Tax Cuts

[Wry Catcher]

Why would a Republican, any Republican, object to lowering taxes for middle America? If as postulated, tax cuts stimulate the economy, then next year or the year after the Republicans will have solid evidence to pass additional tax cuts for the very rich.

On the other hand, if the Republicans stifle middle class tax cuts because the rich are excluded, there will be strong evidence to suggest the GOP only supports the wealthy. Not a good message, I'm sure.

If the R's need cover from their base, wouldn't targeted tax cuts or credits - say for creating new jobs - make sense?

 

[G.T.]

Because they don't believe in a class-war type of Legislation, perhaps, and are standing on that principle?

 

[blastoff]

Why would a Republican, any Republican, object to lowering taxes for middle America? If as postulated, tax cuts stimulate the economy, then next year or the year after the Republicans will have solid evidence to pass additional tax cuts for the very rich.

On the other hand, if the Republicans stifle middle class tax cuts because the rich are excluded, there will be strong evidence to suggest the GOP only supports the wealthy. Not a good message, I'm sure.

If the R's need cover from their base, wouldn't targeted tax cuts or credits - say for creating new jobs - make sense?

Assume you're talking about extending the current tax rates for middle Americas, something I don't recall Republicans objecting to. Republicans aren't in favor of raising taxes on the $250,000.00+ earners as Obama and Dimocrats want, which they'll likely cave on soon IMO.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why would a Republican, any Republican, object to lowering taxes for middle America? If as postulated, tax cuts stimulate the economy, then next year or the year after the Republicans will have solid evidence to pass additional tax cuts for the very rich.

On the other hand, if the Republicans stifle middle class tax cuts because the rich are excluded, there will be strong evidence to suggest the GOP only supports the wealthy. Not a good message, I'm sure.

If the R's need cover from their base, wouldn't targeted tax cuts or credits - say for creating new jobs - make sense?

Democrats need to stop worrying about the GOP and start asking themselves what they're going to do to win the next election.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why would a Republican, any Republican, object to lowering taxes for middle America? If as postulated, tax cuts stimulate the economy, then next year or the year after the Republicans will have solid evidence to pass additional tax cuts for the very rich.

On the other hand, if the Republicans stifle middle class tax cuts because the rich are excluded, there will be strong evidence to suggest the GOP only supports the wealthy. Not a good message, I'm sure.

If the R's need cover from their base, wouldn't targeted tax cuts or credits - say for creating new jobs - make sense?

Democrats need to stop worrying about the GOP and start asking themselves what they're going to do to win the next election.

Democrats and Republicans need to start worrying about a huge debt; and allowing the windfall tax break to the top 2% to continue is absurd. If some in the top 2% creates jobs, then a tax credit and deduction is appropraite for them.
The word out is the top 2% is not investing, is not spending; they are saving and/or buying gold. They are part of the problem, not the solution the Republicans and you and the other fellow travelers advertise.

 

[VaYank5150]

Because they don't believe in a class-war type of Legislation, perhaps, and are standing on that principle?

Oh please.....the GOP hasn't had any principles since they were thrown out of power in 2006....who are you trying to kid?

 

[G.T.]

Because they don't believe in a class-war type of Legislation, perhaps, and are standing on that principle?

Oh please.....the GOP hasn't had any principles since they were thrown out of power in 2006....who are you trying to kid?

My response was in the form of a question, obviously.

 

[JBeukema]

Why would a Republican, any Republican, object to lowering taxes for middle America? If as postulated, tax cuts stimulate the economy, then next year or the year after the Republicans will have solid evidence to pass additional tax cuts for the very rich.

On the other hand, if the Republicans stifle middle class tax cuts because the rich are excluded, there will be strong evidence to suggest the GOP only supports the wealthy. Not a good message, I'm sure.

If the R's need cover from their base, wouldn't targeted tax cuts or credits - say for creating new jobs - make sense?

Because the Dems and the Reps are both engaged in class warfare and serve their corporate masters.

there are only to differences between the parties:

1) The Reps serve old money (eg: oil) whilst the Dems serve new money (eg: green energy)

2)The Dems put more effort into throwing crumbs to the masses; the Reps just spend lots of money on tv commercials to get the stupid American masses to vote against the evil communist ******

 

[boedicca]

I think it's time to stop referring to the current situation as an Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, and to refer to it as the pending Obama Tax Increase.

