RINOs finding new and inventive ways to sell out America

[Business_Casual]

Boehner backs Obama tax cut deal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/12/AR2010091201419.html

After being castigated by Obama all week, he turns around and does what Obama wants. What a piece of shit.

B_C

[Belmont31R]

Can't rely on either party to do whats right, and Republican's have turned out to be spineless weasels yet again. I'd be proud of them if they only hammered Obama half as much as dems did to Bush but nope.

[rdc0000]

Look man, give them a chance to contain and repeal. We do not have any other choice at the moment. If they fail again, then we can take more action to strengthen the Rep Party with true conservatives. We win in a piece meal fashion, that is what the lefties have taught me. Take ever win and add to the base, eventually you will change the look of America.

[Belmont31R]

Look man, give them a chance to contain and repeal. We do not have any other choice at the moment. If they fail again, then we can take more action to strengthen the Rep Party with true conservatives. We win in a piece meal fashion, that is what the lefties have taught me. Take ever win and add to the base, eventually you will change the look of America.




The GOP has always been part of the problem not the solution. They may lessen the impact Obama has had if they take back Congress but thats not a solution. Thats just going down the same path in a VW Beetle instead of a corvette. They aren't going to reverse course. Even now they are still touting the stimulus plan they put forward last year, and about how it was only HALF as expensive as the dem plan that passed. I don't have HALF of Obama in charge. I want a reversal, and the GOP has made NO indication they are planning to do that. Many in the GOP are into trillions in social spending, and they added on to Medicare.

Conservatives (fiscally) may get a voice but we are not going to turn the spending around in any meaningful way. A big part of the debt is from the GOP years even as far back as Reagan.

[variablebinary]

He is thinking big picture and not "party of no"

Savvy move actually

[Belmont31R]

He is thinking big picture and not "party of no"

Savvy move actually




Big picture? In order to have confidence in something they have to have some form of merit to garner the confidence. The GOP has not shown any merit they will turn the country around from the entitlement/welfare stranglehold we are in now, make gov more efficient with money, and take all the garbage out of the budgets. In fact they have done quite the opposite, and show no signs of doing anything different if put back in charge.


There is a reason people were luke warm at best with McCain during the last election, and his mentality is very similar to the GOP's in general. The senior GOP leadership sets this mentality, and if the GOP wins big in Nov they will be the ones in charge NOT the conservative side. Boehner, McCain, Graham, ect.

[Business_Casual]

He is thinking big picture and not "party of no"

Savvy move actually

Hardly. The streets are, right now, filled with tea party activists demanding they stop the spending in Congress. What more clear message does he need to stay the course as the party of no more tax and spend policies?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hyLHQe7VrBQXTLSDuX2K8JIUSzlwD9I6F3D00

B_C

[variablebinary]

Hardly. The streets are, right now, filled with tea party activists demanding they stop the spending in Congress. What more clear message does he need to stay the course as the party of no more tax and spend policies?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hyLHQe7VrBQXTLSDuX2K8JIUSzlwD9I6F3D00

B_C

The average voter doesnt give a shit about the top 5%, that includes "tea party" types.

After TARP and telling 99er's to pound sand the GOP leaders know well that they cannot afford to continue the path of "let them eat cake"

The only reason the GOP is getting a shot is because POTUS has made huge mistakes not because there is any love for them.

[Honu]

He is thinking big picture and not "party of no"

Savvy move actually

the big picture of destroying America !

party of no ? I guess those who believe the lefties and wont listen to the other side ? typical

[variablebinary]

the big picture of destroying America !

party of no ? I guess those who believe the lefties and wont listen to the other side ? typical

Doesn't matter when you are campaigning. It's easy as hell to kick GOP candidates in the stomach when they've got no real agenda and nothing but party line votes.

The GOP leaders know this. This tax compromise gives them some ammunition. They can claim to be for shrinking the deficit and supporting the middle class. This will play well in the midterms.

Here is a clue: if you don't win seats your party is DOA.

[Belmont31R]

Doesn't matter when you are campaigning. It's easy as hell to kick GOP candidates in the stomach when they've got no real agenda and nothing but party line votes.

The GOP leaders know this. This tax compromise gives them some ammunition. They can claim to be for shrinking the deficit and supporting the middle class. This will play well in the midterms.

