It is currently 04/17/25 5:47 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 38 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 8:21 am • # 1 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 4713
They have proven where they stand; on the side of the wealthiest Americans, not the middle class.

Senate bid to renew 'middle class' tax cuts fails

Even so, Obama confident of tax cut deal before Jan. 1

Democratic measures to extend tax cuts for most Americans, but not additional low rates for the wealthiest, failed in the U.S. Senate Saturday, as Republicans and some Democrats blocked the proposals.

The two Democratic plans to renew low tax rates for individual income up to $200,000 and up to $1 million both failed in procedural votes, as Republicans argued that low tax rates for the wealthiest should also be extended.

"It's not that we want to punish wealthy people," said Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, who had proposed extending the tax rates for those earning up to $1 million. "But they are doing fine and they are not going to spend the money and stimulate the economy."

No Republicans backed the Democratic proposals, and a few Democrats voted against them.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama says he's ready "to roll up my sleeves" and work with congressional leaders on a tax cut deal before rates are set to rise on Jan. 1.

The president isn't happy that Senate Republicans earlier Saturday blocked legislation. But Obama said "we need to get this resolved and I'm confident we can do it."

Obama said lawmakers must give the American people "the peace of mind that their taxes will not go up" come the new year. He says that will require compromise by both sides.

Advertisement | ad info
Advertisement | ad info

The rare Saturday votes were expected to fail, but Democrats wanted to show that they didn't support an extension of the lower rates for higher income individuals.

Republicans said the votes were a waste of time.

"The American people don't want a political dog and pony show," Republican Senator Charles Grassley said. "The bottom line is this: Stop the tax hikes."

Earlier, Vice President Joe Biden earlier urged lawmakers to back the plan.

Biden, delivering the weekly White House radio and Internet address because Obama was flying home from Afghanistan, framed the issue as Democrats sticking up for the middle-class while Republicans protected richer Americans.

"I just don't agree with the folks who've said we can't afford a lifeline for Americans who lost their jobs during the worst recession in generations, but we can afford to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent," he said.

The votes came two days after the House of Representatives passed an extension of the lower tax rates on individual income up to $200,000. Democrats currently control both chambers but have a larger majority in the House.

All the lower tax rates enacted under former President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 will expire at the end of 2010 if Congress does not take action.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40504582/ns/politics-capitol_hill/



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 8:30 am • # 2 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Let the tax cuts expire and the Dems need to make damn sure the public knows why and who caused... but they'll wimp out as usual.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/04/10 11:05 am • # 3 
"...as Republicans and some Democrats blocked the proposals."

THAT'S the bigger problem - a lack of solidarity in the face of Republican stonewalling.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 11:19 am • # 4 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Sidartha wrote:
"...as Republicans and some Democrats blocked the proposals."

THAT'S the bigger problem - a lack of solidarity in the face of Republican stonewalling.

actually, it doesn't really matter, Sid.  the GOP would have to break ranks to pass filibuster.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/04/10 11:27 am • # 5 
But if Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder then fewer Republicans would have to break ranks - not that they're likely to...


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 11:43 am • # 6 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Sidartha wrote:
But if Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder then fewer Republicans would have to break ranks - not that they're likely to...

not very.  none did.


Last edited by macroscopic on 12/04/10 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: 12/04/10 12:08 pm • # 7 
bindar dundat


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 2:01 pm • # 8 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
Sidartha wrote:
But if Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder then fewer Republicans would have to break ranks - not that they're likely to...
At least we wouldn't hear right wing hacks claim there was a "bi-partisan" rejection of a bill.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 2:03 pm • # 9 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/20/09
Posts: 8188
oskar576 wrote:
Let the tax cuts expire and the Dems need to make damn sure the public knows why and who caused... but they'll wimp out as usual.

Dream on! Let the tax cuts expire, and the Republicans will waste no time in blaming Obama foir it 24/7 until the next election. The truth makes no difference. "Obama raised your taxes to support his socialist agenda!!!"  


