Users who Dugg This
timelessbw
668 Followers
adam jones
11736 Followers
No Wingnut Lies!
128 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
Naveed Javaid
8062 Followers
John Boitnott
15810 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
novenatorDec 6, 2010
Without a supermajority of votes in the Senate, NOTHING will get done. Look forward to 2 years of a do-nothing Congress, unless the Democrats puss out and join the minority Republicans in ramming right wing legislation down our throats.
superkendallDec 6, 2010
Actually I am looking for to that very much indeed. Congress has done enough already, at least now possibly we can stop the bleeding and restore some fiscal sanity.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ferretmanDec 6, 2010
Amen brother.
ect5150Dec 6, 2010
I'm usually for something like this, but I'll have to say the current economic situation probably dictates otherwise.
If the economy is depressed, running deficits are okay - but once we rebound and the bills have been paid, it should be straight back the removal of the taxes for all.
arpadDec 6, 2010
The Democrats "pussed out" as a result of getting their asses kicked in the midterm.
Because they listened to people like you.
imurphsDec 6, 2010
Congress was set up so not much could be accomplished... which means, ideally, that only the best bills/laws are passed with the largest number of citizens in mind, unfortunately Congress has been beyond its scope for decades and now... Also, largest number of citizens, and unfortunately $200k+ is not the largest number....
Closed AccountDec 6, 2010
Yeah...it's SO WRONG if it favors the right.
But SO RIGHT when it favors the left.
glassagateDec 6, 2010
The GOP complained about the filibusters rules, when
the democrats were using them during the Bush administration.
If they are going to hold up a vote, I want to see them
actually filibuster.
ect5150Dec 6, 2010
Both sides bitch and moan about the filibuster, but neither side has a problem using it for themselves.
davey914Dec 6, 2010
It's LEFT to give permanent tax breaks to people or families who make less than 200K/250K? This is the majority here that can really benefit from this bill passing.
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
Exactly. This is a chrome plated answer to the question "Who are the only people republicans care about".
rgb86Dec 6, 2010
No, it's WRONG if a majority of the House, Senate, and US Population support it, it's Constitutional, and still manages to get shot down. (Just had to throw the Constitutional provision in there because there are times when you can have a majority of all three supporting an unconstitutional measure, like DOMA).
Stop being so partisan.
glassagateDec 6, 2010
DOMA needs to die. If one's marriage is threatened
by same sex marriage, they need to seek a counselor
The democrats don't support DOMA, just the right.
They do so to secure votes and donations
from the religious right. .
rgb86Dec 6, 2010
I totally agree with all of that. I just had to throw it in as an example of a policy that had majority support but was still the wrong thing to do.
I've always found the schizophrenic nature of the right to be odd and fascinating...I mean, you have these two wildly unrelated groups bound together (the rich and the religious), and they seem to fuel each other despite the unrelated goals. So strange.
pimpofpixelsDec 6, 2010
I agree with Feingold: Let them all lapse.
They were fiscally irresponsible when they were proposed, and they're fiscally irresponsible now.
We can review the decision when we're not bleeding 1.4 trillion dollars a year into the debt.
hipmanDec 6, 2010
..Because of an irresponsible and out of control budget.
pimpofpixelsDec 6, 2010
agreed
phillaholicDec 6, 2010
Letting these tax cuts expire helps control the budget. You can't have it both ways.
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
No, but these idiots try.
u2canfailDec 6, 2010
The deficit is already there. We pay it back 1st. It is not a matter of spending more, it is paying back what we have already spent. Even a war, should be paid at the time. No money, no war. Congress doesn't pay for anything, no accountability. Both parties. It is time to end deficits.
minimumeffortDec 7, 2010
Have what both ways? He can't want tax cuts AND a controlled budget?
If a 4 trillion dollar budget is out of control then increasing the tax to cover it does not make a 4 trillion dollar budget in control.
