E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
In his weekly pen-and-pad session on Capitol Hill with reporters, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer did not rule out a possible compromise with the GOP on extending the Bush tax cuts on high-income earners for one to two years.
While Hoyer mentioned his own opposition to the idea he said, “Are we prepared to discuss alternatives? I’m always prepared to discuss alternatives, so that we can move forward.” Hoyer continued, “What I am saying is, and you know Steny Hoyer, I believe that the Democratic process is a process of us sitting down, talking to one another and trying to reach a consensus so we can move forward. That does not mean you take actions that you don’t believe are appropriate. I don’t want to explode the deficit; the deficit is a real concern to the American public. We need to have that in mind as we figure out what we’re going to do.”
Hoyer’s comments come against a backdrop of many vulnerable members of his caucus expressing concern of being labeled ‘tax raisers’ by the GOP if they do not support a full extension of the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of 2010. Unlike difficult votes on healthcare reform and an energy reform bill where House Democratic leaders aggressively lobbied their members, Hoyer acknowledged that on the tax cut issue, Democrats were encouraged to do what they saw as in the “best interests of the country.”
Hoyer: “Every member needs to take their own position on this issue as to what they think is appropriate. Understand that 100% of Americans will benefit from not having taxes on the first $250,000 of income increased…members have to argue beyond that and that’s their position.”
Sources tell NBC News it looks more likely each day that the House Democratic leaders will let the Senate will take the lead on the tax cut issue as not to put their members in a difficult position before the fall mid-terms. Hoyer acknowledged that, “We’re having discussions; there are a lot of discussions about where we are going to go. I want to see what the Senate can do.”
Leave a Comment:
That's all it better be Steney... DISCUSSION!
Where is all the poutrage from the fiscal HAWKS NOW?
So spending matters but borrowing from the Chinese VISA card doesn't?
The VISA you're referring to is overwhelmingly American. The Chinese, as the largest foreign holder of our debt, hold just shy of 1 trillion of American national debt. Not exactly small potatoes, but it is less than 9% of the national debt.
The American people hold 70% or so.
I just despise that talking point - that we're somehow giving ourselves over to the red menace.
Thank you for the clarification AM - the point I was trying to make is that Repubicans are screaming for MORE fiscal responsiblity but have NO problem extending something that is NOT paid for which requires more borrowing no matter how great or small...
If the tax break for the top 2% is extended for even one year, and the Republicans take a House majority, you will see that break made permanent.
I know FRR - it's just a nit I can't stop myself from picking. =)
2cents.. you are exactly right, hopefuly the demos are not this stupid.
LOL Thanks again ;0)
100% of americans will benefit for the 1st 250k that sounds reasonable to me.
Hoyer: “Every member needs to take their own position on this issue as to what they think is appropriate. Understand that 100% of Americans will benefit from not having taxes on the first $250,000 of income increased…members have to argue beyond that and that’s their position.”
Here is a curious quirk.
For a family making $250,000 in taxable income, they would pay almost $10,000 LESS in income taxes if the Bush tax cuts expire, than if they were extended.
A family would have to have taxable income of about $335,000 before it would be a wash either way.
Quirks of the tax code.
Even Alan Greenspan is for a tax increase, These high end tax cuts had the same results as those in the 1980's October 19, 1987 ( Black Monday ) the markets dropped 23% that day. The rich get richer if there is a middle class that can afford to buy their products.
Kepp the tax rate going higher.... Heck I just love working 3 days a week for the goverement. Just can't wait for the health care to kick in, then I can work 4 days a week for the government!!!!!!
In a country like ours that has a structural deficit, tax cuts are an irresponsible, feel-good, politically motivated tactic. Unless it's balanced by reduced expenditures, that break we think families are getting from a tax cut are just a loan that will have to be paid back big-time later. And to those who think the answer is that we just need to cut spending, the problem is very much less what we spend now than what we have already spent over decades past. Even if all new spending had stopped at the start of the Obama administration, we would still be financially underwater. This country is lacking the stomach, the maturity, the brains, whatever, to face this inconvenient truth. It will be our undoing unless some grownups eventually get control of things.
hodaka - nobody pays 4 days a week; for your "3 days a week" to be accurate (and that's TOTAL - federal taxes, 10% state tax - (ridiculous), 5% local tax - (ridiculous), plus SS) you have an AGI (after all deductions) of > $800 per business day: my heart BLEEDS for you dude...
21st CP - You do realize that you (and large portions of people on the right) are channeling Herbert Hoover, right? Hawkishly conservative, he looked at what should have been a minor recession, and all he and his fellow conservatives came up with was "OMG, look at the debt!" Exit recession, enter Depression.
