E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Domenico Montanaro reports that although some Republicans have changed their tone on a new-no-taxes pledge, they aren't putting tax rate increases on the table.
Some Republicans appear to be softening what was once a hard stance on their no-taxes pledge as the end-of-the-year deadline on the so-called “fiscal cliff” approaches.
But it’s not clear how far they would go – if they would raise rates on the wealthiest, as President Obama wants, or if they are simply willing to go along with eliminating some loopholes and deductions to raise revenue. And those who have been outspoken on the topic thus far are not seen as the key players in the ongoing negotiations.
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Select Committee on Intelligence ranking member Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) gets on the Senate subway as he leaves after a hearing on the Benghazi attack November 16, 2012 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia told a local TV station from his home state. “If we do it his way then we’ll continue in debt, and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”
Chambliss is one of several congressional Republicans who have indicated they might break with an anti-tax pledge pushed by activist Grover Norquist.
NBC's Chuck Todd tells Savannah Guthrie that House Republicans are stalling a compromise in the "fiscal cliff" debate, unlike the Senate, where members are more keen to strike a compromise.
On the Sunday shows and Monday morning TV, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bob Corker (R-TN), as well as Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA) -- the House minority leader -- and Peter King (R-NY), joined Chambliss in downplaying the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” Norquist’s 58-word pledge has been a mainstay in Republican politics since 1986. In 2011, every GOP presidential hopeful, including Mitt Romney (and excluding Jon Huntsman) signed it.
NBC's Domenico Montanaro reports on the increased number of pledges that Republican presidential candidates are being asked to sign in this campaign. One pledge stands apart, a no-new-taxes pledge, whose creator has influenced day-to-day legislation and is vowing to fight any effort to get find revenue in the new congressional supercommittee charged with closing the national debt.
“I agree with Grover — we shouldn’t raise rates,” Graham said on ABC, “but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can’t cap deductions and buy down debt.” Graham added, “I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.”
Corker told CBS on Monday: “I’m not obligated on the pledge. I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I serve, when I’m sworn in this January.”
King, of New York, said on Meet the Press Sunday: “I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss -- a pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress... I think everything should be on the table.”
Norquist, in fact, says the fact that no House Republican has voted for a tax increase in 22 years is directly a product of his pledge. Norquist does not just mandate that lawmakers not vote for tax increases, but also that any bill they sign onto has to be “revenue neutral.”
In other words, cutting deductions and loopholes, for example, would also be out if not offset by further tax cuts. But Republicans and Democrats face an end-of-the-year deadline to try and figure out a way to avert the steep military and domestic spending cuts and taxes going up for everyone when the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year.
USA Today's Susan Page, American Bridge 21st Century President Rodell Mollineau, and YG Action Fund Senior Adviser Brad Dayspring join Chuck Todd to talk about the impending fiscal cliff.
That some senators appear ready to talk revenue is not as significant as what House members say. It is widely believed that a deal would be struck between the White House and the House GOP, not with the Senate.
House Speaker John Boehner has said that “revenue” is on the table, but the president wants to raise rates for the wealthiest. Obama campaigned on the idea, but it’s not at all clear whether the House Republican rank-and-file would sign on to any rate increase.
Cantor, who wields some influence with the GOP conference’s more conservative members, is seen as more of a keystone, and he, too, seemed willing to go along with at least some revenue increases.
“There has been a lot said about this pledge,” Cantor said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Monday. “When I go to the constituents, it’s not about that pledge. It’s about trying to solve problems. House Speaker John Boehner went to the White House and said, ‘Hey, Republicans in the House are willing to put revenues on the table.’ That’s a big move.”
House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., sits down with Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, John Heilemann, and Mike Barnicle to talk about Israel, Egypt, the Grover Norquist tax pledge, the future of fiscal cliff negotiations, and why not everything is on the table in tax talks.
“We were elected to fix problems,” Cantor said, before adding, “Even if you raise all those taxes, it doesn’t fix your problem.”
