Well done subby, making me think it was tax cuts for the wealthy. But really, no, it was what he has been in favor of all along, a Payroll Tax Cut.

Fark should really get a tag for Old News. Something like this but smaller?

Yes, if it's Fox News, it must be true.

Jackson Herring: Typical tax and spend socialist marxist Lieberal.

If I were muck4doo, I'd have a tough time attacking you for saying that. But if I were him, I'd try.

DAMN YOU TAXBAMA!!! Next you'll be threatening to jack up job creators' taxrs by -1.5%!!!! COMMUNIST!

Just wait, thanks to the Super Committee's failure there is a whole load of stuff that Obama expected would get addressed that is left on the table.

Medicare reimbursement and unemployment insurance are just two of the other issues still that needs to be dealt with before the end of the year.

Moreover, this Congress is in session for an entire year more, just WAIT till bills extending the Bush Tax Cuts and repealing the mandatory Pentagon sequester start hitting the floor.

Wow, those comments make my head hurt. This tax cut is bad for America because it increases debt but the tax cuts for the rich are good for America because they do not increase debt....I don't get it. How can people by that stupid?

there their theyre: Wow, those comments make my head hurt. This tax cut is bad for America because it increases debt but the tax cuts for the rich are good for America because they do not increase debt....I don't get it. How can people by be that stupid Republican?

ftfy

We will need to let all the "temporary" tax cuts expire. Partially because we need the money, and partially because Congress can't agree on the time of day.

there their theyre: .I don't get it. How can people by that stupid?

Why young man -- there IS an answer!

there their theyre: Wow, those comments make my head hurt. This tax cut is bad for America because it increases debt but the tax cuts for the rich are good for America because they do not increase debt....I don't get it. How can people by that stupid?

You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villany.

If there's anything that loon from the NRA told me, it's that Obama's actions of not letting tax cuts expire ONLY PROVES he will tax us all at 100%.

VideSupra: Moreover, this Congress is in session for an entire year more, just WAIT till bills extending the Bush Tax Cuts and repealing the mandatory Pentagon sequester start hitting the floor.

Obama has promised to veto any attempts at undoing the sequestration.

If the House GOP is smart crafty, they'll put shiat like the UI/payroll tax cut extensions in a package with the defense sequestration undoing. Get Obama into a corner for once.

I fear they may try this, though, and pay for it by zeroing out winter fuel and school lunches or something.

But then, part of me hope the House Democrats do something like that in committee.

Other good thing about letting all the temporary tax cuts expire is that everyone can claim to win.

Democrats can bemoan the expiration of "much needed relief for the working man during a difficult time" but take pride in getting rid of "Bush tax cuts for the rich".

Republicans can bemoan the "massive tax hikes on job creators" but take pride in a reduction of "government handouts to people who aren't paying their fair share".

And we'll go back to a slightly less gerrymandered tax code. It's a win all around.

Just shows you the all around hypocrisy. Both sides will tell you that tax cuts grow the economy, as long as they're just the right kind. They both got the tax cuts they want, and the economy still sucks, and all we have to show for it is debt.

I'd like BOTH the Bush Tax Cuts AND Obama's Payroll Tax Holiday to go away for good.

Time to restore sound fiscal policy and simple tax policy.

I've seen AI bots that are more comprehensible than FoxNews.com commenters.

Let them expire or make them permanent. Temp cuts give incentive to make as much profit as possible until they are no longer temporary. So no incentive to hire, or expand as long as temporary cuts are in effect.

GentDirkly: Just shows you the all around hypocrisy. Both sides will tell you that tax cuts grow the economy, as long as they're just the right kind. They both got the tax cuts they want, and the economy still sucks, and all we have to show for it is debt.

I'd like BOTH the Bush Tax Cuts AND Obama's Payroll Tax Holiday to go away for good.

Time to restore sound fiscal policy and simple tax policy.

I agree. Stop electing Republicans to office, and we won't have to concern ourselves with some social conservative insisting on either series of tax cuts.

MrEricSir: I've seen AI bots that are more comprehensible than FoxNews.com commenters.

What's the opposite of a Turing test? Where you seek to determine that a person doesn't have even machine-level intelligence? What do you call that?

Obama passed one of the biggest tax cuts in history in the Stimulus and all Republicans were against it.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: MrEricSir: I've seen AI bots that are more comprehensible than FoxNews.com commenters.

What's the opposite of a Turing test? Where you seek to determine that a person doesn't have even machine-level intelligence? What do you call that?

AM radio?

All taxes are not created equally

I can't believe he wants to help the vast majority of the country with his tax cuts instead of just the top 5%. What a socialist.

Socialist!

