The GOP can't help themselves

[Anonymous]

OK, I know that the Bush tax cuts are a point of debate. But today, the Republicans not only rejected the option of extending the tax cuts to those earning 250K or less. They ALSO rejected the idea of extending tax cuts to people earning $1 million or less.

Think about that. They are saying that they need to protect people who make more than $1 million in a single year. Not just millionaires. People who make $1.2, 1.5, 2 million in a single year.

They may win something on the tax battle. But in doing so, they have said loud and clear: we are willing to risk the entire tax package to protect multimillionaires. Not your lawyer friend who made $500K or that sales guy down the block who crushed his commission and made $350K or even really the big time law partner who made a cool million (it only affects anything above that first million).

Multimillionaires.

Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

I don't think pathetic is strong enough word. This smacks of treasonous classism to me.

[Anonymous]

I agree with 21:55 and 22:02, but what is really outrageous is that Obama is apparently not willing to match their willingness to throw the whole thing away by calling their bluff and saying he'll veto anything with extension of the cut for income over a million and making it clear that it is the GOP that is killing it for 98% or 99% of us.

[Anonymous]

Extend the cut for those making over 250k a year for two years. Hell, even do a 10% across-the-board cut in the corporate tax rate.

During that time, the private sector must create 10 million new jobs.

Otherwise, the tax cuts go away.

I mean, don't tax cuts create jobs? Here's a chance for Big Biz to prove it.

[Anonymous]

These tax cuts have been in place since 2001 (or was it 2003?) Where are the jobs?

[Anonymous]

The people who believe in trickle down economics watch way too much Fox news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I know that the Bush tax cuts are a point of debate. But today, the Republicans not only rejected the option of extending the tax cuts to those earning 250K or less. They ALSO rejected the idea of extending tax cuts to people earning $1 million or less.

Think about that. They are saying that they need to protect people who make more than $1 million in a single year. Not just millionaires. People who make $1.2, 1.5, 2 million in a single year.

They may win something on the tax battle. But in doing so, they have said loud and clear: we are willing to risk the entire tax package to protect multimillionaires. Not your lawyer friend who made $500K or that sales guy down the block who crushed his commission and made $350K or even really the big time law partner who made a cool million (it only affects anything above that first million).

Multimillionaires.

Pathetic.

Correct me if I am wrong but don't the Dems right now have enough votes in the House to pass this without a single Republican? Shouldn't the real question be why the Dems were not unified to pass the legislation (either version?).

None of this would have passed the Senate we know, but the House is a totally different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These tax cuts have been in place since 2001 (or was it 2003?) Where are the jobs?

Unemployment was at healthy low levels until 2008. What happened is the domino effect of mortgage backed securities destabilizing the world economy. The point right now is to not make a already bad situation worse. It is complete lunacy to increase taxes in the middle of a recession (or maybe depression?). The minority of producers in our economy already pay plenty of taxes.

Hey, if you make over 250k/yr what's stopping you from sending in a bit extra?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I know that the Bush tax cuts are a point of debate. But today, the Republicans not only rejected the option of extending the tax cuts to those earning 250K or less. They ALSO rejected the idea of extending tax cuts to people earning $1 million or less.

Think about that. They are saying that they need to protect people who make more than $1 million in a single year. Not just millionaires. People who make $1.2, 1.5, 2 million in a single year.

They may win something on the tax battle. But in doing so, they have said loud and clear: we are willing to risk the entire tax package to protect multimillionaires. Not your lawyer friend who made $500K or that sales guy down the block who crushed his commission and made $350K or even really the big time law partner who made a cool million (it only affects anything above that first million).

Multimillionaires.

Pathetic.

Correct me if I am wrong but don't the Dems right now have enough votes in the House to pass this without a single Republican? Shouldn't the real question be why the Dems were not unified to pass the legislation (either version?).

None of this would have passed the Senate we know, but the House is a totally different story.

That's the point. They don't have the senate. But more importantly, not every democrat is in agreement. Is it a good thing when everybody in a party blindly follows orders? Shouldn't they represent the people whom they represent?

[Anonymous]

So, not every Democrat thinks the other two defeated bills were a good idea and voted no - they get a pass. If more Dems had agreed (not even all) the bill would have passed. No worries. After all, despite a majority in the Senate the Dems don't have enough votes for cloture so the lack of a Dem Congressional majority 'yes' vote is A okay.

No Congressional Republicans thought it was a good idea - they voted no and they are the ones risking it all to protect millionaires and blindly follow orders like sheep, and oh, also don't represent their constituents.

Wow.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong but don't the Dems right now have enough votes in the House to pass this without a single Republican? Shouldn't the real question be why the Dems were not unified to pass the legislation (either version?).

None of this would have passed the Senate we know, but the House is a totally different story.

The Dems did pass it in the House. They even got a Republican vote (maybe two). Obama had already signaled that he was prepared to bend over so the Senate never took it seriously.

[Anonymous]

It's not a question of having the votes to pass anything in the Senate, it's having 60 votes to get it to come up for a vote. Such are the rules of the Senate that even if only one or two Republicans are around to say they object, the Dems have to come up with 60 votes to bring a bill to the floor for a vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These tax cuts have been in place since 2001 (or was it 2003?) Where are the jobs?

Unemployment was at healthy low levels until 2008. What happened is the domino effect of mortgage backed securities destabilizing the world economy. The point right now is to not make a already bad situation worse. It is complete lunacy to increase taxes in the middle of a recession (or maybe depression?). The minority of producers in our economy already pay plenty of taxes.

Hey, if you make over 250k/yr what's stopping you from sending in a bit extra?

Job creation during Bush II (even between 2003 and 2008) was at the most anemic since Hoover. There were more jobs created under CARTER than under Bush II's good years.

The idea that businessmen are just aching to create more jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, and are held back by 3-4% variances in the marginal tax rate, is just poppycock.

If they can pocket the tax reduction windfall and not hire any more people, they'll do it without a second thought. Since, after all, they're profit-maximizing and all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Extend the cut for those making over 250k a year for two years. Hell, even do a 10% across-the-board cut in the corporate tax rate.

During that time, the private sector must create 10 million new jobs.

Otherwise, the tax cuts go away.

I mean, don't tax cuts create jobs? Here's a chance for Big Biz to prove it.

Corporations are currently flush with cash but reluctant to hire. If you give them even more cash to horde thru tax cuts, you actually think they're going to begin hiring?

They should write the law that they can get a tax break after [b]hiring a person, not before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I know that the Bush tax cuts are a point of debate. But today, the Republicans not only rejected the option of extending the tax cuts to those earning 250K or less. They ALSO rejected the idea of extending tax cuts to people earning $1 million or less.

Think about that. They are saying that they need to protect people who make more than $1 million in a single year. Not just millionaires. People who make $1.2, 1.5, 2 million in a single year.

Pathetic.

You obviously do not understand economics. When a multimillionare has extra cash, he or she is rightfully driven by greed and invests it. This investment allows businesses to grow thereby creating more jobs. When it is taxed, it goes into the wasteful federal piggy. I have worked for the federal government and have seen our tax dollars at work. It would make your skin crawl. For example, buying new furniture for an enitire office/agency when the old furniture (which was < 5 years) old worked fine, painting and recarpeting entire office buildings on a regular basis, and failiing to remove lazy employees who are effectively receiving their welfare checks at the office. Not to mention ridiculous earmarks bent on getting politicians re-elected.

Government needs to be more responsible with our money. It shouldn't be rewarded for its waste.