Tax increases do not help control the budget, only the deficit.
u2canfailDec 6, 2010
We have had deficit spending for years. Congress should have to pay for all benefits when given. It is that simple to me. Want a war, fine, pay for it. Want SS benefits good, pay for them. It is how I think. I am really pretty liberal, but I think my taxes give me many benefits. I am willing to pay for the things I receive in taxes.
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
"We have had deficit spending for years."
Decades would be a better term here.
xeno314Dec 6, 2010
Only one decade, actually. You'll remember that up through 2000, we had a few years of surplus.
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
Yeah but before that you have 40 years or so of deficits, that exploded in the 80s.
u2canfailDec 6, 2010
Clinton had a budget surplus, instead of going to the deficit, Bush gave it back in $200 checks and a tax decrease. NOW that was absolutely dumb, as he had 2 wars going.
phillaholicDec 6, 2010
This is misleading. We didn't have a true surplus. We ended up not spending as much as we had anticipated. We still had national debt, which is the number that keeps getting thrown around that was largely blamed on Bush. We still had a national debt under Clinton, just not as much as it was under Bush.
u2canfailDec 7, 2010
rightwingex, I did say Clinton had a budget surplus, I didn't say no deficit spending. We have had deficit spending for years. This tax extension is just adding to the problem. The BUSH tax cut was stupid when passed the first time, and will be a disaster now. Pay the debt down, and stop spending will both be needed. I know, you don't get the problem is the "deficit". If the USA wasn't already in debt, the stimulus spending would have been an easy hurdle, to help the economy.
superkendallDec 6, 2010
If you thought unemployment rates were great now, just wait until the tax cuts are not renewed...
phillaholicDec 6, 2010
It doesn't work like that.
pimpofpixelsDec 6, 2010
$13,855,000,000,000.00
That's the debt.
$414,000,000,000.00
That's how much money we had to pay in interest on the debt this year. No goods or services rendered... just interest.
What you're saying is essentially "imagine how broke we'd be if we didn't have these credit cards"
You can't debt yourself out of debt. You have to, however painful it is, pay the debt down. You will save money in the long run.
Image what we could do with that $414,000,000,000 if we didn't owe it to foreign bankers?
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
The irony is that the same idiots screaming about how much debt we're passing to our children don't care how much more they're adding by cutting taxes.
u2canfailDec 6, 2010
Not only to they want to increase the debt, they do not want clean air or water for those children. End regulation like the EPA. I find that even more interesting.
jhw539Dec 6, 2010
"You can't debt yourself out of debt."
Really? That college education I got has paid for itself a dozens times over by now (yeah, I got a useful engineering degree) and has another twenty years of profit left in it.
Your 'kitchen table economics' are not even vaguely related to how macroeconomics work. At the macro level, the real wealth *not* being created by the 10% unemployment is gone forever, labor never to be recovered, wealth never to add value to a nation's currency. And if that's too forest for the trees for you, now is a VERY good time to be building infrastructure (a couple buildings I worked design on in 2008 just had bids come in over 15% below estimates, saving millions).
pimpofpixelsDec 6, 2010
Too bad we can't send the government to college.
kjeffvDec 6, 2010
That's funny: They act as if they've been there☞
http://www.washingtonreb.com/2010/12/04/i-made-a-new-word-xliv/
ageofmasteryDec 6, 2010
If you actually base your hiring on your tax rate and not on demand for whatever your company makes you're a f**king idiot and are heading for bankruptcy anyway.
u2canfailDec 6, 2010
When your showing a taxable profit of 250K, I think hiring or investing would be a choice, if TAXES are so awful to you, you want to slip under the line. Don't hire pay, it can be a good decision too. Taxes are still low for what you get.
u2canfailDec 6, 2010
Trickle down, please do not mention that proven NOT TO WORK idea again¡ Bush years just go look at jobs created, then Clinton raised taxes look at those years! Stop listening to everything faux.
u2canfailDec 6, 2010
I agree, I have a job. I am not in the $250k group, but I am working, I can pay. We need to work on the deficit. Increasing income just makes sense.
xeno314Dec 6, 2010
Well, it would make sense to increase income, if the system weren't set up the way it is. If the government gets more money, they're going to spend it, not reduce the deficit. If the choice is between them pissing away my income or me doing it myself, well, that choice is an easy one.
