Senate Republicans say they'll block tax increase on wealthy

[Double Trouble]

LOL. Don't make me fucking laugh.

They are rich, and that's EXACTLY why they DON'T "deserve" some of the same shit

Thank you for proving my point, class warfare at it's finest. Perhaps one day when you get out of your parents basement and get a real job, you'll have a better understanding as to why punishing those who earn and produce more doesn't make any sense.

As a liberal, I can just see you Republicans are not only HOLY FUCKING SELF-INTERESTED D-BAGS, but also RETARDED as FUCK.

Quite eloquent. Did you make up all those words yourself? Awwww, here's a little star

Watch as your mansions and cars and your wife get raped when the 90% of the population decides to declare war on your shit. History repeats itself, again and again.

Lol, I wish I had a mansion and lots of cars, but sadly once again your silly little rant is way off the mark.

FUCK the absolutely retardation of Republicans really is on a retarded level.

Judging by your inability to put together even a basic coherent sentence, you should indeed be an expert on all types of retardation. Bravo.

 

[IGBT]

Is the government making plans to confiscate your retirement money? The Obama administration is certainly exploring the idea. This question no longer seems far-fetched when the group-thinkers in Washington unabashedly promote a doctrine of wealth redistribution and central planning. These Keynesian socialists know they will need vast new sources of revenues to fund their relentless spending binges to "transform" this nation. A logical next step would be to legitimize the confiscation of private retirement assets; an idea that was contemplated in the recent past by the Clinton administration.

 

[MJinZ]

LOL - Um....Its THEIR money to being with. Talk about ME ME ME. "progressives" are all about ME.

Now, riddle me this, how does letting someone keep THEIR money prevent you from succeeding?

(Hint: It doesn't)

Shit, I thought it was all the King and Queen's money. You were just working for them back in the day.

 

[her209]

It is truly a masterful piece of PR spin for the GOP to be able to sell a 3% marginal tax increase on annual ordinary income over $250,000 as a horrific tax increase that will crush small business and the economy. I know lots of small business people (myself included) and this doesn't even appear on our radar screens as an issue.

Of which, only affects 3% of those small businesses.

 

[Genx87]

I think it is rather amusing a lot of the people who claimed Bush tax cuts did nothing for the middle class are now claiming if this isnt pass it will hurt the middle class.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
That they hate America

Good one.

Except I honestly don't think that's completely true.

They have America to thanks 100% for getting to where they are, yet they don't appreciate any of it. Instead, they'd ship the Tech Support off to India.

So you are saying they are just plain unappreciative and bite the hand that feeds them? I am sure it's more than that.

 

[Craig234]

Your analogy is false for that scenario.

Be sure to also email the DNC as well. Post their responses here(or just PM them to me).
What they probably don't want to tell you is this:
"We plan to not bring anything to the table(and/or pass them through reconciliation) before the election so that we can blame Republicans for preventing middle class tax cuts to win mid-term elections(or reduce our possible losses)"

Similarly, the Republicans want them to expire under the Democrats/Obama's watch and will preach "See, Obama and his Democrats increased your taxes, elect us and you will receive a tax cut".

Which message will voters believe in November?
I have no idea, but I hope you don't end up accusing me of having "centrist" bias since I'm clearly able to see things from both angles, unlike some of the other posts here from the left and right.

It's too bad you don't get what 'centrist bias' is or that it even exists. Your post here does not show it, it's a reasonable speculation about the politics.

You might be right or wrong - the known facts can fit either - but you are not showing bias with this speculation IMO.

Centrist bias is more if you said that if the Republicans are found to do something wrong, then the Democrats are automatically proven as having done something equally wrong, without any facts of it but simply because you have an aversion to taking either 'side' and will make up what you have to to stay in the middle. That's not what I'm seeing here.

Here, we have a valid question why the Democrats are not using reconciliation. I'd say of course the Democrats would use an issue at times for political gain in the way you suggest.

