Unveiling a completely new Senate tax bill written entirely by Republicans and lobbyists just hours before the final vote on it — how is that “Democrats refusing to work with the Majority?”
Well, that’s true. Their unwillingness to agree to vote for whatever the Republicans cooked up without consulting them is clearly obstructionist. If only they would guarantee their votes to the Republicans, think of what the Republicans could accomplish! This just shows how selfish the Democrats are. Heaven knows the Republicans would vote with the majority if they were the minority party!
A tax bill written entirely by Republicans to hit an arbitrary money goal set by Republicans in a budget resolution passed exclusively by Republicans and no Democrats were allowed to participate at any stage? Obviously Obama’s fault.
They were? I’m not saying I know you’re wrong, but I don’t recall reading this anywhere. I did a quick google search and didn’t come up with anything.
The Dems made at least one amendment that was adopted by the Senate, so they participated at least on one level.
I think it’s harder to exclude the other party in the Senate than in the House. Maybe wonky was thinking about the House, but I honestly don’t know.
Are you referring to the amendment that eliminated the tax earmark to protect the endowments of a very small number of fundamentalist Christian colleges? (Very small in this case is less than five, and perhaps only one or zero.)
Yes. I might quibble with your label of “fundamentalist”, but it’s a word that seems to get misused around here with such regularity that it hardly seems fair to single you out for it.
Shit, that ain’t much, look at how they use the word “Christian”, as if Scrooge McDuck were the Savior!
Well, as distinguished from places like Notre Dame or BYU. If you have a better term for these five, one, or zero colleges, I’m all ears.
A suggestion: Rather than getting into a debate about the best descriptor for Christian colleges, why don’t we let wonky come back into the thread and tell us what her source was that the Democrats were “not allowed to participate in the tax bill”. Or, do you know?
Yes, I’m certain I was completely being blocked by the conversation other people were having and not by my own disinterest.
Just to be clear, you’re “disinterested” in backing up the claim you made?
Yes, John. And you may put it on my permanent record.
I apologize for asking you to back up your claim in GD.
If the Senate passes the CR the House just passed, it will waive the PAYGO sequester (the reason Trump was mulling over pushing off signing this until January). I think some both in and out of Congress were hoping that waiver, or the CR itself, might drag some other legislation along with it, but we’re in a kick the can down the road sort of mood, I guess.
Eh, such requests are ignored all the time.
I didn’t ignore it! I just said no. Completely different!
This labeling was certainly used by the GOP whenever Democrats spoke of letting Bush cuts expire.
The Democrats refused to help the deficit skyrocket and facilitate a massive wealth transfer to the super-rich? How dared they?
I think you fucked up your quote and misattributed it to me.