(I should clarify that my view is non-partisan...I believe that everyone on Capitol Hill and in the White House for the last decade is this irresponsible with tax revenue.)
u2canfailDec 6, 2010
I am suggesting they increase income and cut spending. Our deficit is going to require both. I think starting on the problem with less income, (when the tax decrease made NO SENSE in the first place, when passed) is irresponsible. I am not saying increase spending either. I don't make a lot, but at my income level the difference is affordable. I have a job, many do not. The wealthy need this tax break even less. Why is it even an option for them. To fix things, we need both ends. And I am for a totally balanced budget. For every dollar we spend, we must tax to match. END THE BLANK CHECK Even a war, needs to be paid in full.
I don't know that either party will do this. But I am a voter, this is my opinion. I live on a budget. Cash for cars. No credit card use, without payment in full next month. I use very little credit, and short term. It makes my life easy, even in a recession.
I volunteer at the food bank. There are way too many in my line that used to have jobs. But tax cuts won't get them a job.
xeno314Dec 6, 2010
Agreed that it will require both, but I don't think there's any real interest in cutting spending, so I think the measure is only bound to benefit each congress critter's pet programs while making life harder for a lot of people.
Also, raising tax rates in a recession is questionable at best. I have trouble making ends meet as-is. If you're getting along fine, I'm sincerely happy for you, but many of us are not in a position where increased taxes are just an inconvenience.
(Full disclosure: I am an attorney (state government), my wife is an unemployed attorney. Many, many families are worse off, but even this combination doesn't make ends meet. (and no, we don't have the attorney lifestyle going either...))
But, I'm getting off-topic here. The Bush tax cuts for the upper brackets are and always were foolish. They rest on a premise that has been shown faulty time and again. They do not have a direct impact on jobs. You'll notice the income disparity is growing at an alarming rate...people are keeping their money, not using it to boost the economy by expanding their business ventures. Once a business is launched and shown viable, the original proprietor is going to be looking to outside investment and revenue reinvestment, not to his/her own pocketbook. Can't say I blame them, but because the system works this way, there's absolutely no sense in making their pocketbooks larger with unconditional tax breaks.
If you really want to go that route, then you need to create effectively structured tax incentives, not unconditional tax breaks. Until you do that, you're just tossing money back to the wealthy as a reward for, well, being wealthy.
xeno314Dec 6, 2010
Oh, and wanted to agree with you on the overuse of credit, both by individuals and the government.
Also, tax cuts won't get people a job, but they do make it easier to ride out the wait.
bdbrDec 6, 2010
Agreed - If Americans had to pay something closer to what the government spends, they'd be a lot more willing to control spending. As it is, we're misled into believing government is a lot cheaper than it is, and 25% of what we pay goes to interest payments (in the future it will be half).
wargalaDec 6, 2010
Funny how Democrats are whining about this NOW, when they pulled the exact same s**t when Republicans were in the majority. Democrats have has a majority in all 3 branches of government for 2 years now, and STILL haven't managed to get s**t done.
Face it, the only way we're going to get rid of the massive amount of corruption and the like is to enact term limits. If it's good enough for the President, it's good enough for Congress.
rgb86Dec 6, 2010
If you read the damned article, you'd have noticed that even with a majority, the Democrats weren't able to get anything done, thanks to the Republicans.
Face it, the only way we're going to get rid of the massive amount of corruption and the like is to get rid of the Republicans. Unfortunately, we just happened to elect a boatload more of them.
