|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,150
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,150 |
P...Your post is funny due to your signature...
"If everybody had like minds, we would never learn."
I think it's safe to say that someone stopped learning a long time ago, imo.
BTW, you are allowed to call me a "troll"....I am not allowed to call you one, though, the way I understand the rules of the board...IMO....JMHO
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
But estate taxes are down right sinful.
That money has already been taxed when it was earned.
I don't feel the same about estate taxes. They are income like any other income. What makes that type of income any more special than the paycheck we earn? To me, this is no different than a company being taxed on their income, and then the employee being taxed on their income that came from the company's income. Only difference is an employee does something to earn the money, heirs only have to be named in a will.
I do agree though that 55% is a little extreme and a million is low.
Quote:
The problem in this country isn't revenue. It is spending. We could cut out all sorts off spending, and never touch social services.
The problem is both. We had a very nearly balanced budget by 2000. One of the websites below showed that b/w 2000-2007 (before recession skews numbers) we added about $1.2 trillion of spending to the deficit, and every penny was defense spending and health care, with the majority being defense spending. In other times of war in history, we increased taxes to cover the cost.
But this time we lowered taxes enormously, to some of the lowest rates in modern history. $1 trillion was added to the deficit by this policy change. If you take the $2.3 trillion in revenue in 2000 and use this as a baseline, you will see a gaping 4- year hole in revenue from 2000-2004 cost us $1.2 trillion, and the next three years of higher revenues only regained $200 billion of that.
Further the rate of revenue growth from 1997-2000 was $134 billion per year. We had a small recession, 9/11, and tax cuts. Once revenue growth resumed 2004-2007, it did so at a rate of $143 billion per year. It would have taken 111 years of revenue growth at this rate to overcome the loss of the tax cuts.
(Not necessarily directed at you, just seemed like an appropriate time to discuss it) Some may argue that these cuts brought us out of the 2001 recession or that they were required after 9/11. The historical net though is that the 2001 recession was shorter than the 1990-1991 recession (where we didn't cut taxes) by 2 months. It was more mild by 1% unemployment and 1% of GDP loss. The recovery from the 2001 recession closely mirrored the recovery from the 1990 recession. Maybe the tax cuts did save us 2 months, 1% unemployment, and 1% of GDP. But, was it ultimately worth $1 trillion in deficit?
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,446
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,446 |
Quote:
I don't feel the same about estate taxes.
I would say that I think you're insane.
It is all money that has already been fully taxed... and we aren't talking about a company that is continually pulling this money in, this is a family's savings in a one-time transaction!
Companies receive deductions for their payroll... the deceased does not, and the deceased pays a higher rate.
If you ask for $10 from me, should the Gov't get $3.50 of it? It's income to you. Apparently, you feel they are entitled to that.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
If you ask for $10 from me, should the Gov't get $3.50 of it? It's income to you. Apparently, you feel they are entitled to that.
That's why estate taxes should only apply to very large estates. On the flip side, if I inherit $1 billion dollars from my father's earnings for being born, should I just get the money without paying anything on it?
I also did say that I think the old rates were too high, and the threshold for payment too low. But I don't think 0% is right either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,446
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,446 |
Empirically, yes, I feel that 0% should be on the table. Can I understand it still be taxed at up to something like the 10% that 'peen suggested? Yes, but that's about it.
If the money has already been taxed, I don't see how the amount matters. Just because you're inheriting 1 billion instead of 1 thousand doesn't make the Gov't any more entitled to take any of it... and they've already gotten their cut the first time around.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,058
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,058 |
Stop and think about how many times money is already taxes.
The consumer paid taxes on their income
The save some of their money, and pay taxes on the interest earned.
They buy goods and services with the money left over after taxes.
On many of those goods an services, they pay taxes again.
Small businesses pay taxes in the form of licenses and permits.
They pay payroll taxes.
The pay income taxes on every single penny of taxable income.
They pay taxes on every single penny of interest income.
They pay personal income or capital gains taxes when and if they sell aspects of the business that fall subject to such a law.
Then they die.
And their children, heirs, families, and other loved ones get to pay taxes again. Many of these force the sale of the business and force the business out of family hands. The Robbie family and the Miami Dolphins is a famous example.
