Wow Republican(s) possibly breaking ranks on "No new taxes on the jerb creators"?

[Ausm]

Arkansas Rep. Rick Crawford announced in his district today that he would introduce legislation that would impose a 5 percent surtax on individual income exceeding $1 million per year. His legislation would require passage of a balanced budget amendment in exchange.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-on-millionaires-in-symbolic-break-with-party

 

[boochi]

Too bad dimocrats will vote it down.

 

[Ausm]

Too bad dimocrats will vote it down.

Not after they drop the balanced budget amendment.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Grandstanding!

 

[Ninjahedge]

BIG SECRET: In order to get money, you have to go to where it is.



Don't tell anybody.

 

[MovingTarget]

I wouldn't worry too much. Grover Norquist will make sure the "jerb creators" are safe from any new taxes.

 

[Anarchist420]

It's retarded to act surprised when a Republican wants to raise taxes. Didn't Bush 43 push for the 2002 Steel Tariff? Didn't Bush 43 remove some deductions that Clinton didn't? Didn't both Bush 41 and 43 spend more than Clinton did? Didn't Bush 43 favor looser monetary policy (inflation tax) than Clinton did? Didn't Bush 41 raise taxes on "job creators"?

 

[Ausm]

It's retarded to act surprised when a Republican wants to raise taxes. Didn't Bush 43 push for the 2002 Steel Tariff? Didn't Bush 43 remove some deductions that Clinton didn't? Didn't both Bush 41 and 43 spend more than Clinton did? Didn't Bush 43 favor looser monetary policy (inflation tax) than Clinton did? Didn't Bush 41 raise taxes on "job creators"?

Ronnie Raygun raised taxes 11 times during his Presidency now that's a fact.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Anarchist, don't start.

Bush lowered the tax base significantly. Many of the cuts he made to the tax breaks were either outdated or being used by people in the lower tax brackets.

Also, the "surprise" is not surprise on them doing it. It is sarcasm aimed at the fact that they are going back on their campaign promises. Promises that the current batch is regurgitating back up on stage to be, most likely as history has shown, dishonored later in their term when they see that they cannot run a government without the funds to do so.

 

[Atreus21]

I'd certainly trade 5% tax hikes for a balanced budget amendment. Hell yes I would.

 

[Ausm]

I'd certainly trade 5% tax hikes for a balanced budget amendment. Hell yes I would.

You better send your approval to that Republican Congressman who authored this Legislation because I am thinking he is going to be Primaried by the Teapublicans in the next election cycle.

 

[blankslate]

Didn't Bush 41 raise taxes on "job creators"?

And he got buried for it... figuratively speaking.

 

[blankslate]

You better send your approval to that Republican Congressman who authored this Legislation because I am thinking he is going to be Primaried by the Teapublicans in the next election cycle.

Also this... I get the feeling that Grover Norquist would like to see this guy politically "buried" just like President Bush 41 was.

 

[fskimospy]

A balanced budget amendment is a trojan horse to attack domestic spending. Republicans will cut taxes, declare the budget out of balance and then invoke mandatory domestic cuts. Politics 101.

 

[zsdersw]

A balanced budget amendment is a trojan horse to attack domestic spending. Republicans will cut taxes, declare the budget out of balance and then invoke mandatory domestic cuts. Politics 101.

No, each party will carve out exceptions for their own pet projects and causes.

 

[fskimospy]

No, each party will carve out exceptions for their own pet projects and causes.

Depending on how the amendment is written that could be very difficult. Let there be no mistake though, such an amendment is specifically crafted with the purpose of attacking domestic programs that are too popular to attack directly.

 

[zsdersw]

Depending on how the amendment is written that could be very difficult. Let there be no mistake though, such an amendment is specifically crafted with the purpose of attacking domestic programs that are too popular to attack directly.

It will be written with all sorts of loopholes built in, I guarantee it.

 

[MovingTarget]

Depending on how the amendment is written that could be very difficult. Let there be no mistake though, such an amendment is specifically crafted with the purpose of attacking domestic programs that are too popular to attack directly.

Dingdingding! It would turn yearly budgets into a 'guns vs butter' debate on steroids. Gridlock is bad now, but with a BBA, we ain't seen nothing yet. Besides, even if a BBA were implemented with the best of intentions, it is still incredibly short-sighted as it restricts congress' fiscal policy tools. It is a backdoor for the Austrian school of economics. :thumbsdown:

 

[ky54]

How much should anyone making over a million a year pay in taxes as a percentage?

 

[Paul98]

a BBA is an insanely stupid thing to do. When things are going bad we need to be able to spend more, when things are going well we need to cut into the debt.

 

[Icepick]

Arkansas Rep. Rick Crawford announced in his district today that he would introduce legislation that would impose a 5 percent surtax on individual income exceeding $1 million per year. His legislation would require passage of a balanced budget amendment in exchange.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...-on-millionaires-in-symbolic-break-with-party

Good news. Tax the hell out of them.

 

[Ausm]

How much should anyone making over a million a year pay in taxes as a percentage?

A hell of a lot more then some dude flipping burgers at McDonald's....

 

[Jhhnn]

It's just a different ploy to enhance the power of wealth. A balanced budget would create a deflationary spiral, given the current distribution of income, which benefits only the wealthy. If I pay 5% more in taxes but the value of my money reserves increase by a huge %, then I'm ahead of the game enormously.

Why the Hell do people think that those of vast means have suddenly shown a strong preference for liquidity, anyway? If they do it long enough & hard enough, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy of deflation, a recipe for economic decline and ascendancy of wealth through the creation of scarcity. Being wealthy counts for a lot more when everybody else is dead broke, busted, and desperate.

It's what happened in the early 1930's... the flip side of the Capitalist boom/bust cycle. They're not busted, but the rest of us are, so... it's time for the Royal Rogering...

 

[Fern]

You better send your approval to that Republican Congressman who authored this Legislation because I am thinking he is going to be Primaried by the Teapublicans in the next election cycle.

I would highly doubt this (even if I took his proposal seriously in any way).

Firstly, in the polls I have seen the PRIMARY concern of the TEA Party is SPENDING. His proposal addresses that squarely.

Next is the debt, and again his proposal addresses that.

Then if you've read the article, Arkansas, outside of any Waltons left there, has (almost) no one making a million.

And Eskimospy is right. Once you get a BBA, you can circle back around and blow the 5% surtax out of the water. The TEA Partyers would know this too.

Fern

 

[JEDIYoda]

It's retarded to act surprised when a Republican wants to raise taxes. Didn't Bush 43 push for the 2002 Steel Tariff? Didn't Bush 43 remove some deductions that Clinton didn't? Didn't both Bush 41 and 43 spend more than Clinton did? Didn't Bush 43 favor looser monetary policy (inflation tax) than Clinton did? Didn't Bush 41 raise taxes on "job creators"?

Don`t you miss your home planet?