(Though, I gotta say, I do support term limits. Even though all that will do is ensure that lots of new people are becoming corrupted, rather than just sticking with the same old corrupted politicians.)
hipmanDec 6, 2010
Yeah let's give the corruption-free democrats a complete monopoly on power..Moron.
rgb86Dec 6, 2010
The Democrats are far from corrupt. I never claimed they were angels. However, it's most definitely the Republicans holding up all the legislation that would actually benefit American citizens, all in the interest of protecting the most obscenely wealthy (if you read the article, it notes that there's another measure that would have higher taxes for only millionaires and above, but it's still likely to fail).
Anyway, don't put words in my mouth. If you actually want to attempt some civilized discussion, feel free, but otherwise shut the hell up, 'kay?
hipmanDec 6, 2010
As he said, the dems did the same thing when they were in power..Sorry but if you think the solution to corruption is getting rid of one party then you're just retarded and not worth discussion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
"As he said, the dems did the same thing when they were in power"
Hmmm. The "he did it too" excuse stopped working when I was 6.
But then, my parents are competent. Guess that's not true of others.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
letherialDec 6, 2010
No the dems never did block EVERY legislation; sure they used the rules, but never has our government been so crippled at the hands of the minority...
rwinteDec 6, 2010
Some of the most stupid comments on here. I'm definitely not right wing, or Republican. Some people don't want to go the route of Europe and raise taxes like crazy and provide everyone with socialist benefits. I admit it sounds good, but Americans have always been for more freedom over benefits. It's still that way today. The vocal minority is all for giving up freedom so they can get free benefits from the government. Not necessarily a bad thing, but many Americans don't want that right now. They want to keep more of their money and spend it the way they see fit, rather than the government do that.
The only reason that Congress keeps switching sides every few years is that both parties are full of corrupt morons that couldn't care about what their constituents think so they either propose crap legislation or sit around and do nothing at all.
superkendallDec 6, 2010
Since the Democrats are the one intractably linked with things like unions and the entertainment industry, I wouldn't go running to them for purity of purpose! It wasn't a Republican with a freezer full of cash!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
Of course not. The republicans have all their cash where the other rich do.
In China.
rgb86Dec 6, 2010
Don't stereotype. You're forgetting about Swiss bank accounts and the Caiman Islands.
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
True.
shingoexDec 6, 2010
When the GOP stonewalls everything the Dems do, don't blame the Democrats for the reasoning behind why s**t isn't getting done.
It's like having someone chain down a mailman, and blaming the mailman for not getting the mail delivered.
yibbutkeenDec 6, 2010
They couldn't get anything done when they had a filibuster proof 60 votes. They had to bribe 2 of their own to pass Obamacare. Ted Kennedy was replaced by a republican in ultra left Massachusetts because of public backlash against what little they did get done.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaDec 6, 2010
That's because some of those 60 were targeted by the Republican fear machine. This is just one of the reasons I support term limits. As long as congress members are primarily concerned about holding long term, they will vote on the side of continued power rather than what's best for the country.
uncajoeDec 6, 2010Submitter
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” ~ Mitch McConnell
Is any more proof needed that the GOP's goals have absolutely nothing to do with right vs wrong and everything to do with right vs left?
hipmanDec 6, 2010
Wow the opposition party wants to bring down the incumbent President..no s**t...and I bet the dems never wanted to do the same.
rgb86Dec 6, 2010
@hipman: When the country is in the state it's currently in, and your political party's primary goal is not to fix the economy, not to help suffering Americans, not to end the pointless wars, but to do anything and everything just to get "the other guy" out of office, you seriously need to re-evaluate your priorities.
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
Also they never had 60 democrats in the Senate learn to count. There were 2 independents in that 60, 1 being Lieberman. Also, Franken was sworn in a month or 2 before Kennedy died so there wasn't a whole lot of time there either.
