Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Jul '12 22:01
    I think McConnell's mouth a couple of weeks ago got him into this jam. But it was a simple majority vote in the Senate. Remember those days?!

    Anyway, I don't know if it was a game of chess or poker, but Reid certainly outplayed McConnell here. McConnell punted to Boehner, who is probably cursing him right about now (and cursing Norquist).

    Will Grover grant special dispensation to allow the Republicans to increase taxes, like he did with the payroll tax? Either way, if the Republicans use the technicality (tax bills have to originate in the House), it will be the major subject of Democratic ads from here to November. And if the Republicans allow the vote, and pass the tax cut extension, then the Democrats have just simultaneously kept money in consumers' hands and lowered the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.

    Anyway, the Democrats actually managed to DO something. Pinch me!

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/senate-dems-jam-house-republicans-pass-bush-tax-cut-extension-for-middle-class.php?ref=fpa
  2. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    26 Jul '12 00:25
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I think McConnell's mouth a couple of weeks ago got him into this jam. But it was a simple majority vote in the Senate. Remember those days?!

    Anyway, I don't know if it was a game of chess or poker, but Reid certainly outplayed McConnell here. McConnell punted to Boehner, who is probably cursing him right about now (and cursing Norquist).

    Will Grover ...[text shortened]... 07/senate-dems-jam-house-republicans-pass-bush-tax-cut-extension-for-middle-class.php?ref=fpa
    I wouldn't be so quick to enthuse.

    Who's to say that this vote won't be a (major) factor in helping the GOP reclaim the Senate in November?

    I think McConnell was willing to concede the battle to gain ground in the war.
  3. 26 Jul '12 00:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    I wouldn't be so quick to enthuse.

    Who's to say that this vote won't be a (major) factor in helping the GOP reclaim the Senate in November?

    I think McConnell was willing to concede the battle to gain ground in the war.
    Well, how would that play out? Right now there is a bill, passed in the Senate, which if passed in the House will extend the tax cuts for 98 percent of the population. Actually, it will extend tax cuts for everyone. It just knocks a trillion out of the top tier, which will still benefit from a very extensive tax cut. How can that bill hurt the Democrats? It will be the Republicans killing a tax cut.

    The point is that the bill will keep taxes lower. The Republicans have to kill it either through procedure or a vote. Norquist will have to grant special dispensation like he did for the payroll tax, but voters are only going to buy that crap for so long.

    It would have been one thing if the bill had not passed. Republicans had previously been successful in avoiding the stigma as hostage takers to muscle teh extension to keep the trillion in mega-rich hands. But we have an actually existing Senate-passed bill. All Boehner has to do is let it come to a vote in the House and we all maintain tax cuts.

    McConnell is probably sorry he shot off his mouth a couple of weeks ago, and Reid called his bluff while leaning on the weenies in his own party. The Republicans left the building looking pretty glum, and many of them are refusing interviews tonight. McConnell's game playing backfired, and it's left them in a pretty tight spot.
  4. 26 Jul '12 00:50
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I think McConnell's mouth a couple of weeks ago got him into this jam. But it was a simple majority vote in the Senate. Remember those days?!

    Anyway, I don't know if it was a game of chess or poker, but Reid certainly outplayed McConnell here. McConnell punted to Boehner, who is probably cursing him right about now (and cursing Norquist).

    Will Grover ...[text shortened]... 07/senate-dems-jam-house-republicans-pass-bush-tax-cut-extension-for-middle-class.php?ref=fpa
    Harry Reid is a corrupt little man. He used to be in favor of an audit of the fed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXOsZ7Ad7dM&feature=player_embedded

    Now he wants to kill it before a vote in the senate.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-audit-fed-bill-passes-house-185936757.html
  5. 26 Jul '12 01:15
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    And if the Republicans allow the vote, and pass the tax cut extension, then the Democrats have just simultaneously kept money in consumers' hands and lowered the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.

    [/b]
    Lower the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars? No one cares about the deficit. That is sooo yesterday.

    Personally, I'm ready for another stimulus, how bout you?
  6. 26 Jul '12 05:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    Lower the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars? No one cares about the deficit. That is sooo yesterday.

    Personally, I'm ready for another stimulus, how bout you?
    If the law stands, it could actually have a stimulative effect. Right now the richest are sitting on about 3 trillion dollars, complaining that people aren't buying anything so that's why they're not investing.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/cash-hoarding-companies-spend-lend-economy_n_1666424.html

    http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/396159_335268306559247_1322854439_n.jpg
  7. 26 Jul '12 05:58
    Haven't been watching how the media covered it tonight. I'll be curious to see how they frame it.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '12 17:20 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I think McConnell's mouth a couple of weeks ago got him into this jam. But it was a simple majority vote in the Senate. Remember those days?!

