HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Welcome to the Grand Illu... » Reply #27

Reply #27

In the discussion thread: Welcome to the Grand Illusion [View all]

Response to ProSense (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 08:07 PM

27. Why is it impossible to reason with you?

Where do I have to start?

Do we agree that 2+2=4?
Is the square root of 43,046,721 equal to 6561?

*Can we agree on that?

Okay, moving on

On January 1, 2013 Congress passed a disgusting bill called the American Taxpayer Relief Act (or ATRA for short) and the next day Obama signed it.

*Are we still good, except for your quibble over the word 'disgusting'?

Democrats in the House voted for this excrement by 172-16
Democrats in the Senate voted for this excrement by 50-3

*Still good? (except for the descriptor?)

Instead of passing that bill, Congress COULD have passed a bill changing the tax structure. They could (in theory) have done anything they wanted with tax rates, the tax structure, etc., etc., etc.

They did NOT have to pass the stupid bill that they passed, and Obama did NOT have to sign it. "There are always alternatives." (saith Mr. Spock)

*Do we still agree on that? That's true, right?

Now, perhaps we get to the heart of the disagreement. What was the impact of that odious piece of legislation?

Now, the Joint Committee on Taxation - not me, mind you, but the JCT says the bill ATRA will reduce revenue. It is a $3.7 trillion tax cut. But that does not include the $1.9 trillion lost due to the permanent AMT patch.

This is where Obama disagrees. Obama likes to use the Republican baseline, the Republican perspective. Perhaps because that baseline makes him look like less of a weasel.

the Whitehouse site says this:

"The relevant point of comparison isn't current law, it is “current policy” – those policies that were in place on December 31st, the day before all of these changes were scheduled to take effect. Different organizations, ranging from the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission to the House Budget Committee, have considered this current policy baseline to be the appropriate reference point, since it measures changes relative to the status quo, rather than the mix of expiring provisions and policy changes that would likely never be implemented."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/01/american-taxpayer-relief-act-reduces-deficits-737-billion

Note well WHOSE side Obama is taking there. The side of Bowles-Simpson and the side of the Republican lead House Budget Committee.

Taking that perspective Obama and Congressional Democrats could have just kept ALL of the Bush tax cuts, except $1 and called THAT a "tax increase" instead of a massive tax cut.

And what did we used to say about the Bush tax cuts?

Was it that most of the benefits went to the rich?

Presumably we wanted to end that outrage and that is one of the reasons we voted for Obama and Democrats. It certainly was for ME.

The very people who betrayed us by NOT ending that outrage.

Instead of getting rid of most of the Bush tax cuts, they voted to make most of them permanent.

Well, according to Obama's perspective (and the Republican perspective), keeping 100% of the Bush tax cuts and making them permanent is NOT a huge tax cut.

I say that it is.

And I say the same thing about making 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent. And I say the same thing about the permanent AMT patch.

Look at the facts and see WHO benefits from those laws.

As to what the Whitehouse wrote about "changes that would likely never be implemented"

Well, that depends, does it not, on what people fight for. We elected Obama because he promised "change you can believe in" and said "yes we can".

Instead of making those changes or even FIGHTING for those changes, Obama opted to betray us, and took Congressional Democrats (at least some of them, others of those oily slimebuckets doubtless went willingly (yes, Herb Kohl, I AM looking at you))

I am quite sure all of this verbiage will not convince you, or force you to admit the truth that you really know, and you will just respond with something like "more spin" or "more nonsense" and maybe a few thrown in just for the heck of it, and to be aggravating, or even some nonsense about how "the tax structure is progressive".

But I am always happy to kick my own thread, and there I have laid it out, in ways that hopefully even a sixth grader could understand.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
hfojvt Oct 2013 OP
Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #1
factsarenotfair Oct 2013 #2
hfojvt Oct 2013 #4
quinnox Oct 2013 #3
hfojvt Oct 2013 #21
1000words Oct 2013 #5
Poker Bots Oct 2013 #6
gopiscrap Oct 2013 #13
Dragonfli Oct 2013 #7
JDPriestly Oct 2013 #8
Divernan Oct 2013 #9
hfojvt Oct 2013 #18
SleeplessinSoCal Oct 2013 #10
jtuck004 Oct 2013 #11
SleeplessinSoCal Oct 2013 #20
hfojvt Oct 2013 #14
SleeplessinSoCal Oct 2013 #19
Laelth Oct 2013 #12
dawg Oct 2013 #15
hfojvt Oct 2013 #16
leftstreet Oct 2013 #17
ProSense Oct 2013 #22
hfojvt Oct 2013 #23
ProSense Oct 2013 #24
hfojvt Oct 2013 #25
ProSense Oct 2013 #26
LineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply Why is it impossible to reason with you?
hfojvt Oct 2013 #27
ProSense Oct 2013 #28
hfojvt Oct 2013 #29
ProSense Oct 2013 #30
hfojvt Oct 2013 #31
Please login to view edit histories.