Because Elections and Winning Enough Votes

[merh]

[merh]

[merh]

[merh]

[abbey1227]

Jan 22, 2022 14:25:16 GMT merh said:

That seems like a perfectly legitimate poll.     Almost as if Swallwell and Co got to set it up

[abbey1227]

Jan 22, 2022 14:20:11 GMT merh said:

How many Congressmen from those same areas?

Seems like a wonderful idea to have 2 or 3 States dictate to the other 47 how to live their lives, right? Can we take turns, too........to be fair?

[merh]

Jan 22, 2022 14:38:16 GMT abbey1227 said:

Jan 22, 2022 14:20:11 GMT merh said:

How many Congressmen from those same areas?

Seems like a wonderful idea to have 2 or 3 States dictate to the other 47 how to live their lives, right? Can we take turns, too........to be fair?

Or maybe just change the filibuster back to where they actually have to stand there the entire time instead of where they have moved it to?

Or even get rid of it.

[merh]

Anyone remember the “carried interest” loophole that lets hedge fund executives and private equity managers – among the wealthiest people in America – pay a tax rate no higher than most Americans? It’s a pure scam. They get the tax break even though they invest other peoples’ money rather than risk their

Barack Obama promised to get rid of the loophole. He failed. So, remarkably, did Donald Trump. Guess what happened? Nothing.

“I don’t know what happened,” said Larry Kudlow, the conservative economist who crafted Trump’s campaign tax plan. “I don’t know how that thing survived,” he said, adding, “I’m sure the lobbying was intense.”

Now that Democrats are trying to find ways to finance President Biden’s Build Back Better package, you might think that the carried interest loophole would be high on their list. After all, closing it could raise $180bn over 10 years. That’s $180bn that could go toward supporting vulnerable Americans and investing in America’s future.

Think again. The loophole – which treats the earnings of private equity managers and venture capitalists as capital gains, taxed at a top rate of just 20%, instead of income, whose top tax rate is 37% – remains as big as ever. Bigger.

Influential Democrats, such as House ways and means committee chair Richard Neal, argue that closing the loophole would hobble the private equity industry, and, by extension, the US economy. Neal’s ways and means committee wants only to require private equity firms to hold assets for slightly longer than they do now in order for their managers to qualify for the loophole.

The truth is there’s zero economic justification for retaining this loophole. Private equity firms borrow money to buy companies they see as ripe for turnarounds – where they can cut wages, outsource jobs, strip assets – and then resell what’s left, often laden with debt. The firms don’t risk their partners’ own capital. Instead, they charge their investors a management fee of 2% and keep 20% of future profits that their investments generate – which is known as “carried interest”. (Fourteenth-century Italian ship captains were compensated in part with an interest in whatever profits were realized on the cargo they carried.)

The sole reason the loophole survives even during Democratic Congresses, is fierce lobbying by the private equity industry – and the dependence of too many Democrats on campaign funding from the partners of private equity and hedge funds.

“This is a loophole that absolutely should be closed,” said Biden adviser Jared Bernstein. But “when you go up to Capitol Hill and you start negotiating on taxes, there are more lobbyists in this town on taxes than there are members of Congress.”

Last year 4,108 individual lobbyists formally registered to lobby Congress and the executive branch on taxes, according to the Open Secrets lobbying database. It’s likely that hundreds more work to influence federal tax policy on behalf of clients but have not formally registered as lobbyists.

The private equity industry spends millions of dollars on lobbyists to fight any effort to change how it is taxed. It has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to congressional campaigns – $600m over the past decade, according to a New York Times analysis earlier this year.

During the 2020 election, Biden’s presidential campaign received over $3m from people working in private equity and related types of investment funds, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Biden was the top recipient of campaign money from that industry in the last campaign cycle. All told, nearly 60% of campaign donations from those in the private equity industry during the 2020 election went toward Democratic candidates for federal office.

In 2010, House Democrats squeaked through a tax plan that closed the loophole, but Democrats who controlled Senate wouldn’t go along. Senator Charles Schumer was among those who argued against closing it. The United States, he said, “should not do anything” to “make it easier for capital and ideas to flow to London or anywhere else”. As if Wall Street needed billions in annual bribes to stay put.

When I publicly criticized Schumer for this, he explained to me that he didn’t think it fair to close the loophole for private equity and hedge fund partners but to leave it in place for other partnerships, such as housing developers.

Well, one person’s view of fairness may differ from another’s. But I don’t think there’s any question that the carried interest loophole is unfair to everyone except the fabulously rich who benefit from it.

