New U.S. President

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Oh, for crying out loud! -- By

"... switch your answer on this particular matter to the "New President" thread ..."

I meant

"... post your answer on this particular matter to the "New President" thread ..."

rather than post your answer to the same global financial crisis thread where I had posted that invitation.

Thank you for clarifying. Your intent might have been clear to you, and it is certainly clear in hindsight, but I honestly misread you.

"Never denied" is not quite an explicit acknowledgment....

Once I see that you explicitly agree with my statement about presidential veto, 1/3+1, and so forth, my followup will make it clear that I have not missed anything you mention about the job our legislative branch is doing...

If you cannot see that I have affirmed, and continue to affirm, and explicitly agree that a President bears blame when not executing his veto power, then I cannot expect you to understand my other points. As this is all moot anyway, given that I'm not voting for McCain and you clearly are enamored with Obama, let's just let it drop.

[AES]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Reminds me of my own tax proposal:

Start by reverting all taxes to those in effect during the boom-time Clinton administration, then adjust by multiplying all tax brackets by the CPI (or other) inflation factor. Keep them that way by reinstating the automatic inflation adjustment we had before the Reagan administration took that out.

Advantage: automatic tax cut each year (by adjusting brackets upwards)

This is very confusing. Please correct my understanding of Obama's tax plan.

1. Do away with the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on all taxpayers, to some extent. (boom-time Clinton administration rate)

2. Raise earned income taxes on every productive person earning over $250,000. Does this include any corporate entity? And, raise the "capital gains" tax and a few other taxes that I don't pay or completely understand. I don't know about the Social Security and Medicare tax. I need clarification there as well.

3. The "government" keeps (?%), and then redistributes the excess to everyone, including ~30% of the US population which pay no federal income tax?

4. Resulting in an extension of the "tax refunds" received by those who pay no federal income taxes to begin with?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by AES

This is very confusing. Please correct my understanding of Obama's tax plan.

What I posted was _my own_ tax proposal, but I am not a candidate for any office. It was not a comment on Obama's tax plan.

1. Do away with the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on all taxpayers, to some extent.

According to what I've read and heard about Obama's plan, that is not a correct statement about it.

(boom-time Clinton administration rate)

According to what I've read and heard about Obama's plan, that is not what he's proposing.

2. Raise earned income taxes on every productive person earning over $250,000.

I do not know whether that is part of Obama's plan. I understand that his plan raises income taxes of _some_ people earning over _some_ amount, but not as much as their taxes were cut seven years ago, so their tax rates would remain lower than they were during the Clinton administration.

(BTW, "my own" tax plan also keeps taxes lower than they were during the Clinton administration. Since conservatives always argue that lower tax rates are good for the economy, and since the longest economic boom since World War 2 occurred during the Clinton administration, it follows that conservatives should agree that the Clinton administration's tax rates were, and could be again, good for the economy, even more so if the pre-Reagan automatic inflation adjustments were restored, as I propose in "my own" tax plan.)

raise the "capital gains" tax and a few other taxes that I don't pay or completely understand.

Here's the Wikipedia article defining "capital gains" tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax

Here's the Wikipedia article on capital gains tax in the United States in particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital..._United_States

I don't know about the Social Security and Medicare tax. I need clarification there as well.

Here is the Wikipedia article on the tax that funds Social Security and Medicare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICA_tax

3. The "government" keeps (?%), and then redistributes the excess to everyone, including ~30% of the US population which pay no federal income tax?

4. Resulting in an extension of the "tax refunds" received by those who pay no federal income taxes to begin with?

Those are not part of any major party candidate's proposed tax plan I've heard.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

If you cannot see that I have affirmed, and continue to affirm, and explicitly agree that a President bears blame when not executing his veto power,

... but that's _not_ what I asked you to agree with! You have _never_ said or shown that you agree with what I asked you to agree to!!!

Do you affirm that you understand and explicitly agree that:

a presidential veto plus 1/3 + 1 of the members of either house of Congress (voting to uphold the veto), can stop any piece of legislation from becoming law

?

Notice that your statement, "I have affirmed, and continue to affirm, and explicitly agree that a President bears blame when not executing his veto power" does not mention Congress or the ability of Congress to override a veto, and furthermore, my statement is about the President executing his veto power, not about a President failing to execute veto power, so your statement "I have affirmed, and continue to affirm, and explicitly agree that a President bears blame when not executing his veto power" can't possibly be the same as what I'm asking you. I'm not asking about blame. I'm asking whether you understand a particular combination of parts of the U.S. Constitution. You've never mentioned that combination!!!

I never expected this to be a sticking point in our discussion. I was and am simply trying to make sure both of us understood a certain, important, technical point. I'm not trying to trick or trap you; I'm just trying to make sure we agree on a starting point. Why do you fight so hard to avoid doing that?

However, if you again refuse to acknowledge the truth of that statement, I will continue anyway by explaining some consequences of it that you have never mentioned in any of your arguments, and which show that parts of your argument don't "hold water". Also, I will gladly post my answers to all your questions that you have posted after I originally asked you to agree to this particular thing.