Fact is, government (all 307 million people of it!) is the only entity that is at all CAPABLE of "investing" us out of a recession. It has always been so...
Gee Steny, you should consider the wishes and income of your Democratic constituents before you vote with the GOP. One thing is for sure, they are going to continue to lie, distort, and beat down our president and everything he is trying to do for the country, regardless of whether you vote with them or not. Just how many people in your district make more that $250,000? What percentage?
Steny - are you out of your mind?
Stick to your guns. Now is your chance to show that the Dems really stand for fiscal responsibility!!!!! The 10 year clause was put there for a circumstance just like right now. True - the middle class needs theirs extended. But we have real PROOF that those over $250k benefit the economy more by kicking in more taxes than by having more to spend. Their money is all discretionary - thus a lower multiplier.
THEN - do some really BIG cuts in the defense budget. HOW? Bring home troops from all over the world. End imperial America.
Time to let the tax cuts expire for all Americans.
Welfare States Vote GOP....states that get more than their share of federal funds overwhelmingly vote for the GOP, while Blue states pay the bill. If you want to cut the size of goverment expenditures, get the GOP off the federal dole....
what's your source mike?
First time ive ever heard that. Im curious if your source as that goes against anything ive ever seen/read.
It's common knowledge, readily accessible.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
And a helpful picture:
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/tax.jpg
Any state with a number below 1.00 pays more dollars in federal taxes then are received in federal spending. Predominantly, with few exceptions, the wealthy and successful blue states are subsidizing the impoverished and failing red states. This is because blue states spend money on education, and that's spending that really does "trickle down" to improve things for everybody.
If you really want to sort it out, how about states only send their NET taxes to the fed for laundering. If a state can raise more taxes than it needs back from the feds, that money wont have federal strings attached. If a state cant pay for itself, then its stuck with federal social engineering. Now that's a motivator.
I would be interested in seeing the map represented by percentage of residents in a state that pay federal tax. According to MSNBC: About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Is it possible that a significant percentage of these non-payers live in high-population blue states like Illinois (Chicago), California (LA) and New York (NYC)?
Yeah right on Jaberwok!! The healthy and wealthy blue states like California right? Just a liberal tool. Get your face out of the kool aid bowl.
What are you smoking? "Red States" are almost always in "the black" whereas the "Blue States" have the majority of the welfare recipients.
Right on, fedup0723! Way to totally ignore the evidence that was provided to you by jabbausaf (and readily available other places by a simple Google search) and cling to your unproven beliefs! That's truthiness for ya! Way to be a mindless Republidrone!
To Rob and fedup, this data doesn't necessarily say which states are healthy and wealthy, as jabba claims, or which are in the red or black budget-wise. It does point out conservative states take in more than they pay, and liberal states pay more than they take in. I'm sure there are several reasons for this, and I'll let you rationalize it however you'd like, but I don't think you can dispute the numbers. I've seen these statistics before.
All states must balance their budget so anyone claiming that blue states or red states are better at it is uninformed. The only reason states are in trouble right now--the Great Recession which began in Dec 2007. The economy went off a cliff and most states had to use their rainy day funds in the first year, lower tax revenues, and more unemployed meant state budgets were in crisis.
I would like to see the facts. I live in Washington, a blue state and we get our fair share. Military, hanford nucleur reservation and various other government projects.
I am well aware that Californians get screwed by the Feds on taxes. I just find it totally absurd that someone would claim a blue state that has been rendered bankrupt by decades of liberal mismanagement as being wealthy. Just a totally asinine statement. California taxpayers now owe the Public Union's pension trust $500 Billion alone thanks to decades of Union owned Democrats controlling the state legislature. That is over $60,000+ per taxpayer before you start adding in the the annual Billions of deficit spending. Yes that spending on education has really made California wealthy!
Actually, because of the nature of governmental accounting (based around the budget rather than continuing operations), there are a lot of liabilities that remain off of states' financial statements. The largest is pension funds. California, for instance, has a pension liability of about 34 billion dollars, but, because it will not be satisfied with the current year's revenue, it is not reported in the financial statements. What's more, due to the budgetary nature of governmental accounting, many governmental enterprises spend as much as they can because, when the budget is reallocated, they don't want to have to fire anyone or anything. Many states don't have rainy day funds. New Jersey (pre-Christie, though he still has serious work to do) is another state with budgetary problems. So yes, some states are better at balancing budgets than others.
Rob: don't blame unions alone for these unfunded pension liabilities. State and local governments didn't negotiate very well in good times, allowing high pensions and benefits without a fight. Both sides of the negotiating table are to blame for this one.