Democrats must close this loophole. Now.

www.theguardian.com/2021/dec/14/carried-interest-tax-loophole-close-it

[merh]

Jan 22, 2022 14:36:23 GMT abbey1227 said:

Jan 22, 2022 14:25:16 GMT merh said:

That seems like a perfectly legitimate poll.     Almost as if Swallwell and Co got to set it up

secondnexus.com/ron-johnson-filibuster

GOP Senator Tweets Poll Asking if Senate Should End Filibuster—and It Backfired Spectacularly
Evan Brechtel
Jan. 18, 2022

Republicans are railing against Senate Democrats' effort to pass House-approved voting rights legislation that would offset the dozens of voter suppression bills passed last year by Republican state legislatures across the country.

Though the evenly divided Senate gives Democrats a functional majority, the Senate filibuster has effectively rendered the legislation dead before it begins. Most Democrats are proposing ways to bypass the filibuster and get the legislation passed, be it through a filibuster carve-out specific to voting rights or the end of the filibuster all together. However, two of the Senate's most conservative Democrats—Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia—continue to oppose any method of filibuster reform.

Far-right Senator Ron Johnson, taking time off from spreading vaccine conspiracy theories and denying the reality of violence at the Capitol on January 6, issued a Twitter poll asking whether the filibuster should be abolished.

Johnson gave options to "IMPLODE the filibuster so the Dems can RAM their voting rights legislation through Congress" or to "PROTECT the Senate."

Johnson likely expected his conservative Twitter followers to overwhelmingly call for the so-called protection of the Senate.

In reality, the opposite happened

As of 4:17 pm on January 18, with 22 hours left of the poll, an overwhelming 95.9% of Twitter users who voted called for the end of the filibuster and the prioritization of a fair democracy.

Twitter polls are by no means an effective or accurate measure of public opinion, but social media users cackled at the results nonetheless

In reality, the public is much more divided on filibuster reform, and Americans often don't know what to make of it.

A Monmouth University poll from April found:

"One-third of Americans approve (34%) and one-third disapprove (34%) of the filibuster when it is described as a procedure used in the Senate to block a bill from being put to a vote until a supermajority of 60 senators agree to end debate. Another third (33%), though, have no opinion either way."
A Fox News poll from that same month reached a similar conclusion, with 27% calling for the end of the filibuster, 29% in support of keeping it, and 39% with no opinion.

But while Twitter polls aren't useful for gauging public opinion, this one was useful for dunking on a Republican Senator, and people soon alerted their followers of their participation.

No.
Swallwell didn't set it up.
Johnson did.
But it is an internet poll.
Internet polls aren't exactly true because one side or another can tweak it (call all the friends to respond or have 10 different socks one can vote with)

The funny is Johnson obviously doesn't understand twitter

[abbey1227]

Jan 22, 2022 22:13:38 GMT merh said:

Jan 22, 2022 14:38:16 GMT abbey1227 said:

How many Congressmen from those same areas?

Seems like a wonderful idea to have 2 or 3 States dictate to the other 47 how to live their lives, right? Can we take turns, too........to be fair?

Or maybe just change the filibuster back to where they actually have to stand there the entire time instead of where they have moved it to?

Or even get rid of it.

So you're going with Chuckie Schumer's latest speech? Not his earlier one?

[abbey1227]

Jan 22, 2022 22:30:21 GMT merh said:

But while Twitter polls aren't useful for gauging public opinion, this one was useful for dunking on a Republican Senator, and people soon alerted their followers of their participation.

No.
Swallwell didn't set it up.
Johnson did.
But it is an internet poll.
Internet polls aren't exactly true because one side or another can tweak it (call all the friends to respond or have 10 different socks one can vote with)

The funny is Johnson obviously doesn't understand twitter

Exactly my thoughts. Johnson was foolish for even bothering. Didn't Twitter pretty much ban all conservatives this past year or so? Or they left for Rumble voluntarily?

And besides that, there was that professor going around with his study that showed how online interference can alter the outcomes of perception, polls and even elections.

[merh]

Gonna celebrate?
Yeah, they're being made in China....

[merh]

Jan 23, 2022 1:32:48 GMT abbey1227 said:

Jan 22, 2022 22:30:21 GMT merh said:

No.
Swallwell didn't set it up.
Johnson did.
But it is an internet poll.
Internet polls aren't exactly true because one side or another can tweak it (call all the friends to respond or have 10 different socks one can vote with)

The funny is Johnson obviously doesn't understand twitter

Exactly my thoughts. Johnson was foolish for even bothering. Didn't Twitter pretty much ban all conservatives this past year or so? Or they left for Rumble voluntarily?

And besides that, there was that professor going around with his study that showed how online interference can alter the outcomes of perception, polls and even elections.

Wait...
Ive been telling you about Russian troll farms since 2016 
But now it's a thing?

