Democrats & Liberals Archives

Boehner Voted to Increase Taxes

For years, now, Republicans have been touting tax cuts as the universal cure. Times are good? We need tax cuts to keep them good. Times are bad? We need tax cuts to make times better. High unemployment? We need tax cuts to produce jobs. So, it should be a little disturbing that the top House Republican, Rep. John Boehner, voted against reducing taxes for the middle class. In Republican lingo, Boehner voted for a tax increase!

When Boehner was asked before the election whether he would vote for a tax cut solely for the middle class. He said he would - if he had no other choice. Well, he and the other House Republicans were given that choice and here's what happened:

The Democratic House leadership's gambit on middle class tax cuts worked, Republican lies about tax cuts for middle class families being a job-killer and un-American and a travesty notwithstanding. The bill just passed, 234-188, with three Republicans voting for us, and 20 "Dems" voting for the millionaires.

What was the future speaker's reaction?

I’m trying to catch my breath so I don’t refer to this maneuver going on today as chicken crap, all right?

You bet he was angry. He was being forced to vote for tax cuts for ordinary people like you and me. And he did not want to do it. Boehner called tax cuts for the middle class "chicken crap." This tells you a lot about what Boehner and his fellow Republicans think about ordinary citizens of the U.S.

Republicans want tax cuts for the super-rich, for the guys who pay for their campaigns. For months Republicans have been holding the rest of us hostage in order to make sure that millionaires and billionaires get tax cuts.

It will be interesting to see what Republicans do in the Senate. Will they vote for this middle class tax cut? Not likely. Will they filibuster this middle class tax cut in order to get tax cuts for those they truly fight for: the super-rich? You betcha.

The amazing thing is that Boehner and his fellow hypocritical Republicans say they are for tax cuts for the super-rich in order to produce jobs for the middle class and the poor. The actual votes of Republicans demonstrates that they do not give a damn about the middle class; their only concern is the richest 2%.

Posted by Paul Siegel at December 2, 2010 8:31 PM
Comments
Comment #314406

Maybe the speaker-elect thinks the tax cuts aren’t paid for and add to much to the deficit? ;)

On a more serious note, most Americans oppose the Republican’s position on taxes.

Posted by: Warped Reality at December 2, 2010 8:41 PM
Comment #314407

I was a little triggerhappy:

add too much to the deficit

Posted by: Warped Reality at December 2, 2010 8:43 PM
Comment #314409

I am an extremely hard time that all tax cut’s are for only one group and not all. I have recently come to believe that the current tax rate system is a violation of equal protection under the law. How might you ask to come to this conclusion, while it’s very simple if everyone was paying that same tax rate then the system would be equal to all. As the current system works the more you make the more you pay. Pres. Obama is fond of saying “we all need to have skin in the game” yet the IRS reports that near the bottom 50% pay no taxes. Our tax system clearly has a major flaw that not all persons paying taxes.

We also must remember over talking about raising taxes on evil rich. When was the last time you got a job from a poor man? When you can answer that question I will support raising taxes on the rich. However I know that will never be true. We all should write our congressmen and women inform them that we want equal protection under the law. We will never receive that with a progressive tax system. We must find a better way to fund a constitutionally mandated operations of our government. And while we’re at it we need to get rid of the items that the government should not be involved. If we did that we would end this budget deficit of ours.

Posted by: david at December 2, 2010 9:55 PM
Comment #314413

david,

No one here refers to the wealthy as ‘the evil rich’…except you. The fifty percent of people who pay little to no taxes are working poor, those on public assistance and the homeless. What idiot would think they could pay enough in taxes to help anything? Our middle class is shrinking like crazy, and they are making less in income as well. That just leaves the wealthy, who are getting more wealthy by the minute to pat the taxes. It’s not a matter of hate, it’s just a matter of practicality.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 2, 2010 10:23 PM
Comment #314416

WR said: “Maybe the speaker-elect thinks the tax cuts aren’t paid for and add to much to the deficit? ;)”

Yeah, yeah, and every murderer and rapist has a reason for their crime too, but, it doesn’t change the consequences of their act.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 2, 2010 10:31 PM
Comment #314417

david said: “I have recently come to believe that the current tax rate system is a violation of equal protection under the law.”

Good luck with that one. The net tax rate for the very wealthy is lower than for the less wealthy middle class. Your belief, if adopted, would result in an increase of effective tax rate on the wealthiest to equalize that rate with the less wealthy.

Still, I have to agree that our current tax system is broken and working against our nation’s posterity. An overhaul is recommended by Obama’s debt and deficit commission. Yeah for Obama, for having he courage that Congressional Republicans wouldn’t muster to create such a Commission to come up with a plan to get rid of the deficits and lower the debt.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 2, 2010 10:38 PM
Comment #314420

Warped Reality, here’s another link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/november_2010/voters_still_give_the_edge_to_extending_bush_tax_cuts_for_all_taxpayers

It seems to contradict your CBS News poll; now who should we believe?

Paul Siegel, you are one sick puppy, aren’t you? You have the nerve to write on WB and lie and distort facts. You post your little snippets of evil and move on to the next round, without ever answering a single response.

You say:

“When Boehner was asked before the election whether he would vote for a tax cut solely for the middle class. He said he would - if he had no other choice.”

And are you saying, after one round, he has no more options? He has options that run through January. And the stunt Pelosi and her gang is trying to pull IS chicken crap. This baby belongs to the dems, and today they voted for tax hikes on Americans.

What does it take to create a twisted mind like yours?

“Another punch to the gut of Keynesian economic “stimulus”

Well-deserved, I might add
Posted by Bill S (Profile)
Thursday, December 2nd at 9:00PM EST

I’m no economist, nor do I play one on TV. However, the argument about Keynesian vs. supply-side economic stimulus has fascinated me since the Good Ship Obama sailed in January. To free-marketeers and small-government adherents like myself, it seems intuitively obvious that reducing the taxes be handed over the government, allowing Americans to keep more of their own money, and reducing the amount that DC bureaucrats have to waste would be far more likely to stimulate the economy than growing an already-bloated government bureaucracy and incurring more unnecessary spending.

And…according to some new research data, we would be right. In yesterday’s WSJ, Michael J Boskin writes:

In a dynamic economy, many parts are moving simultaneously and it is difficult to disentangle cause and effect. Taxes may be cut and spending increased at the same time and those may coincide with natural business cycle dynamics and monetary policy shifts.

Using powerful statistical methods to separate these effects in U.S. data, Andrew Mountford of the University of London and Harald Uhlig of the University of Chicago conclude that the small initial spending multiplier turns negative by the start of the second year. In a new cross-national time series study, Ethan Ilzetzki of the London School of Economics and Enrique Mendoza and Carlos Vegh of the University of Maryland conclude that in open economies with flexible exchange rates, “a fiscal expansion leads to no significant output gains.”

My colleagues John Cogan and John Taylor, with Volker Wieland and Tobias Cwik, demonstrate that government purchases have a GDP impact far smaller in New Keynesian than Old Keynesian models and quickly crowd out the private sector. They estimate the effect of the February 2009 stimulus at a puny 0.2% of GDP by now.

By contrast, the last two major tax cuts—President Reagan’s in 1981-83 and President George W. Bush’s in 2003—boosted growth. They lowered marginal tax rates and were longer lasting, both keys to success. In a survey of fiscal policy changes in the OECD over the past four decades, Harvard’s Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna conclude that tax cuts have been far more likely to increase growth than has more spending.

Boskin also reports that the a 2007 study by Christina and David Romer on tax-reduction-driven stimulus actually had it wrong:

Messrs. Mountford and Uhlig show that substantial tax cuts had a far larger impact on output and employment than spending increases, with a multiplier up to 5.0.

That’s $5 GDP growth for every $1 in tax cuts.

Even before the election, prominent economists such as Harvard’s Dr. Gregory Mankiw, saw the folly behind the New Keynesian theory. In late 2008, Mankiw summarized research done by several economists and described how the “fiscal policy multiplier”, which provides a relative measure of the impact of various stimulus mechanisms, was far higher (indicating greater economic stimulus effect) for tax cuts than for government spending. At that time, the Keynesian multiplier for governmental spending was estimated at somewhere between 1 and 1.4 - for each dollar spent by the government, GDP would increase by between $1.00 and $1.40. But for tax reduction, the report from the Romers showed a multiplier of around 3. And now we see it could be as high as 5:1.

If the Democrats only had listened. If they had simply taken a substantial portion of that $800B+ and applied even a portion of it to tax cuts instead of the wasteful pork-barrel spending on their Leftist pet causes, the impact on GDP could have been staggeringly positive…far better than the 0.2% GDP impact estimated by the economists in the WSJ.

Beyond the stimulus multiplier, a point often omitted from these discussions is the long-term cost to the economy of deficit spending. The Romer study found a dramatically negative effect from tax increases (up to 3% GDP decline for every 1% of increase). On this point, Boskin notes:

These empirical studies leave many leading economists dubious about the ability of government spending to boost the economy in the short run. Worse, the large long-term costs of debt-financed spending are ignored in most studies of short-run fiscal stimulus and even more so in the political debate.

Mr. Uhlig estimates that a dollar of deficit-financed spending costs the economy a present value of $3.40. The spending would have to be remarkably productive, both in its own right and in generating jobs and income, for it to be worth even half that future cost.

So not only is the “stimulus” not stimulative, when it employs deficit spending, it also incurs a substantial long-term cost.

