Republicans Up to Usual Help the Rich Politics

Lets see, Republicans will not allow any legislation to pass unless they get, what, another 10 years of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or more likely a permanent tax cut ballooning the deficit beyond comparison to what the umemployment extention they refuse to pass would cost because it adds to the deficit? If you put the revenue it will cost the government for the tax break extention side-by-side on a bar graph with what it would cost to extend unemployment benefits, you can even see the unemployment bar.



GOP says it'll block bills until tax cuts extended | Political Headlines | Comcast.net

 

Both party's plans suck. The Republican's plan just sucks 30% more.

 

There you go pretending you understand the whole story. I listened to Mitch McConnell on Hannity driving home today. It sounds like a great plan to me. So far I'm impressed by how well they're sticking to their promises that got them elected! Mitch says the government does not have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. All he's asking is they extend the Bush tax cuts (instead of giving everyone a tax increase) and has told them to fund the next 10 months of government with the current revenue that's coming in already. Which is how it's SUPPOSED TO BE RUN!! Once they achieve this, then other legislation can be reasonably considered.

Wow. Such a wild and crazy plan. They've already spent us into oblivion. Moen wants them to continue. It shouldn't be that hard to reduce spending compared to the last two years!!

Let's hear what they should do Moen. Something with substance other than just bi%ching about it.

 

Here's the latest gallup poll. Moen, you're in the 13% fringe group as I expected:

Vast Majority Wants Some Aspect of Bush Tax Cuts Extended

 

Wild and crazy would be accurate. The fact is the right is asking for the millionaires get an additional tax break (income over 250K OF TAXABLE INCOME, which actually means well above 250K), and adding that to the deficit would be ok but a much smaller percentage added to the debt for helping the unemployed (which is a ratio of over 50 to 1 by the way), is a bad idea, according to republicans. That's a fact.
In other words, adding 50 times more dollars to the debt than the unemployment extensions would incur, is being DEMANDED by the republicans for their rich buddies, while at the same time say that adding 1/50TH of that amount to the debt for the unemployed is "misguided" and they won't permit it, UNLESS THEIR VERY RICH FRIENDS get an "EXTRA" TAX CUT. Put yet still another way...the poor get nothing unless we, the rich, get our way. Grow some b*lls democrats and put the spotlight on it!

 

The libs who favor these tax increases still refuse to admit that it isn't really the "rich" they are going after...it's the earners, the doers, the risk takers....it's simple redistribution & confiscation of rightly earned property. If libs truly wanted "the rich" to pay they would be attacking the 15% tax rate paid on dividends not the the 36% being paid by people who work & earn. But, of course, that would never happen because the "rich" fat cats who sit back & live off family money, trust, dividends, etc are the lib elite who are calling the shots.

 

You really need to read what you post or at least try not to be so selective in your focus. Actually, you're in the 13% fringe group. I'm in the 83% majority. What a goof! Quote:

"A follow-up question clarifies where Americans would draw that income line, using some widely discussed income thresholds. Relatively few Americans -- 5% -- would set the cutoff for receiving the Bush tax rates at $1 million, but 12% would set it at $500,000. Combined with the 40% who want no income cutoff, this means a 57% majority of Americans believe the Bush tax cuts should fully apply to household income under $500,000. An additional 26% would set the income threshold at $250,000. Thus, 83% are in favor of retaining the tax cuts on income up to that figure."

This is exactly my position. $250,000 and above income earners should see their tax rates return to the level they were before the temporary tax cuts were enacted. You have no right to complain about the deficit when you are unwilling to raise taxes for 10 years. The Republicans are taking their 30 pieces of silver from the richest Americans to do their bidding while the vast majority of Americans are suffering. Such family values? The wealthy are even more wealthy than they have ever been and the middle class has lost ground year after year. 10 solid years of tax breaks and prosperity and job growth are nothing more than dreams for many Americans. Extending the money grab for the wealthiest tax payers will do little to nothing to create jobs but raising their taxes will go a long way to paying down the deficit. You can get into all the philosophical arguments you want about how much the wealthy pay and how the poor pay so little but it isn't going to change the fact that the results of the current economic dynamic vastly favors the wealthy and is killing the middle class and you want to continue this trend.

Bottom line, I do want tax cuts for those earning $250,000 and under but they should expire for those making more. This may just end up raising my own taxes in the long run but as an American, I see the needs of other Americans and I chose not to see them as lazy the way you do. Everyone I know that is unemployed is doing their best to find a job and I refuse to blame the real victims of this harsh economic recession the way you do. Compassion is something that is in short supply among the greedy. You are part of the of the "I have mine, F**k everyone else crowd" and no country's flag is big enough to hide the ugliness of citizens like you no matter how many times you wrap yourself in it's folds. Small towns, small minds.