The question you don't mention, though, is looking at the overall agena and interests served of different parties. Those have some major differences - if not enough - between the parties.

 

[Fern]

Humor me. What federal income taxes do "lower" income people pay?

LOL

Fern

 

[Fern]

Idiotic. If enough Democrats vote to pass tax cut extension for over 90% of Americans, and the Republicans block it with the filibuster, that's the *Republicans' fault*.

I'm thinking if the Dems allow the filibuster, it's their fault. And they're playing games. I see you brought up the reconcillation process below.

-snip-
You went on to raise a very good question why Democrats don't use reconciliation to pass their policy (which Republicans are opposing which is *their* fault).

So, I have a question into Senator Boxer's office asking for an answer. It mentions that reconciliation is how the Republicans got THEIR cuts passed in the first place.

Craig, let us know if you manage to get a reply. I too would like to know why this hasn't been pursued by way of budget reconciliation thus far.

- wolf

Yeah, I'd like to know why this isn't going through reconcilliation as it should.

I think the Dems are playing games:

1. Like the repubs are playing political games with this, so would the Dems if they don't use the reconcilliation process. It's like both sides are playing an unnecessary game of 'political chicken'. Or,

2. The Dems have unrelated (important) crap hidden in the bill that can't be passed under the reconcilliation rules, so they can't use the reconcilliation process w/o dropping the unrelated stuff.

Has anything been published about the tax proposal so far???? I mean any propsed legislation, not talking points. Or is this gonna be another rush to pass unpublished, unread bill, and they need to "pass it so can we see what's in it" type- thingy?

Fern

 

[Patranus]

Of which, only affects 3% of those small businesses.

And?

How does letting those businesses owners keep THIER money stop you from succeeding?

 

[woolfe9999]

If the dems had proposed a bunch of unrelated stuff, the reps would be screaming bloody murder about it. Instead, they and Joe Lieberman are just saying we shouldn't raise anyone's taxes during the recession.

In other news, it looks like Reid has decided to split the bill in two, with one bill to extend the Bush cuts for everyone making under $250K, and another to extend them for those making over $250K, the idea being that the repubs can go ahead and fillibuster the first bill which does nothing more than extend the Bush tax cuts for most Americans. Very clever.

- wolf

 

[Fern]

If the dems had proposed a bunch of unrelated stuff, the reps would be screaming bloody murder about it.

That assumes they have the opportunity to know about it/them, which hasn't always been the case with this Congress.

I've done a brief search, cannot find a copy of the proposed bill published. I look some more tomorrow.

In other news, it looks like Reid has decided to split the bill in two, with one bill to extend the Bush cuts for everyone making under $250K, and another to extend them for those making over $250K, the idea being that the repubs can go ahead and fillibuster the first bill which does nothing more than extend the Bush tax cuts for most Americans. Very clever.

- wolf

Yes, in terms of getting it passed.

But if so, The Repubs can still claim that he Dems passed a tax increase, and that they didn't vote for it. It would also let the Repubs 'off the hook', meaning they don't need to filibuster the extention for middle income people.

Fern

 

[her209]

If the dems had proposed a bunch of unrelated stuff, the reps would be screaming bloody murder about it. Instead, they and Joe Lieberman are just saying we shouldn't raise anyone's taxes during the recession.

In other news, it looks like Reid has decided to split the bill in two, with one bill to extend the Bush cuts for everyone making under $250K, and another to extend them for those making over $250K, the idea being that the repubs can go ahead and fillibuster the first bill which does nothing more than extend the Bush tax cuts for most Americans. Very clever.

- wolf

Well, I doubt that the bill for those making $250k+ will ever make it to the floor until after November (assuming the Republicans have the House/Senate) in which case they'll have to defend why they are voting for the bill to the American people. As for the bill for those making under $250k, the Republicans will have to defend why they aren't voting for it.

 

[manimal]

BTW class warfare goes both ways.......

 

[theeedude]

Supposedly will add $4Trillion to our deficit to extend Bush tax cuts, more than stimulus and healthcare combined.

