Senate Republicans say they'll block tax increase on wealthy

[Darwin333]

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.

And all this bleating about high taxes-the top bracket was 94% when I was a kid, under that socialist Eisenhower. The top bracket rate is now slightly over a third of that rate.

At face value I would agree with you but its not just the 3% increase they are pissed about. They are already freaking about the 1099 bullshit, tax increases in the HC bill that are coming down the pike, scared that the cap on social security is going to be removed, increase in capital gains taxes and to top it off the 3% hike in income taxes.

I know quite a few rich bastards and in their minds the "magical" number is 49%. They believe they should get to keep at LEAST more of their money than the .gov does. A lot of them think that they could potentially cross that threshold soon, at least the ones that I know and work with. That is one of the reasons they are sitting on their money (actually, last week I was at a meeting that had ended and we were all bullshitting and there was a big discussion about how a lot were moving that cash into tax free bonds).

This is all anecdotal of course but in my little corner of the world that is the perception and perception IS reality.

 

[Darwin333]

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

First of all, that is over 10 years and only $700B of that is from the "tax cuts for the rich".

So am I to assume that you are in favor of raising everyones taxes? Or is adding $3.3T to the deficit over 10 years acceptable to you but $4T isn't?

Also, does the next guy get to complain about the "unfunded" tax cuts that Obama and the Dems passed if they are extended for all but the rich?

 

[woolfe9999]

First of all, that is over 10 years and only $700B of that is from the "tax cuts for the rich".

So am I to assume that you are in favor of raising everyones taxes? Or is adding $3.3T to the deficit over 10 years acceptable to you but $4T isn't?

Also, does the next guy get to complain about the "unfunded" tax cuts that Obama and the Dems passed if they are extended for all but the rich?

Honestly, yes, we do have to end all the Bush tax cuts, for everyone. I don't think we have much choice. I support doing it now for the top bracket, and waiting 2-3 years for everyone else, because of the state of the economy. The top bracket cut can happen now because it won't hurt the economy as much since the top bracket doesn't spend every penny they make.

Similarly, I support significant spending cuts being passed now, but phased in over a period of several years because of the economy. We don't really have a choice on that either.

- wolf

 

[Engineer]

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

Actually, he was re-hashing Ronald Reagan's famous saying about that. Deficits don't matter as long as you are in office....but when the other guy is there...watch out.

For the record, deficits do matter and always will. Growing your debt slower than your economy can work but right now (and with Bush for that matter), deficit spending is completely out of control. Guess we'll see if "change" is coming or not.

 

[Craig234]

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.

I said I'd post Senator Boxer's response.

Unfortunately, it's very disappointing, as one that is a 'form letter' on the issue that doesn't address my question at all.

I have re-submitted the question pointing this out and asking for an answer this time.

In the meantime, here is the unhelpful answer she sent.

Thank you for contacting my office to express your views on the tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 and are currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. I fully support extending these tax cuts for the middle class and for at least 98 percent of earners. However, I do not support extending tax cuts to millionaires, companies that ship jobs overseas, or Wall Street bankers. I am working with my colleagues on a final package to resolve the details of this issue that is so important for economic recovery and reducing the deficit.

I believe that all citizens should become involved in the legislative process by letting their voices be heard, and I appreciate the time and effort that you took to share your thoughts with me. One of the most important aspects of my job is keeping informed about the views of my constituents, and I welcome your comments so that I may continue to represent California to the best of my ability. Should I have the opportunity to consider legislation on this or similar issues, I will keep your views in mind.

For additional information about my activities in the U.S. Senate, please visit my website, http://boxer.senate.gov. From this site, you can access statements and press releases that I have issued about current events and pending legislation, request copies of legislation and government reports, and receive detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for my constituents. You may also wish to visit http://thomas.loc.gov to track current and past legislation.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I appreciate hearing from you.

 

[Acanthus]

A couple making $125k is "wealthy"? lol fucking idiots.

The top 5% is not doing well now?

 

[matt0611]

Good. Taxes need to be lowered for everyone and spending needs to be cut on a massive scale.

 

[dmcowen674]

good. Taxes need to be lowered for everyone and spending needs to be cut on a massive scale.

wwybywb?

 

[matt0611]

wwybywb?

Honestly, no one. I lurk here now and then for the lolz.

I used to have another account that I made years ago, lost the password though.

 

[IGBT]

taxes are income confiscation. All those who want to be robbed raise your hand!!

 

[theeedude]

First of all, that is over 10 years and only $700B of that is from the "tax cuts for the rich".

So am I to assume that you are in favor of raising everyones taxes? Or is adding $3.3T to the deficit over 10 years acceptable to you but $4T isn't?

Also, does the next guy get to complain about the "unfunded" tax cuts that Obama and the Dems passed if they are extended for all but the rich?