Here is a clue: if you don't win seats your party is DOA.



There are much better ways to shrink the deficit than raising taxes on the people who supply the jobs. Very few people get jobs from people/businesses who make less than 250k a year, and even then those businesses under 250k a year are already seeing higher costs due to ObamaCare.


Its silly to say the reason we have a deficit is because taxes arent high enough. We have a deficit because our government spends more than it takes in, and government spending in the last 10 years has gone WAY up (most notably 2009 and 2010 3.5 trillion added to the debt since 01/20/09). And even Obama admitted it would only be 700 billion over the next decade. Thats 70 billion a year which is barely 1/20th of the deficit at this rate of spending.


So suck up 70 billion a year from the people who actually provide jobs, and let the government distribute that out?


ETA:

I also find it repulsive to hear about a tax cut as the government spending money. That implies it was the government's money in the first place, and them not taxing you is them spending money that YOU earned. It was never theirs to begin with but I guess with commies in charge thats not the case anymore. Now everything you earn was really theirs, and they are paying you.

[Gutshot John]

So let me get this straight? You're only a true Republican if you're in favor of a tax increase for the middle class?

Reagan is doing half-gainers in his grave. :rolleyes:

Variable has got it right...since you can't get them extended for everyone (which Boehner wants and every Republican agrees with but they lack control of either House to force the issue) you get the ones you can get done...done. Then move on to the others when you're in power.

That doesn't make you a RINO, it makes you smart.

[Belmont31R]

So let me get this straight? You're only a true Republican if you're in favor of a tax increase for the middle class?

Reagan is doing half-gainers in his grave. :rolleyes:

Variable has got it right...since you can't get them extended for everyone (which Boehner wants and every Republican agrees with but they lack control of either House to force the issue) you get the ones you can get done...done. Then move on to the others when you're in power.

That doesn't make you a RINO, it makes you smart.



No. Anything is better than nothing.

[SW-Shooter]

There needs to be a litmus test for anyone wanting to run as a conservative. Then they need to sign a contract stating they will not deviate from those core values. Until that happens we will always have this problem.

[HK45]

It never ceases to amaze me how people believe there is any real difference between either party and get all agitated about one side or the other. All either wants to do is maintain the balance between getting campaign bribes, I mean contributions, while maintaining the illusion that they are throwing us a bone or two in whatever our particular likes or dislikes are. It's bad enough when people buy into the politicians but when you buy into the Beck, Palin, Olbermann or other hucksters that requires some serious ignorance and cognitive dissonance. Notice I said ignorance not stupidity. Ignorance is different. So you know, rant away if it makes you feel batter.

[Business_Casual]

Politic realism is what got us to where we are now. Signalling a deal on a Sunday show is just stupid and weak.

B_C

[Gutshot John]

No. Anything is better than nothing.

Exactly!

[Gutshot John]

Politic realism is what got us to where we are now. Signalling a deal on a Sunday show is just stupid and weak.

B_C

So political fairy-tales are better? I gave up on fairy-tales years ago and Sarah Palin is a latter-day Mother Goose.

Real conservatives used to view the world as it was, not as it would be in their wildest dreams if the sun rose in the west and set in the east.

[variablebinary]

So political fairy-tales are better? I gave up on fairy-tales years ago and Sarah Palin is a latter-day Mother Goose.

Real conservatives used to view the world as it was, not as it would be in their wildest dreams if the sun rose in the west and set in the east.

At the end of the day, who is going to complain about a middle class tax cut.

And the Bush tax cuts sunsetting for the top 5% was never meant to be permanent. The lawmakers agreed on a 10 year sunset, and that's what they got. The GOP has no control over that. They do however have the ability to still get tax cuts implemented.

Or should Boenher stand up on the floor and say "If there are no tax cuts for wealthy people, than the middle class should get screwed"

[Gutshot John]

At the end of the day, who is going to complain about a middle class tax cut.

Indeed.

[chadbag]

Or should Boenher stand up on the floor and say "If there are no tax cuts for wealthy people, than the middle class should get screwed"

What Boehner needs to be standing up and saying is:

"We believe in tax cuts for everyone, including those small businesspeople who provide the jobs in this country and are taxed at the highest level. In order to provide tax cuts that can get passed, we are supporting the extension of the middle class tax cuts implemented by Republicans in the last 10 years, and once we have regained the Congress, will be implementing tax cuts for those being left out of the Democratic class-warfare cuts now."

