AP: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

[pointyfootball]

It's amazing -- the GOP cry "foul!" when it comes to taxing the rich, but then we hear about "fair taxes:" and how "51%Q of Americans don't pay any taxes!" which is a lie, BTW, and now this Republican opposition to the payroll tax break extension.

The GOP are apparently a bunch of aristocrats. They claim that "taxing the rich" don't do anything to reduce the debt or deficit, but then they claim more Americans need to pay "their fair share," which means the lower and middle classes

I am against tax increases without spending reductions across the board. Not sure where that puts me...

[dockeryfan]

Don't think too deeply on this one.

The Republican party is doing everything it can to preserve tax breaks for millionaires and corporations. But it is perfectly willing to take dollars out of the hands of consumers. Money that keeps the economy afloat.

It is bass akwards thinking. There is no trickle down economics. And if you are a millionaire and you subscribe to this thinking, fine. But it is selfish. If you are not and you vote republican, you are a fool, plain and simple.

The republican party is trying to push any button it can. Look at the debt ceiling nonsense. No one was ever talking about it, and it's been raised at least 10x in the last ten years. Now Cantor and his ilk have threatened the economy to such a point that the S and P has actually downgraded our debt. WHEN NO ONE WAS EVEN CONCERNED ABOUT IT. BECAUSE IT NEVER AFFECTED ANYTHING AT ALL. ALL FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO GAIN STRENGTH. It's treasonous in my mind.

[elkabong82]

For someone who hasn't had a raise in close to 4 years, a rise in my taxes would be very unwelcomed. The only positive I've had in the last year is that now that I'm married, my wife and I consollidated much of our bills and insurance to lower our overall expenses. Family plan phone, vehicle insurance, health insurance, etc, has been reduced.

Neither one of us want a rise in our taxes. And to be perfectly blunt, we do everything right. We pay our taxes on time, pay our bills on time, live life well, yet all the **** ups of our country get the special programs to bail themselves out of their screwups. We're getting sick of it. Special programs should be reserved for good behavior, not screw ups.

so if you're poor and/or in need of special assistance it's only because you are a lazy **** up? That right talking point not only is an untrue stereotype, it's a disgusting debate "tactic" that only fuels more ignorance.

Sorry mother of 3 with a POS husband who left you, but no special programs or treatment for you because everyone who needs the help is a lazy **** up. I mean, really? How does such a stance not qualify as class warfare?

[pointyfootball]

Don't think too deeply on this one.

The Republican party is doing everything it can to preserve tax breaks for millionaires and corporations. But it is perfectly willing to take dollars out of the hands of consumers. Money that keeps the economy afloat.

It is bass akwards thinking. There is no trickle down economics. And if you are a millionaire and you subscribe to this thinking, fine. But it is selfish. If you are not and you vote republican, you are a fool, plain and simple.

The republican party is trying to push any button it can. Look at the debt ceiling nonsense. No one was ever talking about it, and it's been raised at least 10x in the last ten years. Now Cantor and his ilk have threatened the economy to such a point that the S and P has actually downgraded our debt. WHEN NO ONE WAS EVEN CONCERNED ABOUT IT. BECAUSE IT NEVER AFFECTED ANYTHING AT ALL. ALL FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO GAIN STRENGTH. It's treasonous in my mind.

Republican party drives me nuts as well. I'm not fond of Obama and his policies either. I'm in a quandry. I'm not a millionaire, but I have voted Republican in the past, so, a fool I must be!

If the debt ceiling/economy situation we are in now is "not a big deal" then shouldn't everyone receive/keep the tax cuts?

Be honest, both parties are to blame for the current financial crisis we're in. We can say one was maybe 60% compared to 40% for the other, but they both have dirty hands and have had a part in serving up of crap sandwiches for most Americans.

[Kindred]

There's something so puzzling to me about the American mentality. So many people simply refuse to help themselves here or pursue what is in their own self interests. Perhaps they cannot figure out what is in their own self interests. The example I love are the numerous individuals earning less than 40k a year yet who are strongly politically active in favor of tax cuts primarily geared at people earning millions, while those same millionaires simultaneously vote to strip away social programs benefiting the people earning < 40k a year in no small part to compensate for the cost of their tax cuts. And if you point this out, you must be a tree hugging socialist which is of course just a hair away from a gay communistic anarchistic terrorist Satanic Muslim. God bless America.

To stereotype for brief moment: I see to types of what I would call "classic republicans."

The first type is the CEO multi-millionare who says I worked hard to get where I am and therefore shouldn't be penalized (taxes) more for my hard work. And often, his argument is very fair.