 

Regardless of what your hero Mitch (Yertle the turtle) McConnell and your other Fox News icons Hannity and Beck say, the Republicans only plan is to hold hostage everyone until the wealthy get their money. Some plan! Republicans spend the government into debt and never once talk about spending nor veto one spending bill in 8 years but now they are suddenly concerned that the piper is at the door and it is time to pay.

Republicans knew when they passed these tax cuts by recionciliation that they would expire. They were never meant to be permanent. and have proven only to cause the greatest recession with the largest deficit in history. Now they want to continue them. Give me one good reason why they should continue.

 

I am in the 13% and truthfully I am not surprised in the least. The fact is, that is why we are in the trouble we are in because the vast majority want to pay no taxes but still get services. And that is why we end up with politicians debating over whether to spend 300 billion a year that we don't have versus 230 billion a year that we don't have...while saying we need to get the national debt under control. A very good illustration that we get the government we deserve.

 

The point you're missing is that the republicans are only trying to continue on as things are now! It isn't an additional tax break. It's just keeping what we have now. If you haven't noticed, the economy is $hit and most people believe it is not a good time to give anyone a tax hike. If people making over $250k get their taxes raised, and they employ people, are they going to absorb the cost or do what they can to retain their wealth? Will that make them hire? You guys don't give a $hit about that. You don't care that the people they're trying to take from, own the money. Unemployment benefits have already been extended how many times to 99 weeks? We're in a recession that may never end. Should they make unemployment benefits unlimited? It'd be cheap after all. May as well!

 

Obama just spent how many trillions in the last two years and you want to talk about republican spending? You can't just be happy that they're finally concerned? Somebody has to become concerned at some point! I believe more than 50% of the population should be paying taxes so everyone has some skin in the game.

So let me get this straight. Because people were allowed to keep their money, it has caused the greatest recession and the worst deficit in history? Government played no role? They were the victim of all this? Thanks for the info.

 

Just a historical perspective...The original 10 year tax cut was based upon a booming economy and projected budget surpluses from the Bush I/Clinton Era tax increases...neither of which held up over the lifetime of the tax cut (wonder of wonders). The debt was about $4-5 trillion at that time. Now it is $13-14 trillion. Then, the original tax cut was projected to cost something like $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Now it is projected cost upwards of $3 trillion over 10 years. Then, the yearly deficit was $130 billion. Now the yearly deficit is $1.3 trillion a year.

 

The deficit was caused by an irresponsible president spending like mad and refusing to raise taxes to cover his spending. Never before in history has this country fought a war, much less two wars, without raising taxes. Look it up. You Republicans like to act as if every financial problem this country has started on January 20th 2009. Obama is simply playing the cards the Republicans dealt him. Granted, they were some pretty crappy cards but at least he isn't preforming card tricks with them the way the Republicans did.


Quote of the Day

The smaller the mind the greater the conceit.

Aesop (620 BC - 560 BC)

 

