U.S. Politics 19

[Shryke]

Ser Poss.,

I'll go further, bush spending and tax policy are responsible for a large portion of the national debt. The current deficit is all Obama.

Now, why do you think we can borrow forever without consequence?

Because you are the US and because of inflation. Now, that doesn't mean you can borrow infinitely and forever, but it does mean the US doesn't need to actually pay back all it's debt or worry that much about borrowing.

And the current deficit is due in large part to Bush tanking the economy and his party forcing his tax cuts to be extended.

[awesome possum]

Also, WHAT THE F*&K South Dakota???!!

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state's GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

"The bill in South Dakota is an invitation to murder abortion providers."

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.

[Swordfish]

On the other hand, if they were meant to be permanent, there wouldn't have been an expiration date on them.

Uh. no. The intention was to make them permanent, but they didn't have the votes.

It is a bonus because it is meant to be temporary. A pay raise is permanent. When my pay goes up 1.75% for cost of living adjustment, I do not expect that to go away next year. That'd be a pay raise. If my company issues a year-end bonus for the month of December, I should not consider that I have had a pay cut when my January pay check is the amount that is without the bonus.

Interesting.

So your argument then is that they weren't actually tax cuts.

So I assume then that you will stop referring to them as such?

What I am arguing is that people are wrong to feel that way, because they know, all along, that the tax cuts were temporary. They are now reacting like we have promised the tax cuts would be permanent. But we had not. The tax rates were always going to revert, at some time. Complaining about it as if it's wrong is so antithetical to the belief of a democratic legislative process. The laws were made so that Congress may choose to end it. Now people are acting like this is some sort of barbaric act? Imagine if the law had been to raise taxes by 1% for 2 years, and then set to sunset. Would the reaction be the same? I'd bet not.

Well, ok.

But none of that has anything to do with whether it's being called a tax increase or not.

As it stands, it is temporary, because Congress can stop extending it.

Or do you not care about laws when it comes to money?

You really have a knack for the pedantic, huh?

By your logic, all tax rates are temporary, since congress can change them at any time.

And given that, and taking your logic to it's natural conclusion, there can never be a tax increase or tax reduction, because rates change.

I've never disputed that people will be paying more taxes than they did last year should the tax cut be allowed to expire this year.

I know that.

that's what makes it so ridiculous that you refuse to use the phrase 'tax increase'.

And nothing in your post really addresses what sort of power calling this a tax increase generates that doesn't also exist by referring to it as 'Reverting back to a higher rate'.

you seem to be talking out of both sides of the argument.

I mean, it's not like the conversation would go:

Uninformed Voter: 'Dammit! they are raising my taxes!!!'

Enlightened democrat: *pats uninformed voter on the head* 'Now, now, it's not a tax increase. it's simply reverting back to a previous, higher rate. Does that help you feel better about it?

Newly enlightened voter: 'Why gee whillikers, that DOES make me feel better about paying more taxes. If it's not a tax increase, then I don't mind that! i don't mind that at all!!'

The bottom line is that the democrats don't want to be seen as being responsible for taxes going up, so Obama invented this argument that somehow a tax increase is not a tax raise.

Along with being ridiculous, I think it's hilarious because it's so obviously wouldn't really gain them anything even if they could make it fly.

he's sort of out-clevered himself on this one.

Though you did not answer my question, I will do you the courtesy of answering yours.

I was a student 10 years ago. If the tax cuts expire, my tax rate would go to what it would have hypothetically been 10 years ago had I been working. That is higher than what I pay now, but the same as it would have been 10 years ago. Which is what we were all told.

I actually just checked on what I would theoretically pay, and it works out to an extra $35 or so per paycheck. I guess that's being young, single, working for a non-profit, and having student loans. But that small increase is really not that big of a deal to me.

Arguing that this raises your taxes seems akin to being mad at having to pay back the loan you were given.

Who said I was mad about it?

I'm highly amused at the logical gymnastics required to deny that a tax raise is the same thing as a raise in taxes, that's all.

Fiscal conservatism used to mean watching for inflation and balanced budgets and limited entitlements. Now it means no tax increases and protection of entitlements.

Nah.

it still means the same thing.

it's just that there are very few of us left.

Scot, do you think there's a half-way point? Some cuts to entitlements but also and some kind of compromise on taxes?

There most definitely is.

Show me the cuts and I'll agree to the tax raises.

Because I don't believe the cuts will ever happen.

[Tinydigit]

Also, WHAT THE F*&K South Dakota???!!

Well played, Republicans in South Dakota… well played. Now we are one step closer to dismantling the prevalence of tobacco, alcohol, and flying in an airplane after 6 months of pregnancy, from our society. I will apply for my hunting license on people who smoke in the presence of a pregnant woman, pregnant women who drink, and every airline employee who lets a bitch with a baby bump board a plane.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

I read something Swordfish posted (I think sarcastically)three pages back and thought it was your post. Please accept my apologies.

[awesome possum]

Ser Poss.,

I read something Swordfish posted (I think sarcastically)three pages back and thought it was your post. Please accept my apologies.

No worries.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Uh. no. The intention was to make them permanent, but they didn't have the votes.

So... they're not permanent, because they didn't have the votes. Not permanent -> temporary.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Aoife,

You do realize the much lauded ACA is a temporary benefit for exactly the same reasons, right?