The second is the blue collar, check to check living, god fearing, homophobic, liberal hater. Will often ***** about how liberals want to take away guns and give jobs to illegals. And this (stereotypical) right winger often doesn't realize they are probably voting against what is best for them financially and socially. Despises same sex marriage and is willing to vote R based on that alone.

The 2nd type of right winger is who type #1 counts on in order to stay where they are. They give #2 their god and their gun and songs of freedom in exchange for their vote.

Another problem is the right wing corporate owned media (FOX) blatantly manipulates the story in order to push whatever agenda they have. Want to strip worker rights? Demonize unions. Want to protect taxes on rich? Claim it hurts investments and the economy, and push the whole 'trickle down' theory (Which fails hard considering we've got cash rich companies now that dont want to hire anybody because they're worried about the lack of consumer spending because there are a lot of unemployed people out there ) Companies dont hire people because they get a tax cut, they hire people because demand for their products exceeds the resources needed to provide these products. So yeah, the rich and wealthy are 'winning' this battle, but they are creating a parasitic/exploitative environment that is doomed to fail.

[elkabong82]

Went back and read in full. First, it's mind-boggling reminder that you, and your employer, pay 12.4% of your income into social security. That's a lot of money to pay for people, who didn't save, to retire at a young age (62).

Thirdly, the reason social security is with us is because people can/will not save money for their retirement. .

"didn't save" "will not save" but it doesn't seem to occur to you that they "couldn't" save. Sorry you came from a dirt poor family, were educated in one of the nation's worst public schools because it's a low income area, had to start working as soon as you could to help your family so education took a back seat, and now with your own family have enough trouble making ends meet from your high labor, low pay job, let alone trying to actually save, and if you could it'd be for your kids.

I live in Appalachia and such is the case for a lot of people in that area. Some people just don't/won't realize what poor is and the trap it creates. The assumption the poor are lazy and "living it up" by mooching welfare may be a convenient one that some can use to justify no longer wanting to help the less fortunate out, but it is ignorant and biased.

I will say that I'm glad Jesus Christ didn't have the same attitude toward the poor that so many Republicans, who claim to love and follow Jesus whenever a camera is on, display.

[pointyfootball]

so if you're poor and/or in need of special assistance it's only because you are a lazy **** up? That right talking point not only is an untrue stereotype, it's a disgusting debate "tactic" that only fuels more ignorance.

Sorry mother of 3 with a POS husband who left you, but no special programs or treatment for you because everyone who needs the help is a lazy **** up. I mean, really? How does such a stance not qualify as class warfare?

If people really want to withhold aid to those that truly need it, as in your example above, they they are not good Americans IMO. My guess is that most are OK with helping those that need it, and in a temporary fashion, not for a lifetime. Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with my taxes going to truly disabled, situation above, widow with minimal income, etc.

I have family members close to me that retired at a young age (he 62, her 57, both in excellent health) and are now complaining because "Congress wants to reduce their SS benefits" and "they've worked all their life and should have it coming to them". These are not the people that SS should be intended to help. My mom, on the other hand, is 69 y/o and works as a nurse because she didn't start working outside of home full-time until she was 40 and had no retirement savings.

[Baculus]

I am against tax increases without spending reductions across the board. Not sure where that puts me...

Republican/tea party?

I guess you're fine with the sort of loopholes which allow low-to-no taxes for the wealthy and corporations, so hey, whatever floats your boat.

[elkabong82]

If people really want to withhold aid to those that truly need it, as in your example above, they they are not good Americans IMO. My guess is that most are OK with helping those that need it, and in a temporary fashion, not for a lifetime. Speaking only for myself, I have no problem with my taxes going to truly disabled, situation above, widow with minimal income, etc.

I have family members close to me that retired at a young age (he 62, her 57, both in excellent health) and are now complaining because "Congress wants to reduce their SS benefits" and "they've worked all their life and should have it coming to them". These are not the people that SS should be intended to help. My mom, on the other hand, is 69 y/o and works as a nurse because she didn't start working outside of home full-time until she was 40 and had no retirement savings.

Absolutely I agree there are those who don't deserve it, but there are many who do. It just drives me nuts that Republicans in general seem to demonize the poor and unfortunate just so they can blast away at liberal programs. Ultimately they hurt the poor but coddle the rich, which is not only backwards, but evil IMO and according to Jesus (though I might be loosely inferring that).

[Kindred]

I am against tax increases without spending reductions across the board. Not sure where that puts me...

