“A Vote to Adjourn is a Vote to Raise Taxes”

[blastoff]

Screw Bush's cuts. Congress ought to be renewing Obama's cuts.

Care to enlighten us as to what Obama tax cuts are subject to renewal?

 

[boedicca]

Bonehead is never right!

Don't you mean the Bush TAX HIKES go into effect?

Go into effect?

Are you suggesting the Tax cuts were never implemented. I mean I have no idea what fantasy world, you are in right now.

But, you are not the first liberal I've encountered, who is getting more and more delusional the closer election day comes.

The patented CON$ervative dumb act!!!

It's the BUSH tax laws that legislated that taxes go up in 2011.
But you knew that all along!

^ The heartbreak of historical illiteracy on parade.

Conservatives had to compromise by including a sunset provision to get the votes for passage of any tax cuts whatsoever. The Dems insisted on the this provision.

 

[topspin]

republicans obviously could have gotten tax cuts for 98% of us with just a few % of thier party supporting it. Dems should repeat that 1,000 times in the next six weeks. Repubs are holding out for the wall street millionaires.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Screw Bush's cuts. Congress ought to be renewing Obama's cuts.

Care to enlighten us as to what Obama tax cuts are subject to renewal?

I think they are talking about some report that came out that said taxes have gone down (as a whole) in the country.

Of course they have, HOW CAN YOU PAY TAXES IF YOU ARE OUT OF WORK!

But the idea one time payment in a stimulus bill is a tax "cut," is pretty much a joke.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Go into effect?

Are you suggesting the Tax cuts were never implemented. I mean I have no idea what fantasy world, you are in right now.

But, you are not the first liberal I've encountered, who is getting more and more delusional the closer election day comes.

The patented CON$ervative dumb act!!!

It's the BUSH tax laws that legislated that taxes go up in 2011.
But you knew that all along!

^ The heartbreak of historical illiteracy on parade.

Conservatives had to compromise by including a sunset provision to get the votes for passage of any tax cuts whatsoever. The Dems insisted on the this provision.

You are contradicting the talking point it's all the Republican's fault.

 

[teapartysamurai]

republicans obviously could have gotten tax cuts for 98% of us with just a few % of thier party supporting it. Dems should repeat that 1,000 times in the next six weeks. Repubs are holding out for the wall street millionaires.

Why don't you do that and see how many votes you get.

Yeah, Republicans are for tax cuts FOR EVERYBODY.

Good idea!

 

[boedicca]

republicans obviously could have gotten tax cuts for 98% of us with just a few % of thier party supporting it. Dems should repeat that 1,000 times in the next six weeks. Repubs are holding out for the wall street millionaires.

Yes they should. Given that the majority of the country is sick and tired of this class warfare nonsense which punishes the small businesses and investors who CREATE JOBS, it will further marginalize the Dems and ensure their defeat.

Go for it, bub.

 

[topspin]

LOL @ majority
the majority is not in the mood for more wall street bailouts. IE top 2% getting more tax cuts.

 

[teapartysamurai]

LOL @ majority
the majority is not in the mood for more wall street bailouts. IE top 2% getting more tax cuts.

Yeah, that explains Congress' and Obama's poll numbers.

 

[edthecynic]

Go into effect?

Are you suggesting the Tax cuts were never implemented. I mean I have no idea what fantasy world, you are in right now.

But, you are not the first liberal I've encountered, who is getting more and more delusional the closer election day comes.

The patented CON$ervative dumb act!!!

It's the BUSH tax laws that legislated that taxes go up in 2011.
But you knew that all along!

WHAT???????????

Do you remember the fact that Jumping Jim Jeffords jumped and gave Democrats the majority in the early 2000s?

The Republicans had to strike a compromise to get those tax cuts, which was agreeing to a sun set rule in 2010.

What does that have to do with Democrats cowardly ploy to avoid voting on them?

I mean this is LAME!

^ The heartbreak of historical illiteracy on parade.

