- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194025
25 Jul 12
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
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by KunsooI wouldn't be so quick to enthuse.
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
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.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194025
26 Jul 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaWell, 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.
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.
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.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by KunsooHarry Reid is a corrupt little man. He used to be in favor of an audit of the fed.
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
&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
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by KunsooLower the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars? No one cares about the deficit. That is sooo yesterday.
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]
Personally, I'm ready for another stimulus, how bout you?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194025
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by whodeyIf 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.
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?
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
26 Jul 12
2 edits
Originally posted by KunsooWhat 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.
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
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.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by KunsooProbably something like this:
I'll be curious to see how they frame it.
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.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by SleepyguyAll those small businesses that are sole proprietorships and net over $250,000 profit per year?
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.
Don't think those are big job creators.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by KunsooWhatever the richest are "sitting on", they are doing so on the basis of uncertainty, and open hostility of the present administration.
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
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.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by no1marauderJust what is the percentage of small businesses that are sole proprietors and net over $250,000 per year.
All those small businesses that are sole proprietorships and net over $250,000 profit per year?
Don't think those are big job creators.
Is it criminal, or immoral to earn that much without hiring (AKA taking advantage of the poor)?
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by normbenignI looked it up before and it was an infinitesimal percentage. I'll try to find it again.
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)?
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.
26 Jul 12
Originally posted by normbenignFigures from 2008:
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)?
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/