In a follow-up interview, Cantor’s office stressed that he remains against raising tax rates.
“Republicans aren't against tax rate hikes because of any one man or pledge,” spokeswoman Megan Whittemore said. “We are against hiking rates, because they're bad for the economy and hurt jobs. We've put ideas on the table that bring more money in while keeping tax rates where they are to produce job growth. It's now time for President Obama to put his ideas on the table for spending cuts and entitlement reform if he truly embraces a balanced approach.”
For his part, Norquist isn’t backing down. In a statement to NBC News, he took shots at the GOP senators and expressed confidence that no one would violate the pledge.
"Chambliss has been pushing this line since he joined the Gang of Six,” Norquist said. “Lindsey Graham has for two years said he would raise taxes if he got a 10:1 ratio of spending cuts through entitlement reform that could not be undone. There is no news in these two 'changing.'”
And he added, “They have not voted for a tax hike. They have had impure thoughts on present. Their impure thoughts did not change a single GOP vote in the 2011 fight over the debt ceiling which had a real deadline looming. One might have argued that the pledge died in 1990 when a sitting president and many in House leadership broke the pledge. However, the opposite happened, the pledge became more powerful when breaking it was seen to have very real consequence in 1992. After the 1994 election a majority of the House and Senate had signed the pledge."
Leave a Comment:
Hey Republicans - you were elected to do a job by the people... how about getting in touch with the people who elected you... stop the fighting just because the other party are Democrats and do the job that the people elected you for - this country is getting to be a mess and you both have not done anything constructive to alleviate this mess... but I am sure the lobbyists have lined your pockets tremendously, haven't they... lets think about 'us', instead of 'me'...
Try getting a job .... you lazy bastard.
Right Bashbrother... Because no one who wants tax increases for billionaires and tax cuts for the working class could ever have a job!
Rush Limbaugh and FOX News would be proud of your ignorance!
Myself and every 1%er that I know has made or is making plans to get their money offshore!! And I'm positive that all the other 1%ers are doing the same. So .... with the US and Obama losing all the tax income from the folks that paid more than 70% of the taxes .... I wonder where Barry will go to find money to pay for all his debt. LOL
Not my problem .... everything including my residence is now in the Caymans!! It's been nice supporting y'all, but my days as a lifeline are over!
I don't believe a word you say. You're a troll is all.
Good riddance
Oh gosh, your scaring us. Your such a big bag wolf full of baloney.
Take you A$$ off shore while your at it!
1%ers don't waste their times on these idiotic blogs, so who do you think your BSn. There is an old addage in business that to make money you have to spend some. To the best of my knowledge this hasn't changed in my entire life. The thing I see here is everybody is thinking things are never going to change. That is what Republicans are finally starting to realize.We need to increse or decrease our Taxes every other year or so to make it work. Every 4 years or so I have to change my household budget to reflect changes. Need a new TV or Car or Refridge. My household budget has gone up and down over the years. Operating a country changes year to year also. My house has its ups and downs and so doesn't this country. To be a good leader you must adaptable, plyable and flexable. The same thought appilies to a country and the people in it.
Imagine that! A bunch of politicians breaking promises they made to get their worthless, lying @$$ES elected.
What a collection of useless, bottom-feeding scum.
Until Congress address sending trillions of dollars to foreign countries, I'm not that interested in this nonsense talk of taxes. The excuse before was for oil. Today we know soon we will be the capital of oil over all other countries. We are fortunate having Canada and Mexico on our borders. It doesn't add up that we have the biggest of Defense Spending over all the other countries. Most of our debt comes from being policing the world. Giving trillons to countries that hate us. The tax talk is just a way that our Congress can send more money through the back door to these foreign countries. What a better time on keeping our tax-payers money on America's soil until we get out of debt?
I think they are thinking money fixes everything. It can fix a lot of things but not everything.
Lets face it. Bush's tax cuts for the rich all but destroyed the working class in America while the rich doubled their wealth.
Lesson learned. We don't need to try that again!