Conservatives had to compromise by including a sunset provision to get the votes for passage of any tax cuts whatsoever. The Dems insisted on the this provision.

CON$ always lie in packs!

Some of us are OLD enough to have lived through this and remember what happened!!!

The compromise the Dems demanded was a retroactive refund check of $600, which by the way Bush then took credit for after the bill's passage.
It was the GOP that used the accounting trick of letting the tax cuts expire to LIMIT DEBATE and pass the bill by the RECONCILIATION process.

Congress Passes $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut (washingtonpost.com)

Some of the tax cuts will be retroactive, allowing the Treasury Department to begin sending checks to taxpayers later this summer. Single taxpayers will receive up to $300 each, while heads of household will get up to $500 and married couples up to $600. But to keep the overall cost within the 11-year, $1.35 trillion framework required by the congressional budget outline, many other parts of the plan are delayed for years. The entire package is to terminate after just nine years, leaving it to a future Congress and president to reinstate.

Meeting in a rare early-Saturday-morning session, bleary-eyed House members passed the measure 240 to 154, with 28 Democrats and one independent joining 211 Republicans. Two hours later, the Senate approved the bill 58 to 33, with 12 Democrats supporting the compromise. No Republicans opposed the bill in the House, while two -- Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island -- voted against it in the Senate. Jeffords voted for the bill. Among area lawmakers, Republicans supported the bill; Democrats opposed it.

All of these provisions will expire at the end of 2010, an accounting maneuver that kept the cost below $1.35 trillion and allowed a deal to be struck. Since Republicans had placed the tax bill on a fast-track process allowing limited debate, an obscure Senate rule would have required the bill to lapse at the end of fiscal 2011. But when negotiations were at an impasse, lawmakers realized that they could move up the date.

By terminating the tax cuts at the end of 2010, negotiators were able to avoid some tough decisions. Since they could now distribute the same amount of money over nine years rather than 10 years, they effectively boosted the size of the tax cut while at the same time hiding its true cost.

THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS

 

[Dick Tuck]

The premise of this thread is bullshit. The big question that congress needs to address, is whether we should codify the Obama tax cuts that effect the vast majority. Interesting that the wingnuts are more concerned with the 5% they have no hope of attaining.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The patented CON$ervative dumb act!!!

It's the BUSH tax laws that legislated that taxes go up in 2011.
But you knew that all along!

WHAT???????????

Do you remember the fact that Jumping Jim Jeffords jumped and gave Democrats the majority in the early 2000s?

The Republicans had to strike a compromise to get those tax cuts, which was agreeing to a sun set rule in 2010.

What does that have to do with Democrats cowardly ploy to avoid voting on them?

I mean this is LAME!

^ The heartbreak of historical illiteracy on parade.

Conservatives had to compromise by including a sunset provision to get the votes for passage of any tax cuts whatsoever. The Dems insisted on the this provision.

CON$ always lie in packs!

Some of us are OLD enough to have lived through this and remember what happened!!!

The compromise the Dems demanded was a retroactive refund check of $600, which by the way Bush then took credit for after the bill's passage.
It was the GOP that used the accounting trick of letting the tax cuts expire to LIMIT DEBATE and pass the bill by the RECONCILIATION process.

Congress Passes $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut (washingtonpost.com)

Some of the tax cuts will be retroactive, allowing the Treasury Department to begin sending checks to taxpayers later this summer. Single taxpayers will receive up to $300 each, while heads of household will get up to $500 and married couples up to $600. But to keep the overall cost within the 11-year, $1.35 trillion framework required by the congressional budget outline, many other parts of the plan are delayed for years. The entire package is to terminate after just nine years, leaving it to a future Congress and president to reinstate.

Meeting in a rare early-Saturday-morning session, bleary-eyed House members passed the measure 240 to 154, with 28 Democrats and one independent joining 211 Republicans. Two hours later, the Senate approved the bill 58 to 33, with 12 Democrats supporting the compromise. No Republicans opposed the bill in the House, while two -- Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island -- voted against it in the Senate. Jeffords voted for the bill. Among area lawmakers, Republicans supported the bill; Democrats opposed it.

