June....while Congress should not be getting any type of raise (as Glen Beck says.... not one Congressman should be making a dollar more than any enlisted service member)......

Where is the money going to come from to pay for this?

Why is it that liberals feel that common sense rules that we must follow in our households (you cant spend more than you bring in) does not apply to the federal government?

'Close to being ready'........what does that mean....absolutely nothing?

More catnip!

There isn't a tax cut for anybody coming. What is being argued is whether or not to raise the taxes on the top 2% who pay the top tax rate already. There are a lot of new spending items in this bill but no tax cuts for anybody - rich or poor.

Hostage takers? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Come on, June. You’re regurgitating talking points instead of offering original thought.

GOP blocks legislation to award seniors $250.

For many seniors struggling on fixed incomes, $250 might be helpful. It is the narrow vision of the bureaucrat politicans like Ms. Kennelly, however, that continue to throw tax payer money around without thought. Politicians patted themselves on the back before for “ taking care of seniors” by sending them $250 checks.

I know of several folks over 65 ---- still working, making good money with hundreds of thousands and even millions in the bank --- who very much appreciated the $250 they received last time some brilliant politician thought this was a good idea. Was that a prudent use of our money?

Fine. Give seniors some help. But only those who need it.

If they really want to help seniors, they would back away. Let the economy gain strength. Raise interest rates so that seniors who live off investment income can earn a livable rate of return on their safe money.

If you really care about seniors, find a few and offer to drive them to the doctor, pick up some groceries for them, clean their house or pay an occasional utility bill for them. People are better at finding those in need than some clueless politician in Washington.

All three bills are crap.

Fix them and debate it in the next Congress.

No more cramming crap through in a lame duck rush.

Really Bob? Have you read them? Oh, I see you just know they're crap because the democrats propopsed them. Try to get a clue one of these days.

That is predicated on a belief that everyone is created equal, which just isn't true. People earn what they earn for a lot of reasons - intelligence, work ethic, ethics, education, physical attributes, etc.

The important thing is everyone, regarless of those factors has the opportunity to earn as much as they can. Whether they get to the new magical, mythical $250K is on them.

And for god sake, don't forget about stupid. Shifltless, lazy and stupid is no way to go through life.

That is a fair question MT.

So can anyone make $250,000 or more per year?

The answer is yes, but only if they have the desire to do so, if they work hard in school by taking the difficult courses such as the math and science classes, if they have a passion for working 100+ hours a week and are not prone to quit trying when their businesses fail (as they will many times), are willing to give up a family life, a social life, and commit themselves fully to their job, are able to withstand the worry of the job, the worry of their employees being there day in day out and performing well, the worry of the vendors being able to supply them what they need for their business at a reasonable price, the worry that their customers will continue to view them favorably, the worry of paying the necessary taxes and fees to keep their business going, the worry that their competition will somehow out think them and/or outwork them.

Once you get by all that, the rest is a piece of cake.

The answer is yes - you can make more than $250K if you get out there and work hard. You have to take reasonable risks and be willing to work 60 hours a week. I started, own and run 3 small companies and know everything that goes on in them. My wife works with me in our businesses and it is the most rewarding thing either of us has done. We both worked in the corporate world for 15 years and now for the past 15 years we have been running what is now 3 small businesses. It hasn't always been easy but we are comfortable these days. I wish they would hurry and figure out what they are going to do tax wise so I know how much more income to put into this year. If our tax rates go up - we will be forced to lay off the bottom performers to keep the companies viable. I refuse to pay anymore out of my pocket to support the govt who wastes it.

So your combined income is over $500k or do the two of you collectively make $250k?

Denigrating those who haven't the gumption to make over $250,000 per year leaves out the fact that SOMEONE has to do those lower paying jobs that make the lifestyle of the wealthy possible. Where would you be without the people who clean your house, take care of or teach your children, maintain your landscaping and/or pool and cut your grass, save your house if it catches on fire, haul away your trash, maintain your car/boat/plane or other toys, grow and harvest your food, builds or repair your houses, repairthe roads and airports that you use to get around, etc.? Are you willing to pay them $250,000 a year to do those things for you? I didn't think so.

Combined is over $500K most years - never have hit 7 figures tho. We are a Sub S Corp with only 2 shareholders - the wife and I.

Heartlight - I was in no way putting down those who don't make over $250K or any amount for that matter. What I am tired of is a large %% of people paying in nothing to Fed Inc tax and then telling me that I am not paying enough. We pay over 50% of our income to various govt's and I think that is enough. Even when we worked in the Corp world before having our own businesses we paid close to 50% and our income was around $250K jointly. The difference then was it was the Clinton era tax rates which were higher for everyone and there weren't 47% paying no Fed Inc Tax at all. I give plenty to charity and the govt isn't a charity that I want to give anymore too!!!