[abbey1227]

Jan 27, 2022 23:25:02 GMT merh said:

Jan 23, 2022 1:32:48 GMT abbey1227 said:

Exactly my thoughts. Johnson was foolish for even bothering. Didn't Twitter pretty much ban all conservatives this past year or so? Or they left for Rumble voluntarily?

And besides that, there was that professor going around with his study that showed how online interference can alter the outcomes of perception, polls and even elections.

Wait...
Ive been telling you about Russian troll farms since 2016 
But now it's a thing?

Your argument since 2016 is that Russia was able to get Trump elected. Are you convinced now that China got Biden in?

C'mon....... I'm laughing at the notion that some Facebook ads changed anyone's mind about anything. We've been arguing for years on these forums......how often does anyone get their mind changed?

[merh]

Jan 28, 2022 2:24:24 GMT abbey1227 said:

Jan 27, 2022 23:25:02 GMT merh said:

Wait...
Ive been telling you about Russian troll farms since 2016 
But now it's a thing?

Your argument since 2016 is that Russia was able to get Trump elected. Are you convinced now that China got Biden in?

C'mon....... I'm laughing at the notion that some Facebook ads changed anyone's mind about anything. We've been arguing for years on these forums......how often does anyone get their mind changed?

Don't you discuss the ignorance & stupidity of the public?

I am waiting for the theory the government collapsed that bridge in Pennsylvania ahead of Biden’s infrastructure speech today.

[abbey1227]

Jan 28, 2022 21:12:14 GMT merh said:

Jan 28, 2022 2:24:24 GMT abbey1227 said:

Your argument since 2016 is that Russia was able to get Trump elected. Are you convinced now that China got Biden in?

C'mon....... I'm laughing at the notion that some Facebook ads changed anyone's mind about anything. We've been arguing for years on these forums......how often does anyone get their mind changed?

Don't you discuss the ignorance & stupidity of the public?

I am waiting for the theory the government collapsed that bridge in Pennsylvania ahead of Biden’s infrastructure speech today.

Yes, I do. What does that have to do with political preferences? There's crazy and stupid on both sides of the aisle.......I still don't think many minds are being changed.

Ha! I thought that same thing.    If only Buttigieg had been on it

[merh]

Jan 29, 2022 13:26:23 GMT abbey1227 said:

Jan 28, 2022 21:12:14 GMT merh said:

Don't you discuss the ignorance & stupidity of the public?

I am waiting for the theory the government collapsed that bridge in Pennsylvania ahead of Biden’s infrastructure speech today.

Yes, I do. What does that have to do with political preferences? There's crazy and stupid on both sides of the aisle.......I still don't think many minds are being changed.

Ha! I thought that same thing.    If only Buttigieg had been on it

So Chinese thermostats got Biden elected?

[abbey1227]

Jan 30, 2022 0:50:12 GMT merh said:

Jan 29, 2022 13:26:23 GMT abbey1227 said:

Yes, I do. What does that have to do with political preferences? There's crazy and stupid on both sides of the aisle.......I still don't think many minds are being changed.

Ha! I thought that same thing.    If only Buttigieg had been on it

So Chinese thermostats got Biden elected?

No, but a shyteton of Big Pharma, Google, Amazon and Facebook money sure helped. Throw in the BS absentee ballots and shady counting room shenanigans all combined? Yeah, the MOST popular president ever.     pffft

Just tiny Green Bay alone got over $1 Million from Zuckerberg. Look at all the money they spend on elections.......but actually donating directly to workers or people? Not so much.

How quickly you guys forgot your disdain for those wealthy and overly powerful companies, huh? I guess your hate for Trump trumped that position.

[merh]

Jan 30, 2022 1:21:23 GMT abbey1227 said:

Jan 30, 2022 0:50:12 GMT merh said:

So Chinese thermostats got Biden elected?

No, but a shyteton of Big Pharma, Google, Amazon and Facebook money sure helped. Throw in the BS absentee ballots and shady counting room shenanigans all combined? Yeah, the MOST popular president ever.     pffft

Just tiny Green Bay alone got over $1 Million from Zuckerberg. Look at all the money they spend on elections.......but actually donating directly to workers or people? Not so much.

How quickly you guys forgot your disdain for those wealthy and overly powerful companies, huh? I guess your hate for Trump trumped that position.

Is Zuckerberg a Republican or Democrat?
Zuckerberg is registered to vote in Santa Clara County, California, but he does not identify himself as being affiliated with the Republican or Democratic party.

"I think it's hard to affiliate as being either a Democrat or a Republican. I'm pro-knowledge economy," he previously said.

So he is registered independent

Why do you think he's Democrat?

His "charity" seems reactive, aimed at garnering a positive view

Look at how the joke about him is he is awkward interacting with humans.

[merh]