Something along those lines. Since they are not in control of the Congress now, they cannot control the agenda really. So they have to get victories where they can and if they can only get 1/2 the tax cut, they should take it. But they need to frame it as half a tax cut and say that they will be working to complete it after the elections.

I think the GOP has succeeded in no small way by even having Obama call for any tax cuts. As has been mentioned, you win by slowly carving back small victories. Death by 1000 paper cuts, so to speak. The GOP will never get the huge all-in-one victory in one vote. So they take what they can get and then reframe the debate to attack the next point. If they fail to do that, then they get called out on it.

This is how the gun control situation got to where it is now. Lots of small and medium sized things getting passed. Compromises in the wrong direction.

Any time we see the progressives having to compromise in the right direction, we know we are making progress.

Now we just need to get compromises in the right direction on spending.

[No.6]

Look man, give them a chance to contain and repeal. We do not have any other choice at the moment. If they fail again (my emphasis), then we can take more action to strengthen the Rep Party with true conservatives. We win in a piece meal fashion, that is what the lefties have taught me. Take ever win and add to the base, eventually you will change the look of America.

Where have I heard this argument before? How many times do we have to let them continue to conduct "business as usual" before we insist on a wholesale change. My fear is that the "wholesale change" comes from a bullet instead of a ballot.

[chadbag]

Where have I heard this argument before? How many times do we have to let them continue to conduct "business as usual" before we insist on a wholesale change. My fear is that the "wholesale change" comes from a bullet instead of a ballot.

I think many are missing the point.

I am all for compromise and stuff, "business as usual" AS LONG AS THE CHANGE is in the correct direction. No more compromises and stuff when the result is more spending, more taxes, more infringing of rights, etc. That is line in the sand time.

But if the compromise means we move the chains 5 yards in the correct direction, I am all for it. Over and over again. That is how we got where we are, and while there will be a few big plays that move the chains long distances, most of it will be short distance moves that come about because of compromise. That is how it will end up happening.

[Bill Bryant]

If there were a way to measure a nation's GDE (gross domestic effort) it would track exactly (barring earthquakes, wars, and floods) with the nation's prosperity. All political systems are experiments at engineering an improvement in GDE, and most, because they ignore basic human nature, are hopelessly flawed. Today in America, that includes systems proposed by Republicans and Democrats alike, because neither party takes seriously the immutable characteristics of human nature.

[Belmont31R]

I think many are missing the point.

I am all for compromise and stuff, "business as usual" AS LONG AS THE CHANGE is in the correct direction. No more compromises and stuff when the result is more spending, more taxes, more infringing of rights, etc. That is line in the sand time.

But if the compromise means we move the chains 5 yards in the correct direction, I am all for it. Over and over again. That is how we got where we are, and while there will be a few big plays that move the chains long distances, most of it will be short distance moves that come about because of compromise. That is how it will end up happening.


Progressives are not dumb enough to compromise to the right unless there is something more to their benefit. They'll sign off on shit like CCW in Natl Parks but then we got more gov intrusion in private business (the credit card bill).


If you think they will let the country shift to the right with a yes vote you have another thing coming.

[chadbag]

Progressives are not dumb enough to compromise to the right unless there is something more to their benefit. They'll sign off on shit like CCW in Natl Parks but then we got more gov intrusion in private business (the credit card bill).


If you think they will let the country shift to the right with a yes vote you have another thing coming.

I guess you missed Obama calling for extensions of the tax cuts that came during Bush. While not calling for an extension of them all, he is calling for extension of quite a lot. He would not be doing that if the political winds were blowing his way.

[Belmont31R]

I guess you missed Obama calling for extensions of the tax cuts that came during Bush. While not calling for an extension of them all, he is calling for extension of quite a lot. He would not be doing that if the political winds were blowing his way.



A very recent admission, and I guarentee you these same middle class people will be WORSE off than they were financially the day he took office.

When taxes go up on the job creators and big spenders that is money that doesn't quite get to the economy in the same way it otherwise would. That means less jobs, less spending, less investing in companies, ect. All things that provide us with jobs. So no the middle class is BARELY any better off if at all. In fact its probably worse because thats less money in the economy naturally.

