The Republicans Could’ve Waited Until After the Entrée | The West Wing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 чер 2024
- “They’re going to miss hot pumpkin soup.”
Season 3 Episode 5: On The Day Before
WATCH NOW: MAX
www.max.com/shows/west-wing/3...
Subscribe now:
/ @thewestwing
This is the official “THE WEST WING” channel! Stay up to date on President Jed Bartlet and his White House staff’s most inspiring, unforgettable moments.
#TheWestWing #VoteBartlet #Drama #JedBartlet #AaronSorkin #MartinSheen
they could have left the last line in.
"send it back please."
Whoever is posting these clips cuts off the punchlines like crazy.
"hot pumpkin soup with cheese gnocchi and a chevre brioche"
Was anything you just said food? 😂
Soup. Soup is good food. 😊
I'd like to eat that
Chevre!
soup and bread.
Soup, cheesy dumplings, and bread. So the answer to your question is yes.
The scene of the aide delivering the VP’s resignation is still one of the best.
Pass or veto the NaCl.
Not sure why you wouldn't include the last line..."Send it back."
If the house successfully over rides the veto, we are weak ! This should be on a tee shirt!
override is a single word, for when you make that t-shirt
@@derrickstorm6976 Over ride, over-ride over time becomes overrides. It's a funny language. If it is told in pictures on the t-shirt we can avoid worry about whether it is one word, two words etc.
@@derrickstorm6976 :)
@@derrickstorm6976 😆😆
So good, and now I wish it was pumpkin season. Pumpkin anything is so good.
I was hoping it was the, "That was when I decided to kick your ass," episode - the other dinner.
YOU CUT OFF THE LAST LINE
I don't know why the do that!
Why did he have to sign it there and then? Make them wait.
That's why Sam mentioned he had ten days. Everyone knew there were ways to delay. The president was pushing the issue. He knew what way the winds were shifting, just as Leo did, but he didn't want to play games. He wanted to bring the issue to a head.
because there is no value in waiting. He waits 10 days, it gets overridden, nothing changes... it just makes them look weaker.
they literally explained it in the video
No audio
Turn your speakers on
@@BladedFish I think the speaker was one of the guests who RSVP then chose to snub the event.
@@seanwebb605 Very good
Why wouldn't you want to get rid of the death tax though? It's an insane tax idea.
But ... let's tax them one last time!!.. (That was sarcasm, in case you didn't realize it.)
The current US estate tax kicks in for inheritances valued at 13 million and above. The arguments for it are pretty obvious: revenue generation and wealth inequality reduction.
@@TurinTurambar200 Uhh no. That's the federal one. The State inheritance tax is the problem, a lot of states have upwards of 20% for all money inherited.
My state is 4.5%, which is actually a lot. It shouldn't exist at all, that money has already been taxed plenty of times previously.
@@shalashaska9946well, if that wealth was properly taxed before, maybe the inheritance tax is superfluous. . The idea is that stocked wealth does not create a sort of aristocracy.
@@Bariom_dome I mean, it may have been taxed before but upon being inhereted it is essentially becoming income to a new person. In any other situation income being paid from one individual to another is taxed, even between family members. Inheritence taxes really are no different.
It takes a Democrat to manage the government effectively and wisely.
Some fun facts for the lefties out there who think the "inheritance tax" is a good thing: It does NOT affect the super rich; their money is locked-up in assets and foundations that get them around it by and large. The people who ARE hit with this are small business owners and, especially, our dwindling population of independent farmers. Farms, on paper, are worth MASSIVE amounts of cash though in reality they operate on razor-thin margins. The real purpose of this tax is to seize their property so that companies like Monsanto can grab it up on pennies for the dollar.
This is the issue with leftist thinking. It’s always a knee-jerk reaction that fails to bother looking at the underlying facts or take unintended (sometimes VERY intended) consequences into account and that’s why their polices invariably make the situations they are trying to fix worse.
The simple fact is there are no solutions in life-only trade-offs. You need to know what you are actually getting and what you are actually giving up before you make decisions.
Some fun facts for the right-wingers who think the inheritance tax is a bad thing: Democrats once tried to create a $1 million exception to it in order to pass an inheritance tax while not affecting "small business owners" who happen to be millionaires (i.e., not really small business owners). Republicans still vetoed it because it turns out rich people have a lot of money and they want to keep it in their wealthy families and refuse to do a day's work in their life. That's why their Presidential candidates are people who come from money, like the Bushes, Mitt Romney, and famous tax-cheat Donald Trump who used his wealth to commit felonies in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
Why are you writing an essay on economic theory on a youtube video comment section?
@@wthwasthat8884 I'd hardly call it an essay. I wrote it because it's relevant and, you know, communication... Why are you taking the time to dismiss it as unreasonable; unless maybe a nerve has been struck?
@@DocFlamingo STFU and read the room.
But that isn't really true, you are basing it on your interpretation of a fictional bill. The process of the transfer of ownership of property after death has a very specific procedure. At any point the fair value of the property be calculated to the heir.