He concludes his piece with this:

The complexity of a dynamic market economy is not easily captured even by sophisticated modeling (an idea stressed by Friedrich Hayek and Robert Solow). But based on the best economic evidence, we should reject increased spending and increased taxes.

If anything, we should lower marginal effective corporate and personal tax rates further

That is a message that conservatives have been preaching for years.

Jennifer Rubin summed the WSJ article up nicely:

In short, the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress have been pursuing precisely the wrong approach: spending to no avail, and holding the prospect of tax hikes over the heads of employers and investors.

One final note - that last statement from Rubin warrants some additional thought - “holding the prospect of tax hikes over the heads of employers and investors”. Back in July, Thomas F. Cooley wrote:

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that U.S. corporations are sitting on $1.6 trillion in cash reserves, a record amount, because they are reluctant to expand in the uncertain policy environment. Even looking at the companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index of blue chips–and stripping out financials, which are required by regulators to keep large cash reserves in order to cushion against risk–the cash-on-hand number is a whopping $1.1 trillion. Would a more transparent, business-friendly environment turn that cash into investment and jobs?

Many signs point to “yes”. As long as businesses and individuals foresee a future of big increases in taxes and health care expense (my health care increased 25% next year, by the way…Thanks, Barack), they will not part with their money, which means little or no investment and little or no private sector job growth. A substantial reduction in taxes that provides a more robust economy and a measure of certainty will go a long way towards stimulating business investment and unleashing the billions that remain in the bank, awaiting a return to fiscal and political sanity in DC.”

http://www.redstate.com/bs/2010/12/02/another-punch-to-the-gut-of-keynesian-economic-stimulus/

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 2, 2010 10:59 PM
Comment #314423

Con do you read this drivel before you re-post it here? The fact is 40% of the stimulus package was tax cuts so this comment is just more misinformation half truths and outright lies from the conservatives. Why would you think we should believe this idiot when he can’t even get the simple facts right? By now you would think you would know this is not an all conservative site where this kind of crap can get by with anyone giving it any thought.

From your tainted re-post-
“If the Democrats only had listened. If they had simply taken a substantial portion of that $800B+ and applied even a portion of it to tax cuts instead of the wasteful pork-barrel spending on their Leftist pet causes, the impact on GDP could have been staggeringly positive…far better than the 0.2% GDP impact estimated by the economists in the WSJ.”


Now the rest of the story-

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/

It seems another conservative loser did the same thing surprise, surprise huh?

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/08/tax-cuts-and-the-stimulus-package.html

Posted by: j2t2 at December 3, 2010 12:34 AM
Comment #314426

j2t2, you are talking to someone who has no interest in the facts or truth. S/he is a cheerleader for his/her partisan team. Every lie, distortion, and bit of sophistry which the team puts forth is gospel to conservativethinker. That moniker is an obvious misnomer if I ever saw one, and I have no doubt about their being conservative. Wonder how many hours it will take to look up the word ‘moniker’, if s/he does, at all. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 3, 2010 3:17 AM
Comment #314430

John Boehner is demonstrating who he really cares about most since …

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress (who perpetuate these abuses) with perpetual re-election finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 3, 2010 8:57 AM
Comment #314434

Con, Here is another Sam Adams quote that seems to sum up the conservative movement leaders-
“It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty, — to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves.”

Sam Adams

Posted by: j2t2 at December 3, 2010 9:33 AM
Comment #314437

Say what you want, but America is in deep trouble. Unemployment is now 9.8%, and national debt is fast approaching $14 trillion. If raising taxes on the so called top percent of earners ($250k and up), why are there now democrats calling for tax cuts for all? Keynesian economics is not working.

Why is Europe cutting taxes and America still wants to raise taxes:

“By every possible metric, one would expect corporate tax rates to be higher in Europe. The burden of government spending is higher across the Atlantic, so that presumably would lead to pressure for a higher corporate tax rate. The affinity for class warfare and anti-business policies is more pronounced in Europe, so that should mean more punitive policies in the Old World.

Yet the corporate tax rate is Europe has now dropped, on average, to less than 25 percent, and the American corporate tax remains at more than 39 percent (including the average of state tax burdens). The latest development in Europe, according to Tax-news.com, is that the Netherlands is reducing its rate to 25 percent…

So why is Europe moving in the right direction on this issue and America lagging? The simple (and accurate) answer is tax competition. Governments are lowering tax rates because politicians think that is their only option if they want to attract jobs and investment. Europe’s economies are so interconnected and cross-border mobility of jobs and investment is so large that politicians are being forced to do the right thing, even though all their normal impulses are the opposite.”

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/more-corporate-tax-cutting-in-europe-while-america-lags/

This flies in the face of all ultra-liberals who want to play class warfare and make corporations the enemy. Not everyone will be able to work for the Federal government or draw a government check, someone will have to work in private industry, and the current government is anti-private industry.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 3, 2010 10:15 AM
Comment #314438

“Say what you want, but America is in deep trouble. Unemployment is now 9.8%, and national debt is fast approaching $14 trillion. If raising taxes on the so called top percent of earners ($250k and up), why are there now democrats calling for tax cuts for all? Keynesian economics is not working.”

Con, Say what I want! Did I lie to you? No I did not. Was your previous re-post misinformation half truths and outright lies? Yes.
Yes we have a problem but do you really believe that we can solve it by following those that intentionally mislead us? Keynesian economics not working is just so much drivel from movement leaders as they continue to distort the facts they dish out to you followers. Of course there are dems calling for tax cuts for all, the conservative mind set infestation has permeated the country for years, but just because some dems want to follow the repubs backwards into the fog does not mean it is the right thing to do.

“This flies in the face of all ultra-liberals who want to play class warfare and make corporations the enemy. Not everyone will be able to work for the Federal government or draw a government check, someone will have to work in private industry, and the current government is anti-private industry.”

Con you have got to get past this “class warfare” by “ultra liberals” nonsense and realize that you are swallowing this line doled out by the same people who have got us so far into debt by shouting these lies and misinformation to so many otherwise decent Americans for so long that many have come to accept it as fact.

If you really believe that Corporations pay a combined 39% tax rate then…well I don’t know what else to say accept do you also believe the birthers and the other conspiracy wingnuts when they make so many false accusations (such as the link in your previous comment)? Does that tell you something?

Ya know if we didn’t spend so much on defense of the multinational corporations in other parts of the world maybe we could cut taxes for them and all other Americans.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 3, 2010 10:43 AM
Comment #314439

Conservativethinker said: “why are there now democrats calling for tax cuts for all? Keynesian economics is not working.”

That’s your logic? Because some Democrats are willing to negotiate away taxes on the wealthiest in return for unemployment benefits extensions, you arrive at “Keynesian economics is not working?”

Wow! Big F for logic 101.

The TARP, Auto bailouts, the Stimulus which halted 3/4 of a million jobs lost each month to virtually zero net jobs lost and holding for many months now, as more new workers enter the workforce than are retiring, is straight out of Keynesian economic theory. Corporations are enormously profitable, the stock markets are robust and climbing, consumer activity is up significantly over last year at this time, wealthiest have increased their incomes by 400% over the last 30 years, and you want to hold to the position that this part of Keynesian economic theory has failed? WOW!

Big F for economics 101.

And BTW, are you referring to 1930’s Keynesian theory or contemporary. There are some big and significant differences, you know. No, you don’t. Sorry. Do you even know what the central core of modern Keynesian economic theory says? If so, please enlighten us as to how you interpret it, won’t you?

Thanks,

—Independent thinker. Logical inquirer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 3, 2010 10:44 AM
Comment #314450

Here’s a Blistering Attack on the Republican’s Hypocrisy.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 3, 2010 1:15 PM
Comment #314452

Adrienne,

Well, now he’s done it! He’s loosened the mad dog pack for sure. Sanders will be on every Republican hit list. He told the truth out loud, “Republicans do not want America to succeed”, and he said it in a public/political forum. His days are numbered.

To be honest, he should have said, ‘the Republican leadership don’t want America to succeed’. But, by the look of many entries here, he’s still in the ballpark.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 3, 2010 1:37 PM
Comment #314453

PS:

I’m sorry, I’m afraid I took your link another step:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9aKEmsxMU&feature=related

He’s talking to Bob Sheifer of CBS, and he’s pretty emphatic about the reasons for the obstructionism going on.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 3, 2010 1:45 PM
Comment #314456

Dude,
Thanks for sharing that. You gotta love a guy who is always as fearless as Sanders is.
Btw, here’s a link to his entire speech if your interested in seeing it.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 3, 2010 2:15 PM
Comment #314463

Adrienne,

Thank you very much. He gave an inspired speech…scary, but inspired.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 3, 2010 3:30 PM
Comment #314468

The Democratic Party spirals unidirectionally.

“Is it hyperbolic to say the Democratic Party is in the midst of a nervous breakdown? I have been covering national politics since 1988, and I don’t remember a situation quite like this. The signs of a crack-up are everywhere. Democrats still think they can somehow win a news cycle by demonizing John Boehner. Chuck Schumer goes on the Senate floor and suggests Democrats are getting the same political mileage out of “millionaires tax” that Republicans have gotten over the years from using “death tax.” Politico has a story with blind quotes from Hill Democrats who are furious that the White House isn’t using some sort of mythical leverage over Republicans to extract concessions in exchange for extending all the Bush tax cuts — including continuing to try to trade for DADT and the Dream Act (rather than things dealing with jobs). Two members in good standing of the Professional Left — moveon and the PCCC — are spending its members’ money on TV ads demanding that the president exercise this same mythical leverage to stand up to the GOP.