And not only that but due to ObamaCare insurance costs are going up. That means less people can afford insurance or if they still can thats all the less money they are spending elsewhere.

There are a lot of taxes going up next year besides the income tax, too. The death/estate tax comes back online, capital gains goes up, ect.

All said and done by the time this idiot leaves office middle class people are going to be paying more. The above doesn't even include the massive debt burden that has been placed on all of us that we have to pay for long after this commie leaves office. We are far worse off now than the day he took office let alone all the shit that is going to pile up in the future. He's not doing anyone any favors. Hows that for a "big picture"?

[chadbag]

A very recent admission, and I guarentee you these same middle class people will be WORSE off than they were financially the day he took office.


No argument here.



When taxes go up on the job creators and big spenders that is money that doesn't quite get to the economy in the same way it otherwise would. That means less jobs, less spending, less investing in companies, ect. All things that provide us with jobs. So no the middle class is BARELY any better off if at all. In fact its probably worse because thats less money in the economy naturally.


Again, no argument. However, it does not negate that it is a continuation of tax cuts and is a step in the right direction. It needs to be followed up by other steps.



And not only that but due to ObamaCare insurance costs are going up. That means less people can afford insurance or if they still can thats all the less money they are spending elsewhere.

There are a lot of taxes going up next year besides the income tax, too. The death/estate tax comes back online, capital gains goes up, ect.

All said and done by the time this idiot leaves office middle class people are going to be paying more. The above doesn't even include the massive debt burden that has been placed on all of us that we have to pay for long after this commie leaves office. We are far worse off now than the day he took office let alone all the shit that is going to pile up in the future. He's not doing anyone any favors. Hows that for a "big picture"?

Again. No argument here. But all your argumentation does not negate that the progressives have had to move in a positive direction on taxes by calling for the continuation of the so-called "Bush" tax cuts. It is one step in the right direction.

It does not mean that Obama should now be praised or that it makes all the other crap OK or good or anything. Those things need to be attacked and rolled back too. Probably in small steps like this one.

It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you will get Congress to be able to pass a law that would rollback all that stuff you talked about at once.

So, while not ideal, I will take small steps. And keep pushing for more small steps.

[Belmont31R]

No argument here.



Again, no argument. However, it does not negate that it is a continuation of tax cuts and is a step in the right direction. It needs to be followed up by other steps.



Again. No argument here. But all your argumentation does not negate that the progressives have had to move in a positive direction on taxes by calling for the continuation of the so-called "Bush" tax cuts. It is one step in the right direction.

It does not mean that Obama should now be praised or that it makes all the other crap OK or good or anything. Those things need to be attacked and rolled back too. Probably in small steps like this one.

It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you will get Congress to be able to pass a law that would rollback all that stuff you talked about at once.

So, while not ideal, I will take small steps. And keep pushing for more small steps.


The only reason they are doing the "middle class tax cuts" is because it gives them a lot of talking points, and has VERY LITTLE effect on tax revenues. Middle class people pay little to no federal taxes in the first place. "Tax cuts on the rich" has by far the most economic input. While its a step in the right direction, again, the benefit for them is greater than the benefit for us. They never agree to anything unless it benefits them more than it does us.

[chadbag]

The only reason they are doing the "middle class tax cuts" is because it gives them a lot of talking points, and has VERY LITTLE effect on tax revenues. Middle class people pay little to no federal taxes in the first place. "Tax cuts on the rich" has by far the most economic input. While its a step in the right direction, again, the benefit for them is greater than the benefit for us. They never agree to anything unless it benefits them more than it does us.

Do you have any sources for your claims of very little revenue for the middle class part of the tax cuts? It is a big deal to me (probably a couple grand) and to almost anyone who pays taxes (and would probably result in more people having to pay taxes with the child credit being cut in half).

The child credit being cut in half and the raising of the rates for everyone (the 10% rate going to 15%) it would affect most people in a serious way. There was a thread on M4C a few weeks or a month or so ago where a few people calculated how their taxes would be affected and it was not insignificant.

I am not trying to say "Screw em" to the people that Obama calls "rich." The tax cuts should be extended across the board and made permanent. But it may have to be done in stages. If the GOP wins big and controls Congress after the Nov elections (I realize they are not seated until the beginning of Jan) and they do NOT make a serious effort to extend them then the GOP should be voted out the next election.