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/04/10 2:05 pm • # 10 
What's wrong with this statement: "Republicans vote against tax cuts."


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 2:09 pm • # 11 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/20/09
Posts: 8188
Sidartha wrote:
What's wrong with this statement: "Republicans vote against tax cuts."
That can't win over a good Obama bash, Sid.  "Democrats hold middle class tax cuts hostage to support their commie redistribution of wealth which is unconstitutional!!!!"

( edit for spelling. lol)  


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/04/10 2:56 pm • # 12 
If the Democrats were to allow the Republicans to bring a tax bill to the floor for debate, the tables would be turned and it would be Democrats "voting against tax cuts."  Republicans voted against the Democrats' bill.  They support the extension of the current tax rates (a tax cut, in Democrat parlance.).


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/04/10 2:57 pm • # 13 
"Republicans vote against tax cuts." is easier, especially considering the electorate has the collect brain of a gnat.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/04/10 2:58 pm • # 14 
Once again, the left pipes in to say people are dumb because they don't agree with leftist viewpoints.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 3:00 pm • # 15 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
gopqed wrote:
Once again, the left pipes in to say people are dumb because they don't agree with leftist viewpoints.
gop - i might be mistaken, but i don't think sid was disagreeing with you.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 3:01 pm • # 16 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
Sidartha wrote:
"Republicans vote against tax cuts." is easier, especially considering the electorate has the collect brain of a gnat.
In republican parlance, that would be "vote against tax hikes".


Edit: tax hikes for anyone/job creators blah blah.


Last edited by jabra2 on 12/04/10 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: 12/04/10 3:20 pm • # 17 
gopqed wrote:
Once again, the left pipes in to say people are dumb because they don't agree with leftist viewpoints.
And once again our resident republiklan shill pipes in to twist words out of context. Image

  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 3:29 pm • # 18 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
LOL, gop ~ you're conveniently ignoring a few pesky facts ~ 10 years ago, the Rs put the sunset clause into their bill strictly to get the cuts enacted and to hide the true cost ~ the cuts, as enacted by the R bill, were [allegedly] temporary ~ and, to add insult to injury, the cuts did not do anything they were touted to do ~ Rove et al have been preening this week how the 'trick' worked and laughing that the Ds would get hit for raising taxes ~ so for me, the Ds calling the extension of the sunset 'tax cuts' is no worse than the Rs calling the sunset expiration [that they themselves put into their bill] 'raising taxes' ~ and no one seems to be recognizing that the same threshold of income is shielded for everyone by extending the current  lower and middle-class cuts ~ I didn't expect the 250k threshold to pass, but it's much more difficult to explain the 1M threshold failing ~ you cannot clammor about the deficit, and demand everything that helps those most affected by the effects of R policies [definitely including the extention of unemployment benefits] have to be paid for but that adding $700BILLION+ in extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest is just ducky ~ there is no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs ~ in fact, the contrary has been proven true since these cuts went into effect ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 4:10 pm • # 19 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
sooz08 wrote:
LOL, gop ~ you're conveniently ignoring a few pesky facts ~ 10 years ago, the Rs put the sunset clause into their bill strictly to get the cuts enacted and to hide the true cost ~ the cuts, as enacted by the R bill, were [allegedly] temporary ~ and, to add insult to injury, the cuts did not do anything they were touted to do ~ Rove et al have been preening this week how the 'trick' worked and laughing that the Ds would get hit for raising taxes ~ so for me, the Ds calling the extension of the sunset 'tax cuts' is no worse than the Rs calling the sunset expiration [that they themselves put into their bill] 'raising taxes' ~ and no one seems to be recognizing that the same threshold of income is shielded for everyone by extending the current  lower and middle-class cuts ~ I didn't expect the 250k threshold to pass, but it's much more difficult to explain the 1M threshold failing ~ you cannot clammor about the deficit, and demand everything that helps those most affected by the effects of R policies [definitely including the extention of unemployment benefits] have to be paid for but that adding $700BILLION+ in extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest is just ducky ~ there is no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs ~ in fact, the contrary has been proven true since these cuts went into effect ~

Sooz
there are periods where jobs have grown, and periods where they have not.  at best the evidence is inconclusive.  i prefer to think that there is simply no correlation.