I guess here come the blind buries.
yibbutkeenDec 7, 2010
True. But the two that had to be bribed were Louisiana and Nebraska, both Dems.
ncmusicDec 7, 2010
Well at least most of the blue dogs have been voted out now the dems won't have as much of the illusion of control.
It still doesn't make your filibuster proof majority comment just wrong.
u2canfailDec 6, 2010
Term limits or real election reform? I am for election reform. No donations over $25 verified by voter ID. No contact or contribution by any lobby. They should have to write letters on opinions, not buy legislation.
xeno314Dec 6, 2010
We were working on that (in a bipartisan fashion, actually)! The Supreme Court decided in its ultimate wisdom that money is speech, and that we can't make any effective laws concerning campaign finance, nevermind political finance in general. Good luck getting the 28th amendment through Congress to fix that, it'll happen about the same time that they ratify an amendment on term limits.
jnav121Dec 6, 2010
i have an idea , how about instead of blaming everyone else , liberals stick to tgis thing called a budget !!! well they havent passed a new one yet !! its all about taking money that peiole earned and calling it their rights!! hhaha right now its tax increases ...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pimpofpixelsDec 6, 2010
I have an idea: how about, instead of blaming everyone else, conservatives stick to this thing called a budget !!!
How a budget works is, you have a certain amount of revenue, and a certain amount of expense. Right now there's a $14 TRILLION GAP!
Part of that gap is because of these tax cuts, which Bush implemented, that were never fiscally afforded.
We're going to have to cut spending too. Personally, I think we should start with the defense budget.
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
"Personally, I think we should start with the defense budget."
So does anyone else who's actually being honest. But that's the problem isn't it?
evilnecroDec 6, 2010
If you completely ELIMINATED the defense department, you still wouldn't balance the budget. It is convenient to complain about the military, but the reality is that entitlement programs consume the majority of the budget. Until those are addressed (and no one has the cahones to do so), the deficits will continue.
audiomodderDec 6, 2010
they do take up a large chunk of the budget, and they'll have to be addressed. the true reality is that EVERYTHING is going to have to be cut AND taxes are going to have to be increased for this to work. anybody telling you otherwise is a liar.
i don't have a problem taxing the rich more than the poor. trickle-down economics failed. it was worth a try, but we've seen the outcome, now it's time to declare it a failure and move on.
superkendallDec 6, 2010
"Would the GOP block permanent tax breaks for those making less than $250,000 a year, in order to protect lower top rates for the wealthiest Americans?"
A better question is why the Democrats are blocking fair and EQUAL tax cuts for everyone. The tax law is too complex already, if you're going to tax people do so equally, and if you're going to give them tax breaks make that equal too. Punishing only people above a certain line tells small businesses not to bother trying to make money they in turn will simply not hire (which is the situation we are already in).
Remember, the Republicans aren't the ones blocking anything here. They are trying to get the tax breaks through. It's the Democrats who (as always) want to attach special conditions to the thing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phillaholicDec 6, 2010
If you tax everyone equally the poor will all be on wellfare, the middle class will all be poor and the rich will just, just a little less rich. It doesn't work. It would be great if it did, but it doesn't.
superkendallDec 6, 2010
It works because everyone knows what to expect. As long as taxes are low the poor are not on welfare; they are keeping more of their own money - that's what the tax cuts are about.
Taxes are not supposed to be an equalizer that make sure you never really make more than a certain amount.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pimpofpixelsDec 6, 2010
DUDE! We're going broke. The government is 14 trillion in debt. We're running a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. Forget who's to blame. We need to:
1) Cut government spending
2) Increase government revenue.
This is about point #2. We have to raise revenue. The rich have done very very well for themselves over the past few years, and can afford to give a little back. The rest of the country, on the other hand, is in pretty bad straights already.
