If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   The Senate has passed a tax cut extension for all but the wealthiest Americans, so you may want to put a hold on that new dressage horse you ordered   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 150
    More: Spiffy, Senate, Americans, defining issue, tax cuts, Mitch McConnell  
•       •       •

2124 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jul 2012 at 8:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-26 09:03:55 AM

danvon: FTFA: Republicans say raising taxes on higher earners saps money from business owners who would otherwise create jobs.

And this assertion can clearly shown to be true by what empirical evidence?



Evidence? You obviously aren't familiar with the Republican philosophy about facts.
 
2012-07-26 09:04:01 AM

trivial use of my dark powers: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 720x511]

That is from the apocrypha of the Gospel of Reagan and is no longer considered to be official doctrine.


Reagan is pretty full of shiat, anyway. Besides, most of the short bus crowd could barely understand what he was talking about.

Most of the short bus riding tea tards read about their ideology from a coloring book. Explain to me how I'm wrong.
 
2012-07-26 09:04:04 AM

FooDog: NateGrey: Obama said if both sides agree on the under 250 then just pass it, and work on the over 250 separately.

NO! It has to be all or nothing because of... socialism!


No actually it has to be all or nothing because we know Democrats.

'Just do what we want now and we'll do what you want later, promise... Okay... We mean it this time, I know we said that the last 50 times we lied, but THIS time... we mean it.!'
 
2012-07-26 09:04:30 AM

trivial use of my dark powers: aug3: i've worked for quite a few small business folks and none of them make anywhere near $200,000.00 a year. In a good year most are able to pull in around 60k to 80k a year for themselves.

Well, then they're shiatty business people as per the GOP. Perhaps they still have souls? Ridding themselves of that pesky thing might help.


Or hearts. They could rip them out and throw them down a deep pit, until some wandering adventurer finds them amid the Faceless Ones..

/not obscure
 
2012-07-26 09:04:48 AM

Dahnkster: Normally at this time I would post a scintillating photo of a bridled large-breasted woman prancing with with a ponytail-shaped butt plug protruding from her perfectly shaped arse. Since I promised mods I'd behave, I'm gonna refrain from that and continue to guard my HTML privileges like a omnipotent billionaire protecting his turtle-faced Senate minority leader.


Well played!
 
2012-07-26 09:06:19 AM
Yep. Let's raise the taxes on small business and farmers who pay taxes ant the personal tax rate and see how that works out biatches.
 
2012-07-26 09:06:27 AM

dr_blasto: RobertBruce: Meanwhile, the Senate rejected a GOP amendment to extend the cuts to all taxpayers.

And yet it's somehow the GOP that is obstructionist. Democrats only fight for how much they can take from you.

Everyone gets to keep the current tax cuts on the first 250k of their income. Now, because the Republican-led Congress is full of tools, there's a chance no one will keep their current tax cuts and will end up paying more. Since you're a partisan dickbag, I don't expect you to understand any of this.

Of course it is the Democrat's fault; they didn't give the Republicans 100% of what they wanted. Damn those Democrats for not compromising.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-26 09:06:33 AM

RobertBruce: Meanwhile, the Senate rejected a GOP amendment to extend the cuts to all taxpayers.

And yet it's somehow the GOP that is obstructionist. Democrats only fight for how much they can take from you.


If the obstructionist Republicans have their way, then everybody will lose all their Bush-era tax cuts. If the obstructionist Republicans pass Obama's plan, the bottom 98% get to keep all their Bush-era tax cuts and everybody else still get to keep a tax cut on the first quarter million. But obstructionist Republicans are obstructionist Republicans, and so they would rather see everybody's taxes raised.
 
2012-07-26 09:06:44 AM

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 720x511]


RINO!
 
2012-07-26 09:07:25 AM
sadhillnews.com
 
2012-07-26 09:08:57 AM

NateGrey: Obama said if both sides agree on the under 250 then just pass it, and work on the over 250 separately.