Democrats are understandably — and largely justified in being — frustrated that they lost an election based on Republicans defending tax cuts for the wealthy that are only expiring because of a budget gimmick championed by George Bush — and based on criticism of their apparent lack of concern over the deficit, by a party that has shown no past or current seriousness about deficit reduction and the hard choices involved. Losing those political fights was as inexplicable as it was hard for the Democrats. Maybe that’s why Thursday.”


Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2010/12/02/donkey-doozy/#ixzz175Td84no

Posted by: Bill at December 3, 2010 4:44 PM
Comment #314470

I think the democratic ploy was a intelligent play, but I don’t think it will be seen as the hypocrisy that Paul wants to show it as. We all know that Boehner et. al. had the goal of everyone receiving the extension, so it will be a hard sell to get people to see it as “Boehner voted for a tax increase”.

Also, the entire time this issue has been in the spotlight, when discussing those over 250 thousand dollars, democrats have been claiming they didn’t support a ‘tax increase’ only an ‘elimination/expiration of a tax cut, NOT an increase.’ Its actually kinda funny that the rhetoric around the debate just flipped completely.

Posted by: adam at December 3, 2010 5:08 PM
Comment #314486


I agree that Boehner voted for a tax increase is not going to sail.

The real question is, do we return to the tax rates as they were at the time Clinton and the Republicans brokered a balanced budget deal or do we keep the tax cuts that destroyed the agreement?

Posted by: jlw at December 3, 2010 9:50 PM
Comment #314490

I’d like to know why some continue to insist that this is about a tax increase, when it is actually a return to the tax rate before Bush lowered it temporarily. The move is to take it back, not create a new rate.

Posted by: jane doe at December 3, 2010 10:42 PM
Comment #314498

jane doe,

It’s the difference between selling if you’re a Republican, and buying if you are a Democrat. They sell it to the gullible…I ain’t buying. It’s never been a tax increase, because it was a temporary cut, with a due date of ten years, in the first place. What it really is is an expiring contract with America that Republicans want to renege on.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 4, 2010 6:22 AM
Comment #314499

Marysdude, and they want to renege on it at the very time they “say” they want to zero the deficit, which is a complete contradiction. It’s like me quitting my job as a means of balancing my household budget and paying down my debts. This is stupidity even a third grader CAN understand, and it takes some enormous illogical rationalization for anyone to support such a measure as extending already low tax rates on the wealthiest, whose wealth has increased gigantically over the last couple decades. America is not wanting for investment capital - corporations and the wealthiest are loaded with it, even as poverty is rising dramatically in America.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 4, 2010 6:38 AM
Comment #314517

I am seriously incensed at the POTUS.

Democrats need to grow a pair.

They need to put a bill on the floor for extending unemployment benefits.

They need to put a bill on the floor making tax cuts for the middle class permanent (1/2 way there).

Then they need to go on the nightly news and press conference their backsides off denouncing the Repubs for killing those bills.

They need to do that 24/7 till the new crazies get in office.

I believe if the Dems hammered this hard enough, the Repubs could be made to be held accountable for their childish hold out on tax cuts for the wealthy.

BTW, as a disclosure… I am actually in the bracket that the Repubs are fighting for. I want a better country. That, to me, is a greater benefit than a few extra dollars per year to buy a bigger flat screen TV or sell my midpriced car for a luxury model. We’ll invest or bank the money… which wouldn’t help the economy very much at all.

Posted by: LibRick at December 4, 2010 10:57 AM
Comment #314541

Ms. Doe writes; “I’d like to know why some continue to insist that this is about a tax increase, when it is actually a return to the tax rate before Bush lowered it temporarily. The move is to take it back, not create a new rate.”

Hmmm….let me see if I understand. Allowing the tax cuts to expire isn’t a tax increase on the wealthy. Not exempting those making under a certain amount from expiring tax cuts will result in a tax increase on them.

I guess that only if one is wealthy is an increase in taxes paid called a no tax increase.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 4, 2010 7:15 PM
Comment #314543

What it really is is an expiring contract with America that Republicans want to renege on.

Posted by: Marysdude

dude compounds the confusion in his comment above. As I understand it, Obama and the dems don’t wish to let the contract expire on some Americans, just those earning too much.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 4, 2010 7:20 PM
Comment #314544

I wonder if dude and doe have considered what the affect will be on the stock market when millions of regular American’s and some large institutional investors sell their stock to take profits and avoid paying a higher tax if no tax bill is passed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 4, 2010 7:28 PM
Comment #314545

When is a tax increase not a tax increase. Simple…when dems tell us it is so. I am surprised they can eat with their forked tongues. I am not surprised with their flawed logic.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 4, 2010 7:33 PM
Comment #314546

The stock market holds steady in a hurricane and topples over in a light breeze. Have you any idea just how little the stock market needs to do something dumber than dirt? The news that employment did not grow last month did not phase the market. What’s wrong with this picture? If you base all your worries on the actions of the market, you’ll soon be treating ulcers.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 4, 2010 7:39 PM
Comment #314547

This Dem says it is not a tax increase, because the cut was temporary. They (we) should have been paying t all along, but an idiot in office decided to cut them and then took two wars out of the budget so he would not have to nullify the cuts himself to pay for those wars. Your people are playing stupid political games with the American budget, and it is killing us all.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 4, 2010 7:45 PM
Comment #314548

Your infatuation with our deficit and debt, now, after all that has transpired previously, is a sham.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 4, 2010 7:47 PM
Comment #314549

dude asks; “Have you any idea just how little the stock market needs to do something dumber than dirt.”

I have an idea that dude knows nothing about the equity and bond markets and could care less if millions of American’s owning stock sell to avoid higher taxes. No doubt dude has his money in a sock under his sleeping bag.

I find it so interesting that some libs can forcast global climate for the next century and can’t understand the obvious.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 4, 2010 7:49 PM
Comment #314550

Obviously dude has no answer to why it is not a tax increase for the wealthy but is for all others and so begins changing the subject. So sad dude…do a little reading and get out more.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 4, 2010 7:52 PM
Comment #314552

Call it a tax increase if you wish, but remember that it is BUSH’s TAX INCREASE.

Posted by: LibRick at December 4, 2010 8:42 PM
Comment #314553

And just as obviously, flushed, you’ve fallen back into that familiar place you like to habitate……fantasy land. Where you can make up stories to fit the way you’d like things to be.
What part of temporary do you not understand? As in the temporary rollback of tax rates put into effect by Bush….like dude explained. tem·po·rar·y
   /ˈtɛmpəˌrɛri/ Show Spelled [tem-puh-rer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -rar·ies.
–adjective
1.
lasting, existing, serving, or effective for a time only; not permanent: a temporary need; a temporary job.

Go ahead and twist, manipulate all you want, but it’s history, as created by your bud, the shrub.

Posted by: jane doe at December 4, 2010 8:42 PM
Comment #314554

I have not changed the subject. There has really been no subject, just someone throwing out scattershot hoping he’ll hit something right. Hasn’t happened so far, and unless he stops repeating talking points and starts thinking for himself, it will remain a lose-lose situation for him.

I’m saying that people drawing their investments because the tax cuts, which is roughly 1 to 3%, and only on the income over the stated amounts, is in your fantasy world where it will remain. I’m saying to please quit trying to snow those here on WB, because we know better. Go find some ditto-heads who will listen to you and pat you on the back.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 4, 2010 10:48 PM
Comment #314556

I believe the tax cut should self-destruct for all. I don’t think the differences will be felt by middle class folks and the country needs the money generated by those paid by the wealthy. My President thinks the middle class should continue to get the cut, but is willing to negotiate on that issue. My Congress is confused and lost in the smoky wilderness blown there by a Republican party that has honed the smoke blowing to a fine art.

It is not now, nor has it ever been a tax increase, since it was proposed as a temporary tax cut from the beginning.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 4, 2010 10:55 PM
Comment #314568

Why are we even discussing a continuation of Bush economic policies? Is someone suggesting they worked?

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2010 12:48 PM
Comment #314570

phx8,

Yeah, several here remember, wonderingly, and fondly, the glory that was America under Cheney/Bush, and all the positive things he did for our economy…they really do remember, in some form hidden from the rest of us, a different reality. I’m pretty sure they’ve just crawled out of the rabbit hole, or out of the wardrobe.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 5, 2010 2:03 PM
Comment #314574

Marysdude,
I don’t understand it. With the previous tax structure, the economy was strong, the budget was balanced, and the national debt was stabilized. So much revenue was being collected that the Congress sent a rebate to American taxpayers, and the surplus was projected at $10 trillion.

Here we are ten years later, and instead of surpluses, we’re projecting huge deficits and debts, and the economy is in the tank. Seriously, what is wrong with people? Why is there even a discussion?

Posted by: phx8 at December 5, 2010 3:06 PM
Comment #314585

phx8,

It’s called salesmanship…and…the citizenry has been dumbed down so low, they take the sell easily. If the electorate had a brain there would be no discussion. I’m about half ashamed of us. We let unscrupulous people like Newt Gingrich steal America with false logic, and then celebrate stupidity from those like Palin, and fall in line behind charlatans like Rush and Glen. What do you expect?

