[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's not a rider: it's how the bill funds itself (remember all that talk of balancing budgets?)

That portion would prevent "foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S."

In essence, it closes a loophole that allows a company to earn taxable income in the US, then declare the income as offshore (some country where they have an office and two employees is common) and thereby avoid US taxes.

It passed 268-160 in the house.

Meanwhile: I don't know if the Tax bill has been signed by Obama yet or not. Senate republicans seem to have no problem moving on to other legislation (McCain called all of this trying to end debate on the 9/11 responders bill "fooling around" because he wants to get to "important legislation" on a missile deal).

I know we don't always agree...but I'm with you on this one Jerry. This is just pathetic.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Leboman

I know we don't always agree...but I'm with you on this one Jerry. This is just pathetic.

Thanks. That's something of my point as well. The right should be the people most pushing this... it's confusing that it is so nearly ignored.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's not a rider: it's how the bill funds itself (remember all that talk of balancing budgets?)

That portion would prevent "foreign multinational corporations incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned in the U.S."

In essence, it closes a loophole that allows a company to earn taxable income in the US, then declare the income as offshore (some country where they have an office and two employees is common) and thereby avoid US taxes.

It passed 268-160 in the house.

Why didn't you just say if you knew the answer before?

Also, I found this article helpful:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/ny...alth.html?_r=1

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Meanwhile: I don't know if the Tax bill has been signed by Obama yet or not. Senate republicans seem to have no problem moving on to other legislation (McCain called all of this trying to end debate on the 9/11 responders bill "fooling around" because he wants to get to "important legislation" on a missile deal).

Update: It was signed today.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Why didn't you just say if you knew the answer before?

Didn't know. had to look.

So what about the argument from the GOP that it would be insulting to Christianity to work between Christmas and New Year's to vote on legislation like this?

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Thanks. That's something of my point as well. The right should be the people most pushing this... it's confusing that it is so nearly ignored.

It's infuriating to me. I see these GOP knuckleheads get up and lambast Dem knuckleheads for playing political games and then turn around and do the same thing.

That's why I don't trust either side.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Didn't know. had to look.

So what about the argument from the GOP that it would be insulting to Christianity to work between Christmas and New Year's to vote on legislation like this?

It's insulting for them to even invoke Christianity the way most of them operate.

[Chrysostom]

Sorry I didn't see this before. Ha, I'm not very good at that.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Didn't know. had to look.

Ah. Well, now we have the answer.

On a related note (this is not meant to be for or against the bill, it's just a tangent), I wonder why there would be huge tax loopholes just sitting around waiting to be closed. If it's really a loophole that's being closed, why didn't they close it before, and more important, how many other loopholes are out there that aren't being closed?! This is what I mean when I say, the ideological stuff is less interesting to me than the practical implementation. I'm interested in loopholes.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So what about the argument from the GOP that it would be insulting to Christianity to work between Christmas and New Year's to vote on legislation like this?

Sounds like total balderdash, just more power-politicking. It would be insulting to Christianity to force Congress to operate on Christmas day or Eve, perhaps, but not the other days in Advent or certainly not in any respect anything having to do with New Year's Day. These folks have working Sundays all the time and that certainly doesn't seem to bother them. Of course, it seems to me that on the other side of the aisle this is the Democrats' last stretch to get something out of the years of power they enjoyed, so I suppose it's politics from both parties. Still, this kind of toolbag stuff is why the Republican party doesn't get much respect from me.

Insulting to Christianity? Seriously? Like when you whined about Jeremiah Wright because it turns out you don't know anything about the Christian prophetic tradition? Like when you abandoned all interest in Just War -- even when the Pope sent a special envoy to remind you! -- just so you could go attack Iraq to feel like you were doing something? It is downright revolting when you flippantly play the "religion card" just to get out of having to concede some freebies to the Democrats. If you were wise, if you were humble, if you loved justice -- maybe then I might take some interest in you. But woe to you, political parties, for from the perspective of eternity you are a mere leaf pushed this way and that by the wind. This act of desperation clothed as "respect to Christianity" is revolting.

[JerryLove]

I am happy to see that it got passed. There was some good last-minute legislation (why so much of this didn't go through in the previous 2 years confuses me).

Hopefully for the next two years both sides will feel both vested and threatened and actually do some good. I'm not gonna hold my breath, but maybe.