$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think the GOP will get full-control of all three branches for some time after they lose it.

In fact, I think the 2020's will be dominated by a divided congress (GOP controls Senate, Democrats control House). But there might be a small window where Democrats control everything and that is when they should go for broke.

[Sestak]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think the GOP will get full-control of all three branches for some time after they lose it.

In fact, I think the 2020's will be dominated by a divided congress (GOP controls Senate, Democrats control House). But there might be a small window where Democrats control everything and that is when they should go for broke.

This is exactly what Reid thought too. "Oh, the GOP will never be in control again".

And you can't just restore the filibuster when you're about to lose power. It's the precedent that matters. Once one side does it, the other feels entitled to do it.

[Cashew]

Off-topic, but Democrats need to get rid of the filibuster for good.

I am feeling petty, but I want to steamroll these bastards the next time we control everything.

NO!

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!


THAT'S A HORRIBLE IDEA!!

DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH THE GOP WOULD BE ABLE TO DO ONCE THEY GOT IN POWER?

THE REASON TRUMP HAS BEEN ABLE TO STACK THE FEDERAL BENCH WITH VERY CONSERVATIVE JUDGES IS BECAUSE HARRY REID, THE IDIOT THAT HE WAS, ENDED THE JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER.

Wrong, the reason for so many vaccancies in the first place was Leahy's blue slip stupidity.

[Keep cool-idge]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think the GOP will get full-control of all three branches for some time after they lose it.

In fact, I think the 2020's will be dominated by a divided congress (GOP controls Senate, Democrats control House). But there might be a small window where Democrats control everything and that is when they should go for broke.

This is exactly what Reid thought too. "Oh, the GOP will never be in control again".

And you can't just restore the filibuster when you're about to lose power. It's the precedent that matters. Once one side does it, the other feels entitled to do it.

I hope that the filibuster doesn’t get repealed.

[Virginiá]

THE REASON TRUMP HAS BEEN ABLE TO STACK THE FEDERAL BENCH WITH VERY CONSERVATIVE JUDGES IS BECAUSE HARRY REID, THE IDIOT THAT HE WAS, ENDED THE JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER.

Eh, given what we've seen from Republicans since Trump was elected, it is highly likely they would have gutted the filibuster once Democrats started slowing down judicial nominations. The only difference would then be that some of Trump's cabinet picks/etc would be different due to Dem opposition, but Trump would also have even more federal judicial vacancies to fill because we would have let Republicans block Obama nominees instead of getting rid of the filibuster to confirm them prior to Jan 2015.

I haven't seen anything from Republicans to suggest otherwise. They are tearing through anything that stands in their way. It's quite remarkable, actually. Republicans in the Reagan era have lost it.

[Indy Texas]

Passes 51-50 via Pence.

Good it should help my mom and dad with less taxes.

Unless your parents are One Percenters, your tax savings might be enough to pay for a couple of dinners at Red Lobster.

[Sestak]

Off-topic, but Democrats need to get rid of the filibuster for good.

I am feeling petty, but I want to steamroll these bastards the next time we control everything.

NO!

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!


THAT'S A HORRIBLE IDEA!!

DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH THE GOP WOULD BE ABLE TO DO ONCE THEY GOT IN POWER?

THE REASON TRUMP HAS BEEN ABLE TO STACK THE FEDERAL BENCH WITH VERY CONSERVATIVE JUDGES IS BECAUSE HARRY REID, THE IDIOT THAT HE WAS, ENDED THE JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER.

Wrong, the reason for so many vaccancies in the first place was Leahy's blue slip stupidity.

For the vacancies, sure. But if there was a judicial filibuster, he'd probably have to appoint some more moderate judges.

[Keep cool-idge]

THE democrats most hate Tim Kaine and middle class tax cuts.

[Sestak]

So, in addition to all the Republicans, all the Dem presidential hopefuls (Warren, Gillibrand, etc.) are voting against the Kaine amdmt.

[Sestak]

At 31-66 currently.

[Holmes]

THE democrats most hate Tim Kaine and middle class tax cuts.

Sure

[Matty]

How often do bills pass both houses of congress, but then fail in conference committee?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

THE REASON TRUMP HAS BEEN ABLE TO STACK THE FEDERAL BENCH WITH VERY CONSERVATIVE JUDGES IS BECAUSE HARRY REID, THE IDIOT THAT HE WAS, ENDED THE JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER.

