Dems Are Getting Cocky and Overplaying Their Hand

[red states rule]

and the link is to a political "interpretation" of the legislation written by congressional republicans.

When you post the link to the actual legislation, I will gladly read it.... more republican cut and paste spin from YOU, I can do without!

You either did not read it and posted it or you are trying to run like hell away from what Dems want


A $400B TAX HIKE
DEMOCRATS' IDEA OF 'FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY'
By ROBERT D. NOVAK
March 29, 2007 -- THE new Democratic major ity today begins dancing the next phase of the tax- and-spend minuet in the House of Representatives. Following the example of their Senate brethren last Friday, House Democrats will adopt a budget resolution containing the largest tax increase in U.S. history amid massive national inattention.

Nobody's tax payment will increase immediately, but the budget resolutions set a pattern for years ahead. The House version increases non-defense, non-emergency spending by $22.5 billion for the next fiscal year, with such spending rising 2.4 percent in each of the next three years. To pay for these increases, the resolution raises taxes close to $400 billion over five years - about $100 billion more than what the Senate passed.

It had been assumed the newly majoritarian Democrats in Congress would end President Bush's relief in taxation of capital gains, dividends and estates. What came as a surprise was the simultaneous rollback in Bush-sponsored income tax cuts. This represents Democrats' belief they can politically survive this long-term commitment to bigger government. Here is an audacious effort to raise the banner of fiscal responsibility while increasing spending and taxes.

This Democratic strategy is encapsulated in what Harry Hopkins, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's main man, is alleged to have told a friend at New York's Empire Race Track in August 1938: "We will spend and spend, and tax and tax, and elect and elect." While Hopkins denied ever saying that, those words represented successful Democratic government and political strategy for the next two decades.

John F. Kennedy, reclaiming the White House for the Democrats for the first time in eight years, altered the party's pattern in 1961 with massive tax cuts. However, Bill Clinton, taking power in 1993 after 12 years of Republican rule, returned to the Hopkins formula by proposing and passing what then was the biggest tax increase ever. It was "tax" and "spend," but not "elect": The Clinton tax hike contributed to the 1994 Democratic loss of control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Why, then, having just regained congressional control, are Democrats going down this dangerous path again? Indeed, while Clinton in 1993 had to twist arms for a one-vote margin in each house. Democrats now obediently fall in line for tax increases.

Their conduct is explained by faith in the March 20-25 Democracy Corps poll that voters associate Democrats more than Republicans with "fiscal responsibility," 44 percent to 36 percent. The architect of that impression is Sen. Kent Conrad, the austere Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "It restores fiscal responsibility by balancing the budget by 2012," he said of his resolution in Senate debate last week.

Conrad claimed: "We try to keep taxes low." In fact, Conrad is the consummate tax collector; he spent the 12 formative career years prior to his 1986 election to the Senate as an assistant tax commissioner and then tax commissioner in North Dakota. His most recent liberal ratings are 90 and 85 percent by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. The National Taxpayers Union put him at 17 and 16 percent in 2005 and 2006.

The breakdown of the bill on the House floor today (resembling the Senate version) raises taxes an average of $1,795 on 115 million taxpayers in 2011. Some 26 million small-business owners would average $3,960 more in taxes. The decreased number of Americans actually subject to income taxes will all be paying higher taxes, and 5 million low-income Americans will be returned to the rolls.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 37-year-old fifth-termer who is the House Budget Committee's new ranking Republican, has proposed an alternative resolution. It not only retains Bush tax cuts but also proposes deep reductions in spending, protects Social Security payments and runs down the national debt.

Why was no such budget resolution proposed during 12 years that the GOP was in the majority? Would the party's leadership support the Ryan resolution if it were in control now? That those questions must be asked undermines Republican credibility and explains why Democrats dare return to tax, spend and elect.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0329200...ike_opedcolumnists_robert_d__novak.htm?page=0

 

[maineman]

and you posted on the thread without reading it?