It baffles my mind that so many low/middle-class Republicans are too stupid to see that the format of all negotiations between D's and R's are the D's fighting to try to keep something that benefits the middle class, and the R's fighting like hell to get rid of it, and threatening to do even more unless they get some tax breaks for the wealthy.

In this example: Obama wants to keep a payroll tax break that benefits the middle class. The GOP reaction is that this will increase the deficit so we'll have to axe something like the Dept of Ed or Unemployment Ins (things that benefit the middle class) to pay for it, but definitely not the Dept of Defense (something that benefits the wealthy because let's face it, nobody is attacking joe shmoe's oil interests half way around the world).

However when it comes to keeping huge tax breaks that benefit the wealthy, the Repubs don't have any problem at all with that. In fact they want to lower the top tax rate to 25%, which will cause HUGE deficits.

So their position is that tax breaks definitely do not increase the deficit, unless they go to someone making under $200k per year.

IF YOU DO NOT MAKE >= $200,000 PER YEAR, THE GOP IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE DUMBASSES!!!

spiderpaz: so we'll have to axe something like the Dept of Ed or Unemployment

Like they really need an excuse for getting rid of either...

there their theyre: Wow, those comments make my head hurt. This tax cut is bad for America because it increases debt but the tax cuts for the rich are good for America because they do not increase debt....I don't get it. How can people by that stupid?

Since it doesn't look like we're going anywhere... Well, we are going somewhere. Alarmingly fast, actually. But since we're not busy other than that, here's a couple of facts. He's not just a regular moron. He's the product of the greatest minds of a generation working together with the express purpose of building the dumbest moron who ever lived.

whidbey: spiderpaz: so we'll have to axe something like the Dept of Ed or Unemployment

Like they really need an excuse for getting rid of either...

Their decision making process is simple when confronted with an issue:

1) Will this benefit the wealthy robber barons that fund my campaigns in proportion to what it will cost them in taxes to a greater or lesser degree than it will to the average American?
2) If greater, then I'm for, otherwise I'm against it because it dirty commie pinko socialism.

It's THIS SIMPLE.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: What's the opposite of a Turing test? Where you seek to determine that a person doesn't have even machine-level intelligence? What do you call that?

There's medical tests for developmental mental disabilities that would fit this description.

The argument is that if you give $1M to a rich person, they turn around and re-invest that money in the form of jobs and industry.

Trouble is, it assumes that capitalism is a charity, and the rich will always "trickle-down" the wealth at something approaching ideal efficiency.

It's never that simple.

Granted, an absolute socialist model is no better. But folks trusting the rich will re-invest any and all savings to increase production of widgets that nobody has the money to buy is one of the greatest mass delusions of our current economic times. It's economic faith-healing. Like some kind of mass cult of CEO personality. Which is amusing, because it's actually the opposite of what their self-interests dictate they should do right now: hoard money, de-leverage, and wait it out. (Which we're seeing them do in record numbers).

Given rational self-interest is the entire guiding philosophy, it's a near perfect contradiction with this faith-based "give them more and the spice will flow" argument.

And it's not just me saying that: it's a huge chunk of conservative economists who have now been exiled as RINOs as well.

GentDirkly: Both sides will tell you that tax cuts grow the economy, as long as they're just the right kind.

Both sides can be wrong. Only one side can be right. Guess which class of people would spend their tax cut, and which would sit on it, and then think about which would grow an economy.

Further, the argument from dems isn't merely that cutting taxes is good on some grand scheme viewpoint, its that there are people, poor and middle class, who are hurting right now and could see real benefit from an extra grand in their pocket. Republicans are arguing that millionaires and billionaires are treated unfairly and we should raise taxes on the poor in order to give them more.

We've seen thirty years of tax cuts on the rich fail to slingshot the economy into overdrive, at least those of us with our eyes open.

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: MrEricSir: I've seen AI bots that are more comprehensible than FoxNews.com commenters.

What's the opposite of a Turing test? Where you seek to determine that a person doesn't have even machine-level intelligence? What do you call that?

Voting for the GOP?

spiderpaz: It baffles my mind that so many low/middle-class Republicans are too stupid to see that the format of all negotiations between D's and R's are the D's fighting to try to keep something that benefits the middle class, and the R's fighting like hell to get rid of it, and threatening to do even more unless they get some tax breaks for the wealthy.

In this example: Obama wants to keep a payroll tax break that benefits the middle class. The GOP reaction is that this will increase the deficit so we'll have to axe something like the Dept of Ed or Unemployment Ins (things that benefit the middle class) to pay for it, but definitely not the Dept of Defense (something that benefits the wealthy because let's face it, nobody is attacking joe shmoe's oil interests half way around the world).