I am fine with letting all tax cuts expire. Economy did fine in the 90s with those rates.

 

[matt0611]

I am fine with letting all tax cuts expire. Economy did fine in the 90s with those rates.

True but we had the dot com / tech boom in those days to help grow the economy. Now what do we have? :\

The more money we take in by increases in taxes, the less money is available to create private sector jobs.

 

[theeedude]

True but we had the dot com / tech boom in those days to help grow the economy. Now what do we have? :\

The more money we take in by increases in taxes, the less money is available to create private sector jobs.

There are enormous sums of money sitting on the sidelines already. We have banks sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars and not lending. There is no shortage in money supply.

 

[EagleKeeper]

True but we had the dot com / tech boom in those days to help grow the economy. Now what do we have? :\

The more money we take in by increases in taxes, the less money is available to create private sector jobs.

There are enormous sums of money sitting on the sidelines already. We have banks sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars and not lending. There is no shortage in money supply.

True.

It is the lack of confidence and direction plus demand that is preventing the growth.

The business sector has now idea on where the government is going.

The public has no confidence in that the government is leading properly. They look at how the economy has shrunk and are not getting a warm fuzzy to go out and consume. They are playing turtle.

The government is not purchasing enough to turn the business sector around and the private sector will not spend.

Stagnation all around

 

[Craig234]

True.

It is the lack of confidence and direction plus demand that is preventing the growth.

The business sector has now idea on where the government is going.

The public has no confidence in that the government is leading properly. They look at how the economy has shrunk and are not getting a warm fuzzy to go out and consume. They are playing turtle.

The government is not purchasing enough to turn the business sector around and the private sector will not spend.

Stagnation all around

I guess the right-wing media creating the uncertainty by attacking anything Obama does, and the Republicans blocking everything abusing the filibuster, are a problem then.

We'd have a lot passed - like the tax cut extensions - if not for the Republicans blocking the bills, and 'uncertainty' is a right-wing media talking point they're spreading.

Was there some uncertainty before Obama came into office, with the economy crashing?

 

[theeedude]

Yeah, that's true. Gridlock is only going to get worse next year. If there is a second dip, and private sector knows the government is catatonic and unable to pick up the demand slack, we'll be in free fall with no parachute.

 

[matt0611]

There are enormous sums of money sitting on the sidelines already. We have banks sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars and not lending. There is no shortage in money supply.

Perhaps because they have no faith in the economy? I blame the governments economic policies for this. If banks are not lending, there is a good reason for it.

 

[theeedude]

Perhaps because they have no faith in the economy? I blame the governments economic policies for this. If banks are not lending, there is a good reason for it.

Yes, government is to blame, it should be spending trillions on infrastructure.

 

[matt0611]

Yes, government is to blame, it should be spending trillions on infrastructure.

I'd support more infrastructure as long as theres no bridge to no where's etc
I dunno about trillions though, don't think we can afford that at this time lol

Cut all government workers pay to save money and use it build infrastructure perhaps?

 

[techs]

Honestly, yes, we do have to end all the Bush tax cuts, for everyone. I don't think we have much choice. I support doing it now for the top bracket, and waiting 2-3 years for everyone else, because of the state of the economy. The top bracket cut can happen now because it won't hurt the economy as much since the top bracket doesn't spend every penny they make.

Similarly, I support significant spending cuts being passed now, but phased in over a period of several years because of the economy. We don't really have a choice on that either.

- wolf

It's heresy I tell you! Someone in P&N posting a reasonable approach to taxes.

 

[theeedude]

I'd support more infrastructure as long as theres no bridge to no where's etc
I dunno about trillions though, don't think we can afford that at this time lol

Cut all government workers pay to save money and use it build infrastructure perhaps?

We can afford it. Cutting pay would take money out of the economy.

 

[matt0611]

We can afford it. Cutting pay would take money out of the economy.

The money we borrow takes money out of the economy too, don't forget. It has to come from somewhere. We also have to make interest payments on what we borrow.

 

[IGBT]

the only money government has is the money it confiscates from earners and achievers. When it prints money it robes value from the existing pool of money in savings and circulation.

 

[theeedude]

The money we borrow takes money out of the economy too, don't forget. It has to come from somewhere. We also have to make interest payments on what we borrow.

No, the money we borrow puts money that is sitting on the sidelines into the real economy. The government can borrow at interest rates at or below the rate of inflation. In real term it's getting paid interest to borrow money. If it's invested in infrastructure that helps increase our future GDP potential, it's a no brainer. The alternative is paying people to sit at home and have their skills deteriorate. That is a guaranteed loss. It's not rocket surgery.

 

[ericlp]

That they hate America

They are mostly idiots with out a brain... Case in point...

Mcsame, Failin, and O'Donnell

LoserVilla!