I opened it, and saw it was an iterpretative document from congressional republicans and read no further. I used to work for state legislative democrats writing similiar spin. Like I said... bring the link to Thomas...highlight the text in the legislative document itself that raises the lowest marginal tax rate from 10 to 15% and then we can debate it.

Until then, shut your piehole...all you got it political spin and it ain't worth shit

 

[red states rule]

I opened it, and saw it was an iterpretative document from congressional republicans and read no further. I used to work for state legislative democrats writing similiar spin. Like I said... bring the link to Thomas...highlight the text in the legislative document itself that raises the lowest marginal tax rate from 10 to 15% and then we can debate it.

Until then, shut your piehole...all you got it political spin and it ain't worth shit

Translation - I do not want to hear how Dems want to fuck the people - we are liberals and we care about the common good no matter how much it costs other people

 

[maineman]

Translation - I do not want to hear how Dems want to fuck the people - we are liberals and we care about the common good no matter how much it costs other people

translation.

if RSR really had the text of the democratic bill that actually raised the marginal tax rate for the lowest bracket from 10 to 15% , he would have posted it in a heartbeat and not obfuscated with oped pieces.

 

[red states rule]

translation.

if RSR really had the text of the democratic bill that actually raised the marginal tax rate for the lowest bracket from 10 to 15% , he would have posted it in a heartbeat and not obfuscated with oped pieces.

I will find the actual bill

However here are more examples of Dems want to fuck every taxpayer up the ass


The budget includes real tax hikes on average people:

Elderly Couple with $40,000 in Income

This elderly couple’s tax bill would rise by 156% in 2011 – from $583 to $1,489.


Family of Four with $60,000 in Earnings

This family’s income tax bill would rise from $3,030 to $4,893 in 2011 – that’s an increase of more than $1,850, or 61%.


Single Parent with Two Children and $30,000 in Earnings

This single parent would see her tax benefits decline 67% in 2011. With tax relief, this single parent qualifies to get back $2,414. With the Democrats’ tax hike, this single parent would only get back $799.


Effects of specific tax hikes:



Raising the 10% Tax Rate Bracket to 15%

More than 5 million individuals and families who previously owed no taxes would become subject to the individual income tax in 2011 if Democrats are successful in raising the 10% tax rate bracket to 15%, and reducing or eliminating other low-income tax benefits.

Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief

23 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $466 in 2011.


Cutting the Child Tax Credit in Half

31 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $859 in 2011.

EVERY working American would be affected by tax hike:


83 million women would see their taxes rise, on average, by $2,068.
48 million married couples would incur average tax increases of $2,899.
Taxes would increase, on average, by $2,181 for 42 million families with children.
12 million single women with children would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,082.
17 million elderly individuals would incur average tax increases of $2,270.
Taxes would rise, on average, by $3,960 for 26 million small business owners.
http://www.house.gov/reichert/press07/3.29.07.2.shtml

 

[maineman]

more republican spin.... spare us.

shut your piehole and find the bill...

then - and here is the tough part - you'll need to READ it and FIND that portion of the bill that raises the marginal tax rate for the lowest bracket from 10% to 15% and then point to the section of the bill that contains that language so that we can verify it.

It will take some reading on your part...but it is what you need to do...

either that, or, as I suggested earlier, shut your fucking piehole

 

[red states rule]

more republican spin.... spare us.

shut your piehole and find the bill...

then - and here is the tough part - you'll need to READ it and FIND that portion of the bill that raises the marginal tax rate for the lowest bracket from 10% to 15% and then point to the section of the bill that contains that language so that we can verify it.

It will take some reading on your part...but it is what you need to do...

either that, or, as I suggested earlier, shut your fucking piehole

Translation - I do not care what the Dems do - we are liberals and we care about the common. So shut up and pay yoour taxes!