Guess what OICY - when these tax cuts expire, your wallet will be a whole bunch lighter than the 1%people's wallets. Then tell us how these cuts were for the rich! Think! Think!
I don't mind paying more to help America. Why do you refuse?
It's that kind of greed that got us into the mess we are in.
OICY The taxes cuts were for ALL tax brackets not just the high earners, please educate yourself before typing!! The lower brackets got the bigger percentage reduced, lowest bracket went from 15% to 10% (33% reduction) highest bracket went from 39.6% to 35% (10% reduction), do some math if you can!
The majority of Bush's tax cuts benefited only the wealthy. You know... The 'Haves and the Have Mores'... Bush's base!
Freakey, The majority of revenue lost from the tax cuts were from the rich. I have no doubt my burden will be a bit more than the rich's burden will be. I'll do that part to help get my country back. They need to do theirs too!
Airborne... That's exactly what a true PATRIOT would say!
OICY - here's your .4% increase! Check your figures before you show your intelligence:
Obama Deficits:
FY 2013*: $901 billion
FY 2012: $1,089 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion
Bush Deficits:
FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
OICY, You do realize you have no clue, right? You voted for Obama for all that hope and change crap the first time and the second time you voted for Obama to vote against Romney. Obama is the worst president this country has ever seen, you know it but you won't ever admit it. The problem is the Maddow teat sucking liberals that think they are superior in intellect than everybody else. Pathetic.
@DickB
That would be deficits, technically borrowing, not spending.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
Bush's spending for 8 years was 9.6 trillion that showed and his war expences that were not shown til he left office was another 3.5 trillion. Totalling $13.1 trill. War debts don't have to be shown as the expences occur and they have no limit as to what can be spent.
I guess maybe if I were a 1%er I'd be paying Norquist too. But I'm not. And I know the difference between somebody who works for a living and someone who takes as much as they can from everybody they can. I work for the 1% every day. They are in my face every day. They don't deserve the time of day for the most part. All they are interested in is taking more. Not doing good for the country or the rest of us in it. I don't get why working people don't understand that.
Little angry there Whiskey.......
Frustrated might be more apt. Why do you think I chose this screen name? Perhaps you've never been up close and personal with the uber wealthy. Yes, I make my living from them but it doesn't mean I have to respect them or think they have anybody's well being in mind but their own.
The GOP lost some seats in Congress this last election. Of course, some were due to stupid remarks by Aiken and Murdock. Obama is in the "cat-bird seat" as the saying goes. Mitch McConnell the old fossil from Kentucky said Job 1 was to make sure Obama was a one term president (even before Inauguration). Funny, i thought Job 1 would be jobs, the economy, the deficit. What do i know.
No matter how congress (the house) tried, that scumbag from Nevada would not allow a bill to even be read in the senate. Your King only cared about getting re-elected by the dumb masses. Job 1 by the socialists was to provide for the welfare of the socialists - that is the only job they cared about. Wait til the next election in 2016 - the purge of the wienies will begin anew!
Same could be said for Obama when he was sworn in back in Jan 2009. He could have made jobs his #1 priority.
I'm not condoning Mitch McConnell in any way, but what is good for one, is good for the other. Obama is President and is supposed to lead, and only now after 4 years is he showing any true concern for jobs and the economy when the fiscal cliff is staring him and our elected officials in their faces.
Why didnt he work on jobs starting day 1 in the WH instead of concentrating soleley on his healthcare reform bill, which appears to be costing more than originally anticipated (at least as of this moment), and there are many items which still have not come out to the light of day.
Step 1 for any administration should be the increase in jobs as well as the increase in the income levels for all that have them. I know the President has very little to do with this, but he can recommend and propose legislation that aides companies with the knowledge that the environment will be friendly towards job creation. You dont put in place legislation that causes uncertainty and then say...Okay, lets create more jobs.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Enacted February 17, 2009
The primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately.