In a perfect world, yeah, no taxes, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
audiomodderDec 6, 2010
"As long as taxes are low the poor are not on welfare; they are keeping more of their own money"
um, no. they're using it to buy the best food they can afford. listen, a 10% tax reduction when you only make $1200/month BEFORE tax (full-time, minimum wage) still isn't much. it might buy an extra carton of milk every week. a 10% tax reduction when you make $1200/day is a s**tton more....which doesn't usually get spent, it gets saved or invested for more money. you don't have to be a genius here, just look at the facts and make up your own damn mind. all the information on income in the US is available at the IRS's website.
oh, and by the way, 1 in 40 millionaires doesn't pay any tax, so bulls**t on your "taxes are not supposed to be an equalizer" line.
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
The poor already don't pay income taxes and are still poor.
imurphsDec 6, 2010
Inaccurate... If we taxed everyone, say 20%, everyone pays 20% relative to income... So a $1,000,000 income = 200,000 ; obviously a $15,000 income = $3,000. Obviously a flat tax wouldn't be 20%, probably closer to 30% if the government has their way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
And, of course, we're back to the mistaken idea that a flat tax would work.
imurphsDec 6, 2010
Just pointing out the flaw in phillaholic's logic of the poor would be on welfare if we taxed everyone equally...
imurphsDec 6, 2010
although.... this might be worth watching
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-flat-tax-good-for-america-bad-for-washington/
audiomodderDec 6, 2010
while i'm not in favor of flat tax, it is what we essentially have now. everyone pays about the same in effective tax rate. sales taxes tend to hit the poor harder, income taxes tend to hit the rich harder.
that being said, even with a flat tax we'd still have conservatives whining about how the rich carry the tax burden for America (much like we have now) and push to open a few loopholes.
imurphsDec 6, 2010
Unfortunately, we'll always have politicians whining about something.
rtfmaDec 6, 2010
It's not like the current system is working. At least a flat tax with no deductions is fair.
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
Except it's not. Any flat tax will always weigh more heavily on people with less money. It is not "fair" simply because everyone has the same percentage to come up with.
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
So we should take a person that makes just 1250/month and tax them so they only have 1000/month? How is that good for them or America?
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
It's not. It's this mistaken idea that feeding the poor isn't fair unless we feed the rich too.
imurphsDec 6, 2010
Last time I checked, like stated above, that is already how it is... I personally get paid a bit more than that per month, but lose a relative same amount in taxes.... The difference is in the link I provided, there are no loopholes for the rich, so yes, some rich would pay a little less (the honest rich), but many would pay a lot more because they couldn't get deduction after deduction to pay less..... Take 6 minutes to watch the video, I'm not saying its perfect, I'm not an economist or an accountant, but our current system is far from perfect in multiple ways.
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
I'm not arguing our system is perfect but a flat tax can't really exist without shifting more of the tax burden onto the poor or without significant prebates/rebates. Which make that tax not flat but progressive.
phillaholicDec 6, 2010
You are falsely assuming that 20% would do it, it wouldn't. It would have to be much higher. Think about it this way. If are tax rate was something ridiculous, say like 90%. The poor can hardly live as it is now, they are out. The middle class would surely also be out, most of which are just making it into the middle class. But the guy who has 100 Million dollars, still has 10 million dollars. Not enough to sustain the lifestyle of the guy with 100 million dollars, but far enough to live a comfortable life. It would be nice if our government didn't spent so much money that we could have taxes be at 20% and run everything well, but that's not enough.
imurphsDec 6, 2010
20% was the example. Not the answer.
jnav121Dec 6, 2010
every liberal in congress that opposes keeping same rates needs to immediately pay back their fair
share of the wealth they saved or cheated from the treasury , since the first day of bush tax cuts ? just go back to world war 2 laws and have john kerry and company pay 98% , Lead by example !!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
phillaholicDec 6, 2010
Regular members of congress don't make over $200,000 a year.
imurphsDec 6, 2010
They shouldn't even get that much. Either way, one way or another many congressional members do make over $200k... its based on taxable income, not salary income.
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
What the hell is the difference between taxable income and salary income? Are you talking about day trading?