I guess that would make too much sense.

Lets completely abolish government, vote Republican this November.


It doesn't make sense for the Republicans to do that. Agreeing to pass what both sides agree is right and worry about the stuff both sides disagree on means giving away their one bargaining chip to force extension of the upper income tax cuts.

It's like when Republicans tried to argue in January that if both parties agreed that the Medicare Doc Fix and payroll tax cuts should be extended but only Democrats wanted unemployment benefits to continue to be funded the solution should be to pass the doc fix and tax cuts first and then discuss unemployment benefits as a seperate issue. I don't agree with the fact that Republicans are fighting tooth & nail for the top bracket's rates, but being willing to oppose legislation you support in order to increase the chances of getting legislation passed with the same language plus other goodies is a time-honored political tradition.
 
2012-07-26 09:09:53 AM

t3knomanser: dr_blasto: Now, because the Republican-led Congress is full of tools, there's a chance no one will keep their current tax cuts and will end up paying more.

Ah, but here's how this will be explained to the public:
"The Democrats raised your taxes. It was us, the Republicans, that had a plan to lower taxes for all Americans, but the Democrats wanted nothing to do with it. Vote for us!"



Of course. Republicans will run ads saying "tax breaks for all!! and DO YOU KNOW - the Democrats voted to RAISE TAXES!"

On the other hand, the Dems get "Republicans blocked tax cuts for the middle class in order to protect the wealthiest americans."


And in the meantime, nothing gets done and everyone's taxes go up. This is what happens when you have one party that is completely unwilling to compromise.

What I don't get is that the GOP claims to be the "fiscally responsible" party full of "deficit hawks." Unfortunately, those deficit hawks apparently don't understand what a "deficit" is, or how deficits occur.

If the parties were being responsible about this, they'd let all the tax cuts expire, while raising taxes on the wealthy and eliminating the favorable capital gains rate and taxing it as ordinary income. But half of all Americans apparently believe that our government is just a machine for pissing away tax dollars on completely frivolous things (except for totally non-frivolous wars), so raising money to pay for all that stuff we like is a non-starter.
 
2012-07-26 09:10:56 AM
This being right above the Orrin Hatch editorial for all of his rich buddies makes it all the more delicious.
 
2012-07-26 09:11:01 AM

Zeno-25: dr_blasto: RobertBruce: Meanwhile, the Senate rejected a GOP amendment to extend the cuts to all taxpayers.

And yet it's somehow the GOP that is obstructionist. Democrats only fight for how much they can take from you.

Everyone gets to keep the current tax cuts on the first 250k of their income. Now, because the Republican-led Congress is full of tools, there's a chance no one will keep their current tax cuts and will end up paying more. Since you're a partisan dickbag, I don't expect you to understand any of this.

Of course it is the Democrat's fault; they didn't give the Republicans 100% of what they wanted. Damn those Democrats for not compromising.

[i.imgur.com image 400x470]


gillreport.com

I'll farking do it!
 
2012-07-26 09:11:14 AM
It was on the Maddow show last night that the only reason this passed the senate is because Senate Gop knows that tax bolts must start in the house. Since the bill started in the Senate, Gop knows it will be found unconstitutional.
 
2012-07-26 09:11:50 AM

alizeran: [i50.tinypic.com image 403x403]


The Publicans have also moved 33 times to repeal Obamacare.
 
2012-07-26 09:12:08 AM

smitty04: [www.jewishworldreview.com image 666x209]


smitty04: [sadhillnews.com image 504x366]


look, folks: republican "humor."

yeah, me either...
 
2012-07-26 09:15:10 AM

smitty04: [sadhillnews.com image 504x366]


But it's OK when they give the money to Halliburton, Northrup Grumman, Monsanto, etc.?
 
2012-07-26 09:15:39 AM

brookgo: It was on the Maddow show last night that the only reason this passed the senate is because Senate Gop knows that tax bolts must start in the house. Since the bill started in the Senate, Gop knows it will be found unconstitutional.


Here's the quote from McConnell:

"The only reason we won't block it today is that we know it doesn't pass constitutional muster and won't become law," McConnell said. "What today's votes are all about," he said, is "showing the people who sent us here where we stand."
 
2012-07-26 09:16:11 AM

Chummer45: danvon: FTFA: Republicans say raising taxes on higher earners saps money from business owners who would otherwise create jobs.

And this assertion can clearly shown to be true by what empirical evidence?


Evidence? You obviously aren't familiar with the Republican philosophy about facts.


The evidence is that unemployment plummeted from around 5% at the time of the tax cuts all the way down to 10+% and is now hovering at the still all time low of 8.2%. Use your brain!
 
2012-07-26 09:16:22 AM

brookgo: Since the bill started in the Senate, Gop knows it will be found unconstitutional.


It doesn't have to be.

Republicans will object to House adoption of the Senate bill on technical grounds. It faces what's known as a blue-slip problem, because the Constitution requires revenue-raising measures to originate in the House of Representatives. But the blue-slip problem is only an obstacle if House Republicans insist on making it one - and Democrats are confident voters will be receptive to the argument that the GOP is standing in the way of middle-income tax cuts until wealthy Americans get a tax cut too. Link
 
2012-07-26 09:16:35 AM

jayhawk88: Cinaed: So.... what are the chances the Derp-majority House will actually go with this and hand the Dems a win this close to the elections?

About the same as the sun spontaneously turning into a giant lollipop. Seriously, Boehner and Cantor will be out there on the floor, breaking fingers with a ball-peen hammer, before they let this pass.


Or handing out bribes from the Kochs, like Boehner once did for tobacco interests.
 
2012-07-26 09:16:35 AM
Attention all GOP hacks:

Do you realize that the GOP's retarded political showdown over the debt ceiling cost the country $1.3 BILLION dollars?

ONE POINT THREE BILLION DOLLARS. TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT.
 
2012-07-26 09:17:17 AM

danvon: FTFA: Republicans say raising taxes on higher earners saps money from business owners who would otherwise create jobs.

And this assertion can clearly shown to be true by what empirical evidence?


And apparently they believe that when you don't take as much money from the poor that money just disappears. It doesn't go on to be spent by them on products and services that they need or choose to have. In fact, by leaving more money in the hands of the people most likely to spend it, that money will end up going to the job creators with the best products and not to all job creators in general.

Why do republicans want to put a pair of cuffs on the invisible hands of the market?
 
2012-07-26 09:17:18 AM

brookgo: brookgo: It was on the Maddow show last night that the only reason this passed the senate is because Senate Gop knows that tax bolts must start in the house. Since the bill started in the Senate, Gop knows it will be found unconstitutional.

Here's the quote from McConnell:

"The only reason we won't block it today is that we know it doesn't pass constitutional muster and won't become law," McConnell said. "What today's votes are all about," he said, is "showing the people who sent us here where we stand."


Which apparently is the only thing they plan to do this year.
 
2012-07-26 09:18:35 AM

theknuckler_33: Carth: Republicans know that if the economy doesn't improve Obama, not them, will get the majority of the blame. If you knew that doing your job poorly would get someone you hate fired how hard would you work?

Wasn't there a poll just recently that showed that nearly equal amounts of people blame republicans in congress for the shiatty economy as blame Obama?


But most of those people probably don't live in the districts that elected those Republicans.
 
2012-07-26 09:19:37 AM

brookgo: It was on the Maddow show last night that the only reason this passed the senate is because Senate Gop knows that tax bolts must start in the house. Since the bill started in the Senate, Gop knows it will be found unconstitutional.


Bills for *raising revenue* must start in the House. This is a tax cut -- taxes will be lower if this bill passes than if not. There may well be a lawsuit over it, but I think SCOTUS would give it thumbs up.

And I don't remember this being on Maddow, though I didn't see the whole show. I understood that the Senate Publicans forewent the filibuster and dared the Democrats to vote for this bill. The Democrats passed it.

It's as dead as Amy Winehouse in the House, though.
 
2012-07-26 09:22:37 AM

CodeRedEd: skodabunny: dunno what went wrong there... My entire sentence was actually:

How about tax cuts for the poor bastages earning less than $100k. Why $250? Was that magic figure chosen so they could exempt as many normal peops as possible?

You do know that $100k is less than $250k? Therefore people earning less than $100k get the tax cut.
In fact everyone who pays income tax gets a tax break. It's just that the very rich don't get an extra one.


Republicans won't agree to tax cuts that don't affect any money you make after the first $250K because jerb creators. What in the world would make someone think there's any better chance that they'd agree to a line at the first 100K?
 
2012-07-26 09:23:04 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: brookgo: It was on the Maddow show last night that the only reason this passed the senate is because Senate Gop knows that tax bolts must start in the house. Since the bill started in the Senate, Gop knows it will be found unconstitutional.

Bills for *raising revenue* must start in the House. This is a tax cut -- taxes will be lower if this bill passes than if not. There may well be a lawsuit over it, but I think SCOTUS would give it thumbs up.

And I don't remember this being on Maddow, though I didn't see the whole show. I understood that the Senate Publicans forewent the filibuster and dared the Democrats to vote for this bill. The Democrats passed it.

It's as dead as Amy Winehouse in the House, though.


yeah it's dead in the house. but it makes for great political theatre.
 
2012-07-26 09:23:44 AM
How does this affect the Taxmaggedon I was just promised? That's the important question here!
 
2012-07-26 09:24:12 AM
The government would probably spend the money faster and in the nation more than the 1%ers they are taxing so it's probably good for the economy. If Obama wins though it wouldn't surprise me if they just passed tax cuts for everyone again because aside from the politics of it the revenue isn't that much overall. If Romney wins I would think this and other populist type issues will be very big during his term, he will be in for one hell of a fight from some pissed off left wingers and democrats.
 
2012-07-26 09:24:28 AM

t3knomanser: dr_blasto: Now, because the Republican-led Congress is full of tools, there's a chance no one will keep their current tax cuts and will end up paying more.

Ah, but here's how this will be explained to the public:
"The Democrats raised your taxes. It was us, the Republicans, that had a plan to lower taxes for all Americans, but the Democrats wanted nothing to do with it. Vote for us!"


Which is funny, because reducing the bottom rate by even .1% would be a tax cut for everyone. Part of the Democrats' plan was for that bottom rate to drop.

I mean, it was also part of the GOP plan, but they also wanted extra favors for their rich buddies donors.

And the reason they can't vote first on the bottom 4 bracket rates and then the top 2 is that if they did that, the GOP would lose all rhetorical leverage they have. The follow-up bill would be so easily killed, it may as well be for "Honoring Colorectal Cancers' Contributions to Modern Society".
 
2012-07-26 09:24:51 AM

skodabunny: dunno what went wrong there... My entire sentence was actually:

How about tax cuts for the poor bastages earning less than $100k. Why $250? Was that magic figure chosen so they could exempt as many normal peops as possible?


I have a somewhat related question.

Why not just create a NEW tax bracket? Say, since we're picking magic numbers, make it $5m or $10m and up. Or something. There. Higher taxers for some who can probably afford it, and you don't hurt any small business owners and such. I mean, why are we slaves to having six tax brackets? You could, in theory, just keep expanding it all the way up.

Also, I can understand making it $250k as opposed to $100k. If you live in DC, NY, LA, SF, etc. then $100k is, well, not a lot. In the DC Metro town I used to live in I was making around $55k and, no shiat, qualified for housing assistance.

Also, get rid of deductions. I'd support lowering all the tax percentages but getting rid of deductions. Then there's less chance of people (mostly rich) hiding income. You make X and you pay Y%. Done.
 
2012-07-26 09:25:50 AM

randomjsa: FooDog: NateGrey: Obama said if both sides agree on the under 250 then just pass it, and work on the over 250 separately.

NO! It has to be all or nothing because of... socialism!

No actually it has to be all or nothing because we know Democrats.

'Just do what we want now and we'll do what you want later, promise... Okay... We mean it this time, I know we said that the last 50 times we lied, but THIS time... we mean it.!'


That's right folks, as we already knew, the GOP is willing to go over the fiscal cliff because... fark the Dems!
 
2012-07-26 09:26:23 AM

sillydragon: How does this affect the Taxmaggedon I was just promised? That's the important question here!


it doesn't. something will happen between the elections and the first of the year though to stop it. the GOP aren't about to let defense get cut.
 
2012-07-26 09:27:25 AM

Spade: Why not just create a NEW tax bracket? Say, since we're picking magic numbers, make it $5m or $10m and up. Or something. There. Higher taxers for some who can probably afford it, and you don't hurt any small business owners and such. I mean, why are we slaves to having six tax brackets? You could, in theory, just keep expanding it all the way up.



• Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates)

Link, .pdf
 
2012-07-26 09:29:02 AM

brookgo: It was on the Maddow show last night that the only reason this passed the senate is because Senate Gop knows that tax bolts must start in the house. Since the bill started in the Senate, Gop knows it will be found unconstitutional.


Actually, there are ways around that. The most direct is to simply take a House bill that some finance provision, pass an amendment to the bill that removes the entirety of the House text, then pass another amendment to the bill that inserts all this text. Since the House bill had different wording than the Senate wording (by approximately 100%), it goes to a conference committee for reconciliation. The House can always balk and just refuse to reconcile the bills - and/or vote against the reconciled bill - but it is a process that has been used several times to get something going when the House just sits there on an issue.
 
2012-07-26 09:29:10 AM

Arkanaut: theknuckler_33: Carth: Republicans know that if the economy doesn't improve Obama, not them, will get the majority of the blame. If you knew that doing your job poorly would get someone you hate fired how hard would you work?

Wasn't there a poll just recently that showed that nearly equal amounts of people blame republicans in congress for the shiatty economy as blame Obama?

But most of those people probably don't live in the districts that elected those Republicans.


Well, no, but the OP was making a statement about the presidential election, so I still think it is applicable to discussions about the economy and its effect on that.
 
2012-07-26 09:29:12 AM

PopularFront: This benefits the wealthy as well since the first $250k of their income is taxed at the lower rate.



and this is exactly how democrats should frame this debate: "Tax cuts for everyone! The wealthy just don't get a second cut"


But they won't, because they're democrats and they have zero idea how to communicate their positions, particularly when they're slam dunks.
 
2012-07-26 09:29:30 AM
Love how liberals are pretending this is the only tax increase hitting the wealthy when there are multiple others as well. Investment taxation is jumping big time as one example.

The fact that liberals refuse to recognise is that the wealthy are paying a larger share of overall taxes than ever in history, het it is still not a fair share somehow.

The IRS has tables showing effective tax rates at a "higher progressive" rate than ever already. Half the country pays around 6% or less (payroll taxes included) while the top 20% pay around 24%

So liberals, what is a fair share? Define it. Top 20% are already paying over 70% of taxes, even more if you count the corporate tax as a dividend tax.

This while vendetta you have against the rich will shave a whopping 1% off the deficit... Stop acting like it is anything but jealousy motivating this increase. Stop being petty assholes. How about real reform for once?
 
2012-07-26 09:31:25 AM

rtaylor92: PopularFront: This benefits the wealthy as well since the first $250k of their income is taxed at the lower rate.


and this is exactly how democrats should frame this debate: "Tax cuts for everyone! The wealthy just don't get a second cut"


But they won't, because they're democrats and they have zero idea how to communicate their positions, particularly when they're slam dunks.


Well, more like the media won't allow Democrats to frame any debates.
 
2012-07-26 09:31:51 AM

MyRandomName: The IRS has tables showing effective tax rates at a "higher progressive" rate than ever already. Half the country pays around 6% or less (payroll taxes included) while the top 20% pay around 24%


Uh, no. Link, .pdf

www.washingtonpost.com
 
2012-07-26 09:32:52 AM
Go on GOP, block it in the house, I double-dare you.
 
2012-07-26 09:32:57 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Spade: Why not just create a NEW tax bracket? Say, since we're picking magic numbers, make it $5m or $10m and up. Or something. There. Higher taxers for some who can probably afford it, and you don't hurt any small business owners and such. I mean, why are we slaves to having six tax brackets? You could, in theory, just keep expanding it all the way up.


• Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates)

Link, .pdf


Huh, didn't know anybody had even considered it.

Too bad I don't like anything else in that budget proposal. They still want to "extend" deductions and all the other gimmicks. And stop helping nuke power, is the only real way to reduce carbon emissions
 
2012-07-26 09:33:16 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Spade: Why not just create a NEW tax bracket? Say, since we're picking magic numbers, make it $5m or $10m and up. Or something. There. Higher taxers for some who can probably afford it, and you don't hurt any small business owners and such. I mean, why are we slaves to having six tax brackets? You could, in theory, just keep expanding it all the way up.


• Schakowsky millionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates)

Link, .pdf


first off they're giving small business breaks to compensate for the increase.
secondly I'd love to have higher brackets for the super rich but you'd never get it past the Koch Suckers.
hell they won't even go 3%. imagine the rancor that 15% would cause.
and you really wouldn't put a dent in them doing that unless you closed a bunch of loopholes and hit capital gains hard too.
 
2012-07-26 09:33:54 AM

Spade: Huh, didn't know anybody had even considered it.


All you hear about is the Ryan budget, because the media is super liberal, you see.
 
2012-07-26 09:34:39 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Rapmaster2000: Is dressage pronounced like corsage or like wedge? This is a serious question.

[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]

I say, you poors can be quite droll with your questions. Now run along or I shall have you horsewhipped.


Just a couple of dudes, hanging out, drinking iced tea. That's how rough riders roll.
 
2012-07-26 09:35:02 AM

Lipo: But Boehner has already said he intends to block it, it will never get out of the house. Disgusting, really.

I can only hope that the recent influx of Democrats into my county helps to unseat him soon.


Yeah, after the redistricting, he's our rep now, too... Ugh... But at least I can not vote for him. Really missing our old rep, WHO LIVES IN OUR CITY, and is now the rep for neighboring counties.
 
2012-07-26 09:35:02 AM

Hobodeluxe: secondly I'd love to have higher brackets for the super rich but you'd never get it past the Koch Suckers.
hell they won't even go 3%. imagine the rancor that 15% would cause.


Someone won't like it, so why even bother? Hell, why try to pass any laws at all ever!
 
2012-07-26 09:35:29 AM

MyRandomName: Love how liberals are pretending this is the only tax increase hitting the wealthy when there are multiple others as well. Investment taxation is jumping big time as one example.

The fact that liberals refuse to recognise is that the wealthy are paying a larger share of overall taxes than ever in history, het it is still not a fair share somehow.

The IRS has tables showing effective tax rates at a "higher progressive" rate than ever already. Half the country pays around 6% or less (payroll taxes included) while the top 20% pay around 24%

So liberals, what is a fair share? Define it. Top 20% are already paying over 70% of taxes, even more if you count the corporate tax as a dividend tax.

This while vendetta you have against the rich will shave a whopping 1% off the deficit... Stop acting like it is anything but jealousy motivating this increase. Stop being petty assholes. How about real reform for once?


So as a group, the top 20% pay over 70% of the taxes. Can you remind me, just what percentage of the monies do the top 20% control?

If it's less than 70%, I'll give you a point. But if they control more than 70% then I say they aren't paying their fair share.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report