Posted by: Marysdude at December 5, 2010 8:06 PM
Comment #314596

Regulated commerce has given us much in the way of advancements in the sciences, innovations in manufacturing methods and products, and comforts of life. That being said, if we flip that over and discuss unrestricted commerce, we find little in the way of advancements or innovations, but rather some very painful lessons.

Unrestricted commerce (some call it ‘free market’) has led to most of our national ills:

Herds of meat animals, fur bearing creatures, and some birds have been trapped/hunted to extinction and near extinction.

Millions of native peoples have been killed or displaced from their lands, and forced to change their customs and traditions.

Peoples have been enslaved, and civil war has broken out.
Robber Barons have participated in land grabs, plus mineral and water rights violations.

Wars, i.e., Spanish American, Boxer Rebellion, etc., have been initiated.

Sweatshops, child labor and eighty hour workweeks without benefits or overtime, in unsafe work places, were commonplace.

Pollutants have created unusable lands and seas, health endangerment, unbreathable air, and undrinkable water.

Several recessions, a stagflation and at least one depression.

Debilitating graft and corporate corruptions like ENRON, the Savings & Loan fiasco, bubbles formed in electronics markets and housing/mortgage markets.

Financial house meltdowns created because of unsupervised derivatives trading, bringing on horrible unemployment.

Political corruption unparalleled in our history.

Our nation’s greatest growth and finest hours, have been during times of the most regulation of our business concerns (highest taxation too). Our nation’s greatest debasements and turmoils have been during the freest of free market periods (lowest taxation too).

Posted by: Marysdude at December 6, 2010 2:13 PM
Comment #314601

But Marysdude, but but oh uh um umm your a commie!

Just kidding of course. I was just trying out my imitation of a conservative responding to your statement. Bernake has called attention to the never wider income inequality gap which is the end result of supply side economics. We have only Reagan to thank for this latest go around of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/ben-bernanke-income-inequality-_n_792581.html

Posted by: j2t2 at December 6, 2010 4:28 PM
Comment #314604

j2t2,

Yeah, I know how socialistic I am…I can hear it in the voices of the conservatives here.

That’s a good link, but Ben thinks too simplistic. He wants to take the fault of a faulty economy out of the picture and lay it to lack of education. The education divide has more to do with ignorance regarding politics than making money. I will admit that the GI Bill put us over the top in that regard, and that we’ve been going down hill after the bulk of recipients got their degrees, but it ain’t education that puts the top 2% of income earners so high on the hog. That requires bad decisions by a leadership, both civilian and government losing track of America.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 6, 2010 5:09 PM
Comment #314622

As I stated in post #314420, Paul S. is a sick puppy for even writing a post like this. He has not commented on anything written. But his false accusations has allowed the left to run off at the mouth about Boehner and other conservatives. Well, how do you like the outcome: Obama is caving to the Republicans and has shafted his own supporters. I think it’s funny; listening to Bob Beckel and Sen.McKaskle (MO) whine and cry about Obama selling them out. I guess we now know why Beohner voted against renewing the Bush cuts for only some. Now we will have them renewed for all. Of course Obama did not have all his dem senators on board this one and he knew it. Liberals are fast becoming irrelevant..

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 7, 2010 10:28 AM
Comment #314623

CT,
It is a great victory for conservatives and a terrible defeat for liberals. You’re right about liberals becoming irrelevant. Not wrong. Just irrelevant. Notice how the conservative & GOP concern about deficits & debt magically disappeared? They threatened to throw millions of unemployed people onto the streets if the conservatives weren’t allowed to continue Bush economic policies. Obama caved. Obama thinks he is president of all the people, and this will help him govern more effectively.

But he’s wrong about that, isn’t he? Conservatives never accepted him as president in the first place, and they have no intention of seeing him govern, and this compromise will embolden them, not convince them to cooperate. No price is too terrible for the country to make sure Obama fails, not even cutting off unemployment benefits for two million people at Christmas time.

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2010 11:23 AM
Comment #314625

Well this says it all-

“Today, December 7, 2010, a date that will live in infamy. Main Street America was suddenly and deliberate­ly attacked by the financial and political forces of the Empire of Wall Street.”

From a yahoo user named Bubba Gump…

Posted by: j2t2 at December 7, 2010 12:04 PM
Comment #314627

Oops that is actually from a Huffpo user….my bad.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 7, 2010 12:16 PM
Comment #314629

Congrats to conservative thinker. With the support of like minded folks such as him, the Albert Haynesworth tax cut has won the day. Nice work.
Now let’s focus on inheritance taxes, don’t want to leave out Paris Hilton.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 7, 2010 12:25 PM
Comment #314632

It would seem, from Schwamp’s comments, that there is no limit to the lust, by some, for other peoples money and assets.

Could Schwamp explain why liberals believe that any person’s estate, upon which taxes were already paid, should face a tax event by dying?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 7, 2010 1:18 PM
Comment #314634

Public Option
Too Big To Fail
Wall Street
DADT
Tax Cut For Wealthy

I’m beginning to see a trend here. We may have elected the most Republican of Presidents in American history. McCain would never have been this good to his own party.

President Obama may think he’ll back off the best policies and the Republicans will eventually come around to compromise. He is wrong, and he is failing at his job because he is wrong. He says we should not return to the failed policies that got us in this ditch, then kow-tows to the very political party and corporations that caused the wreck.

My disappointment is great…not so much in the President, who probably thinks he is doing what is necessary, but in the American people for allowing it to get to this point.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 7, 2010 1:19 PM
Comment #314635

>Could Schwamp explain why liberals believe that any person’s estate, upon which taxes were already paid, should face a tax event by dying?
Posted by: Royal Flush at December 7, 2010 01:18 PM

Perhaps it’s because it then becomes income to others, and very likely others who did not even have to earn it. The dead guy/gal can no longer use it, so it has no bearing on them. It only bears on the living.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 7, 2010 1:22 PM
Comment #314636

Marysdude;

I know exactly what you are talking about:

“Perhaps it’s because it then becomes income to others, and very likely others who did not even have to earn it. The dead guy/gal can no longer use it, so it has no bearing on them. It only bears on the living.”

The Kennedy’s have been living off Joe’s ill-gotten liquor gains for 90 years. Oh, sorry, those are in trust funds and not taxable. I guess old money don’t count, just the inheritance that comes from putting your whole life into a career and trying to leave something for your kids. Liberals are a bunch of thieving bastards (the Biblical term).

Concerning Obama caving; I’m sure if we give the grieving liberals a few days, they will be able to turn their sorrow into something positive. As of his moment liberals believe Obama stabbed them in the back, but I am sure this was part of Obama’s strategery to get the dems re-elected, hahaha, LOL…

On top of that, it happened in a DEM CONTROLLED lame duck congress. Democrat Controlled I tell you, hahaha.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 7, 2010 2:09 PM
Comment #314638

Con,

You have to be an idiot, to laugh at what will be the end of life you’ve grown fond of. Haven’t you figured it out yet? Conservatives cannot govern, and can only drill the hole deeper. My disappointment in President Obama, is that he too seems to have that clouded vision. Read entry #314596 for a clear view of conservative political policies. Think with your brain for a change…just once, change thinking ends and use the one on top.

This is not about ‘winning’, it’s about what consequences there are to ‘winning’.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 7, 2010 2:21 PM
Comment #314639

CT,
Not one word about debts and deficits? The one funny part about this deal is seeing the ‘Tea Party’ conservatives get so confused. They thought it was all about the debt and deficits, but of course, it is not. It is all about helping the rich get richer, and nothing, nothing, nothing else matters. What a bunch of saps. What a bunch of gullible know-nothings.

Also, if you are rich enough to be worried about estate taxes, then I don’t care one bit about the taxes you pay. You did not do it yourself. You did not live on a desert island and magically make wealth happen. You lived off the society which made this possible and became wealthy. That’s fine. When the time comes, you owe society in return. AFter leaving a substantial sum for descendants, you’ll just have to pay some of it forward. That’s the price of having participated. Thank you for playing.

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2010 2:23 PM
Comment #314641

The dude wrote; “Perhaps it’s because it then becomes income to others, and very likely others who did not even have to earn it. The dead guy/gal can no longer use it, so it has no bearing on them. It only bears on the living.”

Thank you very much dude for summing up so succinctly the liberal mental disorderd thinking about private ownership.

Take from the dead what you dare not take from the living. What a ghoulish bunch these liberals are. Imagine walking down a street and a guy drops dead in front of you on the street. The first impluse of the liberal is to go through the dead guys pockets to take anything of value. After all, the guy is dead and no longer can use it. Then, not to waste anything of value, call a hospital and see if you can sell any organs of the dead guy.

The same mindset that robs the dead insists on robbing anyone having more than they do thru taxes. As dude wrote, robbing folks becomes “income to others.”

The impact of the last election has already produced conservative results before winners have even been sworn into office. Just imagine what may happen once they are sitting in their seats of power.

Obama, Pelois and Reid have been dethroned with barely a whimper. Their liberal base is disgusted and conservative are jubliant. Come January 1st we can truly shout…Happy NEW Year.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 7, 2010 2:35 PM
Comment #314643

Off subject and just a simple comment on New Start.

It is flat-out lunacy to agree that our future security somehow hinges on maintaining Russia’s ability to attack us.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 7, 2010 2:41 PM
Comment #314645

“The Kennedy’s have been living off Joe’s ill-gotten liquor gains for 90 years. Oh, sorry, those are in trust funds and not taxable. I guess old money don’t count, just the inheritance that comes from putting your whole life into a career and trying to leave something for your kids. Liberals are a bunch of thieving bastards (the Biblical term).”

