• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Willbacker said:
Sure it could've been better RM and as Marylanders in a high tax state it does not benefit us on our returns. It just gives us more money in our pockets come paycheck time to invest as we want. I'd advise putting extra in a taxfree Roth so the govt cant get their hands on it but that's me. There's only two conservative outlets on TV that I know of and that's FOX and America 1. You ever wonder why Fox is always rated #1 and by a lot. Its not cuz they're really the best. Its just that they're the only outlet for conservatives. So when you say you listen to all kinds of outlets its all left except for Fox. Now on all these outlets have you ever heard anything good about Trump? See Fox has bashed Trump.



How long did it take you to figger out what was added to the bill? Guarantee by Monday the Dems would still be saying they needed more time. All they do is obstruct and delay. The Dems already knew 99% of the bill which they refused to help negotiate it and they already said no. Both the Senate and the House versions were already on several websites except for those changes.

The Republicans would have to answer if there's addons/sp interests not reported and I'd be first in line. I really don't do politics on weekends except for yesterday it seemed since I had to get some info lol but lets just see what the finished product is. That's the one that matters.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is not about Republicans versus Democrats. I am talking about a flawed process and doing the right thing.
 
29BmoreBird22 said:
Not so sure on either of these points. Most of these bills are thousands of pages long and the senators don't actually read them. They rely on a team of people to read it for them and highlight key points.

And this bill doesn't only have to do with taxes. There's probably tons of other small little changes thrown in here and there that have NOTHING to do with taxes.
Click to expand...

case in point: the bill sneaks in the new ability to give licences for drilling companies to drill in a protected wildlife preserve in alaska
 
rossihunter2 said:
case in point: the bill sneaks in the new ability to give licences for drilling companies to drill in a protected wildlife preserve in alaska
Click to expand...
They know damn well senators and representatives do not read the entire bill and they put in shit that has nothing to do with the actual bill to protect the interest of lobbyists.
 
29BmoreBird22 said:
They know damn well senators and representatives do not read the entire bill and they put in shit that has nothing to do with the actual bill to protect the interest of lobbyists.
Click to expand...

that one pisses me off so much because its so short-sighted - i genuinely wonder if social conservatism will die out in the next 30 years because our generation cant afford to be conservative if we want a habitable planet - global warming and the impact of climate change is pressing and yet essentially this tax bill allows rich guys to plunder one of the few unruined places left just for fossil fuels which are gonna destroy the earth - its a slap in the face
 
rossihunter2 said:
and what were the republicans doing for obama's entire presidency except obstructing and delaying?
Click to expand...

Obstructing. Yes. Delaying. No.

rossihunter2 said:
case in point: the bill sneaks in the new ability to give licences for drilling companies to drill in a protected wildlife preserve in alaska
Click to expand...

If this is the case then I have a major problem with it since this has nothing to do with taxes. When the bill gets finalized we'll revisit this if you can locate it in the bill. I will not take a liberal websites word for it tho. I would want pg # on actual finalized document.
 
Willbacker said:
Obstructing. Yes. Delaying. No.



If this is the case then I have a major problem with it since this has nothing to do with taxes. When the bill gets finalized we'll revisit this if you can locate it in the bill. I will not take a liberal websites word for it tho. I would want pg # on actual finalized document.
Click to expand...

not sure how i would find that but its an issue that has been paraded around by alaskan republicans for decades and now has been slipped through via the backdoor in a hastily written tax bill that no one was able to read all of - what's worse is it was essentially bribery given that senator murkowski made this one point a condition of her support of the tax bill...
 
You know, I'm really drunk right now so I'm just gonna say it. This thread was horrible idea and I am a terrible person,
Enjoy
 
rossihunter2 said:
not sure how i would find that but its an issue that has been paraded around by alaskan republicans for decades and now has been slipped through via the backdoor in a hastily written tax bill that no one was able to read all of - what's worse is it was essentially bribery given that senator murkowski made this one point a condition of her support of the tax bill...
Click to expand...

Yes I do know what you're talking about now but I'd be surprised if its actually in the tax bill itself since it has nothing to do with taxes. They also made a promise to Flakey to try to do something about DACA.
 
Willbacker said:
Yes I do know what you're talking about now but I'd be surprised if its actually in the tax bill itself since it has nothing to do with taxes. They also made a promise to Flakey to try to do something about DACA.
Click to expand...

that's exactly my point - it shouldnt be in the tax bill since it has nothing to do with taxes and yet it is part of the senate's tax bill
 
Willbacker said:
We don't agree much but on this one I 1,000% agree with you. This is a friggin tax bill. Hopefully this article might cheer you up. Remember this bill is not a foregone conclusion yet and I strongly feel this should be eliminated.

https://www.ecowatch.com/anwr-drilling-bill-2513765485.html
Click to expand...

and this is why giving any senators (be they inherent supporters of the tax bill or not) the finished documents more than 2 hours (or even 24 hours) in advance of a debate and vote should be common sense and a given because whatever you think of the tax bill fiscally (and you know my personal opinion of it) this makes it lose reputability which angers democrats and those who hate the bill and undermines republicans and those who like and support the bill

if this bill is able to be fully digested before the debate this bit of legislation doesnt make it into the bill and therefore doesnt potentially put the bill in danger after the vote...

common sense - not even political because it helps neither side for these bits of legislation to be snuck into the bill unlawfully and nefariously
 
rossihunter2 said:
and this is why giving any senators (be they inherent supporters of the tax bill or not) the finished documents more than 2 hours (or even 24 hours) in advance of a debate and vote should be common sense and a given because whatever you think of the tax bill fiscally (and you know my personal opinion of it) this makes it lose reputability which angers democrats and those who hate the bill and undermines republicans and those who like and support the bill

if this bill is able to be fully digested before the debate this bit of legislation doesnt make it into the bill and therefore doesnt potentially put the bill in danger after the vote...

common sense - not even political because it helps neither side for these bits of legislation to be snuck into the bill unlawfully and nefariously
Click to expand...

