Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Because tax rates will go higher than they are now. That is the definition of increase.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 07:45 PM
Original message
Because tax rates will go higher than they are now. That is the definition of increase.
The normal definition of increase people use is whether a number will be higher tomorrow than it is today. Not whether the laws change that contain the numbers.

I wish they would cover more how they will increase BECAUSE of Bush, but that doesn't mean it isn't an increase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Be careful. You're being too logical now.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Just tell the fuckers...ok it is an increase but if the tax cuts were so good
why didn't idiot son make the shits permanent?

A. Because he knew they wouldn't work
B. He wanted to fuck the Dems, he knew he sucked and repubs would loose in 2k8
C. All of the above
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The Byrd rules.
They had a 10-year look-forward provision. Exceed the allowable deficit increase more than 10 years out and you couldn't use reconciliation under the paygo rules in place. In 2001 all the talk was of the 10-year budget deficit and it was openly explained why the tax cuts had to expire after 10 years.

Most things don't have such a short and sweet chain of causation as we'd like. 10-year sunset provision triggered by Byrd rule; Byrd rule in effect in order to use reconciliation; reconciliation needed to sidestep dem filibuster; dem filibuster in place because of dem opposition to tax cuts as stimulus; tax-cut stimulus motivated by repub fiscal doctrine; the stimulus itself was motivated by a recession that officially started 6 weeks after * took office; however, recession was predicted by leading indicators starting in early fall '00, following DOW and NASDAQ crashes; stock crashes was preceded by stock bubble; stock bubble caused by "irrational exuberance."

Etc.

A lot of it sounds vaguely recent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. And it would only take so long to cause the collapse of the entire bullshit for President Obama to
try to clean up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. It was a temporary decrease, thus the decrease was time limited.
An increase in taxes occurs, when the rates are changed from an ongoing tax rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. Except that it is BUSH that increased it... by signing a TIME-LIMITED decrease in 2001 and 2003

HE signed the law that mandated the taxes go back up in 2010.


If nothing changes, and they expire on Dec 31st... then GEORGE W. BUSH raised the taxes of every American back to their 2001 levels....

He signed the legislation that ended the cuts... not Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I agree. That's what I said in my post (which was accidentally made an OP instead of a reply).
I was responding to someone who was saying it wasn't an increase.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC