House Dems pass middle class tax cuts

[daveman]

Yeah because raising taxes during economic turmoil is so effective.

tax cuts during a downturn have never worked, either. republicans have tried that over and over and over again...didnt work for reagan, didnt work for bush 1 and 2, why will it work this time around?

I'm convinced that they do not care if it works.

And yet, here you are, cheering the same thing when it's done by Democrats.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Stupid libtards didn't get enough of a message on election night huh?

It has no chance of getting passed in the Senate! Filbuster anyone? Look they needs to compromise on it and they didn't, now they will feel the wrath! Setting the mark at $1 million, when they keep saying lets raise the tax on millionaires, why then do they toss in people who make $750K under a million?

Even if $1 mil was too high for them, most Americans (including this one) would accept $750K!

why do you care if people earning over $250,000 a year go back to paying what they paid during the prosperous years under clinton?

i think the rightwingnuts are getting the wrong message from the election, which means they're going to get their butts kicked again in two years.

arrogance does that.

Its always easy to support taking more money from other people.

....And, who knows that, better, than "conservative"-polticos & their bud$ in the mortgage-industry??!!!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2iHksmF7m4&feature=related[/ame]

​

 

[boedicca]

Poor analogy.

The Government is not Our Boss. It is not paying our salary. It is taking away part of the income we earn.

I'm asking you if you think you are getting a pay cut at year 6.

Go ahead, you can say you do. A lot of people are into the "Me! Me! Me!" approach.

You clearly have never had a real incentive compensation pay arrangement.

Setting aside your offensive comment (and this will be the last time I ever respond to one of your posts which contains such):

It would depend upon the terms of the bonus. If it were individual performance based and part of my comp package, and I performed at the same level, then it would feel like a pay cut. If the bonus were purely profit sharing based, and the nonpayment was due to a fall off in business (i.e., recession) then that is the deal and I shouldn't have counted on the bonus in the first place as a guaranteed thing.

 

[Varth Dader]

Actually, moron, I didn't say jack shit about not liking coffee.

I see you have a great sense of humor.

I meant you didn't like Maxwell house coffee.

And good analogies.

 

[boedicca]

Almost every business with anywhere near 50 employees is no longer having profits reported as personal income.

Uh. Wrong. A lot of small businesses are Subchapter S corporations, with profits taxed at the individual rate when passed to shareholders.

Uh, you're wrong. Indeed, a lot of small businesses are S corps.

But most businesses with almost 500 employees are most certainly not S-corps. If you read what I wrote, you'd see I made that distinction for you.

Then prove it.

 

[daveman]

I'd like to see one of the Tax Increase Advocates explain why it is necessary to increase the absolute dollars the Feds spend by near 30% over a 3 year period. Total Federal Outlays were $2.8T in 2007 - they are projected to be $3.7T this year.

Why? The government claims that inflation is low, interest rates are low, the wars were already baked into the 2007 outlays. What possible economic justification is there for ramping up so much spending so quickly?

"We have to spend like crazy before we're kicked out!"

 

[Zander]

Calling the extension of the existing rates a "tax cut" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

 

[Varth Dader]

You clearly have never had a real incentive compensation pay arrangement.

Setting aside your offensive comment (and this will be the last time I ever respond to one of your posts which contains such):

It would depend upon the terms of the bonus. If it were individual performance based and part of my comp package, and I performed at the same level, then it would feel like a pay cut. If the bonus were purely profit sharing based, and the nonpayment was due to a fall off in business (i.e., recession) then that is the deal and I shouldn't have counted on the bonus in the first place as a guaranteed thing.

Even if that bonus was part of your compensation package, if it was only for a set period of time, it would be really unfair to consider it lapsing some kind of cut.

Here the tax cuts that were passed were temporary in nature because they had an end date. The only guarantee was that, unless renewed, they would come to an end.

On day 1 we knew that there tax cuts would come to expire. I know that the end result is that the tax rate will be higher on Jan 1, but it's really disingenuous, imho, to argue that it is a tax hike.

 

[Varth Dader]

Calling the extension of the existing rates a "tax cut" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

It's an extension, temporary or permanent, of the last tax cuts.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If successful, all this maneuver will accomplish is to keep unemployment above 9% up to the 2012 elections.​

"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." - Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)

"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit." - Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)

"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower." - Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)

​

 

[boedicca]

You clearly have never had a real incentive compensation pay arrangement.

Setting aside your offensive comment (and this will be the last time I ever respond to one of your posts which contains such):

It would depend upon the terms of the bonus. If it were individual performance based and part of my comp package, and I performed at the same level, then it would feel like a pay cut. If the bonus were purely profit sharing based, and the nonpayment was due to a fall off in business (i.e., recession) then that is the deal and I shouldn't have counted on the bonus in the first place as a guaranteed thing.

Even if that bonus was part of your compensation package, if it was only for a set period of time, it would be really unfair to consider it lapsing some kind of cut.

Here the tax cuts that were passed were temporary in nature because they had an end date. The only guarantee was that, unless renewed, they would come to an end.

On day 1 we knew that there tax cuts would come to expire. I know that the end result is that the tax rate will be higher on Jan 1, but it's really disingenuous, imho, to argue that it is a tax hike.

