Photo Courtesy of xoxobook.com
The House of Representatives just voted to extend the Bush era tax cuts to all those making less than $250,000. Also included in the bill were the two-year delay of the Alternative Minimum Tax, the elimination of the marriage penalty tax, and the permanent increases to the child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit.
And all but three Republicans… that is 168 Republicans to be exact, voted against it!….We told you they were lying when they pretended to offer you a tax cut! And we were absolutely, unequivocally, irrevocably … right…
REPUBLICANS WANT TO RAISE TAXES ON EVERY SINGLE WORKING MAN, WOMEN, AND CHILD MAKING LESS THAN $250,000 A YEAR.
REPUBLICANS WANT TO RAISE TAXES ON EVERY SINGLE WORKING MAN, WOMEN, AND CHILD MAKING LESS THAN $250,000 A YEAR.
REPUBLICANS WANT TO RAISE TAXES ON EVERY SINGLE WORKING MAN, WOMEN, AND CHILD MAKING LESS THAN $250,000 A YEAR.
David Anderson: What do you say to that?
Duffy: What do you say to that?
Hube: What do you say to that?
Cato: What do you say to that?
Kilroy: What do you say to that?
Anyone with a grain of character making less than $250,000, who considers themselves a Republican, needs to change their party affiliation tomorrow morning…
Oh, what did we hear from the Republicans?
We heard one Republican after another said they would vote for middle-class tax cuts, only if they could also vote to extend tax cuts for higher incomes at the same time.
All I can say, is for 10 years…
WE TOLD YOU SO!
and adding insult to injury…..Just earlier, Republicans blocked extended unemployment insurance, insisting that it not add to the deficit, but not one single Republican whimpered the same demand of the monstrous tax cuts they want to continue.
We told you so… How do you feel now Republican voters.. like vomiting, perhaps? Republicans care more for Helmsley’s dog, than they do for all those making less than $250,000 a year….
I dare any Republican to offer a credible explanation. So far the only one offered was: the rich didn’t get their fair break so we voted against it…
Remember: we had a surplus when the rich were taxed correctly. As soon as we stopped taxing the real money makers, our government racked up the worst deficit ever. As soon as the Bush tax cuts went into effect for the wealthy, our nation went downhill. It is so obvious what we need to do. Tax, tax, tax, those making ALL the money… It’s our money anyway they got rich off of; they took our money; they should pay our taxes… 🙂 Right?
kavips 
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 3, 2010 at 11:01 am
Duffy
As usual you have this completely backwards.
Simply put they were outmaneuvered. Dems did an end run around them and got what they wanted. Job killing tax increases on the people who hire other people and extended tax relief for the rest of us.
The GOP went for the whole enchillada or nothing. They got beat.
TPM has a more sane view of things:
Using a wily procedural maneuver to tie Republican hands, House Democrats managed to pass, by a vote of 234-188, legislation that will allow the Bush tax cuts benefiting only the wealthiest Americans to expire.
I gotta give the Dems credit. They beat the GOP on this one. Bad. This is going to be the club that the GOP is beaten with from now until doomsday unless they can rally and get the whole thing rolled back.
December 3, 2010 at 12:53 pm
pandora
Oh please. The GOP refused to compromise on anything. All or nothing is the name of their game. That said, I do think the bonus cuts for those making over 250,000 will come to be. That, that said… kavips is correct.
REPUBLICANS WANT TO RAISE TAXES ON EVERY SINGLE WORKING MAN, WOMEN, AND CHILD MAKING LESS THAN $250,000 A YEAR.
And now they’re on the record.
As far as “job killing tax increases” goes… where were all those jobs during the Bush years? Surely, you can point to proof (with credible links) that tax cuts create jobs. I can point to the Clinton years where taxes were raised, jobs grew and we left you guys with a surplus.
December 4, 2010 at 12:59 am
kavips
Ha, ha.. you are both right to some extent, and perhaps wrong on others.
The Republicans were outmaneuvered on this round, but it was because as Pandora points out, they can be counted only on to do one thing: refuse to compromise. Therefore, like robots pre-programmed only to follow commands, they were following their programming, which allowed this to happen..
I really don’t think Republicans want to raise taxes on the lower classes, I could be wrong, but this vote occurred because they were holding off for a wealthy person’s tax cut, but the result that came up, sure makes them look they want to raise taxes on the middle class..
And since tax increases on the wealthy do create more jobs… as Pandora reminds us occurred during the Clinton years…. anyone trying hard to rejuvenate this nation’s economy, is glad the Republicans who right now, have the same plan that didn’t work in the 1930’s depression, …. got caught in this maneuver so they can be pegged as not being as tax cutting conscious as they pretend they are….
It is all about the wealthy’s money for them. Like a father who has two drowning babies and can only save one…… we all saw who they reached for…. didn’t we….
… and if anyone could pass along a credible link that shows where tax cuts actually create jobs… ( I see the tax cuts: I don’t see the jobs.) can you pass them along so I can analyze and debunk those theories too?
December 4, 2010 at 11:08 am
Hube
What a laugh, both pandora and especially kavips. As if you two don’t know that this sort of political nonsense means absolutely nothing of what you’d like.