My source for my comment above: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html
Ummmmm where do you get that number Monster? The pension fund deficit was found to be $500 Billion by a Stanford study published in April. That is half a Trillion dollars...nearly 15 times your 34 Billion!!!! Yes there were two sides to the negotiations. The union on one side and the Democrats they bought on the other. They negotiated quite well if you ask a public employee with an annual retirement of six figures. Their only problem now is collecting it. Good luck with that!
What I would like to see a breakdown of here is what the states are receiving money for. I have no argument with monies returned to the state for necessary infrastructure projects, social security and Medicare for retirees and the disabled but what else is the money going for? Is it spending that should be in the hands of the feds or is it spending that could be more efficiently handled at the state level? How much of it is pork that doesn't need spending at all?
Rob - I might have been confusing NJ's unfunded pension liability with CA's - the article I read about it was months ago. At any rate, I stand corrected. 20% or so is connected with losses on investments from the economic downturn. 400 billion is, of course, huge, but as a percentage of state GDP we are better off than New Jersey.
As for pensions growing due to Democrats alone, that's disingenuous. Other states/local areas, both red and blue, are facing this problem now. When the times were good, governments rolled over because they didn't want conflict, and/or because economic prosperity put them in a weakened negotiating position. Shying away from conflict is not uniquely Democratic or Republican.
LOL-Yeah a lot of states have been had by the unions but nowhere near the screwing California taxpayers got. How many of them owe $60,000 per taxpayer? Are you ready to fork over your $60,000 for their pension fund? I plan on keeping mine even if I have to move over state lines. By the way it is over $500 billion not $400 Billion. Taxpayers are responsible for replacing their investment losses so what difference does it make how the deficit occurred? Your retirement fund may have lost some money investing but theirs didn't. They are only allowed to make money not lose it! If you don't think the Unions have bought and paid for California democrats just take a look at the contributors on the Democratic Convention's website. Well over 90% unions. They are nearly single handedly funding Moonbeam's re-election.The Unions and the Democrats they own have controlled the California legislature since the late 70's when Moonbeam signed the Dill act giving them the right of collective bargaining.
http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/states-pension-liability-tops-500-billion-stanford-study-finds
First, I didn't say the investment losses didn't count. I meant to imply that, in time, those investment losses will at least partially reverse - they already have, to some degree.
If you're unwilling to fork over your share of the pension liability, you'd best move quickly. Of course, it won't all come at one time, but CA is notoriously bad at cutting programs, working or non working. Even if programs would cut, they wouldn't make up for the annual payment in to the fund. I'd understand if you didn't though - San Diego is rather nice.
I've no doubt that both parties have special interests', eh, interests at heart, but I think you're oversimplifying the issue. Pensions too high at local levels too. My locality has increased pensions under both Democratic and Republican leadership. Even then, I'm not just talking about California. Other states have this problem too (I wonder what the unfunded status per person is in other states). True, Democrats are seen as the union friendly party, but I don't think they were buying votes, just being lazy and avoiding conflict. American auto makers did the same think regarding union negotiations.
Mike - thank you for providing me with the biggest laugh of my day!
Rob in San Diego, I believe the last time California was this bad off was in the early 1990's. I believe this time around it started in 2005. Who was really in charge?
Put the obama crack pipe down .......... welfare states vote democrate... the left wants to keep people on welfare that way the keep thier jobs in DC..
Mike-mike and jabbausaf; Those numbers that you put down as gospel are manipulated. Interesting that you use a known conservative leaning organization to make a liberal point that doesn't hold water.
This from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
The Foundation counts as taxes items that are not taxes. These include: optional Medicare premiums that older Americans pay if they wish to receive coverage for physician's services under Medicare; intra-governmental transfers that are solely bookkeeping devices and not taxes; employee and employer contributions to state and local government pension plans, some of which results in the double-counting of taxes; and rental payments that individuals or businesses pay to state or local governments to rent property those governments own. The Foundation's inclusion of items that are not taxes overstates state and local tax burdens by about one-seventh.
sicofit and others,
My post is not about state and local taxes. My post states and my source proves that GOP Red states take and spend more FEDERAL dollars than they provide to the Treasury. So, all you GOP types and Teabaggers need to shut the heck up about federal spending until you stop sucking up more than your fair share. Know the details before you begin whining....
The Tax foundation numbers are correct but dated. Last update is 2005. Not a very clear picture since the economy went flat in more recent times. However, if you look at the numbers and think before you try to use the data to show one state is better at taking care of their money than others are, you might have a clearer picture.
