Holy barf bag, barfo!

[barfo]

In case you don't understand, the 1200 words is the DIFFERENCE between the two bills that passed (one the house, one the senate).

Bzzt. Wrong again. This aint your night, Denny.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Sorry barfo, but you're actually wrong.

Two huge bills passed, one the house and one the senate. The constitution states that an identical bill must pass both houses. When a bill passes both houses in different wording, there's a conference between a few members of each body and they hammer out the differences. The conference produces a report of the agreed upon changes to make the bills identical, and both houses vote on that REPORT (not the whole bill again). The report in this case was 1200 words.

If you look at the link I just provided, it shows the bill with the changes inserted, in all its full glory. Including this text:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4213/text

"In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment of the Senate, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010’."

&c

 

[barfo]

Sorry barfo, but you're actually wrong.

Two huge bills passed, one the house and one the senate. The constitution states that an identical bill must pass both houses. When a bill passes both houses in different wording, there's a conference between a few members of each body and they hammer out the differences. The conference produces a report of the agreed upon changes to make the bills identical, and both houses vote on that REPORT (not the whole bill again). The report in this case was 1200 words.

If you look at the link I just provided, it shows the bill with the changes inserted, in all its full glory. Including this text:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4213/text

"In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment of the Senate, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010’."

&c

Sorry, Denny, but tis you that is wrong. Read bill 4213. It's only 1298 words, so it is pretty quick. It clearly isn't a "report". It clearly isn't modifying the house and senate versions. It is a stand-alone bill that extends unemployment benefits. It does not reference the senate and house bills whatsoever; rather it references the older law that it amends.

On June 29th Harry Reid introduced an amendment, SA4425, that completely replaced the old, large HR 4213. That amendment (after being amended several times itself) was passed by both the House and the Senate in July and signed into law as HR 4213.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Here's a link where you can read about the amendment:

linky

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Let's compromise. barfo is right.

 

[julius]

whats this have to do with kentucky republicans?

 

[ABM]

whats this have to do with kentucky republicans?

Virtually every thread on S2 is subject to the art of wending.

 

[julius]

Virtually every thread on S2 is subject to the art of wending.

Is that anything like the Art of Noise?

[video=youtube;ZEPq0FvFm3g]

 

[Minstrel]

Virtually every thread on S2 is subject to the art of wending.

Is that anything like the Art of Driving?

[video=youtube;NNjyDPOL2Ms]

 

[Denny Crane]

Sorry, Denny, but tis you that is wrong. Read bill 4213. It's only 1298 words, so it is pretty quick. It clearly isn't a "report". It clearly isn't modifying the house and senate versions. It is a stand-alone bill that extends unemployment benefits. It does not reference the senate and house bills whatsoever; rather it references the older law that it amends.

On June 29th Harry Reid introduced an amendment, SA4425, that completely replaced the old, large HR 4213. That amendment (after being amended several times itself) was passed by both the House and the Senate in July and signed into law as HR 4213.

barfo

OK.

I'm looking at how the guy in the NY Times article got his taxes raised by 7%. Maybe someone who's familiar with the tax code can answer that better.

I have no reason to doubt his taxes went up by that amount, as the NY Times didn't argue it (article accepted it as fact). As did a few other articles I ran across as well.