John Boehner Calls Tax Break For Middle Class ‘Chicken-Shit’

[Full-Auto]

By Alex Seitz-Wald

Despite their stated opposition to tax increases, Republican lawmakers have been largely cool or even hostile to a proposed extension of the temporary payroll tax cut, pushed by President Obama and Democrats. Finally, this week, Republicans seemed to relent as GOP congressional leaders publicly urged their caucuses to vote for an extension of the plan. “The fact is that Republicans are doing everything we can to allow American families and small businesses to keep more of what they earn,” Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said this morning of efforts to whip GOP lawmakers to support an extension.

But in private, Boehner seems to hold a different view. Politico reports that in a closed-door GOP meeting this morning, Boehner referred to an extension of the payroll tax holiday as “chicken-shit,” saying he wanted to tack on unrelated legislation favored by Republicans to make it palatable:

GOP leadership told its membership at a closed-door meeting Friday morning it would couple with the expiring tax provisions an easing of environmental regulations on boilers, selling broadband spectrum and paving the way for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. [...]

Speaker John Boehner referred to the package he’s putting forward as turning “chicken-sh — into chicken salad,” according to people attending the meeting in the Capitol basement Friday morning.

More: After Signaling Support, John Boehner Calls Tax Break For Middle Class 'Chicken-Shit' | ThinkProgress

House GOP loads up year-end bill - Jake Sherman and Seung Min Kim - POLITICO.com

Why would you extend a break when it has not been effective?

Do you think SS will fund itself?

 

[auditor0007]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

It's sound reasoning. The more money they have, the more jobs we have.....

Really? Then why are we not swimming in jobs right now? Based on all the tax cuts the wealthy have been handed over the last thirty years, we should have close to zero unemployment. Please explain why this is not the case. Or do we need to stop taxing the wealthy completely before we can count on a few more minimum wage jobs?

But hey, keep saying the same thing over and over again, and people will believe it. It's worked so far, right?

 

[auditor0007]

It's sound reasoning. The more money they have, the more jobs we have.....

Tax rates for the rich are the lowest they have ever been.

How's that working out?

The boy-king you elected has employers, terrified and afraid to hire. They have no clue how much they will be taxed for many things, including healthcare costs, per employee. So they are holding back and I would too. They don't know what their overhead ( business expenses ) are going to be, until he is out of office....

This is a crock of shit, and you know it. If the demand was there, employers would be hiring. It really is that simple. It has nothing to do with being afraid of how much anything is going to cost them. If you still haven't figured it out, demand is what drives creation of new jobs. It's not the other way around.

 

[auditor0007]

Before long they will be openly calling the shrinking middle class "parasites" the way they are the working poor right now.

Well we are, aren't we?

 

[auditor0007]

The boy-king you elected has employers, terrified and afraid to hire. They have no clue how much they will be taxed for many things, including healthcare costs, per employee. So they are holding back and I would too. They don't know what their overhead ( business expenses ) are going to be, until he is out of office....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJBVrHB0AdQ]Company Policy We are not hiring until Obama is gone - YouTube[/ame]

The business owner said that for every 20 cars that pass him on the highway, after reading his sign on his truck, 19 of them give him a thumbs up......and one gives him that other finger...

Well then, I guess we can count on Obama losing the election by a 20 to 1 margin then.

 

[Full-Auto]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

It's sound reasoning. The more money they have, the more jobs we have.....

Really? Then why are we not swimming in jobs right now? Based on all the tax cuts the wealthy have been handed over the last thirty years, we should have close to zero unemployment. Please explain why this is not the case. Or do we need to stop taxing the wealthy completely before we can count on a few more minimum wage jobs?

But hey, keep saying the same thing over and over again, and people will believe it. It's worked so far, right?

Why are you arguing this? Of all people I expected you to understand its just a bit more complicated then sound bites.

But I will add one as to why its not. Policy

 

[NoNukes]

The boy-king you elected has employers, terrified and afraid to hire. They have no clue how much they will be taxed for many things, including healthcare costs, per employee. So they are holding back and I would too. They don't know what their overhead ( business expenses ) are going to be, until he is out of office....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJBVrHB0AdQ]Company Policy We are not hiring until Obama is gone - YouTube[/ame]

The business owner said that for every 20 cars that pass him on the highway, after reading his sign on his truck, 19 of them give him a thumbs up......and one gives him that other finger...

What do you think he is going to say? There is no way to prove him right or wrong.