But this should be an easy one for the GOP to win the P/R battle for if they had half a brain to frame the discussion the way it should be.

Class warfare charges and charges of killing the economic engine are not hard to press if they are willing. The GOP leaders are however spineless and unwilling to really take the gloves off.

[Gutshot John]

Do you have any sources for your claims of very little revenue for the middle class part of the tax cuts? It is a big deal to me (probably a couple grand) and to almost anyone who pays taxes (and would probably result in more people having to pay taxes with the child credit being cut in half).

It's not very little, there is still a sizable chunk but the top 10% produces more than half the income tax revenue.

There would be more overall stimulative effect from cutting taxes on the wealthy.

A middle-class tax cut however is more politically palatable even of dubious impact.


Class warfare charges and charges of killing the economic engine are not hard to press if they are willing. The GOP leaders are however spineless and unwilling to really take the gloves off.

It's a very hard thing to explain to the majority of people who don't understand the principles involved, how do you explain that most small businesses pay income tax at the individual level and that assets/income of a proprietorship small business make some people "millionaires" even if they are solidly in the middle-class? If you can't explain your position in a 30 second sound byte than you're pretty well screwed. The Democrats know this and they have the simpler message.

[chadbag]

It's not very little, there is still a sizable chunk but the top 10% produces more than half the income tax revenue.

There would be more overall stimulative effect from cutting taxes on the wealthy.


That is not in dispute.

As a side note, in 2007, according to the following table, the top 10% were people making $113k or more, much below Obama's $250K definition. Does anyone know what Obama is actually proposing?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html





A middle-class tax cut however is more politically palatable even of dubious impact.


I agree here and my whole point is that we should take it as a starting point and then come back and hit them up for more. We should not make it an all or nothing proposition. That gets you nowhere.





It's a very hard thing to explain to the majority of people who don't understand the principles involved, how do you explain that most small businesses pay income tax at the individual level and that assets/income of a proprietorship small business make some people "millionaires" even if they are solidly in the middle-class? If you can't explain your position in a 30 second sound byte than you're pretty well screwed. The Democrats know this and they have the simpler message.

[Belmont31R]

Do you have any sources for your claims of very little revenue for the middle class part of the tax cuts? It is a big deal to me (probably a couple grand) and to almost anyone who pays taxes (and would probably result in more people having to pay taxes with the child credit being cut in half).

The child credit being cut in half and the raising of the rates for everyone (the 10% rate going to 15%) it would affect most people in a serious way. There was a thread on M4C a few weeks or a month or so ago where a few people calculated how their taxes would be affected and it was not insignificant.

I am not trying to say "Screw em" to the people that Obama calls "rich." The tax cuts should be extended across the board and made permanent. But it may have to be done in stages. If the GOP wins big and controls Congress after the Nov elections (I realize they are not seated until the beginning of Jan) and they do NOT make a serious effort to extend them then the GOP should be voted out the next election.

But this should be an easy one for the GOP to win the P/R battle for if they had half a brain to frame the discussion the way it should be.

Class warfare charges and charges of killing the economic engine are not hard to press if they are willing. The GOP leaders are however spineless and unwilling to really take the gloves off.



Its pretty well known the rich pay the vast majority of taxes in this country, and around HALF don't pay any income taxes at all. So tax cuts on a group that pays very little of the overall tax burden isn't going to have as big of impact on cutting taxes for the rich. Sure it might be a couple thousand in your pocket but again, someone making that amount of money isn't in the group that supplies jobs, who decides who is getting a raise, what benefits you get, ect. A boost of a couple thousand in your pocket isn't someones job. However a small business owner who's pulling in 750k a year that is soemones job if their taxes go up 5%. Thats almost 40k a year in extra taxes on the "rich". 40k not going into the economy naturally.

Not to mention ObamaCare is going to be socking these people very soon. Its already hard enough right now for these companies to hire people, and now because they are classified as rich they get to pay the brunt of Obama's social spending.

Like I said we are all going to be worse off. These middle class tax cuts being kept on the books is good but its like punching someone and then handing them a band aide. Sure the band aide helps but you're worse off than before you got hit. Obama is socking it to the very people we rely on to get jobs, our benefits, raises, ect. All to fund his stupid ass economic policies, his socialist Utopian dreams, fulfill his desire to reduce people's wealth so the gov can funnel it to those who didn't earn it. He wants the gov to be the one who doles out wealth, the one to provide jobs, decide what benefits we get, ect. We don't even get to decide what health insurance benefits we want anymore. Now Kathrine Sebelius gets to when that part of ObamaCare goes into effect.