Well, if this was your own financial situation, and you were in credit card debt up to your eyeballs lets say 1 million in debt, and you cant even make the minimum monthly payments. You're 'Solution' so to speak is the following:

Cut frivolous spending (a given)

Cut kids college money

Cut back on food to feed the family

Cut spending for clothing

Cut utilities

Sell the house move into a trailer

AS OPPOSED to:

cuts in frivolous spending

moderate cuts in other expenditures

and

have the wife get a job

you get a second job/try to get a raise.

[Ellis]

so if you're poor and/or in need of special assistance it's only because you are a lazy **** up? That right talking point not only is an untrue stereotype, it's a disgusting debate "tactic" that only fuels more ignorance.

I'm not Republican, einstein.

Nor am I on the right spitting rhetoric.

I'm talking about the people who got bailed out at the banks when they should have been dismantled. Because that would be a "free market" thing. Instead, they went to Washington for a bailout which is somehow NOT socialist? "waaaaaaaaaaaaaah, we're too big to fail, give us money to stay fat and lazy and get spa treatment." No, go **** yourself, you failed miserably and the free market says you're suppose to fail. And deregulation will now be put BACK in place b/c you took advantage of the American people.

But that didn't happen...

Sorry mother of 3 with a POS husband who left you, but no special programs or treatment for you because everyone who needs the help is a lazy **** up. I mean, really? How does such a stance not qualify as class warfare?

We're talking about rich people getting away with ****, not poor people who need genuine help.

I'm not speaking Chinese. (yet... Republicans and Democrats haven't sold us off.)

[elkabong82]

I'm not Republican, einstein.

Nor am I on the right spitting rhetoric.

I'm talking about the people who got bailed out at the banks when they should have been dismantled. Because that would be a "free market" thing. Instead, they went to Washington for a bailout which is somehow NOT socialist? "waaaaaaaaaaaaaah, we're too big to fail, give us money to stay fat and lazy and get spa treatment." No, go **** yourself, you failed miserably and the free market says you're suppose to fail. And deregulation will now be put BACK in place b/c you took advantage of the American people.

But that didn't happen...

We're talking about rich people getting away with ****, not poor people who need genuine help.

I'm not speaking Chinese. (yet... Republicans and Democrats haven't sold us off.)

I never said you were a Republican, but you are spewing some of their rhetoric, as I pointed out.

I too wish regulation and accountability had occurred after the colossal screw up by the banks, and I fault both Bush and Obama for not doing so.

If you're talking about rich people taking advanateg of special programs they don't need that are designed for less-fortunate, then I agree. It seemed you were suggesting only lazy poor folk were using special programs and only doing so because they are lazy. If that's not what you implied then I misread/misunderstood your earlier post.

[Ellis]

I'm spewing my own rhetoric. You just want to label me.

[Kindred]

I'm not Republican, einstein.

Nor am I on the right spitting rhetoric.

I'm talking about the people who got bailed out at the banks when they should have been dismantled. Because that would be a "free market" thing. Instead, they went to Washington for a bailout which is somehow NOT socialist? "waaaaaaaaaaaaaah, we're too big to fail, give us money to stay fat and lazy and get spa treatment." No, go **** yourself, you failed miserably and the free market says you're suppose to fail. And deregulation will now be put BACK in place b/c you took advantage of the American people.

But that didn't happen...

We're talking about rich people getting away with ****, not poor people who need genuine help.

I'm not speaking Chinese. (yet... Republicans and Democrats haven't sold us off.)

Most of that is rhetoric that the right blasted, ironically to attack the Obama administration and make it look like it was all their idea to 'bailout' companies (even though it was passed under Bush). Nevertheless it was the right thing to do, and it should have been called an investment not a bailout. It was also a success - saving numerous companies (and tens of thousands of jobs) from bankruptcy and expecting to net up to 42 billion

Surprise! The big bad bailout is paying off - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/08/surprise-the-big-bad-bailout-is-paying-off/

[ACW]

Kindred, to save you from the mods, title should be:

AP: GOP may OK tax increase that Obama hopes to block

[Destino]

Why is this point even up for debate. The GOP has been entirely upfront about the tax situation. They target deduction that benefit the poor and middle class for cancellation while literally threatening government shut downs to defend tax breaks for the wealthy. They argue YEARLY that the bottom 50% not paying taxes is wrong and for forcing them to pay income tax.

This is not a arguable point. Yes the GOP wants to raise taxes on everyone but the rich. That's a party platform not an accusation.

[Ellis]

Why is this point even up for debate. The GOP has been entirely upfront about the tax situation. They target deduction that benefit the poor and middle class for cancellation while literally threatening government shut downs to defend tax breaks for the wealthy. They argue YEARLY that the bottom 50% not paying taxes is wrong and for forcing them to pay income tax.