He did it,he did it seems to be the logic used here to justify the name calling right,Con. So using your logic, and I use the term logic loosely here, All I would need to do is find one thieving bastard (also the Biblical term) that paid the 70% rate from the depression era until the ‘80’s for you to realize the foolishness of your statement right?


The estate taxes have been used since 1797 to help pay for wars we have been involved in. They have been raised and lowered as the war debt was paid off. As we are now mired in war debt it would seem logical to increase the estate taxes wouldn’t it? As you have noted perhaps trusts should be included in the estate taxes. Worthy of debate, as the ultra rich seem to be able to create an aristocracy a la Paris Hilton that do not have to pay taxes on their new income.

Another important reason for estate taxes is to keep our country a meritocracy instead of an aristocracy. The accumulation of wealth over generations, whether it be families,trusts or corporations, results in the loss of economic freedom for most in the country. We are seeing it today in the income inequality caused by the return of conservative thought to the leadership of our Country since the ‘80’s.

It is a sad day for the nation as we continue to wallow in debt and we continue to punt the ball to the next generation to solve the problem. If you are a baby boomer hang your head in shame at what we have done to this country in the name of freedom and liberty. If you are a conservative baby boomer whilst hanging your head in shame
contemplate the difference between “freedom” and “Freedom” as you continue to fall for the misinformation, half truths and outright lies of your movement leaders.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 7, 2010 3:07 PM
Comment #314646

I am part of the TP movement pxh8, and I am jubilant that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have not just been dethroned; they have been de-balled, LOL.

Dude said, “You have to be an idiot, to laugh at what will be the end of life you’ve grown fond of.”

THE. SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Tell me dude, which catastrophe is going to get me first; losing the life I have grown fond of, or Global Warming. I guess we’ll be like the wooly mammoths who allowed the glaciers to sneak up and take them all away.

Do you know how silly you sound dude?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 7, 2010 3:11 PM
Comment #314647

Con,

The ‘free market’ system (capitalism) is actually based on competition, and without that competition all wealth gathers at one end of the economic spectrum (basically what it is doing right now). Estate taxes are helping to assure not all wealth ends that way, and insures that some who might just rest on their laurels, and not enter the field of endeavor, actually do. As a good ‘conservative’, if not a good ‘thinker’, you should actually be FOR the Estate Tax.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 7, 2010 3:12 PM
Comment #314649

>Do you know how silly you sound dude?
Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 7, 2010 03:11 PM

Might I take it then, that you found it impossible to read the entry I referred to? Perhaps you have a family member who can read it to you? Good luck in your chosen future, hope you enjoy it.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 7, 2010 3:15 PM
Comment #314650

“Take from the dead what you dare not take from the living. What a ghoulish bunch these liberals are. Imagine walking down a street and a guy drops dead in front of you on the street. The first impluse of the liberal is to go through the dead guys pockets to take anything of value. After all, the guy is dead and no longer can use it. Then, not to waste anything of value, call a hospital and see if you can sell any organs of the dead guy.”

Seems the difference between liberal and conservative is the conservatives don’t wait until the guy is dead they do it while the man is still breathing and contributing to society.

“The same mindset that robs the dead insists on robbing anyone having more than they do thru taxes. As dude wrote, robbing folks becomes “income to others.””

Such illogical nonsense Royal, well unless you believe your children are also your property. Which is about the only thing I can think of that conservatives … oh it does make sense now doesn’t it Royal?


“It is flat-out lunacy to agree that our future security somehow hinges on maintaining Russia’s ability to attack us.”

But they are only 50 miles from our shores, Palin can see them from her house, right? All kidding aside, Royal, isn’t the issue more about the “trust but verify” abilities in the treaty? More about the spread of nuclear weapon capabilities to rogue countries?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 7, 2010 3:18 PM
Comment #314651

I’m sensing a lot of negative vibes coming from the left.

You guys do realize it is your guy, who promised change, and the democratic controlled congress that has jumped on this bandwagon, don’t you? If you are crying now, what are you going to do when the repeal of the “Crown Jewell” (Obamacare)of the left is brought to the Senate floor and Democrat Senators vote to repeal it???

It’s been a bad day at “Black Rock” partner.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 7, 2010 3:21 PM
Comment #314653

“The impact of the last election has already produced conservative results before winners have even been sworn into office.”
Agreed Royal we are borrowing and spending like there is no tomorrow despite the rally cry of fiscal responsibility used to manipulate the talk radio conservatives into a stupefied lull while continuing to amass debt.

“Just imagine what may happen once they are sitting in their seats of power.”

More of the same we saw when the repubs controlled Congress the last time, the same leadership after all. Massive corporate giveaway programs, unending wars, restrictions on our liberties and borrowing from the Chinese to fund tax breaks for the wealthy. But how does that solve out problems Royal?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 7, 2010 3:27 PM
Comment #314656

Only a liberal could cry fiscal responsibility when taxes are cut, but have no problem with social programs, bailouts, buyouts, freebees to unions, and spending.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 7, 2010 3:49 PM
Comment #314657

I AM disappointed in my President right now, because I think he has sunk to the level of the people who brought us down. He may have reasons that I don’t understand, and will explain later, but right now, I see little positive in the future of America. We keep trying the same old lame conservative mess over and over and over, hoping it will finally gel…what a bunch of insanity.

As for how I’ll feel when and if your prophesy comes true…numb, because I know it will never get better in my lifetime.

‘Winning’ has consequences, as I have attempted to point out here several times. The very people who condemned Democrats for not attacking the debt and unemployment, are now driving the bus into more debt and less employment. How can that not engender sadness?

Posted by: Marysdude at December 7, 2010 3:49 PM
Comment #314660

“‘Winning’ has consequences, as I have attempted to point out here several times. The very people who condemned Democrats for not attacking the debt and unemployment, are now driving the bus into more debt and less employment. How can that not engender sadness?”

Who is voting to pass the Bush tax cuts? Have the repubs taken control of the House yet?

Posted by: TomT at December 7, 2010 4:04 PM
Comment #314661

“Only a liberal could cry fiscal responsibility when taxes are cut, but have no problem with social programs, bailouts, buyouts, freebees to unions, and spending.”

And only a conservative could gloat “Obama is caving to the Republicans and has shafted his own supporters. I think it’s funny;” while the country sinks farther into the debt they bemoaned just last month. At least you didn’t bother to try to convince us that this is the fiscally responsible thing to do, yet.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 7, 2010 4:19 PM
Comment #314662

Actually j2t2, I am beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel. The only one with nads is Pelosi and she has been neutered. Reid is spinless and only cares about paying back his supporters and Obama is nothing more than a “Girly-Man”. He never had nads. He can’t make a stand on anything. If I were a liberal, I would be upset too.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 7, 2010 4:25 PM
Comment #314667

Condecendtion is the libs word for today.

Posted by: tom humes at December 7, 2010 5:23 PM
Comment #314668

“Actually j2t2, I am beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel.”

It’s a train Con, not sunlight.

“and Obama is nothing more than a “Girly-Man”. He never had nads. He can’t make a stand on anything. If I were a liberal, I would be upset too.”

Yes Obama is at fault for being in denial about the extent the repubs/conservatives would go to get the tax break for the rich. The bad guys are those that used the millions that are unemployed as a tool to get the rich their way, the “ends justify the means” guys that are the repub leadership. The first 2 things they have done are 1. proved that earmarks are here to stay under their leadership, and 2. borrowed whilst spending as we have seen with this latest compromise.

But the real culprits are those that fell for the tea party/repub line about reducing the debt, yes the tea baggers. You gloat and call names but you have already given up your stated principles and your elected leaders aren’t even in office yet. How proud you must be.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 7, 2010 5:54 PM
Comment #314669

Tom is that even a word? Could not find it in the dictionary.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 7, 2010 5:56 PM
Comment #314670

j2t2 wrote; “Yes Obama is at fault for being in denial about the extent the repubs/conservatives would go to get the tax break for the rich.”

I only heard part of Mr. Obama’s speech today regarding extending the current tax rates for everyone. He spoke about how doing so would not only help the middle class, but would help to spur business, jobs, and our economy. I agree with the president for a change.

I wonder however, if conservatives will accept a two year extension. Many wish to hold out for making the current tax rates permanent. That would be an even greater boon for business, jobs and our economy. And, I would like to see funding for the extension of unemployment benefits taken from unspent money from other agencies and programs in our bloated government.

Conservatives and moderates of both parties agree that we have too much federal spending rather than a shortage of tax revenue.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 7, 2010 6:05 PM
Comment #314672

RF,

Don’t you think that if those cuts were going to create jobs and spur the economy, they would have done so already? Don’t you ever see just how silly that song and dance routine sounds to reasonable people?

Trickle down has NEVER worked…not even once in history, why in hell do you think it will work THIS time? Remember the definition of insanity (Einstein)?

Argue that the super rich should be able to keep their hard earned income…at least that has a ring of something to it, but this other crap is just that…crap.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 7, 2010 6:22 PM
Comment #314673


I will look forward to seeing the 10 million jobs created, over the next two years by this grand compromise.

Posted by: jlw at December 7, 2010 6:23 PM
Comment #314674

dude wrote; “Don’t you think that if those cuts were going to create jobs and spur the economy, they would have done so already.”

