U.S. Politics 19

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Health Care Reconciliation act:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?_id=29183

House Passage: 03/21/2010 : Bill Passed 220-211 (Roll no. 167)

Senate Passage With Amendment: 03/25/2010 : Bill Passed: 56-43 (Record Vote Number 105)

House Concurrence Vote: 03/25/2010 : Concurrence Vote Passed: 220-207 (Roll no. 194)

President Passage: 03/30/2010 : Signed became Public Law Number 111-443

There you go.

[alguien]

Health Care Reconciliation act:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?_id=29183

There you go.

Scot, the link you posted isn't working for me. Since the House passed the Senate Bill, doesn't that mean there's no sunset provision?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

It's the amendments to the ACA that had to be passed via reconciliation.

[Swordfish]

Heh. But see, here's where the either intentional disingenuous-ness or mental gymnastics on your part come in. This isn't a random picking of a base line from the past.

I didn't say it was random.

Again, the simple explanation of my tax rates going up is that there has, for whatever reason, been a tax increase.

now in this case you are absolutely correct that the rates are increasing back to what they were ten years ago.

that doesn't change the fact that the rate i pay now is smaller than the rate I would pay tomorrow.

Thus, a tax increase when compared tow hat I pay now.

Very simple, and utterly indisputable.

I'm curious though whether you have any opinion on why this is even an important distiction?

That's the part I find most interesting.

That you guys seem adamant about it is clear, but it's just so.... strange.

i mean, do you really think it makes sense to NEVER use the phrase 'tax increase' to describe what would happen if the cuts expired? That in every conversation we need to substitute the much more clunky 'return to rates that existed previously and also coincidentally and apropos of nothing, happened to be higher but were always meant to be put back in place because of reconciliation and the fact that the republicans didn't have the support to make them permanent, even though there;s no such thing as a permanent tax rate'?

What would be the purpose?

That's the part I really still don't get. What is the PURPOSE of not calling them tax increases? other than a sort of desperate attempt by the democrats to make it appear as if they are not responsible for taxes going up.

Your tax rate was always meant to go back to this. You even acknowledged that it was temporary a few posts back.

Meant by who? because the GOP certainly never meant for it to go back to those rates.

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

Don't forget the chalk!

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.

i agree. the GOP sucks.

there is no party that represents me.

Asking me which party sucks more is sort of like asking me if it's better to get kicked in the right nut, or the left nut.

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

Well, there's certainly a lot of room between what we have now and small government republicanism in which improvements can happen.

I'd be happy with non-gargantuan laviathonic government conservatism at this point.

Baby steps.

:cool4:

[Guest Raids]

Scott, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (which only involves, by the way, a few changes to the separately passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) is arguably not subject to the Byrd rule because it won't increase the deficit beyond 10 years after its passage.

Bush's tax cuts, on the other hand, inarguably do, which brings about the sunset clause.

But, but....I thought tax cuts produced money!!!!! Idiots.

[Swordfish]

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?

Apparently quite a few democrats care.

That's why we're having this discussion.

I'm as puzzled about it as you are.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Alguien,

Ironically, it means the fixes to the ACA (like eleminating the "cornhusker kickback") are what will sunset.

[Guest Raids]

Again, they are not, because they are not subject to the Byrd rule. If they were, they'd say so right in the bill, or they wouldn't have been passed through reconciliation because the Republicans would have objected to the use of the procedure for a bill that will increase the deficit 10 or more years out.

That's why the Bush tax cuts have a 10 year expiration date right in the bill. So they could still be put forth under reconciliation and skate in under the Byrd rule, even though they are precisely the kind of reckless, iresponsible spending that any respectable Republican used to be against.

[Guy Kilmore]

Alguien,

Ironically, it means the fixes to the ACA (like eleminating the "cornhusker kickback") are what will sunset.

See Raidne's reply above. At least, her explanation was how I remember it being explained to me on a piece on NPR.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

It's the amendments to the ACA that had to be passed via reconciliation.

Yes, but not ACA as you implied. If you really want the earlier version in 10 years then just go for it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Czar,

I didn't imply it. I said it. I was incorrect.

Raidne,

I was (thumb)typing my post to Algien when you posted your first explanation of the "Byrd" Rule. I was unaware of it.

[Shryke]

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.