MT - I have read somewhere where there are less than 1 million people who make $250K taxable in the US. I have a feeling that the number does not include Sub S Corps like me or LLC's or Sole Proprietors. There are roughly 750,000 Dr's practicing in the US and a bunch more Lawyers than that. Most all of those people are Sub S Corps or LLC etc. We aren't either a Dr or Lawyer just happen to have found niche's in the market for services. I think if you included the Sub S and LLC's etc there would be a lot more than a million over the $250K mark. Remember those Sub S & LLC people like me pay our taxes at the personal rate - not a C Corp rate. I can believe that there are less than 1 million who get W2 income of $250K or more.

Heartlight3 - From the neck down a person is worth minimum wage, from the neck up wage is unlimited. That person determines their own worth and seeks employment as necessary. Unless inherited,. wealth is earned

I have to disagree. I know a lot of people that bust their butt, work 2 jobs and don't come close to 250K. Working hard does not mean a big payday. There needs to be some luck in there. However having said that, people can make their own luck by putting themselves in favorable situations. Still, hard work is not a guaranteed to make you rich.

June.... I posted this in another thread but it is applicable here too...

When are people going to realize that not repealing the Bush tax cuts is not a tax break or that it doesn't have to be "paid for"?

Lets take a look at this from a logical standpoint:

1. On January 1, 2011 if nothing is done everyone's tax rates will go up to Clinton era rates. This means that EVERYONE will be paying MORE to the government than they are today.

2. The money that the left is complaining about the government "losing" is not the government's in the first place. It is yours mine and every other citizen's money that is earned from whatever work that person does.

Its not like the government has allocated each of us a certain amount of money and is now saying they need to give us less. I go to work clock in and at the end of the day clock out and at the end of the week my employer pays me for the services I have rendered.

3. To say that we have to find a way to "pay" for the CONTINUATION of the current tax rates is just another way for those on the left to scare people. That is not a factual statement. You don't have to raise funds for something that isn't yours in the first place.

This is more along the lines of the Obama administration and the left counting their chickens before they hatch. They have already spent the money they planned on coming in by not extending the current tax rates and are now scrambling to find a way to cover their own butts.

4. Now as far as extending unemployment "benefits" -- this term is false as well (benefits implies that you do something to recieve them-- much like recieving benefits from your employer).... lets call it what it is.... a government hand out. -- this does in fact raise the deficit as the government is giving people money that the government does not currently have to give out. This SHOULD NOT be part of this "deal".

Extending unemployment benefits without either raising more capital (taxation) or cutting unneeded programs raises the deficit.

5. Raising the Estate tax to 35% is just another way of the Government assuming that the money that private citizens earn over the course of their life is, in fact, the government's.

Let me be clear.... the money you, I or anyone else earns IS NOT the government's nor am I required to give a portion of it to those who do not work. If I choose to then good on me. But not one peeny of the money I earn "belongs" to the government.

This is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals

You are, however, a citizen of this nation with all of the benefits and responsibilities that that entails. You have a responsibility to your fellow citizens to participate in the funding of the nation if you are you are going to partake of the benefits it provides you.

I have no children, but I do not complain that a portion of the money I earn is used to educate other people's children because educating other people's children is good for the nation. I have friends who do not drive, but they do not complain that a portion of the money they earn is used to pay for roads and traffic signals that they never use. I personally politically disagree with the rationale for the war in Iraq and the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, but I do not complain that a portion of my money is used to fund those wars.

All of the decisions to fund those things were made by men and women who the citizens of the nation, (whether they voted for the man or woman or not), collectively chose to make those decisions. If your side loses an election, it does not mean that the decisions of the person you disagree with are somehow illegitimate just because you disagree with him.

So the bottom line is that you cannot opt out of the responsibilities of citizenship, no matter how much the right wing wants to do so in this day and age. If the only thing your nation is demanding of you is money, then for the love of Christ, shut up and pay them.

It isn't like they're impressing sailors or drafting kids. It's not like they are seizing a portion of the crops you grow, so your family is going to starve during the winter. They are demanding a portion of your paycheck because it is your responsibility to contribute to the functioning of the nation.

Man up and fulfill your obligation and quit the endless whining.

MT, all of what you say is true. When you say:

You are, however, a citizen of this nation with all of the benefits and responsibilities that that entails. You have a responsibility to your fellow citizens to participate in the funding of the nation if you are you are going to partake of the benefits it provides you.