Pan: you DO know that there are myriad factors involved in economic growth/stagnation aside from tax cuts/hikes, don’t you? Or has loitering around that cesspool known as DL truly stunted your mind? Reagan cut the tax rates and you’re gonna say, credibly, that NO jobs were created? And Clinton did raise the rates, although not much. But he had the benefit of the dot-com boom to offset any [minor] facets of such an increase. Contrariwise, Bush had the misfortune of 9/11 to thwart more positive effects of his cuts, among others.
The bottom line is, raising taxes in an economy such as this is nuts. Do as Clinton did and wait until things stabilize before considering modest increase. As for me personally, I’ve little hassle with raising rates on those making $1 million or more as (I believe) Claire McCaskill suggested.
December 4, 2010 at 1:12 pm
pandora
Remind me again… what did Regan do to the debt/deficit?
December 4, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Hube
Don’t move the goal posts, pan. Either address the point or hasta luego, ok? You said,
As far as “job killing tax increases” goes… where were all those jobs during the Bush years? Surely, you can point to proof (with credible links) that tax cuts create jobs.
I noted that the during the Reagan cuts, millions of jobs were created. Do you dispute this?
December 5, 2010 at 3:21 pm
kavips
Hube the correct answer to your first question, is: you are right; it means nothing if one knows what’s going on, … but if one doesn’t (and most Americans have no idea of what goes on), it is very persuasive. So, if it persuades enough people, hmmm… then… maybe? .. Put bluntly, it matters as much as John McCain having a black child does to most South Carolinians. 🙂
Second, third, and fourth. Since Reagan used deficit spending and tax cuts simultaneously, the jury is out whether tax cuts work on an economy. We know and have proven deficit spending does. This example is contaminated. The two periods of uncontaminated tax cuts over long time frames, 1920’s and the Bush W years, led to catastrophic meltdowns.
We know tax cuts are bad in the long term. Unless you want to discount history, of course. The principal behind tax cuts is right however, cutting taxes gives businesses more money to invest. The sad part, is that they don’t invest that money. They don’t invest it here. They don’t create jobs.
Tax increases do cause investment here and do create jobs. simply for the selfish reason that a business wants to keep their money in hand and not pay it out in taxes… They treat their businesses differently as we would treat our home we live in, versus some rental property we were leasing out.
Clinton did not wait. He jumped taxes within three months of his term.
And what’s with the blaming his success on a dot.com boom? The entire stock market raised, not just IT companies. I would venture blaming the dot boom is just a lazy excuse to avoid the truth that higher taxes mushroom an economy, as everyone scrambles to avoid paying them.
As for letting taxes expire, it will be a good thing…. 80% of our money comes from the top 10%.. Having them pay more in taxes, and keep the cuts for those 80% making $250.000 and below, is the best strategy for economic growth.
Money for investment does not drive economies. Consumer spending does. Simply put, if no one is spending… who on earth would put money up for investment?
On a chilly night, when you want more warmth? Which gives you better results? Opening the flue all the way to allow the flames to rise higher, …. or throwing another log on the fire?
And just for the record, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics….
Reagan: Jan 81 to Dec 88, 16.3 million jobs created
Clinton: Jan 93 to Dec. 2000, 22.8 million jobs created
Bush 43: Jan 2000 to Oct. 2008, 4.4 million
December 5, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Hube
kav: Point taken on all the above; however, if we’re more “in the know” about such matters as you note, why the persistence in “Reagan did this,” “Clinton did that,” and “Bush did that”? Don’t we know that the presidents are only part of the equation? After all, Reagan had to deal with House Democrats, and Clinton had to deal with House GOP, among other instances. That, and economics is a miasma of myriad factors, not just tax cuts/raises, etc.
Oh, and how do tax increases “mushroom” an economy if people scramble to avoid paying the higher rates? And how is the dot-com boom a lazy excuse? It was perhaps the greatest expansion of new technology in the last half century or so.
December 6, 2010 at 4:28 am
kavips
I’d like to address the persistence question. The president is more than just a man dealing with a myriad of problems. He is a symbol.
Not only for the nation, but to those who understand politics, he can also be a symbol for a certain brand of politician, say either conservative or progressive. Reagan stands for cutting taxes, cutting spending, building our military back up. Even though his actual record wasn’t that great in all these categories, if you lived back then, compared to Carter, it certainly seemed that way.
Likewise, Clinton became a symbol for reducing the deficit, building a surplus, trimming spending, and focusing a lot upon the family.
Bush, became a symbol for America’s coming of age, and all the positives as well as negatives that got attached to it…
And yes, Clinton had the House GOP, and Reagan had the House Democrats, but what is most amazing, is that they were able to get things done despite that.
As anyone who has looked deep into the economy will tell you, there are indeed a myriad of factors that play various parts. And I would agree that tax cuts/raises etc are pieces of the puzzle, not the whole table top.
But they play a pivotal roll. At issue is getting people to spend. Telling people to spend on their credit card, doesn’t work anymore. Telling people to take out a loan, won’t work anymore.
None of these work in a Depression economy. Most people say, “why should I invest money if I’m going to lose it anyway.?”
The only way to fix that is for people to say, “I’m going to invest my money, because if I don’t, I’m going to lose it anyway.
Then businesses put money back into their business, to keep it from getting taxed.
And as for the dot com boom I may have mis=written. The dot com boom was not a lazy excuse for those investing in it; I solely meant to imply that using it to deprecate the massive fiscal change Clinton was able to accomplish, means someone didn’t do their homework, and is therefore lazy.