 

[Dot Com]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

That, and watering down environmental & labor regs

 

[Dot Com]

It's sound reasoning. The more money they have, the more jobs we have.....

Tax rates for the rich are the lowest they have ever been.

How's that working out?

The boy-king you elected has employers, terrified and afraid to hire. They have no clue how much they will be taxed for many things, including healthcare costs, per employee. So they are holding back and I would too. They don't know what their overhead ( business expenses ) are going to be, until he is out of office....

So they won't know until 2016 given the current crop of Repub candidates asswipe?

 

[auditor0007]

It's sound reasoning. The more money they have, the more jobs we have.....

Really? Then why are we not swimming in jobs right now? Based on all the tax cuts the wealthy have been handed over the last thirty years, we should have close to zero unemployment. Please explain why this is not the case. Or do we need to stop taxing the wealthy completely before we can count on a few more minimum wage jobs?

But hey, keep saying the same thing over and over again, and people will believe it. It's worked so far, right?

Why are you arguing this? Of all people I expected you to understand its just a bit more complicated then sound bites.

But I will add one as to why its not. Policy

Of course it is, but very few on the right understand that, and I'm sick of hearing the same stupid argument from the right that cutting taxes for the wealthy is the answer to everything when it is not. Good God man, we've cut taxes over and over again, yet we are in an economic downturn as severe as the Great Depression. The only thing that has kept this downturn from turning into a full blown depression is the fact that we have government programs supporting those in need. Without them, and without the Stimulus package, we may well have been looking at 20% or higher unemployment.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

Actually they've been more concerned over lower taxes for everyone.

However, the Dems seem dead set on making the Bush tax-cuts a constant issue, essentially using it as a stick to repeatedly beat over their fucken heads.

The GOP is tired of the constant bluffing the Dems are pulling on the tax cuts, now being called a tax-holiday. Give me a break.

First it was only a tax-cut for the rich. Then after it came close to lapsing they admitted that it would effect everyone, exposing their lies. Now the Dems claim they only want the provisions that cover "The Rich" to lapse exposing their lies yet again. The GOP however says no. Everyone gets screwed or nobody gets screwed. That is the only choice they will accept.

BTW, nobody can put a finger on what percentage is "their fair share". Taking into account that they already pay the lion's share of income taxes, what exactly is their fair share? To pay the same amount as the rest of us?

Nope. To just pay more than they are already paying. That is the only answer you'll get. "Just a little bit more......just a smidge more". How convenient. That means they can never pay enough and thus it will always remain a wedge-issue.

Isn't it wonderful having to expect solutions from politicians that simply cannot be honest with us.

 

[Full-Auto]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

It's sound reasoning. The more money they have, the more jobs we have.....

Really? Then why are we not swimming in jobs right now? Based on all the tax cuts the wealthy have been handed over the last thirty years, we should have close to zero unemployment. Please explain why this is not the case. Or do we need to stop taxing the wealthy completely before we can count on a few more minimum wage jobs?

But hey, keep saying the same thing over and over again, and people will believe it. It's worked so far, right?

Really? Then why are we not swimming in jobs right now? Based on all the tax cuts the wealthy have been handed over the last thirty years, we should have close to zero unemployment. Please explain why this is not the case. Or do we need to stop taxing the wealthy completely before we can count on a few more minimum wage jobs?

But hey, keep saying the same thing over and over again, and people will believe it. It's worked so far, right?

Why are you arguing this? Of all people I expected you to understand its just a bit more complicated then sound bites.

But I will add one as to why its not. Policy

Of course it is, but very few on the right understand that, and I'm sick of hearing the same stupid argument from the right that cutting taxes for the wealthy is the answer to everything when it is not. Good God man, we've cut taxes over and over again, yet we are in an economic downturn as severe as the Great Depression. The only thing that has kept this downturn from turning into a full blown depression is the fact that we have government programs supporting those in need. Without them, and without the Stimulus package, we may well have been looking at 20% or higher unemployment.

We are there because of policy. The correct cuts can and do trigger economic activity a simple government regulation can negate the effects, slow down those effects or stop them dead in their tracks. Is the current SS cut having the desired effect? No, so why bankrupt the empty trust fund?

We are here because of government policy.

 

[Stephanie]

But I thought we were told, tax cuts ARE bad bad bad.

but now it's the Obama proposing it, it's good good good.

I swear you just can't keep up with these people..