 

[Pens1566]

Supposedly will add $4Trillion to our deficit to extend Bush tax cuts, more than stimulus and healthcare combined.

"Deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney circa 2004(ish???)

 

[Genx87]

Supposedly will add $4Trillion to our deficit to extend Bush tax cuts, more than stimulus and healthcare combined.

Over what time period?

 

[Carmen813]

Kudos to the republicans for standing up to the usual class warfare arguments (even though it's probably for the wrong reasons, political personal gain). "hey, they are rich, they don't deserve to keep the same tax cuts the rest of the population should get! Get your torches and pitchforks!". The republicans need to hold the democrat's feet to the fire: extend the tax cuts for all, or face the wrath of the population for raising everyone's taxes during an economic depression.

For the record, I don't make anywhere near $250k, so raising taxes on that group does not impact me. That doesn't make it right, so I'm 100% against it.

Of course the wealthy would be taxed at the same rate on the first 250,000 of their income like everyone else, so what we're really talking about is an additional tax cut for the wealthy.

If we're going to spend $700 billion, then use it on infrastructure like the energy grid.

 

[Carmen813]

Over what time period?

10 years. Gives a yearly cost higher than the stimulus bill.

 

[Patranus]

Supposedly will add $4Trillion to our deficit to extend Bush tax cuts, more than stimulus and healthcare combined.

How does letting people keep THEIR money add to the deficit?

You thinking is disgusting as it implies that government is entitled to YOUR money and that you should be happy with anything they LET your keep.

 

[Pens1566]

How does letting people keep THEIR money add to the deficit?

You thinking is disgusting as it implies that government is entitled to YOUR money and that you should be happy with anything they LET your keep.

Well, that's why it had to be passed via reconciliation. Because the cuts weren't/aren't deficit neutral.

 

[First]

How does letting people keep THEIR money add to the deficit?

You thinking is disgusting as it implies that government is entitled to YOUR money and that you should be happy with anything they LET your keep.

Because facts are facts and it would increase the deficit substantially. It's why fiscal conservatives are sometimes so laughably out of touch with reality when they want tax cuts along with simultaneous deficit reduction, as if the two concepts can generally be reconciled without devolving into some anarchistic banana republic.

 

[Fern]

Well, that's why it had to be passed via reconciliation. Because the cuts weren't/aren't deficit neutral.

No, the reconcilliation really has nothing to do with budget neutrality, or lack thereof.

It's merely a parlimentary procedure soley for bugetary matters (spending and taxes).

Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution.

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm

Fern

 

[cubby1223]

Well, that's why it had to be passed via reconciliation. Because the cuts weren't/aren't deficit neutral.

No. It had to be passed via reconciliation because they did not have 60 votes in the senate.

 

[Darwin333]

LOL. Don't make me fucking laugh.

They are rich, and that's EXACTLY why they DON'T "deserve" some of the same shit, like tax breaks, food stamps, and welfare.

As a liberal, I can just see you Republicans are not only HOLY FUCKING SELF-INTERESTED D-BAGS, but also RETARDED as FUCK.

Watch as your mansions and cars and your wife get raped when the 90% of the population decides to declare war on your shit. History repeats itself, again and again.

Why the fuck do you think Democrats support Welfare and shit? Oh 'cuz of the goodness in their hearts? For many, it's 'cuz they got a fucking High School Education and would rather give Welfare to the Blacks and Ghettos rather than have to face carjackings.

FUCK the absolutely retardation of Republicans really is on a retarded level.

So you are saying that Dems support welfare and "shit" to keep the poor poor and to keep the poor away from them, out of sight out of mind? I guess you can't argue with results, it has worked remarkably well.

BTW, if what you say is true, that is just pure evil.

The self-interested part is pretty "retarded" too. Most Republican voters are not what our government considers rich. Most of the people you will debate this issue with are not what our government considers rich. The "rich" are a few percent of the population and some of them are <gasp> Democrats.