Hmmm…wonder if dude was asleep for most of this decade, and the last two decades?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 7, 2010 6:28 PM
Comment #314681

I will look forward to seeing the 10 million jobs created, over the next two years by this grand compromise.

Posted by: jlw at December 7, 2010

HUH…I have no idea where your anticipated jobs created count comes from. Even if we use Obama’s accounting methods by including “jobs saved”, 10 million would be a stretch.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 7, 2010 6:55 PM
Comment #314683

RF,

Damn it man, pay attention…from the moment that cut passed, job growth started drying up, and it never recovered. Not only did the cuts not create jobs (the only ones created were military or military related), most workers began working less hours for less earnings, and their benefits began to disappear or they had to pay more for them. Where in the world have you been?

Posted by: Marysdude at December 7, 2010 7:13 PM
Comment #314684

I wonder if dude was one who blamed the economy on the Bush war.

Well let’s look: Reagan elected in 1981 and it took him a year to get the tax cuts out of the Democrats, after he inherited a real mess from the peanut man, Carter. Does anyone remember Reagan blaming Carter? I don’t. Once the tax cuts went into effect, unemployment dropped. The next 7 presidential terms benefited from the Reagan, Clinton, and the Bush 41 tax cuts.


1982-9.7%, 1984-7.5%, 1986-7.0%, 1987-6.2%, 1988-5.5%, 1989-5.3%, 1990-5.6%, 1991-6.8, 1992-7.5%, 1993-6.9%, 1994-6.1%, 1995-5.6%, 1996-5.4%, 1997-4.9%, 1998-4.5%, 1999-4.2%, 2000-4.0%, 2001-4.7%, 2002-5.8%, 2003-6.0%, 2004-5.5%, 2005-5.1%, 2006-4.6%, 2007-4.6%, 2008-5.8%.


Read more: United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2008 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html#ixzz17TPHW9B8

2010-10%, Lets blame Bush…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 7, 2010 7:23 PM
Comment #314685

RF, what is dude talking about? Has he lost it?

Posted by: TomT at December 7, 2010 7:25 PM
Comment #314687

“The next 7 presidential terms benefited from the Reagan, Clinton, and the Bush 41 tax cuts.”

Huh! Bush 41 and Clinton raised taxes due to the deficits caused by the Reagan cuts. Why, even Reagan raised taxes substantially after the initial cuts. You do remember the famous “Read my lips” problem for Bush 41. In any case, it is without dispute that the Clinton presidency has by far the best economic track record of any president in modern times. He substantially raised taxes early in his first term. Tax policy is dependent upon the economic circumstances. There is no one answer that fits all economic circumstances.

Posted by: Rich at December 7, 2010 8:06 PM
Comment #314690

>Could Schwamp explain why liberals believe that any person’s estate, upon which taxes were already paid, should face a tax event by dying?
RF,
The money is changing hands and is in fact income for someone. The same money is taxed repeatedly as it circulates through the economy - remember - isn’t that the basis of your argument that low taxes = more revenue? Now, where else can you get lots of money without reporting it as income - pretty much nowhere, no matter how hard you work or how much you innovate. So you keep fighting for Paris Hilton and Albert Haynesworth. That’s what you’re good at.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 7, 2010 8:24 PM
Comment #314693

“Could Schwamp explain why liberals believe that any person’s estate, upon which taxes were already paid, should face a tax event by dying?”

The issue is concentration of wealth. It is a problem that has plagued societies for centuries. In current times, wealth distribution in the US has become increasingly concentrated in the upper 5% or less of the country.

Posted by: Rich at December 7, 2010 8:41 PM
Comment #314697


United States Unemployment Rate 1920-2008

2. Beginning in January 2006, data are not strictly comparable with data for 2005 and earlier years because of the revisions in the population controls used in the household survey.

Carter-4 years-10.3 million jobs. Clinton-8 years-17.9 million jobs. Total-12 years-28.2 million jobs.

GHW Bush-4 years-2.6 million jobs. G Bush-8 years-6.1 million jobs. Total-12 years-8.7 million jobs. + Reagan-8years-16.1 million jobs. Total-20 years-24.8 million jobs.

This does not include the 15 million jobs lost due to the Bush/Republican recession.

Posted by: jlw at December 7, 2010 8:56 PM
Comment #314705

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
1985 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.0
1986 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.6
1987 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7
1988 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3
1989 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4

Please note that Reagan had been in office for 17 months when his bottom fell out. That had NOTHING to do with Carter. Also note that unemployment stood at levels similar to our current ones for 15 straight months (June of ‘82 until Sept ‘83) (would you allow President Obama 15 months to get his rates better?). Our President inherated a mess several times more severe than the one Reagan got from Carter.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2010 12:11 AM
Comment #314706

>RF, what is dude talking about? Has he lost it?
Posted by: TomT at December 7, 2010 07:25 PM

TomT,

Pay attention and you won’t get lost in here.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2010 12:17 AM
Comment #314713

TomT asks; “RF, what is dude talking about? Has he lost it?”

I don’t know Tom…let’s ask Mary.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2010 10:11 AM
Comment #314714

I am a member of the American Legion and here’s a great idea from our local commander that I urge everyone on WB to participate in.

Send a Christmas card to…

A Recovering American Soldier
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20307-5001

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2010 10:41 AM
Comment #314728


“I don’t know Tom…let’s ask Mary.”

Finally, an intelligent thought.

Posted by: jlw at December 8, 2010 1:15 PM
Comment #314736

Well, it looks like the Democrats are going to skuttle the whole Obama tax plan. Way to go boys. What do you think will happen when the American middle and lower classes see more tax taken out of the paychecks after the first of the year?

Posted by: Beretta9 at December 8, 2010 2:10 PM
Comment #314737

TeeTee,

If Flushy doesn’t know, then I’m damned glad I’m not a conservative…that dread disease is even worse than I thought. It may be contagous…stay away from me and mine.

Signed, Mary

Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2010 2:17 PM
Comment #314738

Hey dude…is that really how Mary sounds…TeeTee? Ugh.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2010 2:29 PM
Comment #314739

Beretta asks; “What do you think will happen when the American middle and lower classes see more tax taken out of the paychecks after the first of the year.”

Good question. If Washington thinks the voters were angry in November, they will wittness outright hostility in January. Let the tarring and feathering begin.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2010 2:40 PM
Comment #314741

Sen.McKaskle(D)of MO said it’s time to get the pitchforks out. But I don’t think she planned to be the pitchee.

Posted by: Beretta9 at December 8, 2010 2:46 PM
Comment #314742

Obama said yesterday; “Make no mistake: Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family. And that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.”

I would add, in addition to that assessment, it would cost Obama the WH and congress many many seats in congress in 2012.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2010 2:46 PM
Comment #314747

RF, under normal conditions, a tax hike for all Americans would have never been noticed, but snce the liberals and Obama have made such a big deal out of this, the American people will be watching their paychecks to see what happens.

And they will be furious…

Posted by: Beretta9 at December 8, 2010 3:05 PM
Comment #314751

I’m an American. I won’t be furious. It is not a tax hike, that’s pure BS. It is a tax reinstatement.

The question is, who takes the blame for this stupidity to begin with. Middle America wasn’t going to have to suffer this indignity until Tea Party nuts forced the issue. Perhaps, even though I doubt American voters can think (after the mid-terms), they’ll remember who brought it to this point. It wasn’t President Obama, or the Democrats.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2010 3:58 PM
Comment #314752

Dude, I don’t think you’re American: I think you’re from France, trying to make us believe you are in America. Parlay vous frenchai?

Posted by: Steve at December 8, 2010 4:41 PM
Comment #314760

Steve,

And, you live in an enclave in the mountains of Idaho or Montana, right? Sieg Heil!

Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2010 6:30 PM
Comment #314766

Feel the love dude and Steve.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2010 7:22 PM
Comment #314768

Capitalism can exist, but it cannot thrive without a fluidity in the market place. When the very few own and hoard it all, privation follows for the masses. Privation first causes diseases and much illness followed by death. Before death, there will likely occur a revolt similar to the one in Russia early last century. What goes around comes around. Ya’ll keep ignoring that there are consequences to ‘winning’, insist that the old tried and untrue policies are the best, and those consequences will probably become known. It is the requirement for competition that has you baffled. A capitalist society cannot last without competition. Part of the competition is labor. When labor fails, liquidity fails and the system fails.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2010 7:35 PM
Comment #314769

>Feel the love dude and Steve.
Posted by: Royal Flush at December 8, 2010 07:22 PM

RF,

Merely tit-fer-tat. Nothing personal. Somebody wants to prove how childish and inconsequential they are, and I’ll show them how to do it right.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2010 7:37 PM
Comment #314777

Can someone tell me why everyone wants to live in America? While you’re at it, explain to me why the poorest in America live better than the poorest in most of the world? I would say capitalism has been very good to America.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 8, 2010 9:55 PM
Comment #314778

Con,

Capitalism is the best and really only way to go. We live in America because we were lucky enough to be born here, just like you, and we and love it. I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but I have to assume you think the only people who should live in America are those who agree with you on how to do it. We don’t have to believe Capitalism in its purest form is best for the most citizens to believe Capitalism is the best economy. There, to us, is nothing wrong with believing America was designed by our forefathers to be the best for ALL of us, not just the powerful few. We think that left alone Capitalism would bring America to the brink of anarchy, that with a little guidance Capitalism can enrich all who are willing to work for it, not just those who are savvy enough, and cold blooded enough, to rake all the cream into one bottle.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2010 10:11 PM
Comment #314779

Con,

I guess I’m trying to say that just because someone believes it is bad for America to invade another sovereign nation on faulty information, and then turned it into a dishonorable conflict, that they are somehow being hateful or disloyal to America. I believe the opposite…that anyone who believes, “America”, right or wrong, is the one who is being disloyal to the concept of America.