"...the Recovery Act directly employed more than 700,000 Americans on construction projects, research grants and other contracts. That number doesn't include the jobs saved or created through its unemployment benefits, food stamps and other aid to struggling families likely to spend it; its fiscal relief for cash-strapped state governments; or its tax cuts for more than 95 percent of workers. Top economic forecasters estimate that the stimulus produced about 2.5 million jobs and added between 2.1 percent and 3.8 percent to our gross domestic product."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-obamas-stimulus/2012/08/10/7935341e-e176-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html
Last year I heard a statement by a republican in Washington that put the Gover Norquist pledge right on the spot. He stated that even milk had an expriation date, and the pledge should also.
I guess a pledge to a jerk superceeds an oath sworn on a Bible. Norques should be tried for treason to the American People. Yet you Clown keep voting him right back in, go figure.
It is truly sad to see the ignorant masses screaming for a tax increase so this socialist government can take your money and spend it like they want to. What is the matter with you stupid people? Can't you see that the problem is TOO MUCH SPENDING, not too little taxes? Didn't you ever get out of high school? My God, you can take every penny away from the "rich" and you could run the government for 6 months max - then who would you take money from? Think - use that mass of excrement mounted on your neck for something intelligent!
Actually, Federal spending is only up 0.4% under the Obama Administration.
I knew there wasn't any good reason for the trillion+ deficit just a figment of my imagination.
Who is a republican going to believe? You, when you tell them that under Obama spending only went up .4%, or Rush Limbaugh and FOX News who told them that Obama spent three times more in his first week than Bush spent in 8 years?
Gee, that's a tough one. I bet they believe Rush.
I have been pointing out for the past 2 weeks that if the Bush tax cuts on those making $250,000 or more are allowed to expire, it would generate an additiona $84B in tax revenues per year, which is a drop of spit in the ocean compared to what the government spends.
$84B equates to approximately 9 days of running the Federal Government.
Tax increases do zero without controlling the spending and truly cutting the budget.
Ozzy don't know that the debt grew under Bush too. Rush Limbaugh and FOX News forgot to tell him that.
Hey Whiskey - then why don't you go mortgage your house and take the risk on starting a business as opposed to waiting for someone else to put their financial life on the line. So easy from the side lines with no skin in the game hoping that someone else takes the risk - you coward.
Wake up people, fisrt like Obama stop government frivolous spending.
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/ejde45i/930-million-on-unnecessary-printing-costs/
http://money.msn.com/investing/12-examples-of-government-waste
or maybe he should listen to his own congressional budget office when they reported that his budget plan last February would increase the national debt by $3.5 trillion.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/090712-625080-terrifying-promise-obama-made-.htm?ven=OutBrainCP
yet here we are listening to a guy that never had a job in his life how to run a country. It pathetic to think that 3% of this nation is suppose to pay for 97% of country. Socialism does not work!!
Since he took office the national debt has sky rocketed, since he took office the median wage has dropped from just over $56,000 to just over $50,000. Your ok there crying poverty yet you spent over 59 billion on black friday on toys, on credit cards, now you want others to pay your living expenses. Your going to spend over a billion today on cyber monday
The republicans should give obama everything he wants with no resistance. If it works he is a genius. If it fails we all know who is to blame.
nice try but they will still blame the Reps. It's who they are, it's what they do
I am one of those who doesn't want to see any taxes raised, but Obama won a close victory based on the fact he campaigned on raising taxes on those making over $250,000 and that would get the economy moving. I say, give him his increase and when the economy doesn't improve, he will be shown for the fool he is on the economy. Let him try to explain it then. Increase taxes and the economy will suffer. It will go south faster than a snowbird in November.
Right... Like you republicans will all of a sudden like magic quit sabotaging the economy.
I'm still waiting on how the repubs sabotaged the economy? Matter of fact if these tax cuts are so important why didn't the President focus on raising them when he had the House and Senate majorities. Oh yeah, he had to ramrod Obamacare through congress.
oicy
It is always the Republicans fault? The only sabotaging going on is with the U.S. Senate and their refusal to pass a budget, or pass anything that Lord Harry doesn't want to deal with. That is not how Congress works, but that is how that old man works. Funny isn't it that a democrat holds up the process and he blames the Republicans.