Is there something wriong with my wanting your answer to my question, which I asked first, before I answer your questions, which you asked only after my question? If so, what is wrong with answering questions in chronological order?

I cannot expect you to understand my other points.

I've understood your other points, and I see that you've apparently overlooked something very important (since you've never mentioned it), just as many other folks, who have never thought about the statement I'm asking you to acknowledge, have overlooked. It's something the president and all members of Congress are aware of, and that members of Congress have to take into account from the very beginning of drafting legislation, but much of the general public has not thought about.

As this is all moot anyway, given that I'm not voting for McCain and you clearly are enamored with Obama

A) My comments are not about the current election. They are about what has happened in the past, and what will continue to happen in the future regardless of who is elected president this year. So it's not moot at all.

B) I'm not enamored with Obama. I've repeatedly written in this thread that he was not one of my favorite candidates. I've never voted for him. I have voted for one of his opponents. I've written that I expect to be levelling some of the same criticism about his actions, should he be elected, that I've presented about Republicans (with corresponding reflection about the conservative/liberal axis).

[Zeta-Flux]

Do you affirm that you understand and explicitly agree that:

a presidential veto plus 1/3 + 1 of the members of either house of Congress (voting to uphold the veto), can stop any piece of legislation from becoming law

No, I don't. Technically speaking, there are other ways for legislation to become law. For example, states can ratify ammendments to the Constitution, which cannot be vetoed by the President. The Presidents veto power is limited to national law. Etc... etc...

But if you meant, do I affirm that I understand what you were trying to convey, and do I agree with the spirit of it (namely, do I understand the basics of Presidential veto power, and how the legislative branch can attempt to override that veto power, but they need a super-majority) I've already done so, a million times. You just keep reading too deeply into the phrasing.

But as I said, I'm done with this thread.

[AES]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...ZiwhgD93T7C1O0

Good tax plan article, IMO.

Obama favors retaining Bush-era cuts except on taxpayers making more than about
$250,000, whose taxes would revert to higher levels in effect a few years ago.

Like McCain, the Illinois senator advocates other cuts, including a tax credit
of up to $500, depending on income. As part of his plan, millions of individuals
and families who do not make enough money to pay income taxes would receive their
cut in the form of a government check, known as a refundable tax credit.

McCain seized on that point as he attacked — even though he has proposed giving
tax credits to those who pay no taxes as part of his health care plan. To finance
those tax cuts, he proposes requiring workers to pay income taxes on the health
benefits they receive from their employers.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by AES

Please correct my understanding of Obama's tax plan.

1. Do away with the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on all taxpayers, to some extent. (boom-time Clinton administration rate)

2. Raise earned income taxes on every productive person earning over $250,000. Does this include any corporate entity? And, raise the "capital gains" tax and a few other taxes that I don't pay or completely understand. I don't know about the Social Security and Medicare tax. I need clarification there as well.

3. The "government" keeps (?%), and then redistributes the excess to everyone, including ~30% of the US population which pay no federal income tax?

4. Resulting in an extension of the "tax refunds" received by those who pay no federal income taxes to begin with?

When I originally replied to this list of yours, I had not yet seen a Republican campaign ad on TV that contained statements just like, or very similar to, what you posted there. Niow, I have. So instead of implying that those statements were "Obama's tax plan", you should have characterized them more correctly as an (unfriendly) interpretation of Obama's tax plan, or a campaign reply to Obama's tax plan -- something like that. A more accurate characterization such as one of those would have told us why some of the wording was, as I wrote earlier, "not part of any major party candidate's proposed tax plan I've heard."

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

No, I don't. Technically speaking, there are other ways for legislation to become law. For example, states can ratify ammendments to the Constitution, which cannot be vetoed by the President. The Presidents veto power is limited to national law. Etc... etc...

See? _That_'s why I kept insisting on asking you whether you explicitly agreed -- so you could make corrections or otherwise point out what particulars needed to be modified. Had you simply pointed out those disagreements the first time I asked, I could have had the chance days ago to incorporate or satisfy your objections by modifying the statement!

Your phrase "limited to national law" surprised me, since all I had in mind for purposes of this discussion would seem to me to be "national law" anyway, but then I realized that you might be thinking I meant something else, so I'm glad to incorporate that specification. Do you mean international treaties, or something else? I certainly didn't mean to include treaties in my discussion.

As for amendment ratification, that was outside of what I intend to discuss in the rest of my argument, but you are correct in pointing out that my statement does not exclude it.

Now, my next step is to propose a modified statement, hoping you can agree with this revision:

In regard to national-law legislation passed by both chambers of Congress that ordinarily needs either presidential approval or a congressional override of a veto to become law, a presidential veto (instead of that approval) plus 1/3 + 1 of the members of either house of Congress (voting to uphold the veto), can stop any such piece of legislation from becoming law.

(The phrase "... ordinarily needs either presidential approval or ..." excludes constitutional amendments.)

Can you agree with that modified statement?

But if you meant, do I affirm that I understand what you were trying to convey, and do I agree with the spirit of it

No, I did NOT mean "Do you agree with the spirit of it?" If I had meant that, I wouldn't have kept re-asking my question.

