Albany Tax Deal to Raise Rate for Highest Earners
 

It seems that New York State is borrowing a page from President Obama’s playbook, and apparently the Tea Party made little or no headway there affecting this Tax Overhaul.


Albany Tax Deal to Raise Rate for Highest Earners

By THOMAS KAPLAN

ALBANY — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and legislative leaders announced on Tuesday that they had reached an agreement to overhaul New York State’s income tax, creating a higher tax bracket for the highest-income residents and reducing the tax rate for millions of middle-class residents.
The deal came together just 25 days before the expiration of the state’s so-called millionaires’ tax — actually a surcharge on all individuals earning over $200,000 a year. The proposed tax overhaul would result in most residents’ being taxed next year at a lower rate than this year.


You can read more here: Cuomo and Legislative Leaders Agree on Tax Deal - NYTimes.com

Proposed Changes to State Income Tax Rates - Graphic - NYTimes.com

the state’s so-called millionaires’ tax — actually a surcharge on all individuals earning over $200,000 a year

Must be that new math...

I know I now need reading glasses but I didn't see any reference to the Tea Party in the article.

Yes, which is why I made the comment that is ABOVE the Article's headline. You will note the different text fonts used in the two parts of the posting?

In case you missed my comment, here it is again: "It seems that New York State is borrowing a page from President Obama’s playbook, and apparently the Tea Party made little or no headway there affecting this Tax Overhaul."

In case you think that New York doesn't have a Tea Party organization, this article might allay your fears:


http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/tea_...t_to_new_york/

I note everything in your posts hence why I commented. You tried to slip in a personal note as fact and as usual have nothing to back it up.

"and apparently the Tea Party made little or no headway there affecting this Tax Overhaul." This phrase alludes to something not in evidence.

This alludes to an effort made by the Tea Party. Was such an effort made?

One of the meanings of the word apparent - the one that applies here - is: "readily manifest to senses or mind as real or true, and supported by credible evidence of genuine existence, but possibly distinct from or contrary to reality or truth."

In other words, we know that there is a strong Tea Party in New York, and we know that they have been known to have some success in shaping the 2009, 2010, and 2011 New York Elections and Legislation, and are active in shaping the upcoming 2012 New York Election, so it is safe to infer that their mention in the article is absent because they failed to have any influence on the legislation at all. This is especially true when you read the article again, and find that it mentions the Republicans having problems with how the legislation was forged. In New York, "Tea Party" and "Republican" can be considered - to a certain extent - the two sides of the same coin, as evidenced by the Newt Ginrich article I linked to my earlier posting.

Do ever get bruises on your forehead?

So, you are stating that the absense of mention of the Tea Party in the article is in fact, proof that they made efforts to oppose the tax law change?

Another logic fail.

The simple truth is you threw in a personal agenda item and got called on it yet again for what I imagine has to be about the one hundreth time here on the MTF.

And to be more accurate the NY GOP didn't have any real issues with the tax law change, merely the way the governer went about making it. A procedural complaint vs. a substance complaint. Much like the Dems did when Bush made 'Recess Appointments'

No, I said that APPARENTLYthey failed to have any affect on the legislation. Go back and re-read the definition of Apparent once again, and this time read it one word at a time, SLOWLY! I never said that they ACTUALLY had any impact, just APPARENTLY.

Are you intentionally ignoring my point? The issue has NOTHING to do with whether or not the Tea Party had any effect on the law one way or the other. Again, NOTHING to do with that.

You said ""and apparently the Tea Party made little or no headway there affecting this Tax Overhaul."

This alludes to efforts of some kind made by the Tea Party to oppose this tax law.

The TP very well might have made some efforts but it isn't even hinted at in the article but you threw it in there anyway in what is an obvious promotion of your own agenda.

Everyone does it here from time to time. What separates those with integrity from those who completely lack it is an acknowledgement of the agenda and their efforts.

((I typed this post very, very slowly......hopefully that helps))

APPARENTLY, New York Clown College graduates who are secretly gay, married libertarians and collect antique whiskey flagons made little or no headway there affecting this tax overhaul.


That statement is completely germaine to this discussion...




...in Corny's world.

And the statement is equally true in that world.