All of these provisions will expire at the end of 2010, an accounting maneuver that kept the cost below $1.35 trillion and allowed a deal to be struck. Since Republicans had placed the tax bill on a fast-track process allowing limited debate, an obscure Senate rule would have required the bill to lapse at the end of fiscal 2011. But when negotiations were at an impasse, lawmakers realized that they could move up the date.

By terminating the tax cuts at the end of 2010, negotiators were able to avoid some tough decisions. Since they could now distribute the same amount of money over nine years rather than 10 years, they effectively boosted the size of the tax cut while at the same time hiding its true cost.

THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS

Yeah, your article doesn't fit your fiction:

The concept of issuing checks to provide immediate tax relief -- and help stimulate the economy -- was not in Bush's original plan and had not been included in either the House or Senate versions of the legislation; the House and Senate proposals had instead called for adjusting taxpayers' withholding tables.

But the administration, confronting claims from economists that adjusting the withholding tables would not provide a big enough economic boost and charges from Democrats that the tax cut was geared for the wealthy, pressed for including the refund checks in the final tax deal.

Congress Passes $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut (washingtonpost.com)

So, the Democrats did NOT insist on the refund checks. Bush pushed for it. He simply wanted to do it as part of withholding, but when Democrats didn't like people getting more money, Bush then said, "Okay, I'll just give it to them now!"

As for Jeffords:

Although Congress approved the president's legislation with remarkable speed, the battle over Bush's tax and budget proposals came at great political cost. It played a role in Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords's decision Thursday to leave the Republican Party and vote with the Democrats as an independent, putting the GOP into the Senate minority for the first time in six years. The shift of power, which will take place when Congress returns in June from its one-week recess, creates an unanticipated new obstacle for many of Bush's other legislative initiatives.

And as for Jeffords voting FOR the bill????????

In the Senate, 12 Democrats voted for the bill, as did 45 Republicans and newly independent Sen. Jeffords of Vermont. Republican Senators McCain of Arizona and Chaffee of Rhode Island joined 31 Democrats in voting against the bill.

Tax Cuts Approved by Congress

Roll Call Vote #118: Who voted for the Bush Tax Cuts, and who didn't - Democratic Underground

Senate Votes on 2003-196

Sorry but this may be a case of like Kerry voting for it before he voted against it. He may have voted on it primarily, but on the final vote, HE VOTED NO. Even your DU knows that.

Your liberal media tried to lie to you about that.

So, you remember or you just believed your media.

I DO remember Jeffords jumping the party over this. I don't have to lie about it.

 

[edthecynic]

WHAT???????????

Do you remember the fact that Jumping Jim Jeffords jumped and gave Democrats the majority in the early 2000s?

The Republicans had to strike a compromise to get those tax cuts, which was agreeing to a sun set rule in 2010.

What does that have to do with Democrats cowardly ploy to avoid voting on them?

I mean this is LAME!

CON$ always lie in packs!

Some of us are OLD enough to have lived through this and remember what happened!!!

The compromise the Dems demanded was a retroactive refund check of $600, which by the way Bush then took credit for after the bill's passage.
It was the GOP that used the accounting trick of letting the tax cuts expire to LIMIT DEBATE and pass the bill by the RECONCILIATION process.

Congress Passes $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut (washingtonpost.com)

Some of the tax cuts will be retroactive, allowing the Treasury Department to begin sending checks to taxpayers later this summer. Single taxpayers will receive up to $300 each, while heads of household will get up to $500 and married couples up to $600. But to keep the overall cost within the 11-year, $1.35 trillion framework required by the congressional budget outline, many other parts of the plan are delayed for years. The entire package is to terminate after just nine years, leaving it to a future Congress and president to reinstate.

Meeting in a rare early-Saturday-morning session, bleary-eyed House members passed the measure 240 to 154, with 28 Democrats and one independent joining 211 Republicans. Two hours later, the Senate approved the bill 58 to 33, with 12 Democrats supporting the compromise. No Republicans opposed the bill in the House, while two -- Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island -- voted against it in the Senate. Jeffords voted for the bill. Among area lawmakers, Republicans supported the bill; Democrats opposed it.