 

[maineman]

Translation - I do not care what the Dems do - we are liberals and we care about the common. So shut up and pay yoour taxes!

translation: if you have the text of the legislation that supposedly raises the marginal tax rate of the lowest bracket from 10% to 15%, you should post it and quit your spinning.

I guess that means that you don't have it, eh?

 

[red states rule]

translation: if you have the text of the legislation that supposedly raises the marginal tax rate of the lowest bracket from 10% to 15%, you should post it and quit your spinning.

I guess that means that you don't have it, eh?

I will find the actual bill, but to many sources are confirming your worst fears asshole

If all these sources were wrong don't you think the Dems would be in front of the TV cmaeras saying it was a lie?


An update on the Democratic Budget
Filed under: Your Democracy, Federal Budget — Press Office
at 2:56 pm on Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The House Budget Committee sent out an update on the FY2008 Democratic Budget which the House will be considering this week. If the budget is passed with the tax increases included, those increases will cost the average Ohioan $2,716. In addition, 4,420,000 Ohioans will be affected by the tax increases including raising the 10% tax rate to 15%, eliminating the marriage penalty relief and cutting the child tax credit in half.


What happens if the tax hikes are included in the 2008 Budget
Filed under: Your Democracy, Federal Budget — Press Office
at 12:51 pm on Monday, March 26, 2007
This week, the House will begin debating the FY2008 budget. Unfortunately, some very large tax increases may be included by the Democratic leadership. Here are some good figures from the Budget Committee of the taxes which may be increased if the budget passes in its current form:

Specific Tax Hikes

Raising the 10% Tax Rate Bracket to 15%- More than 5 million individuals and families who previously owed no taxes would become subject to the individual income tax in 2011 if the 10% tax rate bracket is raised to 15%.
Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief- 23 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $466 in 2011.
Cutting the Child Tax Credit in Half- 31 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $859 in 2011.
Sample of Taxpayer Fallout

Elderly Couple with $40,000 in income- their tax bill would rise by 156% in 2011 – from $583 to $1,489.
Family of Four with $60,000 in earnings- their income tax bill would rise from $3,030 to $4,893 in 2011 – that’s an increase of more than $1,850, or 61%.
Single Parent with Two Children and $30,000 in earnings- this single parent would see her tax benefits decline 67% in 2011. With tax relief, this single parent qualifies to get back $2,414. With the Democrats’ tax hike, this single parent would only get back $799.
EVERY Working American Would be Affected by Democrats’ Tax Hike

115 million taxpayers would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,795 in 2011.
83 million women would see their taxes rise, on average, by $2,068.
48 million married couples would incur average tax increases of $2,899.
Taxes would increase, on average, by $2,181 for 42 million families with children.
12 million single women with children would see their taxes increase, on average, by $1,082.
17 million elderly individuals would incur average tax increases of $2,270.
Taxes would rise, on average, by $3,960 for 26 million small business owners.
Over 5 million taxpayers who previously owed no taxes would become subject to the individual income tax as a consequence of the sunset.
http://www.house.gov/reichert/press07/3.29.07.2.shtml

 

[maineman]

you link to a house republican's web page???????


..... ho hum

look...go find the bill...find the section of the bill that raises the marginal tax rate for the lowest bracket from 10 to 15% as you have claimed....copy that section to this thread....provide the link to the bill text so we all can read it.

Let me know when you get that accomplished.

 

[hjmick]

While I was unable to find the text of the budget blueprint, the facts are:

The Democrats budget blueprint was passed yesterday, I believe. The $2.9 trillion blueprint predicts a big surplus in five years but relies on the expiration of tax cuts to do so. Democrats say the $2.9 trillion plan for next year would result in a surplus after years of red ink. Republicans say that $153 billion surplus in 2012 would appear only if tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 expire in four years, the result of which would be the "largest tax increase in American history." The Republicans, despite being the majority, were unable to make the tax cuts permanent, and as we all know, they are no longer the majority.