The House keep passing amendments and adding riders that they know will not pass the Senate.
They were just stalling and trying to run out the clock on Obama.
Isn't anyone worried that the "job creators" are going to stop creating jobs in those massive numbers they have been?
You're right... I never thought of that. Lets give them another tax cut and sit back and watch it rain down more jobs and wealth on us.
Raise taxes on small businesses and lets see what happens to true job growth.
Every time taxes are raised on small businesses, unemployment goes up.
"rain down wealth" lol
Obama cut taxes on small business. Truly small business, not Romney "small businesses".
Heh heh he, he said rain
Folks, before you clamor for additional taxes, just look at what Obamacare is bringing--guaranteed.
Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.
There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.
Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.
Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons.
Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in
coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services.
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new"community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS.
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting ($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
“Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.
Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.
Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases
Tea baggy drama queen stuff.
Hey would that economic substance doctrine have prevented the Romneys from deducting their dress up horsey as a medical expense?
All together now! Thank you
Young, unmarried, female Dallas CowBama Chearleaders.
LatinObama's
& AfrObama Americans
That's what they wanted. Thats what they worked for. Thats what they campaigned for. Thats what they voted for. That's what they're going to get. And that's what they deserve. What they WON'T get is sympathy. I save that for those of us who knew better, but will be forced to suffer through this anyway.
No one is asking you for misplaced sympathy, keep it and save it for yourself.
@ dahwhatsdat???
Don't worry. As I previously stated the likes of you aren't getting any of MY sympathy.
Good because we dont need it. Unfortunetly the same cannot be said for you :)
@ dahwhatsdat???
Oh! You feel sorry for me?
You have sympathy for me?
You want to help me?
GET YOURSELF, AND THE REST OF YOUR LEECH FRIENDS THE H#LL OUT OF MY WALLET!
Never!!!! *noms on FroboseTF's moneys* :)
Besides, the money the feds collect (taxes) isn't your money, its America's. The feds are the ones who decide how to spend it and if they decide to spend it on us (those in America that are either having trouble getting together their own @!$%# or are to brain dead to make an attempt) then that is their choice. Thats their job.
NO matter who is in wdc, we are going to get screwed!!! WDC only thinks of themselves and don't care about us. All they know how to do is spend money and most of it is on crap! They all want some stupid program for their state or their pocket. All those pigs have to do is stop spending, stop foreign aide. The government makes me sick. In time, we will have NOTHING left for ourselves, washington will own it and they will either sell it or put it in their pocket! This is the ussa.
One reason why I truly believe in term limits for Senate and House as well.
House shouldl have a 4 year term, and be limited to 3 terms. Senate should be limited to 2 6yr terms.
This way you are not looking at your same old tired elected officials year after year after year.
Since 46% of our congress are millionaires, why do people think that they will raise their own taxes. If they do raise the rates, chances are that they will exempt themselves or grant themselves raises or bonus's to compensate their additional expenses. These are the same people that the voters keep electing because they believe it when their congress person tells them that it's the other but not them because their looking out for their voters. What a crock. Keep putting the same people back in will not change things.
hey people you really need to think a little here. they are talking about the income taxes of the rich not the money they already have so if they dont make any more money there s nothing to tax .
True. Their salaries put them below the line where they would be hit by any tax increases.
One question (sorry if I am ignorant on this), do Congress, Senate, President pay federal tax on their pay?
Sorry if that comes across as dumb, but I was just curious.
politicoguy, here is what I found
Members do pay taxes on their Congressional salaries, but they have given themselves some extra perks that elevate them above normal taxpayers.
For example, they wrote into the law a $3,000 annual income tax deduction for maintaining a second residence. Normally, a taxpayer in a lawmaker's income bracket could be subject to reductions in the value of his or her mortgage interest write-off for residences. The typical American who uses an additional residence for business or rental purposes may qualify for certain expense deductions, but only by filing complex forms.
