quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Huh? 

Canceling a tax increase that were never paid in the first place IS NOT a tax cut. If it wasnt in that article then in another one the analogy is made to a family that plans a $10,000 vacation every year, doesnt take them, and says they "saved $10,000".

Letting a tax cut that actually was implemented expire IS a tax increase. People with the same income will pay more taxes than they did the year before. That is the definition of a tax increase.

The only one biased around here is you. As always.

Well, regardless of whether you think I am biased or not, let's try this again.

Suppose the main breadwinner in the family was awarded a $10,000 a year bonus for an eight-year project he was working on. 

He knew from the start this was a limited bonus that would expire when the project was complete.

Would you say he just had a pay cut, or did his pay structure revert to his normal salary?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Read it and analyzed its impact for 3 of my clients.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Definitely ironic since it is not going to affect the vast majority of those protesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Bad analogy. The sunset of the tax cuts was only a mechanism to limit the period of the projections needed to determine that it was revenue neutral. Bush's intention was that it be permanent. A more apt analogy would be that the breadwinner was awarded a $10,000 bonus for an eight year project, which would be continued if the project was still funded after 8 years. The project in this case is the gubment, which is certainly still funded..in fact will have to be funded to the tune of  an extra $10 trillion under the Blowboy budget. Under that more apt analogy it is a pay cut.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Read it and analyzed its impact for 3 of my clients.

Yet with all your analysis you had to rely on someone else's opinion article to present your argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

Bad analogy. The sunset of the tax cuts was only a mechanism to limit the period of the projections needed to determine that it was revenue neutral. Bush's intention was that it be permanent. A more apt analogy would be that the breadwinner was awarded a $10,000 bonus for an eight year project, which would be continued if the project was still funded after 8 years. The project in this case is the gubment, which is certainly still funded..in fact will have to be funded to the tune of  an extra $10 trillion under the Blowboy budget. Under that more apt analogy it is a pay cut.

It actually was your analogy reversed.

But I did truly love this:

The sunset of the tax cuts was only a mechanism to limit the period of the projections needed to determine that it was revenue neutral.

Are you sure you don't work for the "gubment", because I have never seen such a convoluted sentence that has absolutely no meaning, other than to sound very impressive.

And I keep trying to wade through it, to come up with your actual meaning, but instead of me guessing, why don't you just state it simply and clearly?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

First, my analyses are priviliged and I couldnt discuss them even if 1 out of 1000 here could understand them. Second, it was an easy way to make the point. If you want to debate it, then debate the substance, not your typical semantic bantering/

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

google Tax Reform Act of 1986

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Lets see

Social security going broke date has shifted to 2 years earlier than previously predicted.

The tax cut for 95% of the people is seriously been negated as being doable anymore, so more than a few folks who were promised a tax cut will see that tax cut end after one or two years and then the increase will be set to try to make up the difference.

The Budget ballancing has been put on hold in favor of a first term that will break every record for spending

Multiple trillions of deficit spending which has had minimal effect in creating any new jobs

Spanish government report that tells us that for every green job it creates two old tech jobs are lost. Wonder how close our own results will match.

A Cap and Tax program that has been estimated to increase the average home electric bill by about $3000 a year.
with downstream price of manufacturing goods in the US increase yet to be calculated but which will certainly make sure even more manufacturing jobs get lost.

Health care program promised at the $700 billion range has increased to over $1 trillion cost and if history is repeated it should be close to 2 trillion by the time the final bill is written.

Ford closing plants GM closing plants Chrysler closing plants
All three closing dealerships   equals a huge job loss in the blue collar level, except that they ignored the rule of law and sidelined the secured interests of investers and surplanted them by making the union contract a secured holding ahead of the investers. So the jobs are lost but not the cost of the employee to the companies teatering on bankrupcy.

Porkulus package that has created no real number of jobs

New mileage standards that will no doubt result in further slipping of the 3 big american manufacturers market share in favor of Japanesse manufacturers, but that's ok the Japnessee plants are increaseing in the US and so long as they can keep the unions out they will continue to out produce the US brands.

But I can agree with the stemcell thing so he's not all bad. LOL