They use the term 'permanent tax cuts' - like they can *never* change

[BlueStreak]

1. This is weak.

The point is the Bush tax cuts had an expiration date. Obama's tax cuts have no expiration. They never have to come up for another vote. They will not be altered under the current political dynamic.

They are as "permanent" as the current climate. If you can show us how we can add 50 seats in the House, then I will stop calling them "permanent". But in my opinion, this cannot happen before 2022 at the earliest because of the state of Gerrymandering.

If you are just wanting to make some pedantic argument about the meaning of the word "permanent", I don't have a lot of patience for that. For all practical purposes, they are permanent for 10-20 years.

Rather than deny that, which nothing but a quixotic exercise, may I suggest you instead apply yourself to what we can realistically do to get revenues from other sources and what we can do to take control of the House?