The budget would produce a $153 billion surplus in 2012 only if tax cuts enacted during Bush's first term expire. Those tax cuts include lowered rates on income, investments and large estates, as well as breaks for married couples and people with children.

The plan awards domestic agencies, on average, budget increases of 6 percent over current levels, far more than the less than 1 percent increases recommended by Bush.

The budget blueprint calls for a nearly $25 billion increase next year for domestic programs popular with both parties, approving Bush's record $50 billion budget increase for the Pentagon's non-war budget and $145 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year.

Those spending boosts would cause the deficit to rise from $209 billion this year to $241 billion in 2009 before increased revenues from the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts rapidly generate a surplus.

One of the more important parts of the Democratic budget plan would require lawmakers seeking to cut taxes or boost benefit programs, for example Medicare, children's health care or farm subsidies, to "pay for" the changes with tax increases or offsetting spending cuts.

That rule would make it very difficult to boost funding for a popular health insurance program for poor children later this year.

Democrats chose to put off politically painful decisions on shoring up the finances of Medicare and Social Security for now.

Republicans countered with an alternate plan cutting $279 billion from federal benefit programs over the next five years, far greater cuts than proposed by the President in February.

From what I understand, this is a non binding resolution which allows for subsequent bills affecting taxes and benefit programs, as well as the annual appropriations bills.

Ultimately, most of this will not be decided until after the 2008 elections.

Is your head spinning yet?

 

[red states rule]

While I was unable to find the text of the budget blueprint, the facts are:

The Democrats budget blueprint was passed yesterday, I believe. The $2.9 trillion blueprint predicts a big surplus in five years but relies on the expiration of tax cuts to do so. Democrats say the $2.9 trillion plan for next year would result in a surplus after years of red ink. Republicans say that $153 billion surplus in 2012 would appear only if tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 expire in four years, the result of which would be the "largest tax increase in American history." The Republicans, despite being the majority, were unable to make the tax cuts permanent, and as we all know, they are no longer the majority.

The budget would produce a $153 billion surplus in 2012 only if tax cuts enacted during Bush's first term expire. Those tax cuts include lowered rates on income, investments and large estates, as well as breaks for married couples and people with children.

The plan awards domestic agencies, on average, budget increases of 6 percent over current levels, far more than the less than 1 percent increases recommended by Bush.

The budget blueprint calls for a nearly $25 billion increase next year for domestic programs popular with both parties, approving Bush's record $50 billion budget increase for the Pentagon's non-war budget and $145 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year.

Those spending boosts would cause the deficit to rise from $209 billion this year to $241 billion in 2009 before increased revenues from the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts rapidly generate a surplus.

One of the more important parts of the Democratic budget plan would require lawmakers seeking to cut taxes or boost benefit programs, for example Medicare, children's health care or farm subsidies, to "pay for" the changes with tax increases or offsetting spending cuts.

That rule would make it very difficult to boost funding for a popular health insurance program for poor children later this year.

Democrats chose to put off politically painful decisions on shoring up the finances of Medicare and Social Security for now.

Republicans countered with an alternate plan cutting $279 billion from federal benefit programs over the next five years, far greater cuts than proposed by the President in February.

From what I understand, this is a non binding resolution which allows for subsequent bills affecting taxes and benefit programs, as well as the annual appropriations bills.

Ultimately, most of this will not be decided until after the 2008 elections.

Is your head spinning yet?

No, it was passed on 3/29

The tax increase will reverse the economic growth and screww all taxpayers and businesses

Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) voted against the Democrat budget resolution that requires a $736 billion tax increase, the largest tax increase in American history. This will be three times larger than the previous record tax increase that was imposed by President Bill Clinton and the Democrat Congress of 1993. The budget resolution passed 52-47.