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
Actually other than their salary from the tax payers, most congress members are millionaires already.
Closed AccountDec 6, 2010
Yeah...because the democrats NEVER blocked legislation with a big minority vote when hte Republicans controlled the Senate.
phillaholicDec 6, 2010
That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't make any sense at all.
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
Yeah, but "he started it!" and "well they did it too" are the most intelligent arguments they have these days.
linuxpersonDec 6, 2010
Congress was designed for specifically for gridlock. All the imbeciles who have been crying about obstructionism seem to have overlooked that glaring fact.
The minority parties sole responsibility is to obstruct. As the founders believed, the less Congress can get done, the better.
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
Well the filibuster wasn't used until 1851, I don't think it's anything to do with the founders since it's not in the constitution, it's only part of the senate rules. I don't know why more Senate votes don't use this but it only take 50 votes to suspend the filibuster. I believe that's how the tax cuts were passed in the first place.
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
Yep and then the Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts anyway. I think that's what the Dems should do now.
pethanksDec 6, 2010
All we have to do is just to respect what the higher authority did. They know best.
paranor01Dec 6, 2010
The people are supposed to be the highest authority in the US.
Supposed to be...
carlmosconiDec 6, 2010
The rich get richer.
markglDec 6, 2010
And what the poor get poorer? Man I never heard that one before.
johnferringtonDec 6, 2010
sigh
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
Would they hurt the bottom 85% to protect the top 15%?
Of course they would. It's what being Republican is all about.
u2canfailDec 6, 2010
It seems to me that the deficit needs to be addressed 1st. I am for letting the Bush cuts expire totally. They were stupid, absolutely stupid, when passed. They significantly added to the deficit. When we were spending like crazy. It is time to pay. I have a job, make significantly less than $250k, but I could stand the tax increase.
rtfmaDec 6, 2010
So, the Democrats want to deny benefits to a minority of people, and the Republicans want the law they enact to apply to everyone? Yeah, your position is basically untenable.
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
Pay attention. The republicans are willing to block legislation that will affect the bottom 85% unless the top 15% are included as well.
That's incredibly dishonest.
Also, Democrats denying benefits? I thought that was what you wanted? To reduce abuse of the system right? To stop people who don't need benefits from getting them? Guess what, the RICH DON'T NEED TAX CUTS.
rtfmaDec 7, 2010
Well, one of us is certainly not paying attention. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that it is dishonest to want everyone to be treated equally under the law, but you seem to have fallen for the class warfare BS, so I shouldn't be surprised.
As for what I want, it is very simple. I want minimal government meddling, and I want everyone to pay an equal portion of their income. That means the same percentage rate with no deductions. You make more, you pay more. That means no weaseling out using tax shelters, and no punitive higher rates to punish hard work and ability.
bdbrDec 6, 2010
How are they hurting the bottom 85%? Their taxes are getting cut either way.
Since there are no spending cuts, this measure just increases the federal debt. Since the top 15% pay most of the taxes, they will pay a bigger share of the interest on that debt...and if the debt is ever paid off, they'll pay a bigger share of that, too.
Isn't the more reasonable question: how does this help the top 15%?
dauntless1Dec 6, 2010
"How are they hurting the bottom 85%? Their taxes are getting cut either way."
No, the republicans are willing to block all cuts unless the 15% get their way. They're intentionally holding the less fortunate hostage to get an unnecessary benefit for those who don't need it in any way.
Your second paragraph is based off of a misleading statistic. You could tax the bottom 85 percent of this country at 100% and still only have a fraction of the taxes the rich pay in. Your metric is merely an income indicator. At best it shows the system is working as it is supposed to.
bdbrDec 6, 2010
I'm not convinced that either party will really block cuts for the 85%. They're just playing games to shape the legislation the way they want.
So, what misleading statistic? Don't the top 10% or so pay most of the taxes? I'm not saying they shouldn't (it's merely a result of income distribution), but that they do.