 

[Rozman]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

It's sound reasoning. The more money they have, the more jobs we have.....

Tax rates for the rich are the lowest they have ever been.

How's that working out?

Tax rates for the rich are the lowest they have ever been.

And it drives the lefties absolutely bat shit because they feel that all money earned belongs to government first and they feel that "more" money being "allowed" to be kept is money stolen from government.

 

[FA_Q2]

Tax rates for the rich are the lowest they have ever been.

How's that working out?

The boy-king you elected has employers, terrified and afraid to hire. They have no clue how much they will be taxed for many things, including healthcare costs, per employee. So they are holding back and I would too. They don't know what their overhead ( business expenses ) are going to be, until he is out of office....

This is a crock of shit, and you know it. If the demand was there, employers would be hiring. It really is that simple. It has nothing to do with being afraid of how much anything is going to cost them. If you still haven't figured it out, demand is what drives creation of new jobs. It's not the other way around.

And your full of shit if you don't understand the correlation. I will let you in on a little secret, cost DIRECTLY impacts demand. Taxes, regulations and a whole host of other factors drive up costs. You are not going to invest in a plant that hires 500 people if you cannot estimate the cost of running that plant and therefore the cost per unit built. It simply is not going to happen. Relocating cash through the government does not drive up demand. Wishing does not drive up demand. The economy is going to do what it wants. About the only thing you can do is trade demand tomorrow for demand today. That is what your government spending does. The problem is that tomorrow is going to run out.

You want to increase demand, make it cheaper for companies to produce goods and services. That will go miles in helping demand.

 

[Cammmpbell]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

"During the summer of 1981 the central focus of policy debate was on the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts. The core of this proposal was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents used static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall."




Proven by these figures from the bureau of the debt:

Total U S Debt

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[mudwhistle]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

"During the summer of 1981 the central focus of policy debate was on the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts. The core of this proposal was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents used static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall."




Proven by these figures from the bureau of the public debt:

Total U S Debt

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

So the debt has currently hit $15,000,000,000,000.00

I wonder if you can come up with the figures on spending now Mr Expert. That seems to be the problem, not just taxes.

BTW, who is our largest creditor?

Do you know?

 

[Cammmpbell]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

"During the summer of 1981 the central focus of policy debate was on the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts. The core of this proposal was a version of the Kemp-Roth bill providing a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates. By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth. Opponents used static revenue projections to argue that ERTA would be a giveaway to the rich because their tax payments would fall."




Proven by these figures from the bureau of the public debt:

Total U S Debt

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

So the debt has currently hit $15,000,000,000,000.00

I wonder if you can come up with the figures on spending now Mr Expert. That seems to be the problem, not just taxes.

BTW, who is our largest creditor?

Do you know?

I know that we owe comminist chinese banks a trillion dollars and that George W. Bush was the first president in our history to borrow from them.

I also know that they don't loan those trillions of dollars interest free. When Obama took office he inheirited an annual interest payment of the Reagan Bushes debt of about $450 billion a year. That means for three years that's over $1.2 trillion dollars. Please subtract that amount from the president's debt and add it to the Reagan Bushes.

You cannot get around the fact that when taxes are cut and spending increases money must be borrowed to cover the shortfall. It ain't rocket science. No administration has ever cut spending...hell, they haven't even broke even on spending. It always goes up.

Reagan cut taxes and then he and Bushes daddy proceeded to quadruple the national debt from less than $1 trillion to more than $4 trillion.

Clinton raised taxes, created 22,000,000 new jobs, balanced the annual budget, bought back about $400 billion of debt, left surpluses projected all the way to the out years.

George W. Bush cut taxes twice using reconciliation to block Democratic opposition, started two wars and doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion.

It's like a man who works two jobs and is making payments on three credit cards paying off one credit card, quitting one of his jobs and continuing to spend like there's no tomorrow.

 

[Mr Natural]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

It's sound reasoning. The more money they have, the more jobs we have.....

Just think of all the jobs we'd have in the 1%ers didn't have to pay any taxes at all.

 

[Cammmpbell]

This is the Republican Party in a nutshell.

For the last 40 years, tax breaks for the rich are all that matters to them.

It's sound reasoning. The more money they have, the more jobs we have.....

Just think of all the jobs we'd have in the 1%ers didn't have to pay any taxes at all.

LMAO!!!!

Hell....tax rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years. Where are the jobs

I sure wish we had ol' "Cigar Bill" back in the white house.