How many times & ways do I have to say "it's a waste of time debating with you" before you get it?
Weird.
Dems hold up UB benefits and one wants to filibuster UB benefits
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
How many times & ways do I have to say "it's a waste of time debating with you" before you get it?
Weird.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you picked the topic and said.... ready...go
now you're backing out....
And it wasn't clear by the topic choice that I was ridiculing the idea?
Again - weird.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tax_cuts
the dems won't even allow it to be considered, but its the republicans fault
Wait. You mean the legislative branch wants to legislate? How dare they!
"Generally". Again. In this document you gave us, the assumptions show a continued rate of taxation. If you can show me where in the document you see that change I will happily tell you that I am wrong and they would have had to extend the rates in different legislation (still saying that if Obama was smart he would have extended the rates when he was assured the votes rather than during lame duck sessions where he had to compromise his "values", but that he "couldn't" in this legislation as it would be "too expensive"). Until you can do that, where I pointed in the CBO document shows the rates continue. Because they assume the current rates (probably because that is current law at that time and they generally assume that those continue, in fact this CBO document assumed the rates of the "richest" continued the same) an extension of those rates would have had zero impact on the legislation's "cost".
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The stimulus bill and the tax cut extensions are two different things, why should their costs be counted as the same thing? Your logic makes zero sense here. And we all know what would've happened had he bundled them together. The Republicans would attack it as if it were 100% a spending bill, just like they did to this bill anyway.
Damo:
First, they assume existing law will remain in place. The change in tax rate is part of existing law. The CBO document doesn't show anything other than the effect of the stimulus bill on existing law.
Second, do you have anything to show that the CBO did not conform to its general practice in preparing the cost assessment of the stimulus bill?
Third, the CBO has estimated that Obama's tax proposals to extend the tax cuts for the "middle class" would reduce revenues by $1.9 trillion over ten years:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml#1092014
Given that the total cost of the entire stimulus bill over the ten year period was substantially less than the tax cuts, there is no reasonable basis for inferring that the tax cuts were included in the stimulus cost assessment.
Also, to pretend that tax cuts have zero effect on revenue like you are doing is fucking stupid.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Damo, the estimate is of the cost of the stimulus bill itself. If you do an estimate of the cost of the stimulus bill itself, you don't HAVE to take into account the tax rates. The cost of the stimulus bill itself stays the same whether rates go to change to 90% or the income tax is totally eliminated. It is not a lie to tout the cost of the stimulus bill itself without including some other programming that will cost money that you are implementing separately. It would be a lie to include the tax cuts.
You are being so illogical here it's incredible.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The cost of the stimulus bill is the cost of the stimulus bill. The cost of the stimulus bill is not the cost of the stimulus bill plus the cost of any tax rate changes that may occur while it is in effect.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
X = the cost of the stimulus bill
Y = the cost of tax rate changes that may happen while the stimulus bill is in effect
Rational land:
X = X
Damoland:
X = X + Y
Y = the cost of tax rate changes that may happen while the stimulus bill is in effect
Rational land:
X = X
Damoland:
X = X + Y
Watermark = Ignore what the CBO report on this specific legislation actually says. I'll assume that Nigel is right because he ignored that too.
Damo says. This particular CBO report, as far as I can tell from the assumptions actually listed in Revenue part B, assumes no rate change. Please point out where in this particular report that you can see the assumption of the rate change and I will gladly say that I was mistaken.
Watermark plays stupid and posts some inane rubbish about Damo.
Nigel links to something else that talks about what they "generally" do, then I point out that the CBO report he linked to shows no rate increase in the section I pointed to in that actual report.
Then Nigel links to still another different document that doesn't prove his point.
Watermark jumps on the bandwagon and plays attack the Damo card.
It's all good. What I derive from this line of "argument" is that you too see that in this CBO report they assume the continued rates that I mention. Probably because it is the assumption they were given and they cannot move off of that assumption. But, I will again say that if you can point to the place in the CBO report linked by Nigel where they assume a rate hike on the middle class I will say, "Okay, he couldn't have done it in this particular legislation."
This will not change my position that a leader with even a modicum of foresight would have had his super majorities pass the rates he wanted to continue and force the argument now to be about only the rates he did not want to continue.
Damo says. This particular CBO report, as far as I can tell from the assumptions actually listed in Revenue part B, assumes no rate change. Please point out where in this particular report that you can see the assumption of the rate change and I will gladly say that I was mistaken.
Watermark plays stupid and posts some inane rubbish about Damo.
Nigel links to something else that talks about what they "generally" do, then I point out that the CBO report he linked to shows no rate increase in the section I pointed to in that actual report.
Then Nigel links to still another different document that doesn't prove his point.
Watermark jumps on the bandwagon and plays attack the Damo card.
It's all good. What I derive from this line of "argument" is that you too see that in this CBO report they assume the continued rates that I mention. Probably because it is the assumption they were given and they cannot move off of that assumption. But, I will again say that if you can point to the place in the CBO report linked by Nigel where they assume a rate hike on the middle class I will say, "Okay, he couldn't have done it in this particular legislation."
This will not change my position that a leader with even a modicum of foresight would have had his super majorities pass the rates he wanted to continue and force the argument now to be about only the rates he did not want to continue.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Is that fuzzy math?
Yes, Watermark is employing fuzzy math in an attempt to make somebody who read the actual link given by Nigel into some sort of "lunatic".
In this case, from what I see on the actual report linked by Nigel (again, I could be wrong and when somebody points to where the rate change is added I'll happily say I am. Nobody is perfect), there is no rate increase assumed.
However, being wrong on this wouldn't change my dismal assessment of the leadership of Obama. A bit of foresight could have forestalled the current problems he is having due to compromise.
In short, had he used his super majorities to pass the "plan" he so often repeated in his campaign speeches, the current debate would be solely about the GOP's wish to continue tax cuts for employers as well as employees, they'd have had no stick....
I still don't understand what makes you say that there is no rate increase assumed when the purpose of the cost assessment is to assess the cost of the bill relative to existing law and existing law is that rates will increase. It makes no sense.
Because I read the report and saw no rate increase assumption in the revenue section.
Basically, I used the data you provided to come to a conclusion relevant to the data.
So far you have given me sarcasm and attack with zero reading of your own report. If you can show me where my reading of that report was incorrect I'll change my assessment of the ease of adding it to this particular piece of legislation. That will, again, not change one iota of my opinion on what would have happened with a tiny bit of foresight and passing his tax "plan" before it got to the point where he had given the GOP a stick to force compromise.
But that makes no sense whatsoever. The rate increase is the baseline because it is existing law. If you want to know how much the stimulus bill costs, you need to have a baseline to compare that to. If you include the results of a different law (i.e. changes to the tax rates) you aren't going to get an assessment of the costs of the stimulus bill, you'll get an assessment of the costs of the stimulus bill plus the tax rate change. If that happened in this case, the total cost would have been roughly $2.6 trillion.
No, you didn't. You took the data and invented a baseless interpretation that just so happens to support your position.
I've already explained to you why your reading makes no sense. You've decide to ignore the explanation.
Whether or not you see it "making sense" it is what is. I do not see the assumption of a rate increase in their numbers. Show me where I am wrong.
Again, if I am wrong and you can show that to me in that report I'll say I am. Which will still not change my main point (this is a silly tangent), that he should have passed rate changes before now so he wouldn't have given his opposition the stick to force compromise of this type. IMO, this shows a lack of foresight and an incapacity to multi-task that I find frightening in leadership.