All of these provisions will expire at the end of 2010, an accounting maneuver that kept the cost below $1.35 trillion and allowed a deal to be struck. Since Republicans had placed the tax bill on a fast-track process allowing limited debate, an obscure Senate rule would have required the bill to lapse at the end of fiscal 2011. But when negotiations were at an impasse, lawmakers realized that they could move up the date.

By terminating the tax cuts at the end of 2010, negotiators were able to avoid some tough decisions. Since they could now distribute the same amount of money over nine years rather than 10 years, they effectively boosted the size of the tax cut while at the same time hiding its true cost.

THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS

Yeah, your article doesn't fit your fiction:



Congress Passes $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut (washingtonpost.com)

So, the Democrats did NOT insist on the refund checks. Bush pushed for it. He simply wanted to do it as part of withholding, but when Democrats didn't like people getting more money, Bush then said, "Okay, I'll just give it to them now!"

As for Jeffords:

Although Congress approved the president's legislation with remarkable speed, the battle over Bush's tax and budget proposals came at great political cost. It played a role in Vermont Sen. James M. Jeffords's decision Thursday to leave the Republican Party and vote with the Democrats as an independent, putting the GOP into the Senate minority for the first time in six years. The shift of power, which will take place when Congress returns in June from its one-week recess, creates an unanticipated new obstacle for many of Bush's other legislative initiatives.

And as for Jeffords voting FOR the bill????????

In the Senate, 12 Democrats voted for the bill, as did 45 Republicans and newly independent Sen. Jeffords of Vermont. Republican Senators McCain of Arizona and Chaffee of Rhode Island joined 31 Democrats in voting against the bill.

Tax Cuts Approved by Congress

Roll Call Vote #118: Who voted for the Bush Tax Cuts, and who didn't - Democratic Underground

Senate Votes on 2003-196

Sorry but this may be a case of like Kerry voting for it before he voted against it. He may have voted on it primarily, but on the final vote, HE VOTED NO. Even your DU knows that.

Your liberal media tried to lie to you about that.

So, you remember or you just believed your media.

I DO remember Jeffords jumping the party over this. I don't have to lie about it.

Of course you have to lie about it, you are a CON$ervative and CON$ never admit the truth, they just play dumb and lie some more.

It was the 2001 tax bill that had the $600 rebate not the 2003 bill as you try to deceive with, and the amendment was offered by Charlie Rangel D-NY not the Bush administration. And Jeffords DID vote FOR the bill.

Nice try though!

H.R. 1836 [107th] - Amendments: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (GovTrack.us)

Amendments

The following are amendments proposed for this legislation. Click an amendment's name to read the text of the amendment, where available.

(1) H.Amdt. 35 by Rep. Rangel [D-NY15]
Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to include a one-time rebate, payable immediately after enactment, to all individuals who had income tax liability for taxable year 2000, up to a maximum of $300 for single taxpayers, $600 for married couples; make individual income tax rate reductions; modify the earned income tax credit; and provide marriage penalty relief.
Proposed: May 16, 2001.
Substitute includes a one-time rebate, payable immediately after enactment, to all individuals who had income tax liability for taxable year 2000, up to a maximum of $300 for single taxpayers ($600 for married couples).

GovTrack: Senate Vote On Passage: H.R. 1836 [107th]: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of...

Vermont
Yea VT Jeffords, James
Nay VT Leahy, Patrick [D]

 

[teapartysamurai]

The premise of this thread is bullshit. The big question that congress needs to address, is whether we should codify the Obama tax cuts that effect the vast majority. Interesting that the wingnuts are more concerned with the 5% they have no hope of attaining.

I think we see the BS, if you believe Obama gave us any tax cuts. A one time payment that amounted to about $35 bucks a person (and not to ever person) is hardly a tax cut.