David Brooks is always a good marker of establishment conventional wisdom. Today, in a column grandly entitled, "A Tax Reform Vision," Brooks celebrates the growing beltway consensus on tax reform, suggesting that a bipartisan accord could be built around lowering tax rates, simplifying the code, and erasing most tax deductions and loopholes. He touts a bill put together by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) that is far more sensible than the more extreme version offered up by the co-chairs of the president's deficit commission. It would lower rates, eliminate loopholes, and end with a tax code that is a bit more progressive and raises a bit more money. If the Republican wingnuts will sign on -- although there is no sign that they will -- progress could be made. Irresistible.
Only we really have played this game before. In the mid 1980s, under Ronald Reagan, civic minded Senator Bill Bradley joined with reformers to fashion a similar deal -- lower rates, eliminate egregious tax loopholes and deductions, in a revenue neutral fashion. The establishment rallied; the bill passed.
Only while the deductions were eliminated, the lobbies that created them were not. They went to work. The loopholes, tax expenditures, various dodges returned. Now the tax code is so riddled with them, that beltway pundits can call for playing the same game once more.
Only while the loopholes returned, the lower rates stayed largely in place. The effect? By 2006, the top 1 percent of Americans (average net worth of about $15 million) pays rates fully one third lower than they did in 1970. The top 0.01 percent -- we're talking multimillionaires here -- pays less than half as large a share of their income. This has had staggering effect. Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson show in their compelling study, Winner Take All Politics, that in 2000, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans now capture a stunning 7.3 percent of all national after-tax income. If they were paying taxes at the same rate as they did in 1970, they would capture "only" 4.5 percent in after tax income. Over one third of their added after-tax income share comes from lower taxes.
We now suffer the worst inequality we've witnessed since the eve of the Great Depression. This inequality undermines our democracy, as concentrated money becomes concentrated power. But it also undermines our economy -- when the few capture so much, the many are strapped, demand for goods declines, companies have over capacity, workers get laid off, the economy suffers.
Alan Simpson, the egregious co-chair of the President's Commission, postures his plan as courageous in opposition to the "greediest generation" that would make no sacrifice. But his plan for deficit reduction begins by lowering top end tax rates once more, playing the same game again. And it seeks budget balance by cutting spending far more than by raising revenues.
Simpson can't bear to level with Americans about the real deal. The inescapable fact is that we need to be investing more at the federal level, not less. Our core infrastructure is literally falling apart. Our schools are unable even to provide the basics to every child. Our colleges are growing less not more affordable, even as advanced training or education becomes ever more important. We're defaulting in the crucial competition to gain leadership in the new green industrial revolution that will define the growing markets of the world. Our safety net -- support for the poor, training and support for the unemployed, affordable and skilled child care for working mothers, retirement security for the elderly -- is shamefully inadequate.
We need very different priorities, far greater discipline, much less waste, but we also need tax reforms that raise revenue. We need to raise rates on the top, tax the wealthiest Americans as they used to be taxed, and use that money to rebuild the economic infrastructure of this country, generating the growth that is the prerequisite to bringing down the debt.
These are simple truths. They are largely unspeakable in conservative Washington, and certainly among a beltway establishment comfortable with the extremes of wealth and cushioned against the terrors of economic recession and insecurity.
Do we have to fall for the same game again? Charley Brown is a lovable chump. Each year, Lucy promises to hold the ball for him to kick. Each year, he trusts her, runs up and takes a mighty swing. Each year, she pulls it away and he falls on his back. We adore him for his trust, his abiding innocence, and his faith in the good will of others. He's a lovable chump. But he ends on his back. We don't really need to fall for the con again do we?

 

At some point, libs will need to honest with themselves & accept that not only has BO been in charge (with a majority control of Congress) for 2 years but he also ran- and was elected- as the guy who knew what the problems were & had the unique qualifications to get them fixed. To admit anything less would be to admit he has been ineffective & was ill-prepared for the role. Or he mislead us into believing he was up for the job?

 

You mean the two wars (that aren't really wars) that B.O. was supposed to end within two years of taking office that have now quietly been extended to 2014?

I would gladly accept a tax increase if any level of government could be responsible enough to do something with it without doing anymore damage. Lets see the cuts. Lets see proof of a realistic plan. That never happens. They were trusted with social security and now that money is counted in the general budget. They can't be trusted with the money they're getting now. Therefore, they should not get more. Very simple concept.
Lets see them do something positive with what they're getting before asking for more. Whether they think they deserve it back or not.

The big question is, what is enough? How much is enough? The answer is nothing is ever enough. The government seems to need more and more money to operate, but yet they go further in debt. They spend beyond whatever they receive.

 

Total receipts for 2011 should be around $2.5 trillion (based upon 2010 numbers and 2011 projections).

2011 budget for Social Security ($740B), Defense ($740B), Medicare ($500B), Medicaid ($260B) and Interest on the debt ($250B) is - wait for it -

$2.490 trillion.

 

The point you seem to be missing it was supposed to be a TEMPORARY tax rate jammed down everybody's throats by reconciliation (you remember reconciliation, that awful democratic ploy to push through their agenda that the right insisted was such a dirty trick?). The point is the wealthiest of the wealthy will still be the wealthiest of the wealthy when their TEMPORARY tax cut was is was drawn up BY THE REPUBLICANS for it to end. By sticking to their ORIGINAL agreement, as proposed BY THEM, it helps the other 98% of Americans which coincidentally, constitute the majority of Americans, in a time when they need it most. Instead, we have spoiled rich brats demanding we change the game plan, screw the debt they so falsely pretend to give a s*it about, while simultaneously denying 1/50th of that amount of debt they have zero problem imposing on the other 98% of Americans for what amounts to an extra case of champagne for their yacht parties.

 

How much is enough indeed. How much is enough for the ultra wealthy? Their answer is basically there is never enough, the corporate motto. Limits only apply as to how much the other 98% of Americans should receive.

 

If you would actually like to know the truth about Social Security and thereby stop relying on sound bites and half truths, read this: Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds