HomeUncategorized8/27 Weekend News & Open Thread

Leave a Reply

Photo and Image Files
Audio and Video Files
Other File Types
29 Comment threads
27 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Don midwestwi63Bennywi63jcitybone Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

thanks, benny! 🙏🥰👏🌊🐚🐋🤓👠🌈🦄🌟


T and R, Ms. Benny!! 🐋☮️😊👍




The pandemic has caused greed and profiterring at all levels of the economy.


John Nichols

Not surprising given who these current Republicans are, but what a turn around from their roots.


Old battles have become new again,” said US Representative Terri Sewell, of Alabama, as she introduced the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act for Tuesday’s essential vote in the House. And even as the old battles are being fought anew, the old battle lines have changed as well. The Republican Party, which was once a more energetic and consistent supporter of civil rights in general and voting rights in particular than the Democrat Party, has united in grotesquely self-serving and destructive opposition to principles it historically championed.

When the House approved the voting rights measure named for civil rights icon John Lewis, every one of the 219 “yes” votes was cast by a Democrat. All 212 “no” votes came from Republicans.

Like their colleagues in the Senate, House Republicans sought to block the restoration and extension of vital sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which were weakened by rulings from a US Supreme Court dominated by right-wing judicial activists. The recalcitrance of House Republicans was all the more jarring because the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is so clearly needed—along with the proposed For the People Act—to counter a new wave of voter suppression.

“I want you to know,” said Sewell, “that the modern-day barriers to voting are no less pernicious than those literacy tests and those poll taxes. And what we must do, as we did back in the ’60s, is when we see states running amok, we need federal oversight.”

Sewell’s call to action, as someone with deep roots in the civil rights struggles of Selma and the sponsor of the bill, spoke to an essential tenet of the American experiment that Republicans once embraced. Yet, this week, not a single Republicans answered. That’s a far cry from where, in the none-too-distant past, Republicans stood on the issue.




On Tuesday afternoon, after the group secured a promise of a floor vote on the infrastructure plan by September 27, Reps. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., the leader of the rebellion; Bourdeaux; Jared Golden, D-Maine; and Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., gathered over Zoom with dozens of No Labels donors for a victory lap. “You should feel so proud, I can’t explain to you, this is the culmination of all your work. This would not have happened but for what you built,” Gottheimer told them, according to a recording of the conversation obtained by The Intercept. “It just wouldn’t have happened — hard stop. You should just feel so proud. This is your win as much as it is my win.”

The call was led by Andrew Bursky, managing partner of Atlas Holdings, a major private equity fund in Connecticut, which operates heavily in the construction and development sectors. “When it comes to their ringleader this is about one thing and one thing only: blocking tax increases on the private equity guys who fill his campaign account,” said one House source, reflecting the broadly held view among House Democrats that the effort by Gottheimer and No Labels was singularly focused on preventing tax increases on the wealthy, corporations, and tax-advantaged sectors like private equity and hedge funds. “No Labels professes to value bipartisanship, but from my experience they value ‘buypartisanship,’” said Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., a former No Labels member who resigned from the group when they declined to disclose donor identities. “Clearly they want to advocate for their donors more than good government, and that means things like corporate tax breaks and the like.”

The efforts by No Labels donors come as corporate groups have pushed to defeat the investments in combating inequality funded through taxes on the wealthy and certain business sectors. The finance industry has deployed dozens of lobbyists on Capitol Hill to block the infrastructure provisions centered on increasing taxes on private equity. Business Roundtable, which represents the chief executives of the largest publicly traded companies in America, has retained former Democratic staffers to fight the tax provisions.

Whether the House’s concession on infrastructure amounts to a win is dubious and hotly debated on Capitol Hill, but there’s no question No Labels has organized its donors to fight the taxing and spending battles of the Biden administration.

The source who provided the recording acted out of disappointment that powerful donors would come together to try to sink the side of the spending effort focused on “social economic inequities that we see in this nation.”

The broader reconciliation bill — focused on unprecedented investments in free child care, education, and health care — represents the most transformative program in decades to alleviate poverty, benefits that will disproportionately flow to many communities that have experienced systemic racism in the past. The source said the fact that No Labels would mobilize its strength to defeat such a groundbreaking proposal provided the motivation to share the recording with The Intercept.

“For every one dollar investment in the early development of a child, the returns are double digit, in terms of workforce participation, health care, longevity, crime reduction,” said the source.