Mke Mike and Jabbausf, I noticed you tried to use the numbers to show something they don't show at all. First of all which states do you think have the most businesses per person living there? I would say that New York, New Jersey, and California would be the top three states that come to mind. Since businesses owned by the rich make millions and millions of dollars it only makes sense that they would pay in more than they receive. You also need to look at the wasted money some Senators shift to their states, i.e Stevens for Alaska with the bridge to no where or Byrd (former Senator) of West Virginia who was the king of pork barrel spending. Also you need to look at each state as far as federal installations, indian reservations, national parks, disasters, and government contracts. This is a huge amount and many states get more than others. These numbers are only that..... a bunch of numbers. You need to look at them below the surface to realize what they actually mean.
Last but not least I was amused by the story that was on the home page of taxfoundation.org. Obama and the Democratic led Congress don't want the upper echelon money makers to get a tax break but by your own reference webpage they state that approx 39% of tax increases will be taken on by business income. In other words the people that Obama and company say they dont want to tax will still be carrying almost 2/5 of the load.
Amusing that "we the people" vote for all those people in Congress. We vote them out IF they fail to bring home the jobs and money to build our roads and infastructure and so on (called PORK by people in all the other states). Yes, in some cases it is wasteful spending but it is done in order to please the people that are going to decide if they keep their job come election day! The biggest problem is the way "we" vote. You can't blame politicians for doing their job when the only way they can keep their job is to bring home the "pork" and the only way to win election in the first place is to take money from the lobbyists for Corporations, Wall Street, Unions, and the Ultra-rich! So the crap that is seen on these sites everyday is not what is worth talking about until "we" decide to reform the method that we elect our representatives. Take the money out of the equation. Campaign reform is the only way to change the way "business is done" in Washington. The 24/7 constant "campaign" mode that has become the norm needs to cease. How can our representatives possibly do the "work of the people" when they have to be running from the "news media" people and "talking heads". Term limits are a must if we don't want more of the same. These jobs are supposed to be a chance for people to "serve" the public, not just an opportunity to obtain lifetime pension/benefits and to line their pockets through graft and corruption that comes with the "power" to work the system that seniority buys. So we have a choice of either reforming campaign fianancing along with term limits, or just keep on whining about perceived mis-deeds by the "opposition party" and how one side or the other is the most "moral" (they both lose on that one), and which one taxes the most or spends the most (again equally guilty), which party is the most patriotic, and fill in the blanks with your own personal rants, , , , , ! Does it always have to come down to "us vs them"? This is not a sports event, God knows we have enough of those to keep us occupied, why can't we care enough to realize we are on the whole a good and decent people that just want to live our lives in peace and reasonable comfort. Why does the 5-10% of the rotten, lazy, violent type people hold us hostage by fear? So stop the fear-mongering and start working towards something positive like campaign reform and term limits.
"I don’t want to explode the deficit." -- Steny Hoyer
___________________________________________________________
Hoyer and his buddy Pelosi are pathological liars and need to go for the good of hard working citizens and small business
It was the GOP who exploded the deficits--no matter how hard the right tries to blame dems, facts are facts; and the GOP has exploded the deficit everytime they are in power since Reagan started the "deficits don't matter" myth.
Madison From NY....
I am guessing from your name that you will not be voting for either of these two people, but then again, you can't tell from my name that I am actually registered to vote in California and FYI - I will be voting for Pelosi.
Someone should pull a Dorthy on Nancy Pelosi and toss some water on her. She would probably melt away just like her twin in the Wizard of Oz. I actually hope she gets re-elected just so we can see her Botox ridden face when she has to give up her gavel to the new speaker of the House and she is kicked to the curb as Mrs. Irrelevant.
nmgrandma-1424115 Excellent post!!! Spot on.
Oh gee now you think it appropriate to reach across the isle - only now has the damage caused by ramming the Obama ideology down our throats causing the Democrats to wake up to their self inflicted fate... Come on Nov!
I think I heard this line during the early phases of obamacare. That really didnt go anywhere.
"Get Real --" now, that moniker goes to show that conservatives really DON'T understand irony. It was Obama's futile "reaching across the aisle" over and over in his first year, while the GOP spat from their lockstep formation, that led to the Dem disenchantment with him. He's starting to get his game back now --
and if the GOP had had ANY ideas in their playbook other than "destroy Obama," they had plenty of time to share them. Loved that scene w/ Boehner waving around that empty folder, self-righteously proclaiming that it was the "GOP healthcare plan." Nope, irony escapes them every time.
Get Real--I'm with you. The Dems have been in control since 2006. Obama takes the total blame for the deficit! And now the Great Divider-in-Chief and his cronies want the "rich" to pay to help bail them out! What happens when the "rich" run out of money??? Hurry November...we desperately need adult supervision in Congress!!!
