CNN: House Democrats defy Obama on tax cut bill

[Larry]

I'm pretty sure everything I've read and heard has the republicans pushing for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. The two year extension was a compromise that the Democrats demanded. So tax increases in 2013 would be something the Democrats fought for.

You want to say that the Democrats wanted everybody's taxes to go up in '13? Because I can point you at the bill that would have lowered everybody's taxes. Permanently.

And the vote shows that bill being filibustered, by 40 out of 40 Republicans, 2 D's and 1 I.

Now, maybe making everybody's rates go up in 13 was a deal with the R's. But I can show you the Democrats proposing cutting everybody's taxes. And the Republicans unanimously filibustering it.

Maybe the D's insisted on "rich people's" taxes going up. But I can prove that if all tax rates are going up in '13, then it's the R's that insisted on it.

[mardi gras skin]

You want to say

Larry, come on man. I only want to say what I said. The Republicans wanted the Bush tax cuts to become permanent. That's correct right? Do you have anything that says otherwise?

Instead, the tax cuts have been extended 2 years. So they didn't get everything they wanted. But please don't try to make it out like the Republicans are trying to raise taxes because that's intentionally misleading.

You can make the case that the current tax rates are not appropriate and that taxes should go up for all or part of the population. But you can't make the case that Republicans are trying to raise the income tax rate in the present or in 2013.

[Burgold]

Here's the scary thing about the compromise. On the surface, it may not be horrible. We have a shaky economy so for two years we'll keep taxes artificially lower (read continue the tax cut), but then after that we'll raise the taxes. Here's the thing. What do you want to bet that what the Republicans are planning is that in two years their big issue will be to squash the impending Obama tax hike and that if they're elected (President) and gain the House they will reverse that terrible legislation.

In fact, they'll suggest more spending increases coupled with tax cuts?

Perhaps, the Dems are not more fiscally conservative, but politically cynical as to what the Repub compromise really means.

[Larry]

Larry, come on man. I only want to say what I said. The Republicans wanted the Bush tax cuts to become permanent. That's correct right?

The republicans unanimously filibustered a bill making the bush tax cuts permanent on everybody making less than $200K. (And cutting taxes on the people over $200K, too. It's just that the people making over $200K would have received the same tax cut as the folks making $200K, instead of getting a bigger tax cut than the $200K people)

The Democrat proposal would have lowered taxes on every single taxpayer. Including Jerry Jones. Permanently. It simply would have given Jerry Jones the same tax cut as some guy making $200K.

The proposal was unanimously filibustered by the Republican Party.

Here's the vote.

Now, maybe the Republicans wanted to make the top 1% tax cuts permanent, too. I'll grant you that the fact that they're supporting a temporary bill doesn't prove that they'd object to a permanent one. Voting in favor of a bill doesn't prove that a politician didn't really want some other bill.

Although, I'd point out that they've

never

attempted to actually make them permanent. Not when they originally proposed them. And not one time since.

I will observe: When W originally proposed his tax cuts, they were supposed to last for, I think, 5 years. The voters objected. They thought the tax cuts were too big, too expensive. Polling data said the voters didn't like the idea.

So the GOP changed the bill so that instead of lasting 5 years, they lasted 3 years for the middle class, and 1 year for the top 2%. And then announced that they were "compromising on half the tax cuts they wanted". (Because the "projected cost over 10 years" was half as big.)

They passed exactly the tax cut they originally proposed, and claimed it was half as big. Because they changed the expiration date.

I assert that

that's

why, every time they pull this game, they always pretend that it's going to be temporary. So they can talk about "cost over 10 years", without actually saying that

a) Actually, it's cost over 2 years

And frankly, we have no intention of letting them

ever

expire. The only reason this expiration date is in there, is so we can pretend that it's not a ton of money.

I'll also

guarantee

you that the reason the other tax cuts are also now scheduled to end in 2013, is because the Republicans know darned well that the only way they can pass their precious tax cuts on the top 2%, is by attaching a time bomb to the middle class, so that a few years from now, they can heroically offer to defuse the time bomb which they, themselves, planted.

The Republicans intend to cut taxes on the top 2%, again, in 2012. And they can't do it unless they can hold the other 98% hostage. (And they want to be able to claim that "we assed a smaller tax cut.")