That's why I kept asking for your _explicit_ agreement to my statement, to try to exclude that the possibility of "I agree with the spirit of your statement", but later on comes "wait a minute -- I thought you meant something else" which would waste a lot of discussion time.

And sure enough, you were thinking of certain cases I hadn't thought about, and you couldn't have known, without bringing them up, that I didn't intend to ever reference them.

It wasn't a matter of the spirit of what I asked!!! It was precisely a matter of the "letter" of what I wrote!!! I wasn't asking for an agreement "in spirit" -- I was (and, ahem, still am) asking for agreement with the "letter", so as to avoid future disagreements on what the spirit meant.

I wasn't ignoring or disagreeing with the "spirit" of what you wrote! It's just that the "spirit" wasn't specific enough!

You just keep reading too deeply into the phrasing.

Yes, you and I have differences in our interpretation -- that's why I needed to get your explicit agreement before I proceeded further -- to accommodate the possible differences you had in interpretation.

But as I said, I'm done with this thread.

Why? I didn't have ulterior motives in "pestering" you with my question -- I just wanted to save time and trouble later on by getting possible disgreements or misunderstandings out of the way as early as possible! Now that you've finally answered that initial request for agreement (assuming, that is, that you agree with my revision above), we can proceed without hitting misunderstandments about national law and constitutional amendments later on!

BTW, I'm not going to be this picky about other stuff later in the discussion, as long as I think we understand each other.

I hope your withdrawal is not because I claimed that my intended argument would demonstrate a flaw in your argument (about responsibility etc). After all, if you don't stay around, you can't point out flaws or oversights in my future statements that would render my claim false.

- - -

I'm pausing now, in case you wish to comment on my revised statement. But I'll continue later with some implications of that initial statement about constitutional powers -- how it affects the way legislators proceed when drafting bills.

[AES]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

When I originally replied to this list of yours, I had not yet seen a Republican campaign ad on TV that contained statements just like, or very similar to, what you posted there. Now, I have. So instead of implying that those statements were "Obama's tax plan", you should have characterized them more correctly as an (unfriendly) interpretation of Obama's tax plan, or a campaign reply to Obama's tax plan -- something like that. A more accurate characterization such as one of those would have told us why some of the wording was, as I wrote earlier, "not part of any major party candidate's proposed tax plan I've heard."

It was the refundable tax credit that had me confused after the last debate. I wonder if McCain's proposed tax on employer provided health benefits will push any up the brackets.

[cheesehead]

Now to start answering Zeta-Flux's previous questions, since he's replied to the one I asked (but pending a final resolution of differences) before them:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Will you similarly explicitly acknowledge that while one of the purposes of the President and 1/3+1 of either chamber is to attempt to defeat some legislation

Yes, one (the only one, AFAIK) of the purposes of the President[ial veto] is to attempt to defeat some legislation. Yes, the purpose of the 1/3+1 of either chamber provision (voting to uphold a veto) is to complete the veto attempt and succeed in defeating that particular legislation.

it is the legislative branch whose role it is to discuss and pass/not-pass legislation

Yes, it is the legislative branch whose role is to discuss and pass/not-pass legislation.

while the President's veto power is a stop-gap?

I prefer not to use "stop-gap" in this context. Is this phrase intended to add any meaning not already conveyed by the preceding "while one of the purposes of the President and 1/3+1 of either chamber is to attempt to defeat some legislation, it is the legislative branch whose role it is to discuss and pass/not-pass legislation"? If so, will you please explain it in other terms? If not, then I have finished agreeing with your statement, I think. Okay?

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Can you not see < snip > the horrible job our legislative branch (past and present) is doing, and how they are the primary contributers to the deficit and debt?

May I have a clarification of "primary"? Also, I am reluctant to agree to any statement that seems to absolve the president of any significant role in contributing to the deficit and debt.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Your intent might have been clear to you, and it is certainly clear in hindsight, but I honestly misread you.

If you cannot see that I have affirmed, and continue to affirm, and explicitly agree that a President bears blame when not executing his veto power, then I cannot expect you to understand my other points.

When you misstate what I asked you to agree to, so badly that it comes out as the opposite of what I wrote, then I don't think you have a strong claim to being the one who is being misunderstood.

I repeatedly asked you to agree with a statement about the president's exercise of his veto power, yet your repeated responses to that were all about "a President bears blame when not executing his veto power".

The difference between A and not-A is that one is the opposite of the other. Repeatedly affirming the opposite (not exercising veto power) of what I asked for (exercising veto power) did not satisfy my request. That's why I kept asking again and again. (Perhaps If I hadn't lost my home connection to Internet, I might have noticed and explained that root of our conflict sooner -- intermittent library access just isn't the same for me.)

I don't think it was I who could not see your affirmations, and I don't think you have any grounds for concluding anything derogatory about my ability to understand your other points. I would prefer to proceed without your accusations or stated negative expectations in the future until you've demonstrated better understanding on your own part.

- - -

I would have preferred to send this message to you via PM or e-mail, but apparently you prefer not to use those -- hence my posting it here in the thread.

- - - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

But as I said, I'm done with this thread.

I hope you'll change your mind about that.