The rich will not run out of money! The game is rigged in their favor. Just like going to Vegas or the Tribal Gambling halls. The rich have reached into the pockets of the middle class for the last 3-4 decades and the transfer of wealth can be easily measured and accounted for across the spectrum. Some of them have actually grown back a small section of their heart and are begging for us to tax them more due to their own admission of unfairly gaining extreme wealth. Still, we worry that they won't get enough and will somehow punish us for asking for a few crumbs. You should worry however about what happens in November. You will be disappointed no matter who gains control, because it will be more of the same no matter how much you howl, and no matter which side "wins"! If you want to "win", you need to start begging for Campaign Reform and Term Limits! It is the only way to reverse the problems that plaque us.
It's true, 9 of the top 10 states that get more in Fed tax $$ are red states.
10 of the top 10 states that pay out more than they receive are blue states.
Most of those red states also have more of their land and resources controlled by the federal government, preventing them from developing and expanding their economies. Others are under the thumb of the various federal agencies (EPA, USDA, TVA, etc) that prevent expansion of the economies through over regulation.
The land and resources controlled by the federal government are controlled by the military. You want to take away land from bases and target/testing ranges, go right ahead.
If you want to get rid of the EPA, google "river on fire" and see what your deregulated utopia would look like, when companies are allowed to operate without concern for the environment.
Heck, go for it, kick out the EPA. You clowns deserve the pollution. Just don't come complaining to us about tap water that catches fire, skyrocketing cancer rates, and extensive horrifying birth defects. I'm sure the factory and refinery owners will take care of you.
then:
blue state = drug pusher??
red state = drug addict??
drug = other people's money??
It's a little less cut and dried than that, but I guess the fact checkers would rate that assertion as "mostly true".
See this article:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
Washington D.C. (Democratic) gets the best return on their tax dollars by far. And New Mexico is more of a "purplish" state than a Red state. But the other eight would clearly be rated as red if measured by how they vote in presidential elections. D.C. isn't a state, which would put #11 by this ranking in the top 10 states, whatever #11 may be.
As for the states that get less back than they pay to the feds, 7 are definitely blue, 3 are kind of purplish (Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire).
You are wrong. Military bases account for some of the federally controlled land, but not most. The federal government controls 81% of the land in Alaska; 78.9% of Nevada; 60.6% in Idaho; 52.3% in Oregon; 42% in Arizona; 46.5% in Wyoming; 33.1% in New Mexico; 29.6% in Washington (state); 44.5% in California; and 29.8% in Colorado. And that's just the federal government.
Source: http://www.johncletheroe.org/usa_can/gov_land/index.htm
Your argument that the Feds controlling land stifles a state's economy doesn't hold up that well. National Forest land is open to private logging and mining, and sometimes at below market value in royalties paid to the government by those private entities. What % of that federal land is actively mined, logged or open for cattle grazing?
......Go USA...... Actually, the federal government controls 100% of all state lands and waters when one considers the impact of the so-called 'endangered species act', the act that was designed to control land use, developement, logging, mining, fishing, ect.....The 'endangered species act' was never about saving critters, bugs, fish, birds, weeds or plants, it was all about controlling people.
In every war manual, the primary strategy for defeating and controlling thy enemy rests in controlling the land he inhabits
Go --
Umm... did you forget that Nevada went blue in 2008? And NV just about breaks even in the dollar-per-dollar ranking. Or is that the exception that proves...well, nothing, really.
It is only true if you rely on manipulated data:
This from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
The Foundation counts as taxes items that are not taxes. These include: optional Medicare premiums that older Americans pay if they wish to receive coverage for physician's services under Medicare; intra-governmental transfers that are solely bookkeeping devices and not taxes; employee and employer contributions to state and local government pension plans, some of which results in the double-counting of taxes; and rental payments that individuals or businesses pay to state or local governments to rent property those governments own. The Foundation's inclusion of items that are not taxes overstates state and local tax burdens by about one-seventh.
Spending cuts- see Fed and State budget deficits/debt!
Once again these "BUMS" are letting the wealthy company's rule the senate/congress...that's why we need to kick these crooks out once and for all ! We need term limits 2 in a life time and NO RETIREMENTS FOR THESE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR CROOKS !