They had a chance to permanently cut rates on everybody. And unanimously filibustered it.

So, how come the current deal has an expiration date for the lower 98%? It isn't because the Democrats demanded it. They attempted to pass one without a tax hike in it.

[mardi gras skin]

Now, maybe the Republicans wanted to make the top 1% tax cuts permanent, too.

Sold.

Either way, I don't expect there to be any tax cuts or tax hikes next year. I expect that the compromise Obama and the Senate struck, which keeps taxes at their current rate, will get passed.

[twa]

Err..Congress cannot make the tax cuts permanent Larry.

Artificially lower Bur?...there is a default tax rate ?

[Burgold]

Err..Congress cannot make the tax cuts permanent Larry.

Artificially lower Bur?...there is a default tax rate ?

Sure, if we can call ending a temporary tax cut a raise. Then anything is fair in semantic contionism. Cirque du Political.

[twa]

Fair enough,I didn't realize you were using politispeak.

[Larry]

Err..Congress cannot make the tax cuts permanent Larry.

Artificially lower Bur?...there is a default tax rate ?

Funny. I've provided the link to the vote to do exactly that.

[twa]

Care to explain how what is done cannot be undone?

Tax policy is never permanent

[Larry]

The bill currently before Congress, and supported by the Repuvlican Party, specifies that in 2013, tax rates for all Americans will increase.

The bill proposed by the Democrats, and unanimously filibustered by the Republican Party, had no such tax increase.

Spin that, semantics boy.

[twa]

Spin that, semantics boy.

Tax policy is never permanent ....that is fact,not semantics

[Larry]

Tax policy is never permanent ....that is fact,not semantics

Excellent, Professor.

The terminology which you will not nitpick, to distinguish the difference between a tax bill which has a built-in expiration schedule, from one which does not, is . . . ?

[twa]

You don't think you are wrong to repeatedly try to sell this proposal as permanent tax policy?

[Thiebear]

Everyone sees what your doing Burgold.. its standard operating procedures.

You promote a bill to end the 10year tax rate on everyone over 250,000. Editing the current bill.

The other side says no.

So you say they are raising the taxes on everyone based on the one vote on a bill never going to make it.

And in 1 year we will do something else.

and in 2 years we will do something else.

and in 3 years we will do something else.

No Congress and make another congress abide by their laws.

And we can't count a bill that didn't make it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Tax policy is never permanent

Come on twa, the tax cuts were temporary when Bush signed them into law, if anything it is Bush that decided to raise taxes.

[Burgold]

Everyone sees what your doing Burgold.. its standard operating procedures.

No Congress and make another congress abide by their laws.

And we can't count a bill that didn't make it.

What I'm doing? I was trying to explain a possible rationale for the Dems decision to block the compromise. Apparently, you're agreeing with it saying that what I am contemplating that the Repubs were planning to do is standard operating procedures.

[Larry]

Didn't buy a paper this morning, but my local paper's headline says that they're adding more goodies to the tax cut deal, to try to get it passed.

That's just what this deal needed, huh?

[PeterMP]

My understanding is that it is likely to pass with minor modifications, with a majority of the Republicans voting for it in the House, and a large number of Democrats voting against it, and pretty much bipartisian support in the Senate.

[Larry]

Part of me says "of course it's going to pass. If it doesn't pass, the voters are going to storm Capital Hill with torches and pitchforks, and nobody wants to get blamed for it not passing."

OTOH, Part of me wonders why the R's are letting it pass. Seems to me, if I were a rabidly partisan R, what I'd really like to happen would be for the thing to not pass, and then we'll pass it in February. Come February, the R's will have greater numbers (so they won't have to give up as much to the D's, to get it passed. And we all know that if taxes go up in January, then go down in February, then the voters will be absolutely, firmly, convinced that the Democrats raised my taxes, and the Republicans stopped it.

[isle-hawg]

I know most of the politicians R & D alike are basically the same come voting time despite the BS that spews from their mouths. I don't see how the tea party R's or Liberal D's vote for this plan though (for different reasons of course)? But somehow I am sure this bill will pass with overwhelming support from both parties, what it needs though is more pork!!!! Just give it some more pork and it should fly though congress and get the presidents signature no problem. Then we can all rejoyce in how the government "works" for us....

Gridlock in congress looks better and better to me everyday.