((I spot a windmill.......gotta go))

And I stand on what I said earlier, that I never said that they ACTUALLY affected the legislation, just that it was APPARENT to me from the wording that the Tea Party failed to have any affect on the legislation. And, as I said earlier, in New York the Tea Party has become totally identified with the Republican Party and Vice Versa, especially the Conservative Republicans, and they have the Moderate Republicans almost totally cowed, so when a New York article says that Republicans have a problem with something like this, readers understand that the two labels have become code words for each other. You may think that they are NOT looked upon as mirror images of each other, but until such time as the Republican Party in New York announces the divorce from the Tea Party, Democrats and Independents will continue to view the two groups as apparently one and the same.

I adjusted your post to reflect reality as it REALLY is and not how you hope others will see it.


Believe me; no one who reads more than two of your posts is surprised that you are standing by your original words.

You tried (and failed) to throw a jab at the Tea Party by alluding that they had TRIED and FAILED to stop the tax bill discussed in the article. Evidently you believe that the absence of any mention of the TP somehow proves their actions and failure. Of course you failed to answer my direct question about that probably because you realize how frapping stupid that sounds when said that way vs. the smoke blowing method you like to employ.

There is NO EVIDENCE that the TP even TRIED to influence the tax bill and for all you, I or anyone knows, they might have actually supported it. Of course if they did, that would hardly fit into the world you like to live in so that gets ignored.

Seriously, does this ever get old to you? I would think you would find it hard to sit down by now.

So let me get this straight TJMAC -

-You ignored the overrall message of the opening post
-Focused in on exactly one line from the post
-And made a huge deal about it, even after it was explained.
-Spent two pages whining about it

Typical.

As for the ACTUAL TOPIC DISCUSSED,

“While I am against higher taxes, and I believe our long-term economic future for this state is enhanced by in fact lowering taxes to make us more competitive, to deal with this emergency, short-term, we do need additional revenue,” Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, said. “If I were to close the entire gap by budget cuts, it would decimate essential services, doing real harm to the state’s economy and strangling local governments all across this state.”

I'm glad there's finally someone who understand that the Right wing "austerity" religion is a total economic clusterfuck, and are finding REAL solutions, that produce actual tangible revenue - not vague promises that the rich will hire more servants.

So let me get this straight.....Corny posts his usual lame attempt to promote his personal agenda while alerting the entire MTF to a NY law change but since that particular post supports YOUR personal agenda then you decide to deride me....?

-I didn’t ignore Corny’s usual silliness
-Focused in on exactly what I had a problem with (which was one half of the text he wrote)
-Continued to focus on the issue because Corny didn’t explain it. He attempted to deflect
-Were my posts the only one on the two pages ?!?!

Typical.

You can attempt to deflect from his obvious crap but it really is pretty transparent....as is your post.

Well.. yet another reason for me to place NY in my "Don't ever go live there" list.

Well, in truth I don't think it is such a bad law. Of course that might be why it had support to some degree from both parties ("The Senate voted 55 to 0 for the tax code changes about 9 p.m. Wednesday, and the Assembly voted 132 to 8 around 1 a.m. Thursday") except of course for the Tea Party because even though there is absolutely no mention of them and a google search reveals the same negative results they certainly did oppose it exactly because the WERE NOT mentioned in the article. Makes perfect sense to me.

As usual, you seem to ignore the facts and think that in this case (and all others) the left is the hero in this story and the right is the villian... When in reality, they were both pretty evenly supportive of the bill...
Also, you apparently don't know the history with 'ol Corny. He likes to make wild statements then wen called on them, refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong-EVER. It doesn't matter how wrong he is, he will NEVER admit it....EVER. EVER EVER EVER.

Another Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

I really appreciate that someone finally decided to discuss the real issue rather than find a Nit to pick and focus only on that nit.

TJMAC and friends just love to pick nits – it is their life-long passion – and they refuse to let a day go by without finding another Nit to pick. They also love to waste time here arguing with the author of their new Nit, expecting that the author of the Nit will eventually grow tired of the argument, and change his view to match theirs just to get them to shut up. When I eventually grow tired of the argument, I just let them go on arguing without any response. Hence the “Cricket” sound posting they put up.

As to your response about the original posting, I agree with you exactly. Have a great day.