“It only took three months for Democrats to break their promise of fiscal responsibility and revert to their tax and spend ways,” said Senator DeMint. “This tax hike is three times bigger than any previous tax increase. Democrats are trying to impose the biggest tax hike in history and Americans should be outraged. It will cripple our economy, destroy job growth, and make it harder for American families to make ends meet.”



The Democrats’ budget:



Reverses the tax relief Republicans have passed since 2001, imposing a $736 billion tax increase over the next five years, the largest tax increase in U.S. history;
Increases non-defense discretionary spending by approximately $150 billion over the next five years;
Makes no attempt to reduce entitlement growth, leaving Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on a path to bankruptcy.


Additionally, Senator DeMint and other Republicans offered a number of fiscally responsible amendments that were rejected by Democrats. These amendments included:



Stop the Raid on Social Security Surplus (DeMint): The amendment would allow Congress to stop spending Social Security on other government programs and start saving the surplus for future generations. Rejected by Democrats, 45-52.
Full Repeal of the Death Tax (DeMint): The amendment would repeal the Death Tax. Rejected by Democrats, 44-55
Making Income Tax Relief Permanent (Lindsey Graham): The amendment would make permanent the individual income tax rate structure of 35, 33, 28, and 25 percent, established in 2001. Rejected by Democrats, 46-52.
Deficit Reduction Account (DeMint): The amendment would require appropriations bills to have a Debt Reduction Account so reduced spending could be used to reduce the deficit instead of being spent on other programs. Rejected by Democrats, 38-61.
Limiting War Supplemental to War Spending (Craig Thomas): The amendment would prevent extraneous earmarks from being added to the war supplemental. Rejected by Democrats, 39-59.

###

http://schotlinepress.wordpress.com/2007/03/25/demint-votes-against-largest-tax-hike-in-history/

 

[hjmick]

You sir are absolutely right, I got my dates screwed.

 

[red states rule]

You sir are absolutely right, I got my dates screwed.

It is the most under reported story I have ever NOT read, but I found this.

LOL, a Federal budget of nearly $3 trillion and libs whine it is NOT enough!


House Approves Democratic Budget Plan
Thursday March 29, 3:14 pm ET
By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
House Approves Democratic Budget Plan; Measure Boasts Surplus if Bush's Tax Cuts Expire


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House Thursday narrowly passed a $2.9 trillion Democratic budget blueprint predicting a big surplus in five years but relying on the expiration of tax cuts to do so.
The 216-210 vote sets up negotiations with the Senate, which last week passed a budget blueprint with similarly large spending increases for education, defense, homeland security and veterans programs.

The measure comes in response to Democratic complaints that Bush has shortchanged domestic programs funded each year by appropriations bills -- including education, health research and grants to local governments -- while awarding deficit-boosting tax cuts tilted toward the affluent.

Democrats said the $2.9 trillion plan for next year would point the way to a surplus after years of red ink under Bush and a GOP-controlled Congress. Republicans said that $153 billion surplus in 2012 would appear only if tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 expire in four years -- amounting to the "largest tax increase in American history."

The future of the Bush tax cuts will likely be decided after the 2008 presidential election. While in the majority, congressional Republicans never held votes to make all of them permanent, despite Bush's annual calls to do so.

Bush huddled with House Republicans at the White House, saying afterward: "We spent time talking today about our strong belief that we've got to keep taxes low. "

The Democratic budget received brickbats from Republicans because it would produce a $153 billion surplus in 2012 only by assuming tax cuts enacted during Bush's first term expire. Those tax cuts include lowered rates on income, investments and large estates, as well as breaks for married couples and people with children.

At the same time, the plan awards domestic agencies, on average, budget increases of 6 percent over current levels, far the less than the less than 1 percent increases recommended by Bush.

Congress' annual debate on the budget is guided by an arcane process in which a nonbinding budget resolution sets the stage for subsequent bills affecting taxes and benefit programs such as Medicare, as well as the annual appropriations bills.