Pretty much. The Bush tax cuts cost the US shitloads of money with nothing to show for it.

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.

Indeed. It's insanity but hey, everyone hates the IRS right!! Damn crooks!!

[Guest Raids]

Raidne,

I was (thumb)typing my post to Algien when you posted your first explanation of the "Byrd" Rule. I was unaware of it.

No prob. It's right out of the wikipedia entry for "Reconciliation." :P

[alguien]

I didn't say it was random.

The way you stated it, "picking a baseline from the past" IMO implied randomness. My apologies if I misinterpreted. At the very least, this wasn't just a baseline from the past. It has been, for the past 11 years the baseline. Its just we've put it off for ten years. If they wanted to change this, they had 10 years to do so.

In any event, I think the reason we argue over wording is that context matters. Saying simply, "The Democrats are trying to raise your taxes!" is politically loaded rhetoric. And its worth pointing out the context to give lie to the misrepresentation.

Asking me which party sucks more is sort of like asking me if it's better to get kicked in the right nut, or the left nut.

Heh. :cheers:

Whereas I'm not always happy with the Dems, but by and large, I agree with their political philosophy, and they do actually try to enact it.

I guess it would be hard to decide who I disdained more, the hypocrites who claimed to represent me, or the party whose philosophy I consistently oppose.

[Shryke]

While polls this far out aren't super useful, I do find this hilarious:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021111_2012_election_web.pdf

Even Fox News pollsters can't find good news for the GOP. Obama spanks all of them.

Also, Mitch Daniels still polling way behind.

[TerraPrime]

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

So, the tax cuts are not permanent, then?

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?

Actually, I said no such things. These are tax cuts. But they are not permanent. I don't know what kind of logic malfunction is afflicting your faculty to reason, but these two premises are not mutually exclusive. Just because a reprieve is temporary does not mean that it's not a reprieve.

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.

Your characterization of my argument is inaccurate.

Tax rates that are enacted with a sunset clause are temporary. Tax rate changes that are enacted without such clauses are meant to be permanent, until further changes or modifications occur.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue here because you acknowledged that the bill was passed as a temporary law.

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!!'

I do believe that if the story is told as having the rate revert back to the earlier rate, and that this reversion is part of the law, that fewer people will have a problem with that. It's like making a promise. Most people wouldn't want to go back on an agreement. They will still feel bad about having to pay more in taxes, but they will at least accept that it was what the law said. As opposed to the GOP narrative, where this reversion to earlier rate is portrayed as a new law made to increase your tax rate.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, it's because they are scared shitless of how the economy is going right now. They don't see any hope of a good return on investment or expansion, especially when simply asking their workers to do more for less (or work temp instead of full time) is working just fine.

How the economy is going right now is a static analysis of limited value for business planners. They can address that with temps. What they care about when it comes to making capital or medium/long term investments is what the economy will be doing in the future. And that inherently requires them to have some opinion on how pending or current government actions/policies will affect their likelihood of making a profitable return on their investment. And what you don't seem to grasp is that whether or not their opinion is "correct" is irrelevant to the decisions they make.

There are companies paying lawyers right now to analyze things like the ACA and tell them how it will affect labor costs. Companies pay their finance people to run similar analyses on things like tax policies because they use that information to make future decisions. Whether you believe that happens or not doesn't change the fact that it does.

It's got nothing to do with "The White House is hostile to business" or whatever else you seem to be implying, since businesses don't really give a shit about that, beyond large businesses power to fuck up politics through the Chamber of Commerce (a distinctly official sounding title for a fucking lobbying group).

Why does the Chamber of Commerce care at all, Shryke? If the decisions of government do not affect the bottom line of businesses, why do they bother lobbying?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Apparently quite a few democrats care.

That's why we're having this discussion.

I'm as puzzled about it as you are.

This is just a weird discussion. Only anal-retentive message board geeks and political junkies with already fixed political opinions could possibly see a meaningful distinction between "you want to increase tax rates" and "you want to let tax rates increase."

[RWHamel]

anal-retentive message board geeks

Check!

[alguien]

Only anal-retentive message board geeks and political junkies with already fixed political opinions could possibly see a meaningful distinction between "you want to increase tax rates" and "you want to let tax rates increase."

And a good day to you, sir! :)