Oh .... and if the family does pony up the death tax, they still pay a capital gains tax if they later sell the business.
Then the family becomes consumers, and spends the money from the sale or gains of the business, and they pay taxes again on whatever they buy.
It's ridiculous. It's also amazing that anyone can amass wealth under such a system where the taxpayer is taxed at every stem of creation and spending of profit/gains/income.
Oh ..... and on a somewhat unrelated matter, I want to ask Democrats one thing:
Since when is every person making $250,000/year a millionaire and/or billionaire? That's all I hear .... "tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires ....." Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ......
It's idiotic. It's a slogan, not reality.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Stop and think about how many times money is already taxes.
Which is why everybody knows that the government makes revenue when money moves, not when it sits still... jobs are created when money moves, not when it sits still... our economy runs when money moves, not when it sits still.. right now it is sitting still because big corporations are sitting on it waiting for the uncertainty to clear.. clear the uncertainty with taxes, trade, interest rates, inflations, etc and this economy will be rolling in 6 months.. keep screwing around and not making decisions and we will be like this indefinitely.
It really is about that simple.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,150 |
Quote:
Quote:
If you ask for $10 from me, should the Gov't get $3.50 of it? It's income to you. Apparently, you feel they are entitled to that.
That's why estate taxes should only apply to very large estates. On the flip side, if I inherit $1 billion dollars from my father's earnings for being born, should I just get the money without paying anything on it?
I also did say that I think the old rates were too high, and the threshold for payment too low. But I don't think 0% is right either.
tj...you are beating your head against a wall..
THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVES LEFT, on this board or in the GOP/teaparty.
The big spending George W. Bush republicans continue to spend like drunken sailors...adding over a trillion dollars to the national debt, gladly borrowing the money from China, never paying for any of their spending.
The same GOP that ruined our economy during the GW Bush years are continuing their economic policies that did not work for 10 years.
Does anyone hear the cry from the so called "conservative" Tea Party elected?...NOPE, they are silent, choosing to walk in lockstep with the GW Bush big spending GOP.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,405 |
Some friendly advice to tjs7: Distance yourself from the lunacy that is mac. Do not accept his helping hand as you and he are miles apart. I see things differently than you do...but you create a thoughtful argument. (Crazy...but thoughtful  ) Beware of guilt by association. End of public service announcement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I think we all know what tjs brings to the table by now. He's thoughtful and brings up alot of good points. I disagree with his intepretation on most of them, but he makes me think about my stance and why I feel the way I do. also, to Daman and others on Kmart/Sears - thanks. All the Kmarts out west closed a few years ago and I had read they had gone into bankruptcy. Doing some digging, I found that was in 2002: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87411&tqkw=&tqshow=&page=1It appears they finally emerged from bankruptcy last year.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,517
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,517 |
The only thing i will add to the kmart/sears thing is that you can use sears gift cards at kmart and vice versa. enjoy. you probably knew that already, however.
tjs, i like debating with you. don't listen to MAC!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,959
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,959 |
Quote:
tjs, i like debating with you. don't listen to MAC!
That needs to be said again. I may not agree with tjs - but at least he puts some thought into his posts, unlike mac.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,405 |
j/c So Harry Reid strikes again...adding his pet projects to a bill originally regarding tax cuts...that grew to include extending unemployment benefits...to this next list of crap. All the while...we STILL do not have a bill to vote on - not that that matters I suppose - and no federal budget. These guys are so out of touch it is no longer funny. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/10/obama-predicts-tax-passage-senate-presses-ahead/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,189 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you ask for $10 from me, should the Gov't get $3.50 of it? It's income to you. Apparently, you feel they are entitled to that.
That's why estate taxes should only apply to very large estates. On the flip side, if I inherit $1 billion dollars from my father's earnings for being born, should I just get the money without paying anything on it?
I also did say that I think the old rates were too high, and the threshold for payment too low. But I don't think 0% is right either.
tj...you are beating your head against a wall..
THERE ARE NO CONSERVATIVES LEFT, on this board or in the GOP/teaparty.
The big spending George W. Bush republicans continue to spend like drunken sailors...adding over a trillion dollars to the national debt, gladly borrowing the money from China, never paying for any of their spending.
The same GOP that ruined our economy during the GW Bush years are continuing their economic policies that did not work for 10 years.
