California Democrats got their legislative supermajorities

[RINO Tom]

Reminder that the 2/3 to raise taxes law is stupid.

Yep.
While we are at it why not we require a 2/3 to cut taxes to be fair?
*conservative Republicans go insane upon hearing this*

Because most people would consider a tax cut a good thing and raising taxes to be a bad thing?

[RINO Tom]

I should be living in California.  It has it's sh*t together.

But but but you're just a Democrat because you are so educated and enlightened and you hate taxes and regulations, friend!!  Cali ain't fer you (that's how I talk, as a Republican).

[RINO Tom]

I should be living in California.  It has it's sh*t together.

But but but you're just a Democrat because you are so educated and enlightened and you hate taxes and regulations, friend!!  Cali ain't fer you (that's how I talk, as a Republican).

When CalExits I won't have to continue paying a 33% rate to fix your roads and bridges by the mill my friend.

Uh, California isn't paying for a road or bridge by a mill in the Midwest, genius.  They have a hard time paying for their own things.

Find the most elitist liberal (should be an oxymoron) in the entire world with even half a brain and they will tell you that the basic idea of economic "liberalism" (as in, the economic policies put forth by modern American liberals) - that egalitarian polices will help everyone and lead to a better society - literally REQUIRES higher taxes.  Those taxes are usually boogeymanned onto the "rich," but they WILL be raised to fund such a vision in any case.  Period.

[RINO Tom]

I should be living in California.  It has it's sh*t together.

But but but you're just a Democrat because you are so educated and enlightened and you hate taxes and regulations, friend!!  Cali ain't fer you (that's how I talk, as a Republican).

When CalExits I won't have to continue paying a 33% rate to fix your roads and bridges by the mill my friend.

Uh, California isn't paying for a road or bridge by a mill in the Midwest, genius.  They have a hard time paying for their own things.

Find the most elitist liberal (should be an oxymoron) in the entire world with even half a brain and they will tell you that the basic idea of economic "liberalism" (as in, the economic policies put forth by modern American liberals) - that egalitarian polices will help everyone and lead to a better society - literally REQUIRES higher taxes.  Those taxes are usually boogeymanned onto the "rich," but they WILL be raised to fund such a vision in any case.  Period.

Another brilliant post.  You do realize how federal funding for highways and bridges works right?  No I guess you don't. 

Haha, I will stop trolling you if you will admit just how out of line you are with your part on economic justice.  It's fine, I guess, but you are not going to get the Democratic Party to come around to stop pushing for progressive economic policies, wealth redistribution and a more strongly regulated economy anytime soon ... in fact, it appears the party is pretty damn committed to heading in the other direction.

If you are fine being the odd duck (I certainly am fine being an odd duck in a socially conservative party), that's cool.  But stop pretending there is this legion of people who are only Democrats because of social issues and don't care about things like regulating Wall Street or raising the minimum wage and want to cut taxes ... there isn't.  Even affluent Democrats buy into the vision of the party, which apparently you don't.

[RINO Tom]

Reminder that the 2/3 to raise taxes law is stupid.

Yep.
While we are at it why not we require a 2/3 to cut taxes to be fair?
*conservative Republicans go insane upon hearing this*

Because most people would consider a tax cut a good thing and raising taxes to be a bad thing?

There is nothing inheritly evil about a tax increase, or a tax cut. Reducing federal tax revenue is a morally neutral concept.

Well I didn't necessarily disagree, I just provided insight into why a bunch of representatives elected by a bunch of people would never go for a two-thirds threshold for lowering taxes.

[RINO Tom]

Reminder that the 2/3 to raise taxes law is stupid.

Yep.
While we are at it why not we require a 2/3 to cut taxes to be fair?
*conservative Republicans go insane upon hearing this*

Because most people would consider a tax cut a good thing and raising taxes to be a bad thing?

There is nothing inheritly evil about a tax increase, or a tax cut. Reducing federal tax revenue is a morally neutral concept.

Well I didn't necessarily disagree, I just provided insight into why a bunch of representatives elected by a bunch of people would never go for a two-thirds threshold for lowering taxes.

To be fair, I was satirizing the idea of a two-thirds requirement for cutting taxes. It was never a serious suggestion, placing the same requirement on tax cuts. It would be a terrible one as well. Increases and decreases in tax levels should be treated the same in this order of things.

I think, all things considered, the burden should be on the politicians to convince the voters that a given tax increase would provide benefits for them that would outweigh the reduction in their income, but I suppose I agree in concept.