 

[JBeukema]

I think it's time to stop referring to the current situation as an Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, and to refer to it as the pending Obama Tax Increase.

Who wrote the legislation with an expiration date?

But facts don't matter to you partisan fuckwads, do they?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think it's time to stop referring to the current situation as an Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, and to refer to it as the pending Obama Tax Increase.

Of course you do. For the simple and obvious reason you're dishonest and a conservative. Now, don't flip out and suggest I call all conservatives dishonest, I don't and they're not.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I think it's time to stop referring to the current situation as an Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, and to refer to it as the pending Obama Tax Increase.

Who wrote the legislation with an expiration date?

But facts don't matter to you partisan fuckwads, do they?

guess you don't understand the little FACT about the Byrd rule...which is what caused the expiration date to be included on the Bush tax cuts....

 

[JBeukema]

All they had to do was account for them with spending cuts.

They didn't want to. They wanted to run up the deficit in order to give the rich tax cuts.

Hence they had to include an expiration date.

If they'd been actual fiscal conservatives, it'd wouldn't have been an issue.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

All they had to do was account for them with spending cuts.

They didn't want to. They wanted to run up the deficit in order to give the rich tax cuts.

Hence they had to include an expiration date.

If they'd been actual fiscal conservatives, it'd wouldn't have been an issue.

During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes. That was the so-called Bush tax cut, formally known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, pronounced egg-tray).

Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.
...
Overall, 62 senators supported H.R. 1836 as amended by the Senate, thereby sending it to conference. In the end, 58 senators voted in favor of the conference report. Nevertheless, because the bill was passed under reconciliation, revenues further than 10 years in the future could not be changed. And so, on December 31, 2010, all of EGTRRA will expire and revert to 2001 law.

The 2003 tax cuts mostly accelerated the original tax cuts, but also put in place new tax cuts for dividends and capital gains. The 2003 tax cut, known as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was also passed under reconciliation.

The Tax Foundation - Why Are the Bush Tax Cuts Expiring?

 

[B. Kidd]

Why would a Republican, any Republican, object to lowering taxes for middle America? If as postulated, tax cuts stimulate the economy, then next year or the year after the Republicans will have solid evidence to pass additional tax cuts for the very rich.

On the other hand, if the Republicans stifle middle class tax cuts because the rich are excluded, there will be strong evidence to suggest the GOP only supports the wealthy. Not a good message, I'm sure.

If the R's need cover from their base, wouldn't targeted tax cuts or credits - say for creating new jobs - make sense?

Because the Dems and the Reps are both engaged in class warfare and serve their corporate masters.

there are only to differences between the parties:

1) The Reps serve old money (eg: oil) whilst the Dems serve new money (eg: green energy)

2)The Dems put more effort into throwing crumbs to the masses; the Reps just spend lots of money on tv commercials to get the stupid American masses to vote against the evil communist ******

Correction on #1.
Both parties serve the only money; being large banks and the financial services sector.

 

[JBeukema]

Why would a Republican, any Republican, object to lowering taxes for middle America? If as postulated, tax cuts stimulate the economy, then next year or the year after the Republicans will have solid evidence to pass additional tax cuts for the very rich.

On the other hand, if the Republicans stifle middle class tax cuts because the rich are excluded, there will be strong evidence to suggest the GOP only supports the wealthy. Not a good message, I'm sure.

If the R's need cover from their base, wouldn't targeted tax cuts or credits - say for creating new jobs - make sense?

Because the Dems and the Reps are both engaged in class warfare and serve their corporate masters.

there are only to differences between the parties:

1) The Reps serve old money (eg: oil) whilst the Dems serve new money (eg: green energy)

2)The Dems put more effort into throwing crumbs to the masses; the Reps just spend lots of money on tv commercials to get the stupid American masses to vote against the evil communist ******

Correction on #1.
Both parties serve the only money; being large banks and the financial services sector.

They both serve that, but you can't deny that Big Oil donates mostly to the repugs whilst the damn-thems align themselves with corn ethanol and the like


Bottom line: a plague upon both their houses

 

[boedicca]

I think it's time to stop referring to the current situation as an Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, and to refer to it as the pending Obama Tax Increase.

Who wrote the legislation with an expiration date?

But facts don't matter to you partisan fuckwads, do they?

Dick Cheney was the tie breaking vote in the Senate. I suspect that the sunset provision was to get Dem support (2 Dem Senators voted for it).