In addition the IRS maintains two "customer service centers" to assist lawmakers and Capitol Hill employees in filling out their tax forms at a cost to taxpayers of $100,000. In 1993 Money Magazine determined that 60 percent of the Members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, who are responsible for our tax laws, didn't even prepare their own tax returns
glad they finally got their heads out of the sand, plus other places!
Duh! Basic economics 101! raising taxes is the easiest way to increase revenue! hello?!
It took them 20 years to figure that one out?
Duh...basic economics. Easiest way to increase revenue is to have a vibrant and growing workforce, not having 3 to 4% of the people just fall off the active workforce rolls so they are no longer counted in employment statistics.
If raising taxes is the best way, then why were the highest revenues generated by the Federal government for FY 2007 and 2008 (both under GWB and the current tax structures).
Easy enough, we were trying to finance the wars. Wars cost money and lots of it.
P.S. your question is oddly worded, please restate it if my answer is inadequate.
Bohner, Cantor, Ryan and the rest of the GOP minions are only interested in what is best for themselves. They would rather see the nation go bankrupt and people starving in the streets than even consider to have the wealthy pay a fair share of taxes.
I think it's crazy to think that keeping the tax breaks for the wealthy will some how stimulate the economy. These are the same people that have lay-ed off thousands of people before taking a pay cut for themselves. The people that make 16 million a year that decide to fire 500 people before they will make 15 million a year. Let the tax cuts expire and then reinstate the breaks for the middle class and let the GOP try to explain why they won't.
Andrew, the one thing that you dont take into consideration is the fact that small businesses fall into the personal income tax brackets. Raising taxes on small businesses (which employ roughly 40% of the US workforce) would hamper new job growth, and would probably bring about an increase in unemployment thereby negating any increase in tax revenues generated by the tax increase (or expiration of the current rate...whatever you want to refer to it as).
Nice spin, politico.
But bulldingies.
96% of small businesses don't net their owners enough to push them over $250k annual income.
And you conveniently ignore the fact that since these tax cuts were put in place, no private sector jobs were created until Obama's administration. During Bush's admin, the only significant job growth was in the public sector and wage growth was anemic at best simultaneously.
So, history and facts prove you wrong, but I'm sure that won't slow you down a bit.
They know not to upset their Lord and Savior Grover Norquist. There will be repercussions. They'll cave as long as they can have their way with Medicare and Social Security.
What a bunch of easily distracted morons you all are.
Even if the Bush tax cuts are rescinded it would bring in about 100 Billion dollars a year. That will run the current Obama government for 11 days.
Entitlement reform and spending cuts are the only way out.
What is clear is that the wealthy do not need a 4% tax giveaway. They are not creating jobs. That money should be put to better use elsewhere.
respond to his statement, don't deflect the issue
The small businesses who are part of that 4% do need the tax rates to remain where they are unless you wish to see unemployment start to climb on a consistant basis again. Please take note of this.
It is not as simple as you make it seem. The tax code applies to individuals and small businesses alike.
The figure according to the CBO is actually $84B which would run the government for 8 to 9 days.
Yeah, why eliminate 10% of our deficit when we can defund PBS and eliminate .01% of our deficit.
I fail to see the logic of not wanting to reduce the deficit because it's not enough.
Are you saying if we can't completely eliminate the deficit we should do nothing ?
Just what IS your point ?
P.S. people that click their own posts as soon as they put them up are not only transparent, but pretty freaking ignorant.
So it is the current administrations belief that we raise taxes on aprox 45% of small businesses to generate enough revenue to cover aprox 10% of the deficit spending and that will solve all of our problems. Yea Right.
We need a 40% accross the board cut right now.
wrong, canon.
Only 4% of small businesses net their owners more than $250k for personal tax purposes.
Not 45%.
4%
$250,000, $200,000, $100,000, $50,000, $20,000. Evolution of a tax increase income threshold.