Boehner and GOP STILL in favor of Bush tax cuts

[Cecilie1200]

Seems that republican "experts" are in favor of letting the tax cuts expire.

Alan Greenspan and others say, Raise taxes now - Aug. 9, 2010

If we're defining "Republican experts" as "those handpicked by the leftists and their media lapdogs as Republican experts because they're saying what the left wants to hear". Otherwise, I'd say the opinions on the right are a mixed bag on this subject.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They are the ones who have a huge impact on those most affected...as you well know.

Actually, I don't well know. The richest Americans do NOT necessarily create the jobs. The simply amass more wealth.

They don't? Then who do you suppose DOES create the jobs . . . oh, wait. I forgot who I was talking to. Obviously, it's the government which creates jobs.

The government creates NOTHING. The government doesn't produce a dime yet depends solely on the private sector as a source of tax collections. Which make it all the sillier when I hear these big-government fans screaching "tax 'em tax 'em tax 'em"!

Then when they're broke, they ***** they're not creating enough jobs/wealth.

 

[DiamondDave]

What I'm for or against is not the issue. The question is, what might be the consequences of such a policy of taxation? Consider in your response how wealth concentrated in the few, in a time where Citizens United is the law of the land, may impact the principles upon which our nation was founded.
A Glib response is not okay. You propose a radical change, if you want to be taken seriously and not considered a crackpot, answer the question. What will be the consequence of such a tax policy?

The government does not exist to relieve consequences of individuals.... unlike what progressive lefties would like you to believe....

Those who are wealthy have the freedom to be wealthy.. to keep their wealth.. or to spend it... or whatever else they wish to do with it.... with freedoms come both positives and negatives

What is a radical position is the position of selective equality... which has been steadily growing in our big government abomination

What are the consequences? A shift in the acceptance of government power and unchecked spending, for a person/voter with a stake in the game will choose much differently than one with no stake in the game... A precedent returning of blind and equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of income..

One principle that we were not founded on, that could start to slip out of tendrils of big nanny government, is the concept of the free ride for some at the expense of others, facilitated by the very government that is in place to protect our freedoms

If the proper reduced spending is partnered with the finding of the right % taxation on every dollar earned by all citizens there should be no negative consequence to how effectively the government will run within the confines of the powers granted to it

That answers my question, you're a crackpot. Critical thinking is not your forte nor have you learned any history. It is easy to rely on emotions, they require no thought.

The person stating that equal treatment in taxation leads to a caste system is calling someone else a crackpot... oh, that is rich.. LMAO

Maybe you should actually study the history surrounding what is actually contained within the constitution and the context in which it was written

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The government does not exist to relieve consequences of individuals.... unlike what progressive lefties would like you to believe....

Those who are wealthy have the freedom to be wealthy.. to keep their wealth.. or to spend it... or whatever else they wish to do with it.... with freedoms come both positives and negatives

What is a radical position is the position of selective equality... which has been steadily growing in our big government abomination

What are the consequences? A shift in the acceptance of government power and unchecked spending, for a person/voter with a stake in the game will choose much differently than one with no stake in the game... A precedent returning of blind and equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of income..

One principle that we were not founded on, that could start to slip out of tendrils of big nanny government, is the concept of the free ride for some at the expense of others, facilitated by the very government that is in place to protect our freedoms

If the proper reduced spending is partnered with the finding of the right % taxation on every dollar earned by all citizens there should be no negative consequence to how effectively the government will run within the confines of the powers granted to it

That answers my question, you're a crackpot. Critical thinking is not your forte nor have you learned any history. It is easy to rely on emotions, they require no thought.

The person stating that equal treatment in taxation leads to a caste system is calling someone else a crackpot... oh, that is rich.. LMAO

Maybe you should actually study the history surrounding what is actually contained within the constitution and the context in which it was written

It's Wry... 'nuff said.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, I don't well know. The richest Americans do NOT necessarily create the jobs. The simply amass more wealth.

They don't? Then who do you suppose DOES create the jobs . . . oh, wait. I forgot who I was talking to. Obviously, it's the government which creates jobs.

The government creates NOTHING. The government doesn't produce a dime yet depends solely on the private sector as a source of tax collections. Which make it all the sillier when I hear these big-government fans screaching "tax 'em tax 'em tax 'em"!

Then when they're broke, they ***** they're not creating enough jobs/wealth.

I know that, and you know that. Guess who DOESN'T know that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The government does not exist to relieve consequences of individuals.... unlike what progressive lefties would like you to believe....

Those who are wealthy have the freedom to be wealthy.. to keep their wealth.. or to spend it... or whatever else they wish to do with it.... with freedoms come both positives and negatives

What is a radical position is the position of selective equality... which has been steadily growing in our big government abomination

What are the consequences? A shift in the acceptance of government power and unchecked spending, for a person/voter with a stake in the game will choose much differently than one with no stake in the game... A precedent returning of blind and equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of income..

One principle that we were not founded on, that could start to slip out of tendrils of big nanny government, is the concept of the free ride for some at the expense of others, facilitated by the very government that is in place to protect our freedoms

If the proper reduced spending is partnered with the finding of the right % taxation on every dollar earned by all citizens there should be no negative consequence to how effectively the government will run within the confines of the powers granted to it

That answers my question, you're a crackpot. Critical thinking is not your forte nor have you learned any history. It is easy to rely on emotions, they require no thought.

