactly what I just said Dems should be doing, so like, are you asking me to indict myself here?

---

Xeybozn posted...

Correct, reconciliation can only be used for issues that directly involve government spending and/or revenue. All the things that involve spending are fine so long as the spending is set to stop in 10 years. On the other hand, the minimum wage increase definitely wouldn't be allowed.

Wouldnt a minimum wage increase mean an increase in tax revenue?

---

Maniac64 posted...

Wouldnt a minimum wage increase mean an increase in tax revenue?

Offset by the people paying them having to pay less taxes I would guess?

---

I'm not pro-assault rifle but in Tony's defense there are modern leftist movements that have been staunchly pro-gun.

The Black Panther Party might have had superficial similarities (aka "gun") but it in no way meshed with American conservatism. It doesn't fit into this neat little liberal vs conservative argument but it was pretty definitively leftist. The conservative position on this was purely reactionary, and was to ban guns, but things have changed since then because conservatives don't have a problem with fellow conservatives having guns.

---

Maniac64 posted...

Wouldnt a minimum wage increase mean an increase in tax revenue?

Not sure exactly how reconciliation works, but yes, it would result in an increase in tax revenue. But not by much, because people making minimum wage (whether it's $7.50 or $15) aren't paying much federal income tax anyway. Social security and medicare tax, they are paying a lot, but they are contributing a very very small share of the federal income tax pie.

---

Maniac64 posted...

Wouldnt a minimum wage increase mean an increase in tax revenue?

Probably (though hypothetically it could be a decrease if it cost enough jobs). The CBO would have to score it (but I think that the fact that it would very likely change federal revenue would make it salient to reconciliation).

---

I still haven't figured out how the CBO scored the 2017 tax cut as helping to balance the budget. Who is running the projections there, the ghost of Ronald Reagan?

---

Kenri posted...

She's doing exactly what I just said Dems should be doing, so like, are you asking me to indict myself here?

i mean, apparently, AOC didn't get something that's "extremely obvious." curious what your take on that is.

---

I think most of this boils down to people stuck in a rigid political alignment where gun means right, and where there only exist Good Liberals, Less Good Liberals, Conservatives, and Fascists.

LtM calling me both a future Republican and also assuming I identified as a Liberal still has me thrown for a loop.

How can you be in this topic so long and not know theres more to this shit than that?

---

red sox 777 posted...

I still haven't figured out how the CBO scored the 2017 tax cut as helping to balance the budget. Who is running the projections there, the ghost of Ronald Reagan?

I think a big part of it was killing the individual mandate, which they assumed would cause a bunch of people to drop their health insurance and thus reduce the amount of money the government was paying in subsidies (which did not happen to nearly the extent expected afaik)

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i mean, apparently, AOC didn't get something that's "extremely obvious." curious what your take on that is.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) says Dems should pass $2K on top of the $600 from December, rather than add $1,400 to get $600 to $2K.

It sounds to me like she completely gets it and just understood that the better option - especially in terms of messaging - was to pivot to $2600.

---

I don't think you're leaning republican now other than guns, I think you're going to snap one day.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i mean, apparently, AOC didn't get something that's "extremely obvious." curious what your take on that is.

She got it. She is just saying that they should just go ahead with 2000 checks now rather than the original plan.

She literally wrote the amendment that substituted $2000 for $600 in the bill.

---

Kenri posted...

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) says Dems should pass $2K on top of the $600 from December, rather than add $1,400 to get $600 to $2K.

It sounds to me like she completely gets it and just understood that the better option - especially in terms of messaging - was to pivot to $2600.

she also said "$1400 is not $2000."

not sure what to make of that other than "hey dems, you only gave $1400. you promised $2000. fix your shit."

---

Maniac64 posted...

Wouldnt a minimum wage increase mean an increase in tax revenue?

Probably, but it's not as simple as it sounds. For example, it could be that that the higher payroll/income taxes are offset by lower taxes on businesses deducting the newly increased wages. Or the higher wages could lower employment by enough that tax income goes down. The bigger issue is that either way, it's not directly related to government spending/revenue.
---

These checks must be the ones theyre sending to people who didnt get the $600.