This is not a arguable point. Yes the GOP wants to raise taxes on everyone but the rich. That's a party platform not an accusation.

More people need to stand up and vote. The population of the country making less than $250K could dramatically change Washington.

Unfortunately, cynicism and apathy keep them from the voting booth.

[DeaconTheVillain]

More people need to stand up and vote. The population of the country making less than $250K could dramatically change Washington.

Unfortunately, cynicism and apathy keep them from the voting booth.

I would argue that less need to vote.

99% of the voters make less than 250k per year. What change are you talking about?

[elkabong82]

I'm spewing my own rhetoric. You just want to label me.

If that's what took from my post then you need to re-read it and think over it more.

[pointyfootball]

"didn't save" "will not save" but it doesn't seem to occur to you that they "couldn't" save. Sorry you came from a dirt poor family, were educated in one of the nation's worst public schools because it's a low income area, had to start working as soon as you could to help your family so education took a back seat, and now with your own family have enough trouble making ends meet from your high labor, low pay job, let alone trying to actually save, and if you could it'd be for your kids.

I live in Appalachia and such is the case for a lot of people in that area. Some people just don't/won't realize what poor is and the trap it creates. The assumption the poor are lazy and "living it up" by mooching welfare may be a convenient one that some can use to justify no longer wanting to help the less fortunate out, but it is ignorant and biased.

I will say that I'm glad Jesus Christ didn't have the same attitude toward the poor that so many Republicans, who claim to love and follow Jesus whenever a camera is on, display.

I totally am for helping those that are truly unable to help themselves. That being said, unless for health concerns, retirement age should be increased for everyone who wants to collect SS. I grew up dirt poor as well and can remember not eating lunch at public school, while saying I wasn't hungry because I was too embarrassed to admit family didn't have money and too proud to get a free lunch. I do emphatize with people who all their lives are eeking out a living and never seem to be able to get a break or get ahead.

As to your last point, it's a point well made and sadly the government has had to step in to help individuals, when in reality it should be the church helping. In a perfect world, wrt social welfare, there would be no taxes to cover it as people would give on their own to help those in need.

---------- Post added August-22nd-2011 at 12:13 PM ----------

Republican/tea party?

I guess you're fine with the sort of loopholes which allow low-to-no taxes for the wealthy and corporations, so hey, whatever floats your boat.

No, I'm not. I am all for the tax code being simplified/rewritten.

[Baculus]

No, I'm not. I am all for the tax code being simplified/rewritten.

Does that mean a flat tax?

[pointyfootball]

Well, if this was your own financial situation, and you were in credit card debt up to your eyeballs lets say 1 million in debt, and you cant even make the minimum monthly payments. You're 'Solution' so to speak is the following:

Cut frivolous spending (a given)

Cut kids college money

Cut back on food to feed the family

Cut spending for clothing

Cut utilities

Sell the house move into a trailer

AS OPPOSED to:

cuts in frivolous spending

moderate cuts in other expenditures

and

have the wife get a job

you get a second job/try to get a raise.

Given the incredible amount of debt I actually would combine both of those: the significant cuts you outline in the first list, along with increasing income through second job or my wife working.

[pointyfootball]

Does that mean a flat tax?

I'll be honest, I'm not smart enough to know the pros/cons of that. On the surface it seems straightforward and reasonable, but I'm sure there's sensible arguments against it.

[NoVaO]

How much has it helped the economy?....is it worth extending?

When are we gonna pay for it and how?

I'm in favor of ending all payroll deductions,but then ya gotta fund programs

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/16/news/economy/obama_payroll_tax_unemployment_benefits/index.htm

The payroll tax cut has contributed four-tenths of a percent to economic growth, according to Joel Prakken, senior managing director at Macroeconomic Advisers. And it has lowered the unemployment rate by two-tenths of a percent, or about 300,000 jobs.

It's been a modest help. I think it's worth extending for another year, but as you said, programs need funding, so you can't extend this tax cut forever.

---------- Post added August-22nd-2011 at 07:24 PM ----------

I'll be honest, I'm not smart enough to know the pros/cons of that. On the surface it seems straightforward and reasonable, but I'm sure there's sensible arguments against it.

It's a backdoor tax cut for the rich. When all is said and done, you are left with the rich paying less in taxes, while the poor and middle class will see their taxes increase.

[Thiebear]

I'd go with the 60minutes 20% corporate tax rates and apply it across the board to everyone over 40k no matter the way you earn it.

Simplification even GE can pay.

Want to add a vat tax - sure. what percentage addition.

Want to up/lower based on the current economy - do it.