[Swordfish]

So... they're not permanent, because they didn't have the votes. Not permanent -> temporary.

Um, yes, they are temporary. At least technically. Whether they are temporary in actuality remains to be seen.

I've not disputed that there is an expiration date.

[alguien]

Aoife,

You do realize the much lauded ACA is a temporary benefit for exactly the same reasons, right?

Scot ACA is law. Not sure what you're reasoning is here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Alguien,

Passed via reconciliation necessitating a sunset provision.

[Shryke]

Alguien,

Passed via reconciliation necessitating a sunset provision.

Huh? Not as I remember. The House just passed the Senate bill.

[alguien]

I'm highly amused at the logical gymnastics required to deny that a tax raise is the same thing as a raise in taxes, that's all.

Its odd, because I get the same feeling for different reasons. :) Yes, your tax rate goes up from what it is now, but there is no net increase on the tax rate from 10 years ago.

There most definitely is.

Show me the cuts and I'll agree to the tax raises.

Because I don't believe the cuts will ever happen.

No politicians will touch the entitlements and its hypocrisy if one party claims to represent fiscal conservatism. Out of the two major parties, at least the Dems seem willing to let some tax cuts expire to partially pay for the spending.

[Guy Kilmore]

Alguien,

Passed via reconciliation necessitating a sunset provision.

Do you have a link detailing that? I thought they ended up not doing the reconcilliation process.

[Swordfish]

Its odd, because I get the same feeling for different reasons. :) Yes, your tax rate goes up from what it is now, but there is no net increase on the tax rate from 10 years ago.

Ha. We're obviously not going to agree on this.

Picking a rate from the past as a baseline for judging whether changes to tax rates are increases or not is an... odd notion.

If you think that pointing out that my taxes being higher tomorrow than they are today is a tax increase qualifies as mental gymnastics, then maybe you just have a lower gymnastics bar than i do.

;)

No politicians will touch the entitlements and its hypocrisy if one party claims to represent fiscal conservatism. Out of the two major parties, at least the Dems seem willing to let some tax cuts expire to partially pay for the spending.

Partially pay for NEW spending you mean.

You'll pardon me if I don't trip over myself congratulating the democrats for being willing to take more of my money on the grounds that it will slightly reduce the pain of them continuing to spend like drunken sailors. God forbid they actually do their jobs responsibly.

Again, this is probably something we aren't going to agree on.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong but I thought the bill passed via reconcilliation. I'll dig.

[Shryke]

Partially pay for NEW spending you mean.

You'll pardon me if I don't trip over myself congratulating the democrats for being willing to take more of my money on the grounds that it will slightly reduce the pain of them continuing to spend like drunken sailors. God forbid they actually do their jobs responsibly.

Again, this is probably something we aren't going to agree on.

Raising taxes to meet new expenses is responsible.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong but I thought the bill passed via reconcilliation. I'll dig.

They passed the senate bill. I´m not sure about some of the fixes though.

[alguien]

Ha. We're obviously not going to agree on this.

Picking a rate from the past as a baseline for judging whether changes to tax rates are increases or not is an... odd notion.

If you think that pointing out that my taxes being higher tomorrow than they are today is a tax increase qualifies as mental gymnastics, then maybe you just have a lower gymnastics bar than i do.

;)

Heh. But see, here's where the mental gymnastics on your part come in. This isn't a random picking of a base line from the past. Your tax rate was always meant to go back to this. You even acknowledged that it was temporary a few posts back.

Ah well. I shall now warm up for my floor routine. :)

Partially pay for NEW spending you mean.

You'll pardon me if I don't trip over myself congratulating the democrats for being willing to take more of my money on the grounds that it will slightly reduce the pain of them continuing to spend like drunken sailors. God forbid they actually do their jobs responsibly.

Again, this is probably something we aren't going to agree on.

Well, I realize there's a philosophical difference between us here, but I think its sucks more for you because the party that claims to represent your opinion is doing even worse in this regard, by trying to have their cake and eat it too.

I said it early upthread, small government Republicanism is a fantasy that I have yet to see become a reality.

[Guest Raids]

Uh. no. The intention was to make them permanent, but they didn't have the votes.

What free floating intention are you talking about?

What matters when we pass a bill is the intent of the Congress that passed it. Here, they passed a temporary version. Therefore, the intent was for it to be temporary. If it was not, then they would have passed a permanent version.

Clearly, someone's intent was for it to be permanent, but those someones were not in the majority, and, therefore, that is not the majority intent, which is the only intent that matters when we are talking about the "intention" of Congress.

As for the rest who the hell cares? Yes, Democrats would like to increase taxes above their current rates by ending the Bush-era tax rates to provide for a more equitable tax distribution that has been empirically shown to - if anything - promote economic growth and - at the worst - has no adverse effect on the economy while increasing government revenue.

OTOH, the Bush-era tax rates have cost us truckloads in lost revenue - at best - and - at worst - flooded the high end of the investment market with unspoken for investment cash that trumped up an already unstable housing market by creating a demand for ever more speculative investment vehicles created out of ever more synthetic investment products.

Furthermore, yes, we all also against cutting the IRS which pays for every employee it hires five times over. It's the equivalent of eliminating your sales staff during an economic downturn. Senseless and stupid.