Well to me the smart thing would have been to request in laymens terms what was added to the bill basically what did you do to appease the senators that were originally a no but it seems to me nobody knows simplicity anymore. In other words what are the damn changes. Everyone knew what the structures were.

Also I wouldn't worry this was just used to get her vote cuz she cant back out now.
 
Willbacker said:
Well to me the smart thing would have been to request in laymens terms what was added to the bill basically what did you do to appease the senators that were originally a no but it seems to me nobody knows simplicity anymore. In other words what are the damn changes. Everyone knew what the structures were.

Also I wouldn't worry this was just used to get her vote cuz she cant back out now.
Click to expand...

if im honest though, part of the reason the bill was rushed through was so that these small changes would mostly sneak through unnoticed to curry favour with a particular lobbyist group/senator for a specific region so there's nothing to gain from the bill makers telling everyone the changes - which is all the more reason why they shouldnt have had so little time to analyse and discuss the bill before the vote - this absolutely is pure politics at its worst
 
rossihunter2 said:
if im honest though, part of the reason the bill was rushed through was so that these small changes would mostly sneak through unnoticed to curry favour with a particular lobbyist group/senator for a specific region so there's nothing to gain from the bill makers telling everyone the changes - which is all the more reason why they shouldnt have had so little time to analyse and discuss the bill before the vote - this absolutely is pure politics at its worst
Click to expand...

If asked there should be no changes hid. That constitutes lying imo. The House also has not agreed to this and there will also be a major fight with enviromentalists. I will be shocked and saddened ( since this is not tax related imo ) if it passes. I truly don't believe it will.
 
Willbacker said:
If this is the case then I have a major problem with it since this has nothing to do with taxes. When the bill gets finalized we'll revisit this if you can locate it in the bill. I will not take a liberal websites word for it tho. I would want pg # on actual finalized document.
Click to expand...
In my experience stuff like that comes in the form of "Pursuant to section 63.4(a)(III)(iv) of the Industrial Regulation Code 1973, section 62.1(a)(IV) shall no longer be applicable when filing a tax code pursuant to section 6a of the Inland Revenue Act 1932 and section 27(a)(I) of the Corporation Reform Act 1986". And then you cross-reference that with the Industrial Regulation Code 1973 and it turns out section 63.4(a)(III)(iv) was just written to supercede a provision in the Industrial Regulation Code 1956, and so on. And once you get through all of that, you find that one of the provisions was about environmental regulation and another simply defined who and what would be subject to said regulations and under what circumstances, and one of those other regulations classifies the Arctic Circle as protected or what have you.

200 pages of that will make your head spin, and that's assuming none of the cross-referenced legislation is old enough to involve thees and thous. I spent a little time covering that stuff for the flagship paper here and I found it so much easier to simply wait for the Select Committee phase (which over here is a phase between the bill's second reading and its third, and it gives everyone a set window to write in to a committee with their thoughts on the legislation and how it would be interpreted. I'm not sure what the US equivalent of that is or if it would kick in for a tax bill like this) and make a couple of phone calls to the law firms that had made submissions. But it really goes back to @Somerset Ravens' point about not rushing the process, especially for something that affects so many people in the US and the rest of the world.
 
Willbacker said:
Well to me the smart thing would have been to request in laymens terms what was added to the bill basically what did you do to appease the senators that were originally a no but it seems to me nobody knows simplicity anymore. In other words what are the damn changes. Everyone knew what the structures were.

Also I wouldn't worry this was just used to get her vote cuz she cant back out now.
Click to expand...

Inqui said:
In my experience stuff like that comes in the form of "Pursuant to section 63.4(a)(III)(iv) of the Industrial Regulation Code 1973, section 62.1(a)(IV) shall no longer be applicable when filing a tax code pursuant to section 6a of the Inland Revenue Act 1932 and section 27(a)(I) of the Corporation Reform Act 1986". And then you cross-reference that with the Industrial Regulation Code 1973 and it turns out section 63.4(a)(III)(iv) was just written to supercede a provision in the Industrial Regulation Code 1956, and so on. And once you get through all of that, you find that one of the provisions was about environmental regulation and another simply defined who and what would be subject to said regulations and under what circumstances, and one of those other regulations classifies the Arctic Circle as protected or what have you.

200 pages of that will make your head spin, and that's assuming none of the cross-referenced legislation is old enough to involve thees and thous. I spent a little time covering that stuff for the flagship paper here and I found it so much easier to simply wait for the Select Committee phase (which over here is a phase between the bill's second reading and its third, and it gives everyone a set window to write in to a committee with their thoughts on the legislation and how it would be interpreted. I'm not sure what the US equivalent of that is or if it would kick in for a tax bill like this) and make a couple of phone calls to the law firms that had made submissions. But it really goes back to @Somerset Ravens' point about not rushing the process, especially for something that affects so many people in the US and the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

As I said before we all know the Dems were all a no but yes you should know whats also in a bill. I'm not disagreeing but you can also reference my above quote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top