Does anyone hear the cry from the so called "conservative" Tea Party elected?...NOPE, they are silent, choosing to walk in lockstep with the GW Bush big spending GOP.
Here's a fact check for you mac, since 2008, democrats have been in charge of the government. Democrats are responsible for the spending increases in the past 2 years, not republicans.
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Hey, you need to follow along.  Republicans are responsible for EVERYTHING that's bad,...or, not done. Fact: mac says so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Hey, you need to follow along.
Republicans are responsible for EVERYTHING that's bad,...or, not done.
Fact: mac says so.
I know... When I cut the new sill for the shower and realized I cut the wrong line and it was too short, I yelled out "Damn Republicans" Cause thanks to mac, I learned it is somehow their fault. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,058
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,058 |
Actually ....... Democrats have had the Congress for the last 4 years ..... and all 3 branches of government for the last 2. (with a filibuster-proof majority for much of that time) But, we can let some people whine about Republicans ..... I just laugh at them.  My own Congressman, Tim Ryan (D-OH) said he would vote against the tax compromise bill because it would "hurt working families in his district". The bill does away with the "Making work count" $400 refundable tax credit and replaces it with a 2% Social Security tax holiday for the year. There may be some small true to that, as a person making under $20,000 would get less under the tax holiday ..... but it's not a huge amount, and the low wage earners still get the expanded EITC levels that have been carried over. He also said that the average increase for those making over $250,000 would be something like $700/year for those over theat threashold. In order for that to be true, the average person over $250,000 would make $268,000, as that $18,000 would result in approximately a $700 tax bill difference at the 39.6% tax rate compared to the 36% tax rate. doubt that's accurate .... and even if it is .... those making $250,000 as a single person already lose about half of their income to the government just by virtue of state, federal, and local income taxes as it is. Where does it end? Until and unless we cut spanding back to below 2008 levels, we're screwed because we cannot tax enough to make up for the difference. Our economy is about $14.3 trillion. We are at over $4 trillion/year in spending when debt service is taken into account and the year is "finalized". That means that almost 28% of our GDP goes straight to and through the government. That's a frightening amount o money for the government to control. Now it's not enough .... and they need more. It's got to change, and it's got to change now ... before it's too late.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,959
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,959 |
Quote:
It's got to change, and it's got to change now ... before it's too late.
I've been saying that for a long time. And we aren't going to "tax" our way out of it. Spending, across the board, HAS TO DECREASE IN LARGE AMOUNTS!!!
If spending would significantly decrease - and stay that way - I'd have no problem paying an extra 1 or 2% in tax - income tax that is - as long as the extra 1 or 2% went to reducing our debt.
However, we all know how congress works. They raise taxes, but raise spending far and above what the increase in taxes was.
As it is - I want more of my money so I can decide how to use it. The country is screwed - may as well let me start having more of my money so I can put off MY pain a bit longer.
They won't be satisfied till they have it all - and even then it won't be enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I know Tim is popular back home,...at least the area's voters didn't reinstall Traficant. (Don't even know if that was Ryan's District,...)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,709
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,709 |
Quote:
P...Your post is funny due to your signature...
"If everybody had like minds, we would never learn."
I think it's safe to say that someone stopped learning a long time ago, imo.
BTW, you are allowed to call me a "troll"....I am not allowed to call you one, though, the way I understand the rules of the board...IMO....JMHO
Probably because I am not. I don't make post after post that agitates the vast majority of the board, and really mac.....is isn't about your politics.
As far as learning....I have learned my lessons. It has nothing to do with being closed minded.....it's simply a matter of knowing right from wrong, good from evil, and what works and what doesn't.
My open mindedness prevents me from just ignoring you....I hold hope as you do make a good point from time to time.
We and others have been around here a long time. We all say something on occasion that pushes the edge, and maybe even goes over the edge. But, being long time posters we catch a break. I think the refs are pretty fair around here. They allow some liberties.....as they should.
It's when you are constantly trying to expand the bubble they finally have had enough.
To be honest.....I wouldn't have kicked you off forever. I kind of like you to be honest, even if I think you a bit naive or ignorant.....I haven't decided which at this point, though given your age, I am defiantly leaning in one direction.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,709
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,709 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Opps, Mibad.
