Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
Yeah, while I try to maintain positivity where I can, there are some things where politicians vote in favor of something (or against, in some cases) where they know their vote isn't going to change the outcome.
That's why replacing Sinema (and Manchin) isn't necessarily enough. Because while I think it might change some things and get some good things passed, it's still going to be a struggle to get what actually needs to be done through.
There are probably a bunch of things that seem like they would pass if not for Sinema, but wouldn't because of stealth no's. But there are a bunch of things that actually would pass because it's just Sinema or Manchin being dicks and now we don't need them.
I look forward to the opportunity to find out which is which.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+27
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
Yeah, while I try to maintain positivity where I can, there are some things where politicians vote in favor of something (or against, in some cases) where they know their vote isn't going to change the outcome.
That's why replacing Sinema (and Manchin) isn't necessarily enough. Because while I think it might change some things and get some good things passed, it's still going to be a struggle to get what actually needs to be done through.
There are probably a bunch of things that seem like they would pass if not for Sinema, but wouldn't because of stealth no's. But there are a bunch of things that actually would pass because it's just Sinema or Manchin being dicks and now we don't need them.
I look forward to the opportunity to find out which is which.
Nothing would destroy Sinema’s smug ass more than a 52nd democrat in the senate.
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
Yeah, while I try to maintain positivity where I can, there are some things where politicians vote in favor of something (or against, in some cases) where they know their vote isn't going to change the outcome.
That's why replacing Sinema (and Manchin) isn't necessarily enough. Because while I think it might change some things and get some good things passed, it's still going to be a struggle to get what actually needs to be done through.
There are probably a bunch of things that seem like they would pass if not for Sinema, but wouldn't because of stealth no's. But there are a bunch of things that actually would pass because it's just Sinema or Manchin being dicks and now we don't need them.
I look forward to the opportunity to find out which is which.
And it's not like there aren't still major structural issues and forces in opposition to doing a bunch of things we would like to see happen. The larger the margin the more you can pit folks against each other to try and hammer out something better. But structural forces in opposition strike me as far more explanatory than the 'rotating villain' theory.
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
Yeah, while I try to maintain positivity where I can, there are some things where politicians vote in favor of something (or against, in some cases) where they know their vote isn't going to change the outcome.
That's why replacing Sinema (and Manchin) isn't necessarily enough. Because while I think it might change some things and get some good things passed, it's still going to be a struggle to get what actually needs to be done through.
There are probably a bunch of things that seem like they would pass if not for Sinema, but wouldn't because of stealth no's. But there are a bunch of things that actually would pass because it's just Sinema or Manchin being dicks and now we don't need them.
I look forward to the opportunity to find out which is which.
Yeah there's definitely some people happy for her to take the heat
+3
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
Yeah, while I try to maintain positivity where I can, there are some things where politicians vote in favor of something (or against, in some cases) where they know their vote isn't going to change the outcome.
That's why replacing Sinema (and Manchin) isn't necessarily enough. Because while I think it might change some things and get some good things passed, it's still going to be a struggle to get what actually needs to be done through.
There are probably a bunch of things that seem like they would pass if not for Sinema, but wouldn't because of stealth no's. But there are a bunch of things that actually would pass because it's just Sinema or Manchin being dicks and now we don't need them.
I look forward to the opportunity to find out which is which.
Nothing would destroy Sinema’s smug ass more than a 52nd democrat in the senate.
Honestly she’d just move into obscurity. But we need a 52nd Dem. Honestly for a really progressive agenda. Probably need a 55th Democrat.
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
Yeah, while I try to maintain positivity where I can, there are some things where politicians vote in favor of something (or against, in some cases) where they know their vote isn't going to change the outcome.
That's why replacing Sinema (and Manchin) isn't necessarily enough. Because while I think it might change some things and get some good things passed, it's still going to be a struggle to get what actually needs to be done through.