And because of the various criteria used to define "small business", you have multi-billion dollar hedge funds being called "small business." According to most reports I've seen 97% of the small businesses fall into the $250K income level for their business filings. Even combined with the owner(s) income, those individuals still fall below the $250K level. Why should we continue to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy that the "common" taxpayer can't claim? I still say the only fair way to tax us to pay for the services we demand from the government is a flat tax with NO deductions of any kind for individuals or corporations. That would also eliminate most of the IRS employees, since we would not need as many people making sure that tax filings are correct, etc. Oops, though, think of all of the accountants and tax processors (H&R Block, etc.) that would be put out of business.....guess we'd better wait to do the flat tax system until this recovery is complete?
@Keep, they are paying into SS just like you and me, so it is rather difficult to say NO RETIREMENTS isn't it? There is a Popular Amendment for term limits along with one for election/campaign finance reform that has been proposed as Constitutional Amendments. Go to www.faircampaignreform.us for more information.
No compromises. The time to end tax cuts for the rich is here. The GOP agreed with this 10 years ago. Their 10 years is up. President Obama is not raising our taxes. Just say it! One million times. And vote on it. Now.
Email received today from BarackObama.com re: John Boehner
It's easy to see why these special interests picked John Boehner. This is a guy who first made national news 14 years ago when he was caught handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists on the House floor.
John Boehner said he did nothing wrong -- he was simply helping out his lobbyist friends.
And, in all of the fights we've waged together these past 20 months, he's been these special interests' right-hand man.
He teamed up with financial lobbyists to do everything he could to stall Wall Street reform and even took time before the vote on health reform to scream "Hell no!" over and over again from the podium.
If John Boehner is handed the Speaker's gavel, all that is wrong with Washington is back in business. Their plans are simple -- unravel what this movement has done and stand in the way of the rest of President Obama's agenda. Some Republican leaders have even threatened to shut down the government to get their way -- a heartless move that would hold Social Security checks hostage and shut down veterans' hospitals across the country.
With just 48 days to go until the election, this movement is the only thing standing in John Boehner's way.
____________
Now it's our turn to turn the tables - to Rep. Boehner and Senator McConnell -
NO! Hell no! Just like you said to us, the working and middle class, over and over and over.
Sure, they will say and do anything to save thier jobs....
Too LATE pal....
Were going to be voting you all out of office...
"I like paying taxes. With them, I purchase civilization." Oliver Wendell Holmes
wow for real??
another example of the demos not having any balls!! screw the repugs no compramise and screw the cowards that are more concerned about their position and not what is best for this country!
wake up neither party is working for you so y work for them?
extend tax cuts for middle class and make the top 2% pay what they should have alrdy been paying, infact not only should you let the tax cut expire for these rich few you should raise their taxes!
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why it's perfectly acceptable to take more than a third of the income earned by 2% and no income from nearly 50% when 100% use the same services provided by the federal government. In fact, those who pay nothing use far more services than those who pay for most of us. Our tax system is essentially set up to reward apathy and punish success. How is that logical?
Personally, I'd like to see a 10% flat tax rate on everyone. No deductions, no loop holes, nothing. If you earn an income, 10% of it goes to Uncle Sam to pay for the roads you drive on, the security provided by our Military, etc. From there, user taxes in the form of a national sales tax on virtually everything but food & medical goods (those are essentials, don't need a regressive system for the low income earners who need food and medical goods to survive). I'd even exempt resale shops since the tax was already paid on the original purchase and it's allows those in need to control the tax they pay on clothing- you can pay nothing by buying used or determine how much you pay by shopping wisely. Consumers have more in their pockets to put into the market place and have a direct hand in determining how much they pay to the feds. And the feds need to learn to spend within their means.
Sorry, one word was left out of the small business statement....."under"......small businesses fall into the UNDER $250K......
This is why the senate does not work for the average American. The budget was broke by the tax cuts and un-funded wars and now we want to balance the budget and lower taxes? Must be that Voodoo economics at work. Vote buying at it’s best is an ugly venture.
"The Bush Tax Cuts..."
Democrats hate them...right?
Well, maybe...
They hate them until they decide to extend them...for most, if not all, taxpayers.
C'mon, Dems...you can't be serious.
You're open to extending the Bush tax cuts...?
The same tax cuts that you've demonized again and again and again...?
Hilarious...
Never mind the hypocrisy.
I love it.
Yes, for 98% of Americans. Aren't you?
You need to try getting help with reading comprehension.
Finally a Dem that is opening up to common sense.
Really don't know what to say. It's quite apparent the Bush tax cuts expolded our economy, just look at how well America is doing. Extending the tax cuts is a ridiculas idea, allowing the tax rate to return to the levels when The Decider took charge won't break anyone's bank. Heck I'm still waiting for Reagan's trickle down economy to trickle to me, that was another wonderful example of the GOP's economic braintrust.
Well, we sure as hell don't need the chairman's trickle up poverty.