Oh if you want the numbers when the Bush tax cuts were passed into law it was supposed to be around 900 billion over 10 years. Obama just said tax cuts on the rich would be 700 billion of 10 years. So the bulk of the tax cuts goes to the rich because they are already paying the majority of the taxes anyways.



The report calculated that households with incomes in that top 1 percent were receiving an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, while households in the middle 20 percent of earnings - averaging about $57,000 a year - were getting an average cut of only $1,090.

NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/politics/campaign/13tax.html

[Gutshot John]

That is not in dispute.

As a side note, in 2007, according to the following table, the top 10% were people making $113k or more, much below Obama's $250K definition. Does anyone know what Obama is actually proposing?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html




I agree here and my whole point is that we should take it as a starting point and then come back and hit them up for more. We should not make it an all or nothing proposition. That gets you nowhere.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[chadbag]

It is interesting that after the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" that the amount of taxes paid by the top few percent of tax payers went UP (after an initial drop for just a couple of years)

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

[chadbag]

Again, I am not disagreeing with you.

I am disagreeing with the idea that we should make it an all or nothing proposition. That is my whole point. Not that I think that we should not apply the extension of the cuts across the board. I am saying we need to win the war, not just this battle.

Obviously a rich person is going to have a bigger absolute value of tax cuts. They pay far more in taxes in the first place. It is also a pretty useless figure (the absolute value). More importantly, to judge its effect on people, is to see what percentage of their taxes it is. While the average person may only have $1500-$2500 in tax savings, that is a lot for that person and a lot more people of that sort saving the money and spending it or paying down debt (which is the same as savings in that that money then gets recycled into the economy by the banks) makes a big difference. One person saving $75k or 50 people saving $1500. It is all money that gets put back into the economy.


Its pretty well known the rich pay the vast majority of taxes in this country, and around HALF don't pay any income taxes at all. So tax cuts on a group that pays very little of the overall tax burden isn't going to have as big of impact on cutting taxes for the rich. Sure it might be a couple thousand in your pocket but again, someone making that amount of money isn't in the group that supplies jobs, who decides who is getting a raise, what benefits you get, ect. A boost of a couple thousand in your pocket isn't someones job. However a small business owner who's pulling in 750k a year that is soemones job if their taxes go up 5%. Thats almost 40k a year in extra taxes on the "rich". 40k not going into the economy naturally.

Not to mention ObamaCare is going to be socking these people very soon. Its already hard enough right now for these companies to hire people, and now because they are classified as rich they get to pay the brunt of Obama's social spending.

Like I said we are all going to be worse off. These middle class tax cuts being kept on the books is good but its like punching someone and then handing them a band aide. Sure the band aide helps but you're worse off than before you got hit. Obama is socking it to the very people we rely on to get jobs, our benefits, raises, ect. All to fund his stupid ass economic policies, his socialist Utopian dreams, fulfill his desire to reduce people's wealth so the gov can funnel it to those who didn't earn it. He wants the gov to be the one who doles out wealth, the one to provide jobs, decide what benefits we get, ect. We don't even get to decide what health insurance benefits we want anymore. Now Kathrine Sebelius gets to when that part of ObamaCare goes into effect.


Oh if you want the numbers when the Bush tax cuts were passed into law it was supposed to be around 900 billion over 10 years. Obama just said tax cuts on the rich would be 700 billion of 10 years. So the bulk of the tax cuts goes to the rich because they are already paying the majority of the taxes anyways.




NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/politics/campaign/13tax.html

[chadbag]

NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/politics/campaign/13tax.html

That article is from 2004. If you look at the percentage of taxes paid by which brackets, you will see that the dip only lasted a few years and that the rich people's, even with these so-called cuts, percentage of the overall tax burden is actually higher now with these cuts than pre sp-called "Bush Tax Cuts"

[Belmont31R]

It is interesting that after the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" that the amount of taxes paid by the top few percent of tax payers went UP (after an initial drop for just a couple of years)

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html



Thats because the top 1% went up in income brackets.