The person stating that equal treatment in taxation leads to a caste system is calling someone else a crackpot... oh, that is rich.. LMAO

Maybe you should actually study the history surrounding what is actually contained within the constitution and the context in which it was written

This is what I stated: "So, you're okay with America becoming a caste society? I suspect that's not your intention, but, consider the consequences if this system were to be in effect."

I did not intend to suggest America will become a caste system if the tax policy you propose becomes law. I admit, the sentence is awkward.

I do believe the type of taxation which you consider fair, a uniform percentage paid by all, will in a very short time lead to an enormously wealthy minority holding power and control over a large majority of citizens. The result might evolve into a caste system, more likely though into an oligarchy or a plutarchy.

btw, I have a copy of our Constitution on my desk, and I've read it cover to cover many times. What are you suggesting I read to understand you position?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea and??...Do you have a point hidden somewhere in this post? I agree with Boehner and Millions of other Americans do too. Hmm?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Boehner remphasized his support for extending the Bush tax cuts on the Sunday talk shows, while at the same time, talking out of the other side of his ass and damning the Obama administration for not being fiscally responsible.

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 trillion over the 2001-2010 period.

This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.

Study: Bush Tax Cuts Cost More Than Twice As Much As Dems' Health-Care Bill | Crooks and Liars

GOP politics as usual?

And may I ask what, precisely, is "fiscally irresponsible" about tax cuts?

Tax cuts are fiscally irresponsible if they are not accompanied by spending cuts. Taxes pay for the spending. The Republicans want the tax cuts extended without paying for them by cutting spending. That's makes them fiscally irresponsible.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yea and??...Do you have a point hidden somewhere in this post? I agree with Boehner and Millions of other Americans do too. Hmm?

LOL, Boehner looked exactly like what he is, a partisan fool. Too bad Tim Russert wasn't the host, David Gregory needs to watch some tapes of how TR slayed the morons, left and right.

 

[Zander]

Boehner remphasized his support for extending the Bush tax cuts on the Sunday talk shows, while at the same time, talking out of the other side of his ass and damning the Obama administration for not being fiscally responsible.



Study: Bush Tax Cuts Cost More Than Twice As Much As Dems' Health-Care Bill | Crooks and Liars

GOP politics as usual?

And may I ask what, precisely, is "fiscally irresponsible" about tax cuts?

Tax cuts are fiscally irresponsible if they are not accompanied by spending cuts. Taxes pay for the spending. The Republicans want the tax cuts extended without paying for them by cutting spending. That's makes them fiscally irresponsible.

Paul Ryan has a detailed plan for budget cuts and deficit reduction. But the GOP would have to be fools to discuss it prior to the elections. Why should they? The Democrats are self destructing all by themselves. Remember the old adage : when your opponent is killing himself, don't save him.

Personally, I think "Gridlock" may offer the best possible solution. I hope we never see one party in control of Government again.

 

[kyzr]

We heard the same whining from the rich when Clinton and the GOP congress balalnced the budget. Going from 35% to 39% isn't going to hurt the wealthy, you know, the top 1% of incomes that owns 90% of everything.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Politics as usual.......​

.....And, doesn't ol' BONER know THAT??!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems should allow the Bush cuts to expire.

This way on top of the 75-100 seats they'll lose in 2010 they'll lose another 75-100 in 2012 along with the Presidency, Senate and NY might be the only governorship they'll hold.

 

[johnrocks]

I can't stand Boehner but spending has been the problem for the past umpteen years not allowing a person to keep more of what they earned.

 

[DiamondDave]

And an addition that is nothing more than yet another winger link by Mr. SheMan...

 

[PHILUSMC]

Let's remember that these tax cuts were rammed through a republican controlled congress by RECONCILATION. The very process the republicans tried to convince americans would lead to our damnation if used during the health care debate. The sunset clause is there for a reason -- to let the dumb stupid tax increases expire especially for the top 1%. I understand that the rest of the tax cuts wil probably be extended. good. but let's quit providing welfare to the rich.

 

[johnrocks]

Let's remember that these tax cuts were rammed through a republican controlled congress by RECONCILATION. The very process the republicans tried to convince americans would lead to our damnation if used during the health care debate. The sunset clause is there for a reason -- to let the dumb stupid tax increases expire especially for the top 1%. I understand that the rest of the tax cuts wil probably be extended. good. but let's quit providing welfare to the rich.

How is allowing someone; weather they make $30000 or $30000000 a year; to keep more of what they earned, welfare?

 

[DiamondDave]

So letting you keep more of your own money that you EARN is welfare??

No.. sorry.. wrong answer asshole....

Let's just equalize the tax rate to put everyone up to the top 1% rate for every dollar earned... then you'll see an outcry for lower taxes from the ones who want the high rates for the 'rich' for their little vengeance fantasies

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Boehner and GOP STILL in favor of Bush tax cuts

As they should be.

 

[PHILUSMC]

Let's remember that these tax cuts were rammed through a republican controlled congress by RECONCILATION. The very process the republicans tried to convince americans would lead to our damnation if used during the health care debate. The sunset clause is there for a reason -- to let the dumb stupid tax increases expire especially for the top 1%. I understand that the rest of the tax cuts wil probably be extended. good. but let's quit providing welfare to the rich.

How is allowing someone; weather they make $30000 or $30000000 a year; to keep more of what they earned, welfare?

IT IS WELFARE because the tax cuts ARE NOT PAID FOR. THEY WILL BE PAID OUT THE TAXES OTHERS PAY. Now does that really make sense to you. Someone making 300k or more a year will go from 35% to 39% bracket - 4%, I don't think that will send them to the bread line.