I dont get why people cant just admit the messaging was mixed, possibly intentionally, and the tweet I shared earlier of Zero Pinocchios, maximum frustration was dead on the money and we can move on from this.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

I don't think you're leaning republican now other than guns, I think you're going to snap one day.

lmao bruh moment

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

she also said "$1400 is not $2000."

not sure what to make of that other than "hey dems, you only gave $1400. you promised $2000. fix your shit."

She literally wrote the bill that changed the $600 to $2000, she didn't change the $600 to $2600. The original plan was $2000, flat.

Now she's just being smart and saying since they have the power, they should pivot to $2000 on top of the $600 instead.

---

Maniac64 posted...

Wouldnt a minimum wage increase mean an increase in tax revenue?

My guess is that it would be considered "incidental." I think the only manner by which a $15 minimum wage would directly affect the budget is the payroll to any federal employees that would be seeing a raise as a direct result because they were making less than that. ...However, I want to say federal employees (and maybe even contractors) are already getting that (whether by EO or a narrow bill) so I'm not even sure you've got that.

I agree that it obviously would result in an effect on revenue but I think it might be considered too abstract for reconciliation purposes even though it's basically just one step removed. I wouldn't expect it to stand up to a reconciliation challenge but it might serve as a good "fight" to show why filibuster reform is needed (should just be jettisoned but to placate Manchin it'll probably just get nerfed into oblivion but still technically exist in the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" sense of a standing, talking version which "sure, fine")

---

I dont know why you guys dont understand that once the $600 check went out the door, sticking with the phrase We will get you $2000 checks would be misleading AT BEST.

How long until you think we get the next check, a month? Is it the next stimulus, or is it an Amendment to a check that came a month prior?

---

Xeybozn posted...

Probably, but it's not as simple as it sounds. For example, it could be that that the higher payroll/income taxes are offset by lower taxes on businesses deducting the newly increased wages. Or the higher wages could lower employment by enough that tax income goes down. The bigger issue is that either way, it's not directly related to government spending/revenue.

Then use the Republican strategy (started by Justice Roberts) of writing everything as a change to the tax code. So, let's say.....if a company pays an employee less than $15/hr, that company's deduction for the employee's pay will be decreased by the difference between the employee's actual pay and $15/hr.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

I don't think you're leaning republican now other than guns, I think you're going to snap one day.

Everyone posting in this topic could snap one day, this place is a risk factor all on its own

---

https://twitter.com/haltman/status/1349858161423998976?s=21

Thats an incredible amount of troops.

I live in between two Air Force bases with 8000 troops each, and there are like 4 chow halls and so many more facilities for them.

Its gonna be mayhem, and fuck, sucks to be them sleeping on floors and shit.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I dont know why you guys dont understand that once the $600 check went out the door, sticking with the phrase We will get you $2000 checks would be misleading AT BEST.

How long until you think we get the next check, a month? Is it the next stimulus, or is it an Amendment to a check that came a month prior?

I don't think anybody is arguing that it CAN'T be misleading if literally all anybody heard was "$2000 check" and they didn't pay attention to anything else.

You're getting pushback because you tried to make this another one of your gotcha moments that you're obsessed with making every other day in these topics and everybody's sorta tired of it.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Everyone posting in this topic could snap one day, this place is a risk factor all on its own

True, but I already snapped!

I literally want Prohibition 2 Electric Boogaloo, the banning of cigarettes, and for the 2nd amendment to be repealed. I'm the liberal that shitty conservative cartoonists wrote about.

Thankfully I push all that shit down and don't even pretend it's remotely viable.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

I don't think anybody is arguing that it CAN'T be misleading if literally all anybody heard was "$2000 check" and they didn't pay attention to anything else.

You're getting pushback because you tried to make this another one of your gotcha moments that you're obsessed with making every other day in these topics and everybody's sorta tired of it.

This.

The entire conversation wouldn't have happened if you hadn't implied as such on your first post!

If you had literally just opened up with the Pinocchio tweet instead of the one you actually opened on, everyone would have agreed with you in the first place. But you chose the other one.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

True, but I already snapped!

I literally want Prohibition 2 Electric Boogaloo, the banning of cigarettes, and for the 2nd amendment to be repealed. I'm the liberal that shitty conservative cartoonists wrote about.

Thankfully I push all that shit down and don't even pretend it's remotely viable.