My sarcasm detector broke, and K-Mart was all out because the shipment from China was late ...... 
I thought K-Mart went bankrupt. There are still K-Marts out there?
K-mart was bought up by Sears I thought?
Other way around....K-Mart bought Sears
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
My brother works for K-Mart,...we think that's how they wanted it to appear publicly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,863
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,863 |
Sanders link Washington Post Link Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took the Senate floor at 10:30 a.m., speaking out against the tax deal reached by President Obama. He yielded the floor just after 7 p.m. Sanders has been an outspoken critic of the deal since the White House announced it on Monday. The speech is technically not a filibuster, Senate historian Donald Ritchie said. The Senate is still considered to be in "morning business," meaning Sanders can speak as long as he wants to until the majority leader adjourns the session. A filibuster would be an action "to prevent the majority from casting a vote," Ritchie said. The vote on the tax deal is not scheduled until Monday. Still Sanders' speech captured the nation's attention, as it evokes the traditional style of a filibuster made famous in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Meanwhile, former president Bill Clinton spoke at the White House Friday afternoon in support of the tax deal. "This is a good bill and I hope that my fellow Democrats will support it," he said. Sanders' Twitter stream followed his speech. He hit the number two trending Twitter topic worldwide during Friday afternoon. Two hashtags have started in response to his speech: #Filibernie and #Berniebuster. Two Web sites were launched to keep track of whether or not the senator was still talking: isberniesandersstilltalking.com and isberniestillfilibustering.com. _______________________________________ While I do not always agree with Sanders, he is someone that we can understand. He remains consistent about his position, unlike Obama, and is willing to defend it for 8 1/2 hours. The facts are that the house passed a tax cut bill, the house also passed unemployment extensions. So the basic premise of this thread "Democrats block extension of unemployment" is incorrect. The House passed them and they are sitting awaiting senate action. The deal is terrible for America. It is a reduction in taxes of 850 billion dollars without one cent of reduction of spending, or one cent in any tax increase to offset the tax cuts. So we can start begging at China's door for more money, while watching the country cruble under the weight of its own greed and stupidity. The proposed bill sets bad precident for future action. In 2 years, every politician will be supporting an extension in 2012. The Social Security tax holiday is the first step of defunding social security, and the estate tax are too favorable from a historical perspective. The proposed tax bill is casting in stone a tax structure that has resulted in the greatest increase of deficit spending in history. Bankruptcy is just around the corner.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,959
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,959 |
Quote:
Bankruptcy is just around the corner.
And if you read here much, you'll know I've said that for quite some time. We can't tax our way out of this, and until gov't. cuts spending - real, REAL cuts, well, I want all of my money.
Govt. doesn't realize the money isn't theirs - it's ours. They feel they allow us to have some of what we earn - and reality will set in - we allow them to take from us.
It won't be long till the poo hits the fan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,273
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,273 |
Quote:
The proposed tax bill is casting in stone a tax structure that has resulted in the greatest increase of deficit spending in history. Bankruptcy is just around the corner.
Agreed. Has anyone actually said how much the 13 month extension of unemployment benefits will cost?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,189 |
Quote:
Quote:
The proposed tax bill is casting in stone a tax structure that has resulted in the greatest increase of deficit spending in history. Bankruptcy is just around the corner.
Agreed. Has anyone actually said how much the 13 month extension of unemployment benefits will cost?
I thought I heard it was in the 100-200 billion range, but not 100% positive.
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,863
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,863 |
I don't know much about the souce, but here is some information web page
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,709
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,709 |
Quote:
My brother works for K-Mart,...we think that's how they wanted it to appear publicly.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/kmart_sears.html
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,150 |
Quote:
j/c
So Harry Reid strikes again...adding his pet projects to a bill originally regarding tax cuts...that grew to include extending unemployment benefits...to this next list of crap.
All the while...we STILL do not have a bill to vote on - not that that matters I suppose - and no federal budget. These guys are so out of touch it is no longer funny.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/10/obama-predicts-tax-passage-senate-presses-ahead/
willie...I have to laugh at your source, FIX NEWS, which said the following...
"The 45-cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy alone, extended through 2011, was estimated to cost about $5 billion. The issue is of particular interest to lawmakers from Midwestern states with grain crops."
