BzaDem
(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.
|
pnwmom
(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. |
xultar
(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
|
Igel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-13-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
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.
|
lonestarnot
(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 |
HuckleB
(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.
|
scheming daemons
(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.
|
BzaDem
(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.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:40 AM
Response to Original message |