That is true for all citizens. But yet, many of our citizens pay nothing for the benefits they receive. As an example, 47% of the wage earner pay no federal taxes. They too though partake of the benefits that are provided to them. They drive on the same roads, they are protected by our military from foreign invasion, the court system is at their disposal, the federal funding for their public schools is supported, their water and sewer lines as well as other public infrastructure are also provided to them.

Yet 47% contribute nothing, but still partake in benefits.

Does that seem fair to you? You can believe in a progressive tax system with an increasing amount of taxation as the income of an individual increases, but should nearly half the people that benefit from the services of the government pay absolutely nothing towards those benefits?

Seems a bit unfair, no? Is it time for the 47%-ers to "man up and fulfill their obligation" as you say?

You might remember from earlier topics that I posted in awhile back, (or not - it has been quite some time), that the tax system I would favor would be a rather flat one that eliminated all loopholes - no tax credits, no tax breaks, just what you owe based on your income level. On that level, I would say that at this point, I am telling the entire nation to 'man up.' It's just that the right are generally the ones generally complain about having to pay taxes and who characterize the civil servants that they participate in electing as thugs and legbreakers.

We as a people owe these debts. That means all of us. Just because we might not like how they were incurred or what they are going to pay doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to pay them.

For example, last summer, Citifinancial, the company that wrote my auto loan in 2006 sold the majority of their auto lending interests to a company called Santander. The transition between the two companies was, needless to say, horrible at best. I received no notification that this had even happened. I kept sending my payments to Citi. The time it took for Citi to send my payments to Santander started taking longer and longer. I started receiving phone calls from this company I'd never heard of by people who announced themselves as debt collectors. Most of the time, since the calls were initiated by machines, when I answered the phone, there would be a significantly long delay when I heard nothing. Most of the time, the call never even reached a human.

And at this point, I still had no idea what 'Santander' was.

It all came to a head in October. We were already at the point where payments that used to take 5-6 days at most to process were taking 10 days to weeks. In October, the payment I mailed on October 17 had not been processed by November 4th. So I called Citi to find out what was going on and was transferred to Santander, whose representative immediately demanded the equivalent of 2 payments or they would begin proceedings to repossess the car. I explained that the payment had been sent to Citi and the representative told me, rather rudely, that Santander had been servicing this loan for over three months.

3 months - no mail, no correspondence, nothing. So I asked what to do and was told to make a payment by phone (+$14.99 to process it), and to stop payment on the check because my payment had probably been lost, (+$22 from my bank to issue a stop payment), and then my account would be current. So then November 26 rolls around and my October payment finally reaches Santander, who immediately submit it to my bank and have it returned because the payment on it was stopped on November 4, like their representative told me to do, (+$25 because of a 'bounced check').

So needless to say, I am not impressed with Santander at all. And the simple truth is that Santander has never loaned me a dime and I don't feel any real moral obligation to pay money to these people who have basically, to this point, handled themselves like incompetent loan sharks.

However, my personal feelings about Santander don't change the fact that this debt is my responsibility to pay. Just as it is the responsibility of every American to participate in the functioning of America whether you like Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or any of the wars or the department of Education or that observatory in Chicago or whatever. Because the decisions to fund these things were made by our government, who both you and I had the opportunity to help to elect.

If there was some king sitting on some throne somewhere decreeing these things and we were serfs forced to scrape out meager existences, it might be one thing. But we live in a nation that has never provided so much for its population while demanding so little in return.

The least we can do is provide for our own national community with a minimum of carping on about it.

Agreed Joanna - time for the bottom 47% to start paying something. I have empathy for the truly poor, infirm and those who can't work - so lets so the able bodied people who are sitting on their backsides is 37% of the people. Before finishing college I worked in grocery stores bagging groceries, hauled hay, worked on oil rigs, helped a farmer out with his pigs which meant shoveling pigsheet etc. I stuffed envelopes for far less than minimum wage. I don't want to hear about it from the bottom of the pack. I wouldn't mind seeing the rates go back to the Clinton era rates so that a lot of freeloaders have to start paying.

Saw an interesting stat today - 33% of the people who run out of unemployment insurance avg finding a job within 30 days.

MT: You might remember from earlier topics that I posted in awhile back, (or not - it has been quite some time), that the tax system I would favor would be a rather flat one that eliminated all loopholes - no tax credits, no tax breaks, just what you owe based on your income level.

That's fine. That puts you in agreement with the Debt Commission. Until Congress starts legislating to that commissions report though, we're stuck with what we have, which is 53% of the country's taxpayers pay federal income taxes and 47% do not, but 100% of them take advantage of the federal government services. That hardly seems fair.

Sorry about your experience with Santander, which seems to be a large bank based in England. Perhaps they want you to pay in Euros?

Obama Free: Agreed Joanna - time for the bottom 47% to start paying something.

