Jump to content

US politics


The Progressive

Recommended Posts

If it prompts growth in the private sector, yes. Because the net effect will be increased tax revenues.

A trickle-down effect then, right Scot?

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much evidence supporting your premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, semantically, you can legitimately say the Obama Administration did not cause the taxes to increase as they have nothing to do with the sunset provision.

This is perhaps the part that amuses me most.

In their zeal to defend obama at all costs, there is a segment of the population that misses the subtlety of the actual talking point 'we aren't raising taxes' into something even more absurd 'this isn't a tax increase'.

At least the original talking point is marginally factual.

Pedantic, deceptive and meaningless, but at least factual.

This notion that 'It's not a tax increase at all!' takes it all the way into the realm of the absurd, since no one seems to even be disputing the fact that taxes will, in fact, go up should the tax cuts lapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This notion that 'It's not a tax increase at all!' takes it all the way into the realm of the absurd, since no one seems to even be disputing the fact that taxes will, in fact, go up should the tax cuts lapse.

Wasn't the tax cut supposed to be temporary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A trickle-down effect then, right Scot?

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much evidence supporting your premise.

In fact, the wealthier a person is, the more likely that money from a tax cut is going to be saved rather then spent, which is the exact opposite of what you want to happen.

This notion that 'It's not a tax increase at all!' takes it all the way into the realm of the absurd, since no one seems to even be disputing the fact that taxes will, in fact, go up should the tax cuts lapse.

Indeed. Taxes are going up.

The only relevant questions are "On who?" (mostly the well off as far as I've ever seen, unless the plan has changed) and "Is it a good idea?" (Yes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the tax cut supposed to be temporary?

i suppose that depends who you ask.

But again, making the case for the need for a tax increase is entirely different than denying that letting the tax cuts lapse is a tax increase.

The former can at least be legitimately argued, the latter is just nosensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ser Rep.,

The tax cuts were passed via reconcilation to beat a fillabuster. The sunset provision was required because it passed via reconcillation. Therefore, I don't think it's quite fair to say the Republicans wanted the cuts to sunset or as a temporary measure. That was simply the only way they could get them passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ser Rep.,

The tax cuts were passed via reconcilation to beat a fillabuster. The sunset provision was required because it passed via reconcillation. Therefore, I don't think it's quite fair to say the Republicans wanted the cuts to sunset or as a temporary measure. That was simply the only way they could get them passed.

That's a bit dastardly of an evasion, doncha'think? I mean, they (The GOP) did sign on the dotted line and they (various GOPs and even some Democrats) did use that for campaign fodder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me a bleeding heart liberal or whatever the hell you want, but for some reason I'm just not feeling bad about these expiring tax cuts for the richest percentage of Americans after almost a decade of those richest percentage of Americans getting richer while just about everyone else continues to struggle.

And since we're talking about it, I can't believe Democrats went and used that evil, heartless, vile, most un-constitutional of practices, Reconciliation, to pass tax cuts for the richest Americans. All on Dubya's watch too... oh wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swordfish,

But again, making the case for the need for a tax increase is entirely different than denying that letting the tax cuts lapse is a tax increase.

The former can at least be legitimately argued, the latter is just nosensical.

Well, it could also be considered simply restoring the status quo ante. :dunno:

Scot,

The tax cuts were passed via reconcilation to beat a fillabuster. The sunset provision was required because it passed via reconcillation. Therefore, I don't think it's quite fair to say the Republicans wanted the cuts to sunset or as a temporary measure. That was simply the only way they could get them passed.

So? The fact is that they had to at least pretend that the tax cuts are temporary in order to get them passed. The new administration is now simply taking the Republicans at their (pretend) word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This notion that 'It's not a tax increase at all!' takes it all the way into the realm of the absurd, since no one seems to even be disputing the fact that taxes will, in fact, go up should the tax cuts lapse.

A good example of removing an issue from context and looking at it through a teeny, tiny microscope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Still, if the previous condition was one of higher taxes, then restoring it is a tax increase. So the point still stands.

A good example of removing an issue from context and looking at it through a teeny, tiny microscope.

A good example of a vague and meaningless post adding nothing to the topic at hand, while at the same time ignoring the actual posts being discussed that make the posters intent to disparage rather moot and comically transparent.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I have no idea what this means.

I think it means they are trying to jerk you around with pointless semantics. Tax rates on the vast majority of taxpayers will increase, and I don't think anyone except some political junkies will care whether it was because the Administration increased them, or because it didn't stop the increase. The distinction is meaningless drivel to the people who have to pay those higher taxes.

But I would love to hear the Administration try to explain the increase in rates on that basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feds sue to overturn Arizona immigration law

From the article:

Justice Department lawyers argued that the state statute should be declared invalid because it has improperly preempted federal law.

"In our constitutional system, the power to regulate immigration is exclusively vested in the federal government," the brief states.

"The immigration framework set forth by Congress and administered by federal agencies reflects a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian concerns -- concerns that belong to the nation as a whole, not a single state."

"The Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country. Although a state may adopt regulations that have an indirect or incidental effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with federal immigration law. The State of Arizona has crossed this constitutional line."

President Barack Obama said in a speech July 1 that the measure has "fanned the flames of an already contentious debate." Among other things, it puts pressure on police officers to enforce rules that are "unenforceable" while making communities less safe -- in part, by making people more reluctant to report crimes, he said.

It also has "the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...