In most years, Congress leaves alone difficult budget issues such as the unsustainable growth in benefit programs such as Medicare and simply focuses on the 12 annual bills funding the budgets of Cabinet agencies such as Defense, Education and Agriculture.

This year is likely to be such a stand-pat year. Decisions on the fate of the Bush tax cuts are expected to wait until after next year's presidential election.

Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would cost about $250 billion in 2012 alone, which would balloon to $389 billion after accounting for extending other tax cuts and adjusting the alternative minimum tax so that it does not ensnare more than 20 million additional middle class taxpayers.

Democratic leaders view passing a congressional budget plan as a key test of their ability to govern. The GOP-controlled Congress failed to pass a budget last year, which fouled up passage of the annual spending bills lawmakers pass each year.

The Democratic budget blueprint calls for a nearly $25 billion increase next year for domestic programs popular with lawmakers in both parties, approving Bush's record $50 billion budget increase for the Pentagon's non-war budget and $145 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year.

Those spending boosts would cause the deficit to rise from $209 billion this year to $241 billion in 2009 before increased revenues from the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts rapidly generate a surplus.

The rival Senate plan contains would fail to generate surpluses since it dedicates $180 billion to extending several of the most popular tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2010.

One of the most important features of the Democratic budget plan is to require lawmakers seeking to cut taxes or boost benefit programs -- such as Medicare, children's health care or farm subsidies -- to "pay for" the changes with tax increases or offsetting spending cuts.

That rule would greatly complicate efforts later this year to boost funding for a popular health insurance program for poor children.

Democrats opted to put off politically painful decisions on shoring up the finances of Medicare and Social Security.

Republicans countered with an alternative plan cutting $279 billion from federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years -- far greater cuts than proposed by Bush in February.

The plan, authored by Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, top Republican on the budget panel, would fully extend the 2001 and 2003 rounds of tax cuts, at a cost of about $450 billion. But Ryan's plan lost by a sweeping 160-268 vote.

Ryan warned his colleagues that the looming retirement of the Baby Boom generation threatens to swamp the budget because of the spiraling costs of Medicare and Social Security.

"If we don't get a handle on our fiscal situation, if we don't recognize the fact that if all we do is raise taxes to balance the budget in 2012, you're going to go right back into deficits soon thereafter if we don't control spending, if we don't reform government," Ryan said.

 

[maineman]

translation: if you have the text of the legislation that supposedly raises the marginal tax rate of the lowest bracket from 10% to 15%, you should post it and quit your spinning.

I guess that means that you don't have it, eh?

no luck eh?

 

[red states rule]

no luck eh?

so now the AP is not a valid source. Keep living in OZ and let the voters get their updated tax bill and watch the reaction

 

[maineman]

so now the AP is not a valid source. Keep living in OZ and let the voters get their updated tax bill and watch the reaction

Please highlight that section of the AP article that quotes the language of the bill regarding raising the marginal tax rate for the lowest bracket from 10 to 15%

 

[red states rule]

Please highlight that section of the AP article that quotes the language of the bill regarding raising the marginal tax rate for the lowest bracket from 10 to 15%

Keep denying the facts

Libs voted to let the Bush tax cuts expire - those tax cuts cut the rate on the lowest earners form 15% to 10%

For such an educated man you are so stupid

 

[maineman]

Keep denying the facts

Libs voted to let the Bush tax cuts expire - those tax cuts cut the rate on the lowest earners form 15% to 10%

For such an educated man you are so stupid

as I said...when the republicans wrote the original tax cut legislation, even THEY did not want it to be permanent...that is why THEY wrote a sunset provision.


and I am still waiting for you to get me the text....

any day now?

 

[Louie]

More then a handful

You need 67 votes in the Senate to remove the President

The voters are watching as promise after promise the Dems made are forgotten and tossed aside

The voters will toss asdie the Dems in 08

"all you have to do is dream, dream, dream......"