 

[WillowTree]

Appearing at the weekly Republican leadership press conference, Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) decried Democratic Leaders’ intent to adjourn for the fall without allowing an up-or-down vote to stop all of the tax increases set to take effect on January 1. Boehner issued the following statement:

“A vote to adjourn this Congress without an up-or-down vote to stop all the tax hikes is a vote to raise taxes and destroy more jobs. American families and small businesses deserve better. This Congress has a chance to help end uncertainty for families and small businesses by stopping all the tax hikes set to take effect on January 1. If Democratic Leaders leave town without stopping all of the tax hikes, they are turning their backs on the American people.

Boehner: ?A Vote to Adjourn is a Vote to Raise Taxes? | John Boehner - 8th District of Ohio

Boehner's right. If Congress does nothing those Bush tax cuts sunset at the end of the year AND THEY HAVE TO DAMN WELL KNOW IT.

So, by punting the issue of extending them, they took the coward's way out, but it still boils down to saying they are going to let the Bush tax cuts sunset.

I guess Democrats think voter won't notice this.

November is coming liberals!

He certainly is right.

 

[WillowTree]

The premise of this thread is bullshit. The big question that congress needs to address, is whether we should codify the Obama tax cuts that effect the vast majority. Interesting that the wingnuts are more concerned with the 5% they have no hope of attaining.

What's bullshit is demonRat talking points. No thinking just talking.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The tax cuts for people making less than $250,000 will be passed by a lame-duck congress after November.

That is my prediction.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The tax cuts for people making less than $250,000 will be passed by a lame-duck congress after November.

That is my prediction.

If Democrats HAD ANY INTENTION of passing that bill, they would have done it already.

As for "tax cuts for those making less than $250,000."

How stupid do you have to be to think that would amount to more money in our pockets, whether we got the tax cut or not.

If they raise the taxes on the "wealthy," then those making less than $250,000 are just going to lose in the long run.

Where do you think the jobs come from? If you take that money out of the economy, that's less money FOR JOBS!

So, regardless of the tax "cut," the middle class wouldn't see any more money coming to them, because it would be lost in LOST WAGES AND LOST JOBS.

On top of that, Democrats have BEEN LYING ABOUT A MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT SINCE BILL CLINTON IN 1992. Voters are still waiting, and we are supposed to believe, in a couple of months Democrats will finally do it?

YEAH RIGHT!

 

[Dick Tuck]

The premise of this thread is bullshit. The big question that congress needs to address, is whether we should codify the Obama tax cuts that effect the vast majority. Interesting that the wingnuts are more concerned with the 5% they have no hope of attaining.

I think we see the BS, if you believe Obama gave us any tax cuts. A one time payment that amounted to about $35 bucks a person (and not to ever person) is hardly a tax cut.

Who the fuck is "we"? Why don't you pretend to be a man and speak for yourself. Your pretension of speaking for some right wing collective is a total joke. Be a fucking man. I speak for me, and make no pretense about who else speaks for me or supports what I say. You're a pissant, who plays a game of assholishness.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The premise of this thread is bullshit. The big question that congress needs to address, is whether we should codify the Obama tax cuts that effect the vast majority. Interesting that the wingnuts are more concerned with the 5% they have no hope of attaining.

I think we see the BS, if you believe Obama gave us any tax cuts. A one time payment that amounted to about $35 bucks a person (and not to ever person) is hardly a tax cut.

Who the fuck is "we"? Why don't you pretend to be a man and speak for yourself. Your pretension of speaking for some right wing collective is a total joke. Be a fucking man. I speak for me, and make no pretense about who else speaks for me or supports what I say. You're a pissant, who plays a game of assholishness.

IN OTHER WORDS, when you are challenged on your BS LIES about Obama, you go into a three year old tantrum of a rant.

You know you can't back up the idea Obama gave ANYONE a "tax cut." What a lie!

So you just throw a fit!

And as an asside, it's pretty obvious from your above tantrum, (and even though I am a woman,) Sarah Palin and I, have way more balls than YOU!