If you believe strongly that the unregulated Finance Houses should be allowed to practice their magic bookkeeping without oversight, you are not asking America to be the best it can be for the most citizens. We are a nation, not a corporation, and we cannot be run by corporate America and still remain free and independent peoples. Those two things are in direct conflict with each other.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2010 10:19 PM
Comment #314780

It is not Capitalism that is the problem, it is the abuses of Capitalism that is the problem. Those abuses can be somewhat tamed by some well aimed socialist values. You cannot have a society without a certain amount of Socialism. Those two are parts of the same whole.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 8, 2010 10:24 PM
Comment #314781

I guess I am saying; why would we want to be like Europe?

“If you believe strongly that the unregulated Finance Houses should be allowed to practice their magic bookkeeping without oversight,”

The democrats have been talking about oversight for many years, and have passed rules and regulations, but they always seem to take effect after the fact. We hear all about the terrible sums of money the CEO’s of Corporations have taken and yet nothing is said about the huge sums of money that the CEO’s of Freddie and Fannie received for breaking all the rules in the book. In fact Barney Frank and Chris Dodd defended them after they broke the rules. We have politicians complaining about the corruption of the banking industry and at the same time, receiving sweetheart deals for their own finances.

And talk about magic bookkeeping, if our politicians were working for private industry, they would all be in prison for breaking the law. There is not one single politician, or committee, including the CBO that will tell the truth.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 8, 2010 10:36 PM
Comment #314787

Darrel Issa this morning gave the perfect reason why you otherwise intelligent and educated Republicans should take what your Party leaders have to say with a grain of salt. Issa has never voted for tax increases before, he said, in an interview on CNBC this morning. Then, when asked about the Obama compromise on taxes, he responded by saying he could support it, followed by saying that he doesn’t like the deficit it creates but, “deficits are caused by spending, NOT JUST TAXES”.

Did you catch that two faced hypocrisy coming from Issa? If not, I will be happy to explain, but, it should be obvious to anyone with a grounding in basic logic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 9, 2010 7:52 AM
Comment #314788

No argument about corruption in government…please remember that ‘Capitalism’ is the base of much of that corruption. Even the corruption in the old Soviet Union, and in China currently, leads back to ‘pure Capitalism’. True Socialists would not be seeking personal wealth.

That is why we need the combination. People who are ambitious enough to prosper, and people who are caring (social) enough to take the edge off the overly ambitious.

Do you honestly believe America is being infiltrated by closet Frenchmen? If 2% of our population owns half our wealth, does it show that Capitalism works for the nation? It only shows that Capitalism works for that 2%. There has to be more to America than five multi-gazillionaires sitting around a poker table playing Texas Hold’em with the wealth of a nation.

King of the Hill is a fun game, but it it always the bully who wins it. America has to mean more to its citizens than than that they have to kow-tow to the biggest bully. That’s what we rebelled against George III for.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 9, 2010 8:04 AM
Comment #314823

The subject of this post was “Boehner Voted to Increase Taxes”. PS threw this BS out and failed to respond to anything that was said. PS is full of BS, because the vote to increase taxes on everyone has fallen into the lap of the liberal democrats. When taxes go up on Jan. 1, it will be the democrats who are to blame.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 9, 2010 7:00 PM
Comment #314826

Taxes will not go up. Taxes will be reinstated. Please remember that current tax levels were on loan for ten years. The ten years is up. Taxes will continue, beginning on the first of the year, at the same rated they were when the time loan was taken out by President Cheney/Bush.

I’ve not been particularly in favor of the half measure first proposed by President Obama. I’ve thought all along the whole thing should just come to an end. The fact is that Cheney/Bush failed America and the American economy by initiating the cuts in the first place. Cutting taxes in a recession, no matter how mild, is not exactly sane, but to leave those cuts while taking on two wars and a Medicare Pharmacy revamp, was totally insane. It is time to shake this mess off and concentrate on doing good works.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 9, 2010 7:12 PM
Comment #314827

PS:

I doubt if Paul has seen anything here that he felt was worth responding to. Every point has been rebutted by someone else, and Paul is likely writing his next thread. The only BS has been provided by…well, never mind.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 9, 2010 7:15 PM
Comment #314828

Do you really think the voters care whether it is a tax increase or a tax reinstatement, when the average will be an extra $50+ to the feds? Obama has enough sense to know this is going to be blamed on the dems and him.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 9, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #314832

“If 2% of our population owns half our wealth, does it show that Capitalism works for the nation?”

Interesting point. Made more significant by the fact that the top 2% have captured a disproportionate share of the nation’s increase in GDP over the past 30 years due to the financialization of our economy. The wealth inequality gap has increased in recent decades reversing a post WWII trend referred to as the “Great Moderation” by economists. The rise of the middle class has been reversed.

The above facts should alarm both conservatives and liberals alike. Unfortunately, the only concern that I see is on the liberal side. Perhaps, that is how it has always been. Over 62 years ago, Harry Truman eloquently expressed the progressive liberal position: “…. vigilance and action are needed not only to protect the people from concentrations of wealth and power, but to keep concentrated wealth and power from destroying itself, and the Nation with it.” Harry Truman, 1948.

Posted by: Rich at December 9, 2010 7:42 PM
Comment #314845

>“…. vigilance and action are needed not only to protect the people from concentrations of wealth and power, but to keep concentrated wealth and power from destroying itself, and the Nation with it.” Harry Truman, 1948.

Rich,

This has been my greatest fear, and the reason I harp on the, “winning has consequences” thing. Not one conservative on this site, or in Congress, or in any conservative leadership position, ever explains what the consequences will be when all the wealth has stagnated at the top. When that happens, and it has trended that way for decades, with no indication it will ever stop on its own, where will the rest of Americans stand in the scheme of things…conservatives have shown time and time again their abhorrence of paying taxes, so what happens to our infrastructure, our life protection system, the purity of our food and water supply…well you get the picture, and it ain’t a pretty picture either. This year is the first one in my life that I celebrate being old.

Speaking of old…Bill, that comment in 314831 was way over the top, even for someone from the dark side. It pretty much calls for an apology.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 10, 2010 6:50 AM
Comment #314849

Marysdude,

It is not just a future problem (excessive concentration of wealth). If people would only step back and take a look at the big picture over the past few years, they might become more concerned. We have just spent enormous sums of public treasury bailing out Wall Street and their investors. They are now whole and making a profit again. But, what have we done for main street? The contrast is telling. Unemployment benefits are hostage to tax cuts for the rich.

Posted by: Rich at December 10, 2010 9:11 AM
Comment #314854

Rich,

And, there seems to be a blindness toward the size of government and taxation. Apparently the only way the right can stay in office is to scare the American citizenry into believing ‘government’ is the enemy of the people (especially what they call ‘big’ government), and that taxation is an evil practice.

Even idiots have to know the size of government has little to do with anything, only the efficiency of government counts, and even morons know that taxes are absolutely necessary in order for us to have even a halfway complete existence. I’ve really lost a lot of faith in the ability of American people to ‘think’. They hear rants from the Beck’s, Limbaugh’s and Boehner’s of the world, and their reasoning powers shrink to gnat’s arse size.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 10, 2010 2:14 PM
Comment #314856

dude, no one is arguing that taxes are not necessary for government. I would argue however that our governments, federal and some states, are bloated and inefficient. With trillions in deficit it is time to reduce spending where we can. It the same old battle over spending and revenue.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 10, 2010 2:36 PM
Comment #314859

Anonymous donors spent $132M on 2010 campaign ads

I know its off subject but important info.

Posted by: JOHN IN NAPA at December 10, 2010 3:10 PM
Comment #314861

RF said: “I would argue however that our governments, federal and some states, are bloated and inefficient.”

On that, we would agree entirely, and there is ample empirical evidence to support the veracity of that statement.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 10, 2010 3:23 PM
Comment #314862

JIN,

Alito said the President was wrong…perhaps he’ll end up eating those words, “that’s not true”…nah, he’ll never admit his culpability.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 10, 2010 3:25 PM
Comment #314863

ConservativeThinker, do you really believe the American people don’t care if billionaire’s get tax cuts as well putting another 700 BILLION dollar hole in the debt? The polls would disagree with you, if you do believe that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 10, 2010 3:26 PM
Comment #314865

Most Voters Favor the Tax Cut Deal
Thursday, December 09, 2010

“Most voters like the tax cut deal President Obama made with congressional Republicans.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the agreement that extends the Bush tax cuts for all Americans for two more years, cuts the Social Security payroll tax rate for one year and renews long-term unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months. Just 29% oppose the deal, but 15% are not sure about it. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters say the agreement will be good for the economy while just 28% disagree and think it will be bad for the economy. Nine percent (9%) say it will have no impact, and 14% more are not sure.

Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans and 51% of unaffiliated voters favor the tax cut agreement. A plurality of Democrats (48%) share that view but 38% of those in the president’s party are opposed.

Political liberals are evenly divided—43% favor the deal and 41% are opposed.”