Eh, given what we've seen from Republicans since Trump was elected, it is highly likely they would have gutted the filibuster once Democrats started slowing down judicial nominations. The only difference would then be that some of Trump's cabinet picks/etc would be different due to Dem opposition, but Trump would also have even more federal judicial vacancies to fill because we would have let Republicans block Obama nominees instead of getting rid of the filibuster to confirm them prior to Jan 2015.

I haven't seen anything from Republicans to suggest otherwise. They are tearing through anything that stands in their way. It's quite remarkable, actually. Republicans in the Reagan era have lost it.

By the same logic, wouldn't the Republicans have already gotten rid of the legislative filibuster at this point? I'm going to extend the rate benefit of the doubt to them in this case, although I think you are right in the rest of your post about how it's better to have 4 extra years of Obama appointments to the bench.

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think the GOP will get full-control of all three branches for some time after they lose it.

In fact, I think the 2020's will be dominated by a divided congress (GOP controls Senate, Democrats control House). But there might be a small window where Democrats control everything and that is when they should go for broke.

This is exactly what Reid thought too. "Oh, the GOP will never be in control again".

And you can't just restore the filibuster when you're about to lose power. It's the precedent that matters. Once one side does it, the other feels entitled to do it.

Who gives a ****?

The GOP is already going around the filibuster with their use of reconciliation.

[Sestak]

How often do bills pass both houses of congress, but then fail in conference committee?

I dunno.

And if you're to believe Sen. Schatz:

https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/936755130904600576

[Pandaguineapig]

How often do bills pass both houses of congress, but then fail in conference committee?

I dunno.

And if you're to believe Sen. Schatz:

https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/936755130904600576

I think if ACA is precedent there is too much to risk if they can get it through the house as is

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

How often do bills pass both houses of congress, but then fail in conference committee?

I dunno.

And if you're to believe Sen. Schatz:

https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/936755130904600576

Schatz is trolling. Paul Ryan has already scheduled the procedural vote to appoint members of the Conference Committee for 6:30 ET Monday.

[Sestak]

If there were no filibusters we'd just keep going back and forth between ultraconservative periods, ultraprogressive periods, and stagnant periods.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Anyways, Kaine fails 34-65.

[Sestak]

How often do bills pass both houses of congress, but then fail in conference committee?

I dunno.

And if you're to believe Sen. Schatz:

https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/936755130904600576

Schatz is trolling. Paul Ryan has already scheduled the procedural vote to appoint members of the Conference Committee for 6:30 ET Monday.

See Panda above.

With the ACA, they originally were doing a conference committee. Then Scott Brown won and the Democrats lost their 60th vote. So they just sent the Senate bill (with no public option) into the House because they had no other option.

[Yank2133]

If there were no filibusters we'd just keep going back and forth between ultraconservative periods, ultraprogressive periods, and stagnant periods.

Fine by me.

Our policies vs theres. I think will win that fight.

[Classic Conservative]

I really wish the Rubio/Lee Admendment passed and that they got rid of more special interest loopholes. The private jet provision should also be scrapped. I'm very happy that the Cruz admendment was adopted.

[Virginiá]

By the same logic, wouldn't the Republicans have already gotten rid of the legislative filibuster at this point? I'm going to extend the rate benefit of the doubt to them in this case, although I think you are right in the rest of your post about how it's better to have 4 extra years of Obama appointments to the bench.

Not necessarily. Democrats/liberals lose out more with a legislative filibuster because many big things we want to do then take 60 votes. Meanwhile, big things conservatives want to do, like cutting taxes and spending on liberal stuff can be done with bare majorities. I'm sure conservatives have their own dreams that require 60 votes right now, but they get by pretty well with the status quo.

Also consider that even without a legislative filibuster, after Democrats go buck wild in their turn with a federal trifecta, and enact a slew of new social programs, Republicans would be hard-pressed to roll those back due to the inevitable backlash. It's very hard to take those things away once they are implemented, hence why Republicans would want to keep a filibuster to block them from ever being implemented in the first place.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

If there were no filibusters we'd just keep going back and forth between ultraconservative periods, ultraprogressive periods, and stagnant periods.

Fine by me.

Our policies vs theres. I think will win that fight.

Did you forget 2010, 2014 and 2016, mate?

[Pericles]

"we have to pass it to find out what's in it"

That's what Nanci Pelosi said about Obamacare.

That's the point.