DDW, it's quite apparent that "the Bush tax cuts exploded (or "expolded" as you state) our economy?" Please expound on that if you would. Also, you claim that the tax cuts are a "ridiculas" (I'm guessing you mean "ridiculous") idea. If that is so, why are almost all Democrats in favor of extending them to all but the top earners?
Additionally, if you are waiting for "Reagan's trickle down ecomony" to trickle to you, you are a perfect representative of the Democrat party; one of the takers in society and not the producers. Then again, I'm sure, based on your apparent lack of intelligence regarding economic matters, that you are one of those who bought the snake oil and voted for "hope and change." How's that working for you?
J.H.Moore,
What's a "ecomony"?
I want him to explain this sentence first:
"Additionally, if you are waiting for "Reagan's trickle down ecomony" to trickle to you, you are a perfect representative of the Democrat party; one of the takers in society and not the producers"
Democrat waiting for Reagan's trickle down economy to trickle down? Huh?
Who are the tax cut advocates to decide how much money someone who busted their ass to get rich should be allowed to keep? Lemmings have wealth envy. Most of you probably make less than 2k per month and think that is the good life. @!$%#, 2k per week sucks to me. If you have nothing to lose and are worried about the rich keeping more of their, errrr, your money, then keep voting for the entitlement party. If you want to prosper and compete, then vote these thugs out. They don't give a @!$%# about you other than keeping you dependent on the tit.
Gee I sure got your attention, I don't agree with you or your profanity. Although that's pretty typical of the GOP's bullying tactics. Actually I'm blessed with a great job and honestly couldn't live on 2K a week, but don't mind paying my taxes. I just don't agree with extending the tax cuts for anyone. By the way, the thugs are the coorporations that have bought our goverment and outsoursed all of our industry for the allmighty dollor. It's all about greed and you seem to have the sickness also.
ddw, are you referring to "bullying tactics" like those that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi wielded upon the members of their own party to pass the absurd health care reform bill?
As for greed, it's called initiative, something that you apparently lack.
No one seems to mention the fact that those who "busted their asses to get rich" took full advantage of the tax cuts put in place 10 years ago to more than double their income during that time. Now that we can no longer afford to provide that assistance to those millionaires they are whining about a 4% increase, as if they will now go bankrupt without it.
It's called a progressive tax structure. The reason a flat tax is unfair is because the necessities of life chew up a greater chunk of income for the poor and middle than the rich. A tax structure that gives advantage to the wealthy must necessarily take from the poor, one way or another, ether in unfair taxes or rotten services. I say let the Bush tax structure first expire, then work on an equitable tax cut across the board including the wealthy and making sure its paid for.
wje37fcsm, stop making sense. It will only frustrate you and annoy those who don't wish to know.
But thank you for at least trying. :-)
huskyforliberty I can clearly see that you are getting desperate now.
If they had any guts, the Democrats should propose separate bills. The first would deal with making tax cuts for those making less than $250K "permanent". The second would strictly be a 1 or 2 year extension of the current rate for those making more than $250K, but would have to include how it is paid for. It would be interesting to see who votes for or against each of these.
If the tax cuts for the rich get extended for 2 years and the Republicans gain seats in the congress, you can bet those tax cuts will not be allowed to expire in 2 years.
I understand your point, but one would hope that Obama would veto any attempt at a permanent extension if the Republicans take over both Houses. And the harder they would push for it vs. doing other business for the country would simply confirm that their true interests are not for the middle class.
Go ahead let them expire, let them all expire. It will not be long before the truly wealthy sell off the rental properties etc. and move their money off shore. Dumber than dumb these guys are, you can not redistribute wealth that was worked hard for we will protect ourselves and our children, grandchildren and so on.
The wealth has been getting redistributed for decades...from the Middle Class, who worked hard for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren to the upper 2%, many of whom pay less as a % of their income in taxes that we do.
Tim, Tim, stuck up there in the land of liberals. To reiterate statistics directly from the government that you so love: The top 1% of wage earners pay more than 40% of all federal taxes, the top 5% pay more than 60% of all federal taxes, and the top 10% pay more than 70% of all federal taxes. Conversely, the bottom 50% pay absolutely no federal taxes. So, just how much more of the load should the producers in society pay so that you can live off of the government dole?
JH More are you the Montgomery County Tax assessor?