BUT, FIX NEWS said nothing about the cost of the "items" the teapartyGOP have in the bill.
In the spirit of FAIRNESS and BALANCE, I add the following article...
CBO score shows tax plan ups deficit $900 billion in 5 years
CNN
December 10, 2010
Washington (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office released its score Friday on the tax plan hammered out between Republicans and President Barack Obama, showing a $893 billion hit on the deficit over the next five years.
The bulk of the deficit increase comes from loss of revenue -- $756 billion -- with the rest coming from additional direct outlays.
The 13-month extension of unemployment benefits adds less than $57 billion to the deficit.
The highest price item is the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, which will add more than $400 billion to the deficit, followed by the payroll tax holiday at about $225 billion.
Earlier, Obama enlisted former President Bill Clinton to help sell a compromise tax package negotiated with Republicans to reluctant Democrats.
After meeting with Clinton at the White House, Obama brought him to the briefing room to tout the proposal to reporters, even backing off after a brief introduction to let Clinton do the talking and take questions.
"I personally think this is a good deal, and the best we can get," Clinton said, arguing that the combination of payroll tax cuts, unemployment insurance benefits and various tax credits would help the economy grow.
Acknowledging that the Republican insistence on extending tax cuts to the wealthy would help him personally, Clinton said the compromise meant that both sides had to accept provisions they disliked.
"There's never a perfect bipartisan bill in the eyes of a partisan," Clinton said. "I believe this will be a significant net-plus for the country."
It was the latest salvo by the Obama administration in a battle for public and political support for the plan that combines extended tax cuts from the Bush era with extended unemployment benefits, tax breaks and the payroll tax holiday intended to bolster a sluggish recovery from economic recession.
House Democrats declared Thursday they opposed the package because it would extend the lower Bush-era tax rates for millionaires. They support the stance Obama has championed for years -- extending the current lower tax rates only for those earning up to $200,000 a year, or families earning $250,000, while letting rates for higher incomes return to 1990s levels.
However, Senate Republicans have refused to accept any difference in tax treatment for the wealthy, demanding that all current rates be extended. With the tax cuts expiring at the end of the year, and Republicans able to block any legislation in the Senate, Obama and Democrats face a fast-approaching deadline to reach a deal or see tax bills increase for everyone.
Earlier Friday, Obama told National Public Radio that the tax and benefits package would gain congressional approval because "nobody -- Democrat or Republican -- wants to see people's paychecks smaller on January 1 because Congress didn't act," Obama said in an interview with National Public Radio.
"And I think that the framework that we've put forward, which says not only that people's taxes don't go up on January 1, but also that we extend unemployment insurance for a year, that we make sure that key provisions like the college tax credit, the child tax credit, the earned-income tax credit are included -- that that framework is going to serve as the basis for compromise," Obama said.
The debate over taxes in the waning days of a lame-duck session of Congress illustrated the mistrust and animosity that has built up in the deeply partisan environment on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told CNN Friday that the tax plan will need Republican support to pass so that voters in 2012 will know it was not Democrats who approved the measure's projected $857 billion cost.
Obama will have to "get more Republicans than Democrats to make it go through," Ackerman said.
So far, Republicans "haven't said that they're all going to vote for it. They haven't said how many votes they're going to provide," Ackerman said. "This is on our (Democrats') watch. Then they're going to attack us in the next election for increasing the deficit when most of them are going to vote against it. ... Why should the Democrats get all the blame? The Republicans are very good at this. ... They get the credit for everything we do. We get the blame for everything they did that went bad."
Also Friday, conservatives Republicans questioned the tax and benefit package, warning it went against the campaign mantra from November of holding down the deficit.
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, told CNN that the package would increase the deficit, adding that "investors are reacting to the increases in the deficit and so we're concerned about that. We want to get on a sound financial footing."
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, vowed earlier this week to filibuster the tax and benefit package to prevent a vote on the Senate floor. He noted that those who ran from the right in the election had said they would oppose anything that increased the deficit.
The Senate will consider the tax package first. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, released the first version of legislation to implement the negotiated deal and said the first vote on it, a procedural one to open debate, would occur Monday.