    Anyway, I don't know if it was a game of chess or poker, but Reid certainly outplayed McConnell here. McConnell punted to Boehner, who is probably cursing him right about now (and cursing Norquist).

    Will Grover 07/senate-dems-jam-house-republicans-pass-bush-tax-cut-extension-for-middle-class.php?ref=fpa
    What they did was to accept the Republican argument that taxes were too high during the Clinton administration for 98% of taxpayers. In 2001, the vast majority of Democrats in the Congress voted against the Bush tax cuts as fiscally irresponsible and unnecessary (which they were). Now they are retroactively endorsing them at a time the country has the lowest percentage of income being paid as tax since 1950 and also, by some amazing coincidence, the highest budget deficit ever. Good politics or not, its terrible governance.

    Fun fact according to wiki: The Heritage Foundation predicted the [Bush tax] cuts would result in the complete elimination of the U.S. national debt by fiscal year 2010.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

    Here's the Heritage article in full: http://origin.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/04/the-economic-impact-of-president-bushs-tax-relief-plan

    It's quite amusing.
  9. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    26 Jul '12 18:15
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I'll be curious to see how they frame it.
    Probably something like this:

    Democrats just tried to ensure our slide back into recession by raising taxes on small businesses during a terrible economy, even though a) the projected increase in revenues will probably not materialize and b) even if the revenues do materialize it will be a drop in the bucket compared to the size of our fiscal problems.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '12 18:32
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Probably something like this:

    Democrats just tried to ensure our slide back into recession by raising taxes on small businesses during a terrible economy, even though a) the projected increase in revenues will probably not materialize and b) even if the revenues do materialize it will be a drop in the bucket compared to the size of our fiscal problems.
    All those small businesses that are sole proprietorships and net over $250,000 profit per year?

    Don't think those are big job creators.
  11. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    26 Jul '12 18:55 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    All those small businesses that are sole proprietorships and net over $250,000 profit per year?

    Don't think those are big job creators.
    He asked how the media would frame it.
  12. 26 Jul '12 19:08
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    If the law stands, it could actually have a stimulative effect. Right now the richest are sitting on about 3 trillion dollars, complaining that people aren't buying anything so that's why they're not investing.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/cash-hoarding-companies-spend-lend-economy_n_1666424.html

    http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/396159_335268306559247_1322854439_n.jpg
    Whatever the richest are "sitting on", they are doing so on the basis of uncertainty, and open hostility of the present administration.

    Really rich people don't have to invest or earn to maintain their lifestyle. If risk is likely to be a loser, they are content to wait out this administration for another.
  13. 26 Jul '12 19:12
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    All those small businesses that are sole proprietorships and net over $250,000 profit per year?

    Don't think those are big job creators.
    Just what is the percentage of small businesses that are sole proprietors and net over $250,000 per year.

    Is it criminal, or immoral to earn that much without hiring (AKA taking advantage of the poor)?
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '12 19:17
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Just what is the percentage of small businesses that are sole proprietors and net over $250,000 per year.

    Is it criminal, or immoral to earn that much without hiring (AKA taking advantage of the poor)?
    I looked it up before and it was an infinitesimal percentage. I'll try to find it again.

    It is neither criminal nor immoral to make that much without hiring. It is neither criminal or immoral for government to tax higher incomes at a higher rate either.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Jul '12 19:32
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Just what is the percentage of small businesses that are sole proprietors and net over $250,000 per year.

    Is it criminal, or immoral to earn that much without hiring (AKA taking advantage of the poor)?
    Figures from 2008:

    The actual number of business owners who would be affected turns out to be well under a million, and the number of employers would be even less. Based on the number of taxpayers who now report any sort of business income on their returns, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,608 taxpayers with business income, or business losses, will fall into the top two tax brackets in 2009, when any Obama tax changes would first take effect. Not all of those can properly be called "small-business owners," however. Some are farmers. Many are lawyers, accountants or other professionals who get some of their income in the form of partnership distributions. Others may be passive investors in real-estate partnerships or similar investment arrangements and not really persons who own and manage a business.

    It is also not clear how many who report business income actually employ any workers. In 2004, the Tax Policy Center found that hundreds of thousands of individual taxpayers who had business income from partnerships or subchapter-S corporations (whose owners pay taxes as individuals) did not claim any tax deductions for employee expenses. For all these reasons we judge that the actual number of small-business employers who would face higher tax rates under Obama is probably far below 663,608, and certainly a far cry from McCain’s ridiculously inflated 23 million figure.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/mccains-small-business-bunk/