So, here's the thing: people who have money know that interest should only be paid if you don't have the money when you absolutely need something. Otherwise you're paying interest for nothing. I wouldn't want my bank slipping an interest-bearing loan into my checking account for no reason, even if it did raise my balance. Yet here's the GOP telling them that they're doing them a *favor* by replacing their taxes with interest-bearing debt! How does that help them?
dauntless1Dec 7, 2010
" Yet here's the GOP telling them that they're doing them a *favor* by replacing their taxes with interest-bearing debt! How does that help them?"
It doesn't, assuming that the rich will actually pay that debt. After my time at the bank I'm well aware of just how many ridiculous ways there are to either bypass taxes entirely, or shift such funds around in a way that negates taxes.
Also, it has become quite popular to store money in off-shore accounts, or shift one's assets to another country. In the end, if our economy collapses because we overloaded it with debt, those traitors will simply flee the country with their wealth. THEY will not be affected.
linuxpersonDec 6, 2010
Lets assume that higher tax rates equates to higher tax revenues, which has never been shown to be true in history. Now lets also assume that tax rates go up across the board and the Federal government has a larger revenue as a result next year, which is about as likely as winning the lottery after being hit by lightening.
With these assumptions in mind, do you honestly believe that the Federal government would make use of the additional tax dollars responsibly? If you do, then you haven't been paying attention. Democrats have been essentially running Congress since 2006 and they have proven that they are no better at creating fiscally responsible budgets than the Republicans.
Giving the Federal government more tax dollars equates to one thing: more corporate welfare and more war. If you'd rather your tax home pay be padding for some government connected CEOs quarterly bonus, then support tax increases.
bdbrDec 6, 2010
That's a really good point. When this new version goes through, I'm writing to my Congressmen to encourage them to offset the tax reductions with spending reductions. That will make these real tax cuts, rather than just deferring taxes as debt.
linuxpersonDec 6, 2010
While you're writing that letter make sure to point out some specific cost savings measures. For starters you could name ending both wars in the Middle East, scaling back our world empire by closing foreign military bases, ending the war on drugs, abolishing medicare Part D, abolishing a host of unneeded overlapping Federal bureaucracies (i.e. DEA, EPA, DOE, etc.).
ferretmanDec 6, 2010
That's *weird*....can't recall Libs getting all worked up when this kind of balance was working in their *favor*....
The Founding Fathers were really smart guys, and the relatively recent adoption of this rule is one they would have approved of (some did, just not enough to incorporate it formally). It's a good move.
ncmusicDec 6, 2010
Why don't the Democrats just use reconciliation just like when the tax cuts were initially passed?
markglDec 6, 2010
60 or nothing. That's it. This whole the right is blocking the left. Hell yea they are. Cause when it's the other way around the left blocks the right. Keeps everyone in check.
devnulldoodDec 6, 2010
This isn't about raising taxes. Its about extending the already enacted tax cuts. You cannot let these tax cuts expire for "the rich" and then expect them to create a butt load of jobs.
"the rich", Thats kind of funny. Just because you or your company is making over 250K per year doesn't mean your rich though It might seem like it to someone who is only making 10 bucks an hour.
thomasjosephslaDec 7, 2010
profoundly retarded
minimumeffortDec 7, 2010
These rules are the opposite of idiotic. What's idiotic is thinking that the majority of the vote is all you should need to do whatever you want. What's more idiotic is thinking the majority of congress is what the majority of the people want on any given bill. The majority wants it so it must be good. Do I really need to saying this? The point of the constitution is to prevent the majority from walking all over the minority. Why have a constitution that limits the government if the majority has the moral right to determine whatever they want? The constitution is there to prevent any group from winning the majority by a few votes, coming in and ripping away all the rights of the minority. It helps to ensure that something the government does is something the people really want. To argue against the super majority vote is to argue against having a constitution.