`


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 4:39 pm • # 20 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Mac, these cuts started early in gwb's tenure and gwb has one of [if not the] worst records for job creation in decades ~ I see that as far more than a 'correlation' ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/10 4:55 pm • # 21 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
sooz08 wrote:
Mac, these cuts started early in gwb's tenure and gwb has one of [if not the] worst records for job creation in decades ~ I see that as far more than a 'correlation' ~

Sooz

sooz- there have been periods where growth followed cuts too.  i am not talking about the 00's.  they didn't work then.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/05/10 12:14 am • # 22 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida
Back in the days before republican propaganda replaced reality based economical basics there was this simple saying that jobs are created in sectors where demand increases.
Assuming that hedge fund managers live from pay check to pay check, a tax cut would definitely increase the demand for typical day to day items like a new Ferrari or that Mercedes convertible for the significant other.
Ergo, Ferrari and Mercedes will have to add jobs to handle the demand.
I don't understand why you libs can't see that.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/05/10 6:32 am • # 23 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
jabra2 wrote:
Back in the days before republican propaganda replaced reality based economical basics there was this simple saying that jobs are created in sectors where demand increases.
Assuming that hedge fund managers live from pay check to pay check, a tax cut would definitely increase the demand for typical day to day items like a new Ferrari or that Mercedes convertible for the significant other.
Ergo, Ferrari and Mercedes will have to add jobs to handle the demand.
I don't understand why you libs can't see that.
i know you were joking, but the fact is that rich people don't NEED to consume.
and because of that fact, they tend to save rather than spend.

it used to be, in the days of HOME RULE, that they would at least invest in the US.
but even that has gone away.  now they invest in China.

so basically, when we reduce taxes on the rich, it stimulates growth and investment in other countries, but not here.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/05/10 7:07 am • # 24 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
sooz08 wrote:
LOL, gop ~ you're conveniently ignoring a few pesky facts ~ 10 years ago, the Rs put the sunset clause into their bill strictly to get the cuts enacted and to hide the true cost ~ the cuts, as enacted by the R bill, were [allegedly] temporary ~ and, to add insult to injury, the cuts did not do anything they were touted to do ~ Rove et al have been preening this week how the 'trick' worked and laughing that the Ds would get hit for raising taxes ~ so for me, the Ds calling the extension of the sunset 'tax cuts' is no worse than the Rs calling the sunset expiration [that they themselves put into their bill] 'raising taxes' ~ and no one seems to be recognizing that the same threshold of income is shielded for everyone by extending the current  lower and middle-class cuts ~ I didn't expect the 250k threshold to pass, but it's much more difficult to explain the 1M threshold failing ~ you cannot clammor about the deficit, and demand everything that helps those most affected by the effects of R policies [definitely including the extention of unemployment benefits] have to be paid for but that adding $700BILLION+ in extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest is just ducky ~ there is no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs ~ in fact, the contrary has been proven true since these cuts went into effect ~

Sooz
~ in fact, the contrary has been proven true since these cuts went into effect ~ 

No it hasn't. No causal relationship between income tax rates and economic activity has ever been proven and I strongly doubt that one ever could be proven since I don't think it exists. If Mr. Multimillionaire has an income of $5 million I don't think his life would change a whole lot whether he had to pay $50k in income tax or $500k. He would simply become wealthier.
  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/05/10 7:38 am • # 25 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
oskar, I agree with your example ~ but my point was and remains that the mindset was to 'sell' the idea that the wealthy create the jobs ~ that's false ~ what creates jobs is demand ~ the high unemployment in the lower and middle taxpayer ranks has significantly changed buying habits and lowered that demand, on virtually everything, out of necessity ~ the wealthy play very little role in the vicious circle that demand creates jobs but no job or lack of job security lowers demand ~

Sooz


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 38 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.