In article ,
Don Homuth wrote:



The filibuster is not law -- it exists only by rule. The Rs can (and
do) change the rules whenever they wish.

Interstingly, last time I checked the rule that established the
filibuster had a super majority requirement to change it. I don't know
if the rules automatically expire at the end of a Congress or if that
requirement still stands (or if it was renewed and still stands).
The rules also state that you can't filibuster a rules change. You
will note, BTW, that they did not have the votes to change the rule.

No, the GDP is a good measure of relevance. It's like the P/E
ratio of a corporation.

It's nothing like that at all, and even Trying to say so is silly.
Right GDP is much closer to sales, although it is also a really
lousy analogy too. GDP is, well, like GDP.


Al yagodda do is float the proposal, and see where it goes. There is
a political outcome to doing that. All that needs to make it happen
is for the Rs to agree on it, and the Ds can't stop it.

Of course they can. They can still filibuster.

So -- why don't they do what you demand?

And it doesn't really matter how reducing it is accomplished --
increased taxation and/or reduced spending. Each comes with a
political cost that Borrow and Spend is designed never to pay.

If certainly does matter. Have you loons ever heard of the "Laffer
curve"? We're still on the negative slope (cut taxes and revenues
increase; raise them and revenues will fall).

Nonsense. No one knows Where the eponymously titled Laffer Curve is,
else it would be simple simply to set the tax rate at the point of
maximum revenues and be done with it.

That is assuming that taxes are only a form of revenue generation,
which they aren't. They are (for both sides) an attempt at social
engineering, punishing some behaviors and rewarding others and all sorts
of sideshows.