I'm a conservative* who is okay with all 3 of those things personally. Not on board with the principle of being able to ban things just because we dislike them, but ignoring that, sure.

*according to this topic.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

I don't think anybody is arguing that it CAN'T be misleading if literally all anybody heard was "$2000 check" and they didn't pay attention to anything else.

You're getting pushback because you tried to make this another one of your gotcha moments that you're obsessed with making every other day in these topics and everybody's sorta tired of it.

Dont make me tap the tweet again.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

True, but I already snapped!

I literally want Prohibition 2 Electric Boogaloo, the banning of cigarettes, and for the 2nd amendment to be repealed. I'm the liberal that shitty conservative cartoonists wrote about.

Thankfully I push all that shit down and don't even pretend it's remotely viable.

oh so you didnt learn anything from Prohibition and proudly want it to happen again, sick thing to admit

For the record, I dont smoke, I drink on holidays only sometimes, and I think it should be illegal for kids to have or be given...but also, I understand human nature, and banning shit people can make/get on the black market literally just creates crime.

It makes no sense. Party of science, remember?

---

Like, if you haven't noticed, there's a lot of shit going on that people are hoping to just get through and hopefully move on to something better

And yet you mostly ignore it and every few days drive a truck through the door and practically yell "HEY LIB BITCHES LOOK AT THIS AND FUCK YOU"

And nobody really has patience for any shit anymore

If you did this with any kind of tact whatsoever it'd be received a looot better.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Like, if you haven't noticed, there's a lot of shit going on that people are hoping to just get through and hopefully move on to something better

And yet you mostly ignore it and every few days drive a truck through the door and practically yell "HEY LIB BITCHES LOOK AT THIS AND FUCK YOU"

And nobody really has patience for any shit anymore

I literally didnt do any of this, is there a phantom poster that you MI are seeing that isnt there? I dont think Ive called anyone a Lib ever in any of these topics (maybe LOTM tbh, because hes textbook I mean come on lol), you guys are once again projecting some shit onto that isnt real. MI at the top of this page said I screamed in defense of assault rifle lmao??? Why are you guys making shit up?

Just because, I just went back ONE topic, and my first post was saying Charge insurrectionists and any connections with sedition and obliterate them the way the GOP did Acorn for a million times less, my next was just a response to someone else, and my next three were about Wang being Tim Pool.

I dont know what to tell you.

Im sorry my the Dems should be better or god dammit why posts seem so memorable to you that youre tired of them, but these FUCK YOU LIB BITCHES posts are in your head.

---

And yes, if we don't get actual $2000 checks the future is hopeless.

Anyone settling for an additional $1400 at this point isn't shooting nearly high enough.

(we should be shooting for like $1200+ monthly for like 6 months, but whatever).

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I dont know why you guys dont understand that once the $600 check went out the door, sticking with the phrase We will get you $2000 checks would be misleading AT BEST.

And your proof for this is a couple tweets from BEFORE the $600 checks even started being issued?

Not to mention many people had issues that prevented them from receiving their direct deposit on the 4th and they will be lucky to receive EIP#2 before being forced to claim it on the 2020 taxes just to get it at all.

Stop making your lack of reading comprehension our problem.

And yes AOC is pivoting from 1400 to 2000 but not in a way inconsistent with the message that was previously being presented.

So unless your job also currently resolves around stimulus payments I'm done discussing this.

---

You literally work at the IRS, so explain how tweets dated in January are before the stimulus was being issued when I got mine on December 31st?



Forceful_Dragon posted...

And your proof for this is a couple tweets from BEFORE the $600 checks even started being issued?

Not to mention many people had issues that prevented them from receiving their direct deposit on the 4th and they will be lucky to receive EIP#2 before being forced to claim it on the 2020 taxes just to get it at all.

Stop making your lack of reading comprehension our problem.

And yes AOC is pivoting from 1400 to 2000 but not in a way inconsistent with the message that was previously being presented.

So unless your job also currently resolves around stimulus payments I'm done discussing this.

Id like you to stop being done discussing this and explain how you could be so wildly wrong while also being so condescending, thanks.

Jesus Christ, I dont even know WHY this post was so disrespectful. Work stress got you down my guy?

---