House Dems pass middle class tax cuts

[Mr. Shaman]

How typical.

The Moderatin'-CHUMPS moved this thread outta Politics....after watchin' their Brethren-'Baggers takin' a serious ass-whuppin'.

​

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Deep tax cuts for everyone. Make government take the hit for being irresponsible.

so where are all these magical trillions going to come from to pay for these extensions? we are responsible as a democracy for the government we elect.

There's no magic. Our current outlays FY2010 are 3.5T. Our current receipts FY 2010 are 2.3T. Cut outlays to 2T, start paying off the current 14T hole that we're in at 300 to 500 billion a year. This isn't difficult. We make govt pay for their irresponsibility and have them do without.

 

[Trajan]

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.

I'll take clinton and republican control of both houses. no problem.

interesting isn't it? we didn't know how good we had it then.

 

[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!"

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 - Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application))

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.

You mean like the fact it was the Democratic-controlled Congress who passed the spending bills (with Senator Obama's vote, unless he voted "present") that left Obama a 1.2 trillion deficit?

 

[WillowTree]

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.

nice try asswipe but it's not me you hear bellowing to "soak the rich". no no no babe, it's not me you're looking for babe.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Slightly SMALLER!!!

Obama's first deficit was less than Bush's last!!!

The Washington Monthly

The $1.294 trillion shortfall is smaller than last year's total; it's slightly lower than the deficit President Obama inherited from his predecessor

 

[daveman]

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

It's simple. Bush's deficits are bad. Obama's deficits are good.

Right, USMB lefties?

 

[Trajan]

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 - Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application))

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.

uhm hello, having a surplus don't mean there wasn't a deficit, you know that right? You can have a surplus while still retaining Billions even trillions in debt.

and as far as blame goes, obama increased the deficit and debt. did he not? and please no pejorative he saved us from a depression gig okay?

 

[edthecynic]

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.

nice try asswipe but it's not me you hear bellowing to "soak the rich". no no no babe, it's not me you're looking for babe.

No you are bellowing "the Libs want to soak the Libs!"

 

[Trajan]

and for the semantically challenged- if the cuts expire the gov. takes in more money as we give up more, if the cuts stay, its a wash.

 

[boedicca]

The Semantically Challenged combine that deficiency with Economic Illiteracy. High tax rates do not increase tax receipts.

For the past few decades, no matter what the top marginal rates were, total tax receipts as a percent of GDP settled around 19%.

 

[Trajan]

The Semantically Challenged combine that deficiency with Economic Illiteracy. High tax rates do not increase tax receipts.

For the past few decades, no matter what the top marginal rates were, total tax receipts as a percent of GDP settled around 19%.

you'll spook'em....

they cannot figure out that 19% of a smaller pie equals......less money but hey, we're nuts.

 

[WillowTree]

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

nice try asswipe but it's not me you hear bellowing to "soak the rich". no no no babe, it's not me you're looking for babe.

No you are bellowing "the Libs want to soak the Libs!"

Link?

 

[Synthaholic]

partisan hackery at its finest, isn't it?

I won't waste my time with the soggy idiot, but I'll ask you: what's wrong with the analogy?

If i didn't use the coupon, then yes the price of my coffee goes up. there is no coupon in this tax cut issue.

A coupon is a price reduction for a set amount of time, with an expiration date.

The bush tax cuts are a tax price reduction for a set amount of time, with an expiration date.

What part do you need help understanding?

 

[WillowTree]

I won't waste my time with the soggy idiot, but I'll ask you: what's wrong with the analogy?

If i didn't use the coupon, then yes the price of my coffee goes up. there is no coupon in this tax cut issue.

A coupon is a price reduction for a set amount of time, with an expiration date.

The bush tax cuts are a tax price reduction for a set amount of time, with an expiration date.

What part do you need help understanding?

so when they expire taxes go up.. we understand perfectly,

 

[Synthaholic]

Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to expire.
Democrats were not united on the issue. Twenty voted with Republicans to kill the tax cut bill, as they hold out for extending additional cuts to wealthy Americans -- though 3 Republicans, including Reps. Ron Paul (TX) and Walter Jones (NC) voted for the tax cut extensions. However the outcome will (and was designed to) allow Democrats to draw distinctions between themselves and Republicans during the 2012 election cycle.


House Dems Pass Only Middle Class Tax Cut Bill | TPMDC

Wait a minute...I thought it was irresponsible to lower taxes in this economy. Or is it irresponsible only when the GOP does it...?

When you bozos figure out what you think, let me know, mmmkay?

I agree. They should all expire.

 

[boedicca]

The Semantically Challenged combine that deficiency with Economic Illiteracy. High tax rates do not increase tax receipts.

For the past few decades, no matter what the top marginal rates were, total tax receipts as a percent of GDP settled around 19%.

you'll spook'em....

they cannot figure out that 19% of a smaller pie equals......less money but hey, we're nuts.

That's the stupid game Congress plays. The CBO is instructed to do analysis which assumes that tax rates don't alter behavior, so that they can "balance the budget" or justify increased spending when they also raise taxes.

 

[Synthaholic]

You really don't have much common sense.

The definition of small business include those enterprises with up to 500 employees. The largest and most successful of these (the ones most likely to create jobs) will be affected.

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.

The vast majority of small businesses do not have shareholders.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

That is a WONDERFUL talking point! Really one of your best!

 

[Sallow]

"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 - Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application))

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.

uhm hello, having a surplus don't mean there wasn't a deficit, you know that right? You can have a surplus while still retaining Billions even trillions in debt.

and as far as blame goes, obama increased the deficit and debt. did he not? and please no pejorative he saved us from a depression gig okay?

Well yeah..why bother with the truth.

The conservative fantasy is so much mo' bettah!