That’s 56% favor tax cuts for ALL americans…

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 10, 2010 3:45 PM
Comment #314866

Here’s someone Republicans, moderates, and conservative might consider for president…

“Inheriting a $600 million deficit, Daniels transformed it into a $370 million surplus within one year, without raising taxes. “You’d be amazed how much government you’ll never miss,” he grins. Six years on, Indiana now enjoys a AAA bond rating, boasts the fewest state workers per capita in the nation, enjoys the third-highest private-sector job growth in the nation, has seen property taxes drop by an average of 30 percent, and was ranked first in the Midwest for business climate by the Tax Foundation. Daniels was named Public Official of the Year in 2008 by Governing magazine.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2010/12/10/the_daniels_dilemma/page/1

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 10, 2010 3:48 PM
Comment #314873

>Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey

I’m pretty sure they phone bank at Rasmussen merely called each other around the office, and wrote down numbers to suit their agenda.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 10, 2010 4:37 PM
Comment #314874

RF,

Mitt Romney did better here in Mass.

He had a $3 billion defict and he turned it into a half billion dollar surplus.

He’s the only GOP candidate that I can see beating Obama in 2012.

Posted by: Warped Reality at December 10, 2010 4:50 PM
Comment #314876

Marysdude, Rasmussen didn’t ask the pertinent question: “Do you favor allowing the tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire?”

To that question, there is a huge majority in favor. Conservative Thinker doesn’t understand polling and how to critically evaluate the push questions, designed to push the result in a certain direction.

Bloomberg:

“The survey, conducted before, during and after the tax negotiations, shows that only a third of Americans support keeping the lower rates for the highest earners. Even among backers of the cuts for the wealthy, fewer than half say they should be made permanent.”

The truth can’t be told if the right questions are not asked in the polling.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 10, 2010 5:38 PM
Comment #314877

Here’s another one that asks the right question, Gallup:

Only Thirty-seven percent of those polled by Gallup want to keep all the tax cuts in place, meaning tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 10, 2010 5:43 PM
Comment #314880

DRR,

Yeah, it has become obvious the Con will take any piece of misinformation and use it like a club. He will retell any proven lie as if it is the purest truth…hmmm…sounds like any modern-day Tea Person. There has been several quite logical and factual posts on this thread, and he stays away from them as if they were poison.

By-the-by, this is off thread, but Hitchens has a Vanity Fair item that is very interesting. Isn’t Hitch a Republican?

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/01/hitchens-201101

Posted by: Marysdude at December 10, 2010 6:21 PM
Comment #314881

Warped,

Mary says if I die she wants to marry you. She’s the household Republican, and Mitt is her choice. He’s attached his voice to some of the Tea Party crap though, so I don’t see him flying into the Oval Office. That stuff will come back to bite him because the TP’s are bound to fall out of favor soon. They can’t keep up the weirdness, even in America, for much longer.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 10, 2010 6:26 PM
Comment #314882

WR, I like Romney and wish he had taken the nominaton in 08, but he didn’t. Instead, we had that loon McCain. He ran one of the worst campaigns I have ever wittnessed.

I believe the time is past for Mitt and I think the time may be right for Daniels. He is a conservative on fiscal policy, is a sitting governor and had huge numbers in the last election. I haven’t done any study on him and wonder what the negatives might be. I am sure I won’t have long to wait as the dems on WB will be quick to point out their perceived flaws on him.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 10, 2010 6:33 PM
Comment #314883

Thank you Mr. Remer for not calling me ignorant; as you normally answer people. This time you just said that I don’t understand polling or know how to “critically evaluate”, but you know what I do know? I know how to use an up-to-date poll. Your Gallop poll is dated over 3 months ago. Let me give you an up-to-date Gallop Poll:

“There is at least one exception to the finding that Americans tilt toward an option that taxes be increased on the wealthy. A Nov. 11-15 NBC News/The Wall Street Journal survey gave respondents four choices, including eliminating all tax cuts permanently, eliminating tax cuts just for those making more than $250,000, keeping the tax cuts for all for another “year to three years,” or keeping the tax cuts in place for all permanently. The results showed that 46% chose one of the two alternatives involving keeping the tax cuts for everyone — either for one to three years or permanently. A lower percentage, 39%, chose the alternative to eliminate the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000. (Only 10% opted to let the tax cuts expire altogether.) One issue with this question is that the $250,000+ alternative did not include a time frame. Each of the other three alternatives read to respondents did — either “permanently” or “another year to three years.” This could have made the $250,000 alternative less attractive.

At any rate, it appears that the alternative of keeping tax cuts for most, but not for the wealthy, is in many polls at least slightly more attractive than keeping them in place for all. (Many of these polls, however, don’t specify whether the options would be permanent or temporary, which clouds the interpretation somewhat).

At current time, however, those choices are not the options on the table. The specific proposition agreed to tentatively by Obama and Republican leaders is for an agreement that would extend all tax cuts for another two years. We tested just this proposition over the weekend. Our Gallup question asked in referendum style if the respondent would vote for or against a law that would “extend the federal income tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 for all Americans for two years.” We found 66% would vote for this proposition, while 29% would vote against.”

Mr. Remer, YAB, I sure a man with your intellect and understanding of all things, would also understand that the political landscape can change quite a bit in 3 months.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 10, 2010 6:34 PM
Comment #314937

Well, it’s been 22 hours and no response. THE LEFT HATES TO BE PROVEN WRONG.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 11, 2010 3:56 PM
Comment #314939

Ct, sometimes it just isn’t worth the effort to give credence to idiocy, via a response.

Posted by: jane doe at December 11, 2010 4:40 PM
Comment #314941

The 2002 version of Mitt Romney when he ran for governor was very good. If he won the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination, I’d be awfully tempted to vote for him. He did an excellent job in Massachusetts and did much to clean up the mess left by the previous GOP administration of Jane Swift. In 2008 campaign he changed his social issues positions to the conservative side, which I found distasteful. I hope he doesn’t do that again; it would be foolish for him to expect socially conservative Republicans to vote for someone from the LDS church. He should’ve relied on his strong fiscal credentials to carry him to victory.

Posted by: Warped Reality at December 11, 2010 5:34 PM
Comment #314945

Warped Reality,

You may be correct about Romney’s fiscal management. However, it should be remembered that he came into office in Massachusetts at the time that the economy was emerging from a recession (2003) and left at the height of the economic boom fueled by the housing and mortgage bubble (2007). Many states had similar miraculous recoveries from deficit to surplus status during that period. Since that period, Mass. has struggled with increasing budget problems resulting not only from the general severe recession but also from the universal health care system that Romney championed.

Posted by: Rich at December 11, 2010 6:43 PM
Comment #314947
Well, it’s been 22 hours and no response. THE LEFT HATES TO BE PROVEN WRONG. Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 11, 2010 03:56 PM

Just writing for something with meat to it. Blather doesn’t count. Proof of WHAT?

You provided some unemployment info earlier in the thread, and I countered. You came back eight hours later with…

Can someone tell me why everyone wants to live in America? While you’re at it, explain to me why the poorest in America live better than the poorest in most of the world? I would say capitalism has been very good to America.

If you can’t handle even one rebuttal, I’d say answering you again would be a terrible waste of time and energy.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 11, 2010 7:17 PM
Comment #315303

It’s funny that many conservatives always talk about going back to the 50’S. They say that times were good then for most people, and that many could afford living on one income and enjoy a nice retirement. Well guess what? The tax rate on upper incomes from 1950-1963 was 90%. I repeat 90%.

I also wonder why every republican on this site would give up one of their testis to make sure that people making a hell of a lot of money get a tax break. Maybe I’m hanging around the wrong crowd, but I don’t personally know one single person that is making more than $300,000 a year. I mean do all of you guys have best friends making that much money each year? Are most of your friends just flat out rich? Of course you will argue that it is a matter of principal that someone making more money should not have to pay more in taxes. My question to you is why not? To put it another way, are you willing to cover the cost so that all of these rich people that you know can save even more and continue to widen the gap between them and all of us?

For Crissakes quit puttin on airs, realize that you will never be rich, and join the fight with the rest of us. (By the way I mean 95% of us).

PS-The argument that people never get a job from poor person is so weak. Does that mean that because the wealthy are the ones that hire that we should give them anything they want? Doesn’t sound like a tough guy republican argument to me. For crying out loud we (middle and lower classes) are the majority and republicans (many of whom are also middle class) act as if they have to do whatever the the wealthy say. What a bunch of wussies.


1950 84.36% 400,000
1951 91% 400,000
1952 92 % 400,000
1953 92 % 400,000
1954 91 % 400,000
1955 91 % 400,000
1956 91 % 400,000
1957 91 % 400,000
1958 91 % 400,000
1959 91 % 400,000

Posted by: Jason at December 16, 2010 12:23 AM
Comment #348991

ZY-One of the favorite nike shoes among the women that nike running shoes fashion, style, comfort and cheap nike shoes is the Winter Hi 3. These shoes are styled as the cheap nike shoes boots which have nylon uppers, nike mens shoes lacing. These shoes will complement the jeans nike basketball shoes are available in six colors for the women nike shoes sale select from according to girls nike shoes preferences. The Nike Winter nike shoes for men come with faux fur collars and pom-poms and are nike running shoes to glam up every day http://www.nikeshoes-outlet.biz/ .

Posted by: cheap nike shoes at July 20, 2012 10:32 PM
Post a comment