I can understand a certain level of the "working poor" not paying federal income taxes, but not 47% of the taxpayers. More on the order of maybe 10%. Talk about disenfranchised. Here we have 47% of the taxpayers voting for candidates that create tax policy, and if those Representatives/Senators increase taxes, it's nothing out of the 47%-ers pockets, so what do they care? So if the 47%-ers want more government services, they know someone else besides them will be paying for it, so why not have their representatives in Congress vote for those services.

Saw an interesting stat today - 33% of the people who run out of unemployment insurance avg finding a job within 30 days

Don't mean to sound callous, but hunger is a great incentive for finding work. It's tough love to have someone take a job that is beneath the job they had before, pays less, and probably has less benefits such as vacation. But once a person is in that job, they can work their way back up and back into the workforce. Hiring managers look at a persons work history, and having worked looks much better than not having worked during tough times on the resume. Liberals though take a different approach. They treat the unemployed as victims and believe they are entitled to what is turning into permanent unemployment benefits. There is not much incentive for someone to take a job that pays barely more than they get by drawing unemployment checks. In the long run, that helps no one.

I feel I should point out that it is not only the bottom wage earners that pay no income tax. Some of that percentage are people who avail themselves of tax credits and loopholes to avoid paying taxes. For example, if you make all your income from capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate, and you are paying mortgages on three houses and you have 5 kids which provide tax credits and exemptions of more than your capital gains income, you pay no taxes. I don't think that is all that uncommon.

Heartlight - one of the most famous of those was John Edwards. A number of years back the dividend tax rate was 15%. He had a Sub S corp and took a small salary (big compared to me) and then paid himself a dividend out of the Sub S corp to the tune of millions and millions of dollars from his ambulance chasing business. My accountant said the IRS would come after me - but wouldn't come after Edwards for that. I sure would have liked to have had that extra 20% plus that I would have got.

Heartlight,

For married couples filing jointly making over $250,000 a year, exemptions are phased out and tax credits do not apply. If you're paying mortgages on three houses, you're also paying a bunch in property taxes and utility taxes. None of your 5 kids qualify for financial aid for college so you have to foot the entire bill x 5. You have to buy 5x the trendy clothes, cars, computers, I-phones, goods and services that kids require, so you're circulating quite a bit of money into the economy, and we know money into the economy benefits all. If you're making $250,000 not on earned income but from capital gains, as your describe in your scenario, you likely have an investment portfolio or securities and/or real estate in excess of $5 million, in which case, 35% of that goes to the government when you die because of the estate tax.

So, doesn't it all sort of wash out?

For what it is worth, I also tend to believe that all income should essentially be considered the same for tax purposes. After all, if your business is to own an apartment building and you receive $250k/year in income based on people paying you rent versus earning a $250/year salary from a hospital for being a surgeon, there should be no intrinsic difference in your obligation to the people of this nation. To assume otherwise is ridiculous, but it is what it has morphed into based on laws that were applicable in the 1800's versus what the reality of life in America has become in 2010.

I totally agree with you. The payroll tax holiday is a ploy to reduce the funds in the Social Security Trust Fund so they can decry the "Social Security crisis" and use that to justify reducing benefits and increasing the retirement age. This is a set-up and you are absolutely correct as to what the end result will be.

guys - SS has been living on IOU's for years and was plundered by the politicians ever since they put it in the general fund in th4e 60's. By politicians I do mean both R & D.

0bummer has done a terrible job as Prez. Worse than even Jimmy Carter. Did you not see the results of the elections 1 month ago. This is the greatest switch in power in the House of Representatives in 70 plus years. Obummer is not trying to pass this legislation because he is trying to get the job done - he is trying to cover his backside and not go back to the Clinton era rates that would raise taxes for everyone.

Sam - you really don't get it do you. There is no tax cuts for anyone with this bill. What it is - is an extension of the Bush tax rates. Tax rates are a much different thing than tax cuts. Get it - there are no tax cuts - its an extension of the current tax rates that have been in effect for 9 years. Right now the top rate is 35% for Federal. When you add in state, school and local taxes most of that top bracket pay more than 50% of their income in some type of taxes. The liberals are no different than the Repubs - one of the wealthiest Dems - John Kerry was trying to avoid $7 million in taxes on his new yacht by keeping it in RI instead of Mass. where he lives. Then you have Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters and yes there are Repubs that do the same thing. Just wake up and smell the roses. No Dems are laying awake at night thinking of ways to help the poor.

Problem is, people just don't roll over and die. I know you were being sarcastic, but if we leave all these people out there with no means of income. People will find one that might not be legal. There was no welfare or unemployment in the 30's and many people turned to crime.