AT&T, Comcast Say GOP Tax Bill Will Mean $1,000 Bonuses for Employees

[mesyn191]

I think you're being all but blind to just how much damage the Democrats have also caused.

Oh they've caused plenty, they're just the "bad" to the R's "worse" most of the time is how I view it.

I'd point out the R's do quite a bit of PR to try and sell their terrible policies so I don't know what you're talking about when you say they're being transparent in their motives at all.

Meanwhile Obama was supposed to be the progressive candidate

Obama was pretty blunt about being effectively a 90's Republican in terms of policy. That was around election time too. Not that is a good thing mind you. But he was fairly open about it even during his 2nd election run. Vs the empty suit stuffed with Wall St money that was Romney he came off looking fairly good though.

The reason Clinton got so much deregulation passed was because he WAS a Democrat

Clinton ran under the D party brand but was a Third Way'er. You're also either downplaying or ignoring Repub control of Congress at the time. And you're still essentially ignoring the CPFB and DFA still in your consideration here of both parties.

If the situation had been reversed, a Republican president wouldn't have gotten as much deregulation passed, because Democrats would have opposed it on the basis of him being the opposite party.

The Repubs had control of Congress at the time so actually GLBA and other laws would've passed with a Repub president no matter what.

When there's lax enforcement, even if 1 out of 1000 people are being prosecuted

Except virtually no one got prosecuted at all for any of the stuff I mentioned. If the laws on the books get ignored the crooks will pay attention to that too since they know they can probably get away with it. And they did.

A perfect example of this is Citizens United.

The US was already essentially a oligarchy before that though. The wealthy have been getting their way for decades at this point. What CU did was super charge the Wing Nut Welfare aspects of the elections and kick the rhetoric up a few dozen notches, bad yes but not for the reasons you think, influence-wise the cat had already been out of the bag for a long time by that point.

 

[tetris42]

I'd point out the R's do quite a bit of PR to try and sell their terrible policies so I don't know what you're talking about when you say they're being transparent in their motives at all.

So you're saying there are lots of Republicans who don't openly state that they're for less taxes, less regulation, reducing the safety net, and less spending on anything except the military? They seem pretty consistent on that to me.
You're also either downplaying or ignoring Repub control of Congress at the time. And you're still essentially ignoring the CPFB and DFA still in your consideration here of both parties.

he Repubs had control of Congress at the time so actually GLBA and other laws would've passed with a Repub president no matter what.

Well unless it was a veto-proof Congress, that's the whole point behind some of the power of the president. He could have vetoed that shit. And of course they would have passed with a Republican Congress, but not with a Democratic one, which is why I said if the parties were reversed. The point is it passed under a Democrat's watch, not a Republican's.

And you're still essentially ignoring the CPFB and DFA still in your consideration here of both parties.

I'm not ignoring it, that's why I said they take the one step forward, two steps back approach. Democrats love the appearance of doing something for the people. So if you repeal something effective, but then replace it with something less effective overall, but more complex and plenty of holes in it, that's exactly the sort of thing they love. It looks like they're fighting the good fight, while keeping openings for their donors to work with. I'd argue the ACA is a pretty good example of that. It's originally a right wing plan from the Heritage Foundation of all places, it absolutely helps people in some brackets, it still beats people up financially at the lowest bracket, and the insurance companies still get paid. It doesn't threaten the status quo, it just shuffles things around a bit, and gives the GOP and excuse to move further right, making the Democrats stance look progressive.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Does nobody remember how Obamacare got shoved thru Congress? The whole process is a joke, on both sides of the aisle.

 

[mesyn191]

So you're saying there are lots of Republicans who don't openly state that they're for less taxes, less regulation, reducing the safety net, and less spending on anything except the military? They seem pretty consistent on that to me.

The lie is how they present those policies as unalloyed good and how they'll benefit the general populace while also accusing D's of being fiscally irresponsible etc.

He could have vetoed that shit.

He absolutely could've and its plenty fair to blame Clinton for helping to pass those laws. No disagreement there. The disagreement I have is how you're using the passage of those laws to some how say the D's are every bit as bad as the R's policy-wise and that Clinton's as much to blame as Bush for the bubble.

And of course they would have passed with a Republican Congress, but not with a Democratic one, which is why I said if the parties were reversed.

If the voting pattern in the Senate had held (nearly all D's voted no) then its likely the bill still would've failed though. Remember the D's were also much less willing to vote lockstep unlike the R's back then and the D party has always been more of a "big tent" party in post-WWII politics rather than a unified front. That is why the D's in the Senate voted no.

I'm not ignoring it, that's why I said they take the one step forward, two steps back approach.

If the CPFB and DFA are the "one step forward" then where are the "2 steps back"? Given how bitterly the iBanker's have been bitching about those 2 things I think its safe to assume they're doing more than just there for appearances.

I'd argue the ACA is a pretty good example of that.

The PPACA isn't even a financial or bank regulation though so you're comparing apples to oranges though. And the PPACA for all its faults, and yes one of them is that its essentially a retread of the 90's "pro private healthcare" Repub plan, is still better than the situation before. The biggest issue with it (lack of Medicaid expansion) isn't even the D's fault. You get to blame the Robert's Supreme Court and Repubs who decided to not do the expansion.

gives the GOP and excuse to move further right, making the Democrats stance look progressive.

The GOP needs no reason to move further right from the D's, they'll do it on their own.

Does nobody remember how Obamacare got shoved thru Congress?

This tired old BS....do you even know what you're talking about when you say "shoved through Congress"? They did an entire year of debate and put up with R's trying to introduce poison pill amendments non-stop in committee. The actual voting process itself was a bit stupid due to the narrow super majority they had, Kennedy dying off, and Lieberman being an asshole but there was nothing illegal, dishonest, or shady about the way they passed it.

 

[maclem8223]

Soapbox is that away-------->

 

[Coffeve]

How dare I want to keep more of my money!

 

[mesyn191]

Soapbox is that away-------->

Sure but the topic is inherently political in nature and wasn't started by just any ol' poster so is it so surprising political stuff happens in thread?

How dare I want to keep more of my money!

Its debt funded so its not really you're money is it? Not only that since its debt funded all the tax cuts will need to be paid for by the average taxpayer over time anyways.

If most of the money was going into non-rich hands maybe that'd make some sense economically speaking but since most of the money is going into the hands of the rich, who spend very little of their wealth by default, it'll do little to nothing of economic value.