“These No Labels donors are overwhelmingly old, rich and white people, from finance and from Wall Street,” the source added, noting that deficit concerns are only raised in the context of spending, not when taxes on the rich are slashed. “They don’t mind the tax cuts [they got previously]. And they don’t talk about ‘pay-fors’ when it’s a tax cut. They only care when it’s a program to confront systemic racism that is embedded in the numbers in terms of poverty.”


SAFE seems like an ally to No Labels, out to protect the wealthy from tax increases, using CorpDems as their faces.


Former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) is leading a new effort to push back against proposals to tax capital gains at death, as the Biden administration and Democratic lawmakers seek to make such a change to help pay for their spending priorities.

“I think it’s wrong as a matter of economics, looking at middle class families, but I also think that for the Democratic Party, this is a path that should not be walked politically,” Heitkamp said in a phone interview with The Hill.

Heitkamp, who served in the Senate from 2013-2019, is chair of a new nonprofit called Save America’s Family Enterprises (SAFE), which is launching a six-figure ad campaign.

The launch of the new group comes after the House passed a $3.5 trillion budget resolution that will allow Democrats to pass a social-spending package without any Republican votes. Democrats are now focusing on crafting the legislation, which they want to pay for through tax increases on wealthy individuals and corporations.

One way Democrats are looking to raise revenue is by changing the tax treatment of capital gains at death. Currently, capital gains are not taxed at death, and when heirs sell assets they inherited, they only have to pay taxes on the difference between the sales price and value of the investment when they received it, a concept known as “stepped-up basis.” Biden and a number of congressional Democrats have proposed ending stepped-up basis and taxing capital gains at death, with a $1 million exclusion.

Supporters of taxing capital gains at death argue that doing so would help to prevent wealthy Americans from avoiding taxes.

But Heitkamp argued that it would force sales of family-owned businesses and farms, as well as family-owned properties such as vacation homes. She also argued that the proposals could hurt minority-owned businesses.

“Now that we see an emerging entrepreneurial class within the Hispanic community and within the African American community, they won’t be able to take advantage of these tax rules that will allow them to grow their business and keep capital in their business,” she said.

Heitkamp also said that taxing capital gains at death carries political risks for Democrats, referencing a poll SAFE conducted that found that more voters were opposed to a bill on this topic than supported it.

“I think it won’t be well-received by the public,” she said.

Biden has proposed protecting family-owned farms and businesses from taxes by deferring taxes on these assets as long as they remain family-owned and operated. The president’s proposal also would exempt the first $1 million of gains per person.

Heitkamp said that many Americans may think that wealthy and well-connected people will most likely benefit from any exemptions.

SAFE’s ads highlight examples of business owners whose families would be impacted by a bill that has been introduced to tax capital gains at death. The ads are expected to run in Washington D.C. as well as “politically relevant media markets around the country,” according to a news release from the group.

It was not immediately clear who is funding SAFE. A spokesperson for the group said that it does not have to disclose its donors because it is a 501(c)(4) organization.

SAFE isn’t the only group to criticize Democrats’ proposals to tax capital gains at death. Many Republican lawmakers and business groups have done so as well.


It does seem like there are more obvious ways like making billionaires just pay a higher tax rate, and making this the fight deflect from that, but sure, this would help.


The stepped up basis on death is a prime way the wealthy use to pass their wealth down to heirs without worrying too much about taxes.


so did the progressives fold? i’m not up on this.


si it looks like tha is that same agreement from a couple of days ago that doesn’t mean much. tbh idk. will take more time later.


No we are on to the fight with the “moderates” to lower the price tag and limit more taxes on the wealthy.


so is this set in stone? thx 4 ur patience. :0)




Waukeska county in WI. AKA Walkersha county, Deep red and it has its share of low income family’s. Thats where a lot of well off landed after they left Milwaukee long ago



Military Contractor CACI Says Afghanistan Withdrawal Is Hurting Its Profits. It’s Funding a Pro-War Think Tank.

The big four historical “sugar daddies” of the conservative movement in the US includes the Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, the Olin Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. All of these foundations are deeply connected to the military industrial complex, from manufacturing, to oil and metals, to chemicals, to avionics and weapons, to international security and foreign policy.

Then these companies tell thier congresscritters that they want american troops to go back in to Afganistan and of course the weapons of mass decption give it major coverage. Not a damn one of them care about the bodybags comming home. Its all about the greed


Where’s my tiny violin? Screw them!