There are probably a bunch of things that seem like they would pass if not for Sinema, but wouldn't because of stealth no's. But there are a bunch of things that actually would pass because it's just Sinema or Manchin being dicks and now we don't need them.
I look forward to the opportunity to find out which is which.
And it's not like there aren't still major structural issues and forces in opposition to doing a bunch of things we would like to see happen. The larger the margin the more you can pit folks against each other to try and hammer out something better. But structural forces in opposition strike me as far more explanatory than the 'rotating villain' theory.
I am cynical enough to think the rotating villain thing happens at least occasionally, but probably not as often as it's sometimes credited.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Some Sinema idiocy might lead to changes in the tax provisions. She may have fallen for the GOP's bellyaching over private equity because of fucking course she would.
The scuttle is exempting private equity from the 15% min corporate tax. John Thune proposed this amendment.
The 15% Corporate Minimum tax is meant to be (and was negotiated by Secretary Yellen to be) a global minimum rate to prevent all the stupid shell games, Double Irish, &c. shenanigans. So of course that's what they'd try to undermine.
Reading an article from PBS NewsHour that brings this back up.
Surprising no one, Sinema is very much in this for her own money/power:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat who single-handedly thwarted her party’s longtime goal of raising taxes on wealthy investors, received nearly $1 million over the past year from private equity professionals, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists whose taxes would have increased under the plan.
So this is less, 'falling for GOP bellyaching' (e: from enlighted's OP) and more is full-on taking bribes to ensure we don't get meaningful tax reform on the private equity parasites.
At the same time, 49 Democratic Senators stating on record that they are in favour of abolishing the carried interest loophole is pretty huge for the next time they have a governing majority unreliant on Sinema. Admittedly that only seems to happen once a decade, but still.
Although, part of the deal may have been that they knew Sinema would kill that part.
Yeah, while I try to maintain positivity where I can, there are some things where politicians vote in favor of something (or against, in some cases) where they know their vote isn't going to change the outcome.
That's why replacing Sinema (and Manchin) isn't necessarily enough. Because while I think it might change some things and get some good things passed, it's still going to be a struggle to get what actually needs to be done through.
There are probably a bunch of things that seem like they would pass if not for Sinema, but wouldn't because of stealth no's. But there are a bunch of things that actually would pass because it's just Sinema or Manchin being dicks and now we don't need them.
I look forward to the opportunity to find out which is which.
Nothing would destroy Sinema’s smug ass more than a 52nd democrat in the senate.
Honestly she’d just move into obscurity. But we need a 52nd Dem. Honestly for a really progressive agenda. Probably need a 55th Democrat.
If we get progressive enough folks in seats we need exactly 50!
But yeah, the bigger the margin the better.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I have social plans tonight (don't act too surprised) and will probably miss when this ticks over to 100. I did actually make an effort post for the new thread, though, and don't want to have that be wasted. So:
We'll go ahead and close this early and migrate to the shiny new thread.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
There are probably a bunch of things that seem like they would pass if not for Sinema, but wouldn't because of stealth no's. But there are a bunch of things that actually would pass because it's just Sinema or Manchin being dicks and now we don't need them.
I look forward to the opportunity to find out which is which.
Nothing would destroy Sinema’s smug ass more than a 52nd democrat in the senate.
And it's not like there aren't still major structural issues and forces in opposition to doing a bunch of things we would like to see happen. The larger the margin the more you can pit folks against each other to try and hammer out something better. But structural forces in opposition strike me as far more explanatory than the 'rotating villain' theory.
Yeah there's definitely some people happy for her to take the heat
It should be said that not even the Crypt-Keeper supports anything the Republicans support.
I am cynical enough to think the rotating villain thing happens at least occasionally, but probably not as often as it's sometimes credited.
If we get progressive enough folks in seats we need exactly 50!
But yeah, the bigger the margin the better.
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/245466/the-117th-congress-of-the-united-states