WTF Since when was a 40% vote enough for a motion to pass or stall

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Totally fucked the country this morning by passing that tax extension.. $850,000,000,000.. WTF..
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,993
452
298
42
Totally fucked the country this morning by passing that tax extension.. $850,000,000,000.. WTF..

Well yes, that's true. But at least they did SOMETHING. The amount of bills the House as passed but have stalled because of delay tactics in the Senate is astonishing.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Well yes, that's true. But at least they did SOMETHING. The amount of bills the House as passed but have stalled because of delay tactics in the Senate is astonishing.

So you're happy they just did something no matter if it made the country worse?

:case:
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,993
452
298
42
So you're happy they just did something no matter if it made the country worse?

:case:

The only reason this full tax cut went through was because Obama is a terrible negotiator, giving the other side EVERYTHING they ask for with nothing in return. If the Repubs couldn't filibuster EVERYTHING, he wouldn't have had to make such a poor sacrifice and would have signed in the tax bill that had passed the House already that would have saved the $835M. So yes, better than nothing.

I blame Obama for that snafu, however.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
The only reason this full tax cut went through was because Obama is a terrible negotiator, giving the other side EVERYTHING they ask for with nothing in return. If the Repubs couldn't filibuster EVERYTHING, he wouldn't have had to make such a poor sacrifice and would have signed in the tax bill that had passed the House already that would have saved the $835M. So yes, better than nothing.

I blame Obama for that snafu, however.

I'd have rather nothing happened in this instance. This whole philosophy of spending money to spur the economy is wrong. Germany does the exact opposite and look at their economy.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
That's not what we are talking about. When a government puts forth a proposed law, you either have people who agree with it, or disagree with it.

Yes that is what we're talking about. And when government puts forth a proposed law you don't have people who simply agree or disagree. Some people disagree with only one small part of the law but agree with the rest of it. Some people agree with half the law but disagree with the rest of it. Some people don't care because the law doesn't affect them. Some people care even though the law doesn't affect them. Some people want to propose and entirely different law that has the same purpose but goes about it a different way. Some people agree with the law but disagree on how much it's going to cost. Some people disagree with the law being made at the federal level but would agree with the law being made at the state level.

To simply say that people either agree or disagree is ridiculous. Politics is not nearly that simple.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Yes that is what we're talking about. And when government puts forth a proposed law you don't have people who simply agree or disagree. Some people disagree with only one small part of the law but agree with the rest of it. Some people agree with half the law but disagree with the rest of it. Some people don't care because the law doesn't affect them. Some people care even though the law doesn't affect them. Some people want to propose and entirely different law that has the same purpose but goes about it a different way. Some people agree with the law but disagree on how much it's going to cost. Some people disagree with the law being made at the federal level but would agree with the law being made at the state level.

To simply say that people either agree or disagree is ridiculous. Politics is not nearly that simple.


:waw:

ugghh.. You can't vote "maybe" on a law. The majority vote will either be yay or nay. Follow along, Jarhead..
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Giving people their own money back is not "spending", spending is continuing to blow up other countries and giving handouts to the lazy.

It's not their money, it's the governments money. These are tax cut extensions.

And yes, the government should definitely cut spending on defence..

And not all unemployed people are lazy. But I guess Fox News has told you they are lazy so many time that you believe it..
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,395
461
648
43
Austin
Remember when Liamz called Juli lazy for being an unemployed housewife? Good times.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
:waw:

ugghh.. You can't vote "maybe" on a law. The majority vote will either be yay or nay. Follow along, Jarhead..
We don't vote on laws directly. :tard: Don't pretend we were only talking about politicians, jackass. Even they can abstain from voting, even they can tell their constituents they'll only vote for a particular bill if it has certain clauses, even they do backroom deals to vote on something they disagree with so they can get votes on something they want.

But the point remains that having a larger populations makes getting the majority to agree on something more difficult than with a smaller population. Stop moving the fucking goalposts simply because you want to argue. I was being pretty fucking civil and you had to turn up the asshole as you usually do. You are an angry person and that is sad.
 
Last edited:

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
It's not their money, it's the governments money.

no. it's the citizen's money that they let the citizens employed by the government manage. Just like everything else the citizens will determine the outcome. Years ago, to spur the economy, the citizens, employed by the gov't, decided to lower the taxes for everyone for a lengthy period of time. The fact that we are now at the end of that period and the citizens are again modifying their own tax policy is not as surprising as the democrats would like you to believe. Taxes have been addressed and modified in smaller ways over the past several years, but because the window on this current policy closes at year end it needs to be addressed. The citizens have decided that it is better for the economy if we continue at the current level.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
We don't vote on laws directly. :tard: Don't pretend we were only talking about politicians, jackass. Even they can abstain from voting, even they can tell their constituents they'll only vote for a particular bill if it has certain clauses, even they do backroom deals to vote on something they disagree with so they can get votes on something they want.

But the point remains that having a larger populations makes getting the majority to agree on something more difficult than with a smaller population. Stop moving the fucking goalposts simply because you want to argue. I was being pretty fucking civil and you had to turn up the asshole as you usually do. You are an angry person and that is sad.

You calling me an angry person is like DB calling someone gay.

I was talking about politicians and how a minimum majority vote rules in Australian politics as opposed to hear. Maybe it wasn't as clear cut as I thought it was.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
no. it's the citizen's money that they let the citizens employed by the government manage. Just like everything else the citizens will determine the outcome. Years ago, to spur the economy, the citizens, employed by the gov't, decided to lower the taxes for everyone for a lengthy period of time. The fact that we are now at the end of that period and the citizens are again modifying their own tax policy is not as surprising as the democrats would like you to believe. Taxes have been addressed and modified in smaller ways over the past several years, but because the window on this current policy closes at year end it needs to be addressed. The citizens have decided that it is better for the economy if we continue at the current level.

Yeah I know the government belong to the people, well should I should say. But there is an obvious difference between the GDP and the money in your bank account. The point is, the normal rate of money tax payers put into the GDP is currently less than it should be. You have been getting a discount for years, and now you are getting that discount for a couple more.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
FbqVh.png
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
no. it's not less that it should be. It's exactly where it should be. And, in 2 more years it is scheduled to increase - IF it's not addressed prior.

This doesn't mean the dems get to go on a spending spree calculating out 50 years worth of income and selling it to JD Wentworth for present value.

Gov't Spending needs to be reeled in significantly so the citizens can spend their own money in their own economy.

My big beef now, is that the employers and investors know that they've got to go through this whole shit again in 2 years so you'll see only marginal improvements - if any - over the next 2 years because currently their expenses are scheduled to increase in 2 years.

What would you spend on a house today if you knew that in 2 yrs your pmnts were going up.