Fine. If you wish to think of yourself as an Employee of the Government whose pay is at the whim of bureaucrats, by all means do.

I disagree with your premise.

 

[edthecynic]

Why do republicans hate the middle class?

because we prefer mathematics and physics to literature. math being at 8, physics at 10, and literature at 9.

Shouldn't that be "fuzzy math" at 10?

 

[Common Sense]

I'd like to see one of the Tax Increase Advocates explain why it is necessary to increase the absolute dollars the Feds spend by near 30% over a 3 year period. Total Federal Outlays were $2.8T in 2007 - they are projected to be $3.7T this year.

Why? The government claims that inflation is low, interest rates are low, the wars were already baked into the 2007 outlays. What possible economic justification is there for ramping up so much spending so quickly?

"We have to spend like crazy before we're kicked out!"

more details on the repubs running up the debt

Here are the only OFFICAL budget numbers from the CBO - (United States Congressional Budget Office):

2000 - 236 Billion SURPLUS under Clinton
2001 - 128 Billion SURPLUS under Clinton
2002 - 158 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2003 - 378 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2004 - 413 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2005 - 318 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2006 - 248 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2007 - 161 Billion deficit under Bush with republican congress
2008 - 459 Billion deficit under Bush with Dem congress
2009 - 1.4 Trillion deficit under Obama/Bush - (Bush was pres the first 4 months of this budget which includes his 700 billion in bailouts and the expected 600 billion deficit which was most of the 1.4 trillion)

Source : CBO Historical Budget Data
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf


Reagan increased our debt an average of 24% yearly...he tripled it from 934B to 2.6T (189%)
Bush increased our debt an average of 11% yearly...he doubled it from 5.7 to 10.6 trillion (91%)
Obama increased our debt 16% in his first year from 10.6 to 12.3 trillion (to stop a great depression)

(Data from the US Treasury Bureau of Public Debt - http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway)

FACTS SHOW THAT REPUBLICANS DO THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY CLAIM...THEY CREATE RECORD DEFICITS AND RECORD DEBTS AND BLAME IT ON DEMOCRATS
1 month ago Report Abuse

Bush left a 1.2 trillion deficit for Obama.

(Source 2: Congressional Budget Office - Annual Budget and Economic Report and testimony before Congress on Jan 8, 2009) (Declares a 1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009 ---2 weeks before obama takes office)
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

blaming Obama doesnt change the facts.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

tax cuts should have expired across the board. the country simply cant afford them. if anything, taxes need to be higher.

Yeah because raising taxes during economic turmoil is so effective.

tax cuts during a downturn have never worked, either. republicans have tried that over and over and over again...didnt work for reagan, didnt work for bush 1 and 2, why will it work this time around?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A&feature=related[/ame]

 

[boedicca]

If the Bush deficits are so bad, what does that make the much larger Obama deficits?

 

[edthecynic]

Why do republicans hate the middle class?

Better question. why do libtards hate the rich? answer penis envy and a drive to punish success.

But the Libs ARE the rich!!!
YOU, trapped in your own MEDIOCRITY, sound envious of those both above and below you.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I know you don't get it, because you never do! But all the Republicans, WHO PASSED THE ORIGINALLY ONE AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS WISHES, are for tax breaks for the middle class.

HOWEVER, Americans are also against raising taxes on small business, ESPECIALLY THE SUCCESSFUL ones that hire the majority of Americans! Successful small business owners fall between the $250-$750K range!!!

When employment shoots above 10%, YOU DEMOCRATIC FOOLS WILL BE TO BLAME!!!

the majority of small business owners do not actually take home over $250,000 in income.


PayScale - Owner / Operator, Small Business Salary, Average Salaries
Business Owner Salary Comparison | eHow.com

if you are a successful small business owner and grow your company to a certain size, you no longer qualify as a small business. you end up as a medium size business or small corporation. so this idea that every small business owner is making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year is simply untrue. but no one is having this argument are they....

You really don't have much common sense.

The definition of small business include those enterprises with up to 500 employees.

BULLSHIT!!!!!!

​

 

[Varth Dader]

If the Bush deficits are so bad, what does that make the much larger Obama deficits?

Makes them terrible. Which is one good reason why not extend the tax cuts for the richest.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

except they aren't cutting any taxes. they are extending cuts put in place by Bush: therefore not making taxes go up.

yes thats true. but the logic is the same - more of the same failed policies will inevitably work. if the tax cut extensions are so vital, then why did they fail to turn the recession around? to cut the deficit, congress must reduce significant spending. discretionary spending like dumbshits mcconnel and boehner harp about comprise only about 30% of the budget, at best. but when it comes to real cuts (such as letting bushes policies die out), they fail miserably.

they didn't turn the recession around because the crash was so severe. letting taxes go up, however you do it, will slow the economy more.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...... ​

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

Whatta shame all o' you "conservative"-neophytes are MUCH TOO-YOUNG to remember the '90s economy.

​

 

[boedicca]

If the Bush deficits are so bad, what does that make the much larger Obama deficits?

Makes them terrible. Which is one good reason why not extend the tax cuts for the richest.

This qualifies for the Heartbreak of Economic Illiteracy Certificate with a Pea Green With Envy Star for Class Warfare.