The Senate version made public by Reid was largely the same as the deal announced by Obama, but it added a one-year extension of a program that provides cash grants in lieu of a tax credit for construction of new solar and wind energy projects. The Treasury Grant Program was part of the 2009 economic stimulus bill.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday that the additional clean energy provision added $3 billion to the cost of the package. Meanwhile, a letter to House Democratic leaders signed by at least 79 Democratic members called for the provision to be extended for two years.
The negotiated package includes a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, as well as 13 months of unemployment benefits and a cut of 2 percentage points in the payroll tax. In addition, the plan extends current tax breaks for students and lower-income Americans, and adjusts the estate tax in a way that Democrats believe benefits the wealthy.
However, Bachmann and other conservatives complained that the compromise resurrects the estate tax, which had expired for 2010 but was set to be restored in 2011 at a rate of 55%, with inheritances under $1 million exempted. A bill that passed in the House set the tax rate at 45% and exempted inheritances under $3.5 million, while the provision in the tax deal would exempt estates up to $5 million and set the tax rate at 35%.
To Obama, the bottom line is that legislators from both parties will prevent a tax increase on January 1 by accepting the main components of the negotiated package, including the extension of unemployment benefits.
"At the end of the day, people are going to conclude we don't want 2 million people suddenly without unemployment insurance and not able to pay their rent, not able to pay their mortgage, not able to pay their house note," Obama said, adding that the package also will bolster the so-far sluggish recovery from a recession that has unemployment still near 10%.
"I think that people are also going to understand that the single most important thing we can do for all of our constituencies is to make sure that the recovery that is taking place right now gets stronger," he said, adding that economists have noted the negotiated package would increase growth and could mean more jobs, a development that "has got to be the highest priority for everybody."
He called for legislators "to act responsibly and to think not in terms of abstract political fights here ... on Capitol Hill, but to think about those families that, in the middle of the holiday season, are trying to figure out -- are they still going to have unemployment benefits at the end of this month?"
"I'm confident that we're going to be able to get this resolved by the end of the month," Obama said.
Thursday's vote by the House Democratic caucus was a defiant rejection of both the agreement on tax and benefit measures, as well as what many Democrats in the chamber perceived as being marginalized in the talks by the White House.
"This message today is very simple. That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who represented House Democrats in the negotiations. He pledged to "work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs."
During their meeting, caucus members chanted "Just say no," according to two Democrats in attendance, and Rep. Laura Richardson of California later asked reporters outside the room: "Did you hear us saying 'Just say no'?"
Overall, Republicans generally appear supportive of the package, which White House advisers noted gave them their two main priorities -- an extension of the lower tax rates from the Bush era to everyone, including the wealthiest Americans, and setting a lower-than-expected estate tax rate only on inheritances of more than $5 million.
Both provisions angered liberal Democrats, who oppose extending the lower tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003 to the wealthy. Some said Obama should have forced a showdown with Republicans over the tax cut extensions by holding out longer to force more GOP concessions.
However, Obama and White House aides said the deal reached in negotiations was the best they would get from unyielding Republicans, who will take control of the House and enjoy a stronger minority stake in the Senate when the next session of Congress begins in early January.
Gibbs told reporters Thursday that he expected Congress to pass a package this year because the alternative was higher taxes for everyone after December 31.
"At the end of the day, members are not going to want to be in their districts, senators are not going to want to be in their districts, when their constituents find out their taxes have gone up by several thousands of dollars," Gibbs said, noting that the deal is a compromise with elements unpalatable to both sides. "If everybody took out what they didn't like, we'd have nothing. And we know the consequences of doing nothing."
A top Democratic adviser to the White House added that Senate Democrats "have several vehicles they can use" as the legislative base for the tax plan, and are working on a plan to pass a tax bill and "then jam the House" with that legislation.
Some House Democrats say they will support the tax package as a compromise made under tough circumstances.
"If it passes the Senate and this is the compromise the president of the United States has committed to, what are we going do in the House, hold this up?" said Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada.
web page
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
willie...I have to laugh at your source
It's a feeling we've all experienced numerous times with yours mac the troll.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,150 |
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Quote:
My brother works for K-Mart,...we think that's how they wanted it to appear publicly.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/kmart_sears.html
Thanks for the article, it proves exactly what we thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Democrats block extension of
Unemployment benefits
|
|