JH, you did not read what I said. yes, the rich pay more in taxes than the rest of the country, because they have all the wealth. I do not dispute that most of the revenue comes from them. What I said was the % of taxes compared to their income often times is less. Warren Buffett himself has said he pays a smaller % of his income in taxes than that of his secretary. Wages for the middle class over the past several decades, adjusted for inflation, has flatlined if not declined. Meanwhile, the wages of the richest among us continues to skyrocket. The middle class loses, the upper class gains. Are you telling me the average american today is not worth as much as the average american 30 years ago? There is a class war going on, however the working class has been losing it for years. What are the wealthy going to do when the middle class can no longer afford to buy their goods and services, because they are not paid enough to live on?
I'll be happy to pay a few extra buck's in taxes to let this top heavy tax cut expire. Stick it to the Republicans.
While they are re-writing history why not put a financial limit on who can collect social security. How is the little $1500 a month going to help some millionaire retire? It's just going to deplete the account for nothing. Fair, maybe not.
Marcilynn, those folks all paid into the system at the maximum level and should not be denied social security simply because they are successful. In fact, if you added them all up, the payout to them is minimal due to the relatively small number of individuals who are making millions per year.
While I agree there is no reason for the wealthy to collect their meager (compared to their total wealth) payments at retirement, I agree with JH on this one. What we (and they) pay into the system we are supposed to get back. If you want to increase the amount they pay in without letting them get the full amount back, you might as well just call it another tax.
I am actually for the privatization of social security (most of the demonization done to it by the left isn't accurate) as it will pay a higher return then letting it sit in the governments hands. Of course it would have to be regulated and *gasp* mandated to make sure the current retirees still get their benefits. And sorry JH, I am not a liberal living off the government dole, as you accused earlier. I'm a moderate who can no longer call myself a fiscal conservative as the conservative party is no longer fiscally conservative.
It is easy to forget there is more to the Bush tax cuts than income tax. There are capital gains, estate taxes as well which will be open for discussion. The fact that Hoyer is open to discussion does not mean he supports what the GOP prefers.
Joan, Hoyer simply knows that "D-Day" is coming in November and that he better start negotiating now before he is in the minority. He's also posturing to become the minority leader once the wicked witch of the west is dethroned. Gawd, November can't come soon enough!
And Boehner saying he would vote for the Dems tax proposals that didn't extend to the upper 2% is what? Both sides can be accused of posturing and pandering. Democracy is messy, and compromise is the way to do the people's business.
Jon, even most of the libs believe that increasing taxes on ANYBODY at this time would not be good for the economy. So please, don't accuse Boehner or posturing and pandering. He's using logic, something liberals seem to have a lack of!
Really J.H. Moore? And did Boehner and company also believe that cutting taxes during a time of war, and hiding the costs of war off budget were good for the economy? Is that the same sort of logic that you recommend? I do accuse Boehner of both posturing and pandering as well as not being particularly bright. Anyone that believes that he is interested in anything but his own welfare (and his "tan", how on earth does he become that improbable orange color?) is willfully naive.
Hoyer had better be kidding with this assinine statement. The Dems had better not cave in and give the rich an extention if they want to continue to hold sway in the House.
Chris, rest assured that come November the libs won't hold any "sway" in the house and that is why Hoyer is moving toward the center; exactly what Obama should have done. Unfortunately, the annonted one is a classic narcissist who can't stand not having his way. Thankfully he too will be shuffled out of office in 2012 as the majority of Americans don't want to go down the Marxist path that Barrack and Michelle have us on. Good riddance!
November can't come soon enough!
Why do people like J H Moore use clinical terms like narcissist when they have no clue what they mean?
It makes them feel as smart as Sarah Palin.
I hear a lot of people on this and many other Blogs use the term Obamacare in a negative light, I'm really curious as to exactly what is Obamacare and what negative effects it will have on peoples lives. To myunderstanding most of what was in HCR was insurance reform and nothing in the bill has anything to do with how medical services will be delivered, as for me it will not affect my health insurance in any way, but I would like to know why so many people believe it will have such a negative impact.
Obamacare is another code word used by Ditto heads and the hanity crowd. It is part of the daily talking points passed out for the followers.
No, it's the path to socialized medicine, just like Great Britain has. If you'd like to learn about that, just follow the news to see that their program is in ruins and is bankrupting their country. Nice try though my bear of little brain!
The rabid right talking heads demonized national healthcare with the aid of all the stumbling sausage making in Washington. I firmly believe as the more and more people come under the umbrella of Obamacare there will be concommitant feeling of security and acceptability. The t-par-t negative noise will still have to be swept aside as it will still be roaring from Rush, Glenn, Sarah, et. al.
Sorry to burst your bubble Don, but the government takeover of the health care system will be repealed before Obama is put out of office in 2012. While I can't wait for that, I am more excited about November as they'll be dancing in the streets. Guess you won't be watching those election returns will you Don?