However when it comes to keeping huge tax breaks that benefit the wealthy, the Repubs don't have any problem at all with that. In fact they want to lower the top tax rate to 25%, which will cause HUGE deficits.

So their position is that tax breaks definitely do not increase the deficit, unless they go to someone making under $200k per year.

IF YOU DO NOT MAKE >= $200,000 PER YEAR, THE GOP IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE DUMBASSES!!!

Tired Argument. People are mostly patriotic and they vote for what they think will work for the whole country, not just them. Now they could be wrong in what they think will work. But they won't just vote for you because you'll give them theirs. You have to convince most people that you're going to help their neighbors and the rest of the country too.

GentDirkly: People are mostly patriotic and they vote for what they think will work for the whole country, not just them.


No sitting republican will vote for a tax increase on themselves.

ftfa
Carney on Tuesday also criticized Romney for a separate TV ad now running in New Hampshire. The ad includes a clip from the 2008 campaign in which Obama said, "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." However, Obama was quoting somebody from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign -- something Romney's campaign acknowledged in its release on the ad.


farking shameful.

Smackledorfer: GentDirkly: Both sides will tell you that tax cuts grow the economy, as long as they're just the right kind.

Both sides can be wrong. Only one side can be right. Guess which class of people would spend their tax cut, and which would sit on it, and then think about which would grow an economy.

Further, the argument from dems isn't merely that cutting taxes is good on some grand scheme viewpoint, its that there are people, poor and middle class, who are hurting right now and could see real benefit from an extra grand in their pocket. Republicans are arguing that millionaires and billionaires are treated unfairly and we should raise taxes on the poor in order to give them more.

We've seen thirty years of tax cuts on the rich fail to slingshot the economy into overdrive, at least those of us with our eyes open.

Putting more money in the hands of the poor does guarantee that they spend it, yes. However the results of their extra spending could be real economic growth OR inflation. I don't know enough about it to speculate which will happen, but I do know that if inflation eats all the new money, you basically have more debt and no gain in quality of life for anyone.

fracto73: GentDirkly: People are mostly patriotic and they vote for what they think will work for the whole country, not just them.


No sitting republican will vote for a tax increase on themselves.

So what you're saying is sitting Republicans don't pay payroll taxes? Interesting. Did not know that.

whidbey


Yes, if it's Fox News, it must be true.

So
A) you claim FOX made it up.
B) you claim zero didn't make those statements.
C) you are just derping your way through all the open threads.

/// it's always C

GentDirkly: fracto73: GentDirkly: People are mostly patriotic and they vote for what they think will work for the whole country, not just them.


No sitting republican will vote for a tax increase on themselves.

So what you're saying is sitting Republicans don't pay payroll taxes? Interesting. Did not know that.

No he's saying that payroll taxes are not progressive so cutting them benefits the middle class more than it does rich people. Income taxes however are progressive so cutting them benefits rich people more than it benefits the middle class.

Don't be intentionally obtuse to avoid the obvious point.

OnlyM3: whidbey


Yes, if it's Fox News, it must be true.
So
A) you claim FOX made it up.
B) you claim zero didn't make those statements.
C) you are just derping your way through all the open threads.

/// it's always C

No, it's definitely D:

D, I, OnlyM3 am shamelessly defending Rupert Murdoch's worthless yellow journalism hackery and projecting my ignorance and shortcomings on anyone who dares to think otherwise

OnlyM3: zero

*chug*

A Dark Evil Omen: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: MrEricSir: I've seen AI bots that are more comprehensible than FoxNews.com commenters.

What's the opposite of a Turing test? Where you seek to determine that a person doesn't have even machine-level intelligence? What do you call that?

AM radio?

The real irony is how unironic this is.

spiderpaz: GentDirkly: fracto73: GentDirkly: People are mostly patriotic and they vote for what they think will work for the whole country, not just them.


No sitting republican will vote for a tax increase on themselves.

So what you're saying is sitting Republicans don't pay payroll taxes? Interesting. Did not know that.

No he's saying that payroll taxes are not progressive so cutting them benefits the middle class more than it does rich people. Income taxes however are progressive so cutting them benefits rich people more than it benefits the middle class.

Don't be intentionally obtuse to avoid the obvious point.


At least someone got the point.

GentDirkly: fracto73: GentDirkly: People are mostly patriotic and they vote for what they think will work for the whole country, not just them.


No sitting republican will vote for a tax increase on themselves.

So what you're saying is sitting Republicans don't pay payroll taxes? Interesting. Did not know that.


But those things are coupled with making the bush tax cuts permanent and even more tax cuts on top of that, which would surely overshadow the slight increase in payroll tax. Their taxes, taken as a whole, wouldn't go up.