[Belmont31R]

Again, I am not disagreeing with you.

I am disagreeing with the idea that we should make it an all or nothing proposition. That is my whole point. Not that I think that we should not apply the extension of the cuts across the board. I am saying we need to win the war, not just this battle.

Obviously a rich person is going to have a bigger absolute value of tax cuts. They pay far more in taxes in the first place. It is also a pretty useless figure (the absolute value). More importantly, to judge its effect on people, is to see what percentage of their taxes it is. While the average person may only have $1500-$2500 in tax savings, that is a lot for that person and a lot more people of that sort saving the money and spending it or paying down debt (which is the same as savings in that that money then gets recycled into the economy by the banks) makes a big difference. One person saving $75k or 50 people saving $1500. It is all money that gets put back into the economy.



Sure. I already said its better than nothing but its nothing to get excited for economics wise. It has little impact on the total economy because the tax cuts for the middle class is not all that much money when you look at the big picture. Sure its 1000-2000 for most of us but that doesn't really matter if you're suddenly out a job because the job provider taxes just went up more than you make in a year, and its not going to have a significant impact on the economy.


ObamaCare and taxes going up for 250k + will have a big impact because that hits the very people we need to be doing well right now the most. Its a net loss for all of us.


Oh and its not really a compromise to begin with. The dems have said last month they were most likely going to extend tax cuts for the 250 or less crew. What did they give in to? Obama said in 2008 he wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle class. So what they did they give up? They didn't give up anything. They are doing what they said they were going to do for a while. A compromise would have been, say, no tax increases on businesses or individual people under 500k. That would have made them give up something. They only did what they already said they were going to do. The GOP didn't get them to compromise. The dem position was no tax raises on people under 250k. The GOP position is no taxes raises at all. Where did we end up? The 250k mark.

[Belmont31R]

That article is from 2004. If you look at the percentage of taxes paid by which brackets, you will see that the dip only lasted a few years and that the rich people's, even with these so-called cuts, percentage of the overall tax burden is actually higher now with these cuts than pre sp-called "Bush Tax Cuts"



Thats because half the country doesnt pay income taxes anyways, and tax cuts on those near not paying any taxes to begin with raises the tax burden even higher.


Its like if you have 40% who don't pay taxes, 20% who pay very little, 20% who pay modestly, and 20% who pay the majority of it...if you bump up the number of those who don't pay to 60% then you have 40% of the people paying 100% of the tax burden whereas before it was 60% of the people paying 100% of the burden. This is just an example but the point is the same.

[Belmont31R]

They actually grew a spine....



WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans will oppose any effort to renew soon-to-expire Bush administration tax cuts if upper income taxpayers are excluded from the reductions. A spokesman for Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that every Senate Republican has pledged to oppose President Barack Obama's tax-cutting plan. Obama would renew the tax cuts for most people, but let the top income tax rate rise back to almost 40 percent on family or small business income over $250,000.



rest: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/13/mcconnell-every-senate-re_n_714739.html

[Gutshot John]

They actually grew a spine....






rest: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/13/mcconnell-every-senate-re_n_714739.html

Well it will be an interesting test.

It's either brilliant or breathtaking stupidity.

We'll find out the first Tuesday in November.

[Belmont31R]

Well it will be an interesting test.

It's either brilliant or breathtaking stupidity.

We'll find out the first Tuesday in November.




Yep. They need to play it right, and explain their reasoning better than Obama explains his.


Hopefully enough people figure out raising taxes on the rich hurts all of us not just the rich people actually writing the check. Every dollar they send to the gov is one less dollar to pay for jobs, benefits, or commerce in our economy (which gives other people money for jobs, benefits, profits, ect).

[Business_Casual]

http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN1319949920100913?ca=rdt

dupe story

B_C

[Caeser25]

What Boehner needs to be standing up and saying is:

"We believe in tax cuts for everyone, including those small businesspeople who provide the jobs in this country and are taxed at the highest level. In order to provide tax cuts that can get passed, we are supporting the extension of the middle class tax cuts implemented by Republicans in the last 10 years, and once we have regained the Congress, will be implementing tax cuts for those being left out of the Democratic class-warfare cuts now."

Something along those lines. Since they are not in control of the Congress now, they cannot control the agenda really. So they have to get victories where they can and if they can only get 1/2 the tax cut, they should take it. But they need to frame it as half a tax cut and say that they will be working to complete it after the elections.

I think the GOP has succeeded in no small way by even having Obama call for any tax cuts. As has been mentioned, you win by slowly carving back small victories. Death by 1000 paper cuts, so to speak. The GOP will never get the huge all-in-one victory in one vote. So they take what they can get and then reframe the debate to attack the next point. If they fail to do that, then they get called out on it.

This is how the gun control situation got to where it is now. Lots of small and medium sized things getting passed. Compromises in the wrong direction.

Any time we see the progressives having to compromise in the right direction, we know we are making progress.

Now we just need to get compromises in the right direction on spending.

That's exactly it. We NEED politicians that will draw a line in the sand and stick by it. Lefties keep chipping away at everything.

[BrianS]

Well it will be an interesting test.

It's either brilliant or breathtaking stupidity.

We'll find out the first Tuesday in November.

They need to be very loud about the fact that people who make more than 250k are almost all of the employers in this country if this isn't going to hurt them.

People need to understand that aspect of what is going to be demagogued as "taxcuts for the rich" by the Democrats.

[Gutshot John]

They need to be very loud about the fact that people who make more than 250k are almost all of the employers in this country if this isn't going to hurt them.

No...being the engine of employment does not mean they are almost all the employers. These are two different statements.


People need to understand that aspect of what is going to be demagogued as "taxcuts for the rich" by the Democrats.

If that were easy to understand by most people, Republicans would have won every election for the past 40 years.

[Belmont31R]

No...being the engine of employment does not mean they are almost all the employers. These are two different statements.



If that were easy to understand by most people, Republicans would have won every election for the past 40 years.



Some people do understand, and some don't. Some of the ones who do don't like it, and think wealth should be spread around based on some perceived need rather than working for it in a capitalistic fashion.

[BrianS]

No...being the engine of employment does not mean they are almost all the employers. These are two different statements.

Well I guess in the case of personal income tax you are right. I was thinking along the lines of "persons" as frequently used in federal law to refer to any entity. Corporate taxes are handled differently than personal income tax and very wealthy shareholders usually have their taxes structured in a way that they have no income.


If that were easy to understand by most people, Republicans would have won every election for the past 40 years.

But Republicans are very rarely good at getting across their message. When they are (Reagan, Contract with America) they usually do win.

I hope we are not disappointed in late September when they bring out their multi-point proposal to the American people.

On a side note I found this list of all the tax provisions set to expire at the end of the year. I wonder how much money this represents and what kind of blow it will end up being to the economy if they do expire.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26010.html

[THCDDM4]

It never ceases to amaze me how people believe there is any real difference between either party and get all agitated about one side or the other. All either wants to do is maintain the balance between getting campaign bribes, I mean contributions, while maintaining the illusion that they are throwing us a bone or two in whatever our particular likes or dislikes are. It's bad enough when people buy into the politicians but when you buy into the Beck, Palin, Olbermann or other hucksters that requires some serious ignorance and cognitive dissonance. Notice I said ignorance not stupidity. Ignorance is different. So you know, rant away if it makes you feel batter.

****ING A!

No separation between the parties for the last 100 years or so. They just pit us against eachother so they can manuever how they please with us fighting one another instead of uniting and fighting them.
Oldest trick in teh book, divivde and conquer (It's working very well for them too; just look how divided we are as citizens; fighting eachother and allowing them to usurp our liberty and sell our soverignty).

Once people realize this (Not just think about it for a second and go back to the "Repubs this..." "Dems that..."), and stop shouting back and forth between imaginary political lines; we can unite and fight the Government and take back the freedoms they have so dilligently erroded.

There are no republicans in office, there are no democrats in office; only republicrats and democans putting on quite a fancy show via the media; and using us as pawns against one another.

[Bill Bryant]

Today Right and Left alike push caricatured myths in support of their respective statisms. Crony capitalism and government bureaucracy grow apace, one sometimes a bit ahead of the other, neither ever far behind, both lurching onward, Leviathan and Juggernaut together crushing liberty under their rapacious tank treads. Washington Democrats and Washington Republicans are Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

[VooDoo6Actual]

imo, America is run by corporations at this time.

Corporations by default are